Bencivengo, what was the REAL 2007 deficit?

by: djkeelan

Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 09:15:49 PM EDT

Hamilton Township Republican Mayor John Bencivengo and running mates for Council, Kelly Yaede and Kevin Meara have been running (scared) for office since the day they raised taxes by nearly 40% in their first 3 months of office back in 2008.

Frankly, they should be running scared. When elected, they never understood the fiscal situation that they faced thus they had and still have no justification for their enormous nearly 40% tax hike. Even today they personally do not know why they offered a permanent tax hike for a situation that they did not understand.

So, to compensate, as they run for reelection they blame the "other Mayor" for this historic tax hike of nearly 40%. They state that we had faced a "historic fiscal crisis the likes of which Hamilton has never seen." and they needed to raise taxes.

They used generalizations and obscurity to pull off instituting a reckless tax hike, a scam and a disservice on the taxpayers of Hamilton Township. But most disturbing is that  they pulled off this reckless tax hike without knowing what the alleged 2007 deficit amount was.

Remarkably, even today, they do not know what the deficit amount was.

Here is how it transpired and here is a narrative of their various claims of various deficit amounts.

They won election to office in 2007 by the "happenstance" that the Trenton Times printed a headline on Election Day 2007 which read- $5M shortfall for Hamilton Red ink revealed in document ordered released http://nl.newsbank.com/nojavas... . I suspect that this headline surprised these three more than it did the then incumbent Mayor. Essentially, they won on an issue that they did not even campaign on, but which they have rigorously seized upon since their reckless 40% tax hike.

They never truly understood the situation left by the former Mayor. As a result, they blunder and they have blundered endlessly in defining for Hamiltonians what this "historic fiscal crisis" was - exactly. So, for the past 4 years they managed to pull out of the wallets of Hamilton residents a cumulative $54 million in extra tax dollars.

If it were not so damaging to the neediest of Hamiltonians and a "defrauding" of all Hamiltonians, the series of different deficit claims that they have uttered would be comical., In all, they have cited four different amounts for what this 2007 deficit was.

In a January 1, 2008 PolitickerNJ article Bencivengo said the deficit was $10 million and Meara and Yaede concurred.

I wish that I could have given a more cheerful address today," said Bencivengo in a nod to the town's $10 million budget deficit. "But even if our fiscal circumstances had been better, even if we had ample surplus, I'd be saying the same things. It should be our goal, no matter the circumstances, to do more with less."

What Bencivengo actually said that day was " a budget deficit exceeding $10 million."

At a Township Council meeting on February 6, 2008, then Business Administrator, John Guhl, added $5 million, $1.8 million and $2 million to come up with a deficit total of $14 million??? Granted, I did the math in my head, but I come up with $8.8 million. You can read Mr. Guhl's explanation on page 16 of the Hamilton Township Council Minutes: http://www.hamiltonnj.com/file...

On June 17, 2008, Bencivengo stated that the deficit was $16 million.

Bencivengo heaped praise on Guhl, saying that the exiting administrator had given the township "a turnaround beyond compare" as he attempted to tackle a $16 million budget deficit during his six months in office.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index...

Then, most recently, in a July 9, 2011 Letter to the Editor of the Trentonian John Bencivengo stated that the 2007 deficit was $5 million!!!

Who can forget the $5 million dollar deficit depicted in the Annual Financial Statement of Fiscal Year 2007?

On top of the fact that Bencivengo, Meara and Yaede are playing games with Hamiltonians by continually hyping up and exaggerating a deficit - they did permanently hike taxes by $13.3 million annually.

Meara said, "but clearly there was a tax increase - I voted for it. At the time with the large deficit we had,

Again, Meara does not offer anything concrete. He only states that that there was a "large deficit".

Bencivengo, Yaede and Meara got away with the tax hike because they offered Hamiltonians only fear and exaggerations. There is, to this day, no clarity on what the actual financial situation was at the beginning of 2008. They obfuscated, dodged and ducked to introduce as a permanent tax increase of $13.3 million. This is an extraordinary amount which, as a temporary tax increase, would have addressed any number of their deficit claims.

In all, the politicians in Hamilton Township government have raised over $80.1 million thru increased taxes, increased fees, lay-offs of public employees (including police) forcing 8 furlough days on police and other employees and by privatizing the Planning & Engineering Department as well as the Ecological facility.

Meanwhile, they have cumulatively increased spending over 4 years by $30 million (so much for doing more with less John Bencivengo).

That's a $50 million gap!. Where the heck are those $50 million?

There are bigger issues in Hamilton Township than paving roads. Hamiltonians have been blatantly lied to for four years - essentially robbed of $50 million through a unwarranted permanent tax hike.

Hamilton Township (Mercer) NJ's Mayor John Bencivengo Admits to Inheriting a $5 Million Deficit

by: djkeelan

Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:26:28 PM EDT

After years of obfuscation about what the amount of debt was when he took office in 2008 John Bencivengo, in a Letter to the Editor of the Trentonian, states,

"Who can forget the $5 million dollar deficit depicted in the Annual Financial Statement of Fiscal Year 2007?"

Throughout his 3 ½ years in office, John Bencivengo and Hamilton Township's all Republican Council have pointed to a variety of differing amounts in defining what the deficit was.

In a Trenton Times article of June 17, 2008 announcing the appointment of John Ricci as the new Hamilton Towsnhip (Mercer) Business Administrator (in place of John Guhl), "

Bencivengo heaped praise on Guhl, saying that the exiting administrator had given the township "a turnaround beyond compare" as he attempted to tackle a $16 million budget deficit during his six months in office."

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index...

John Bencivengo stated in his January 1, 2008 Inaugural Address

"we are confronted by the most serious financial crisis in our history, a budget deficit exceeding ten million dollars."

The Mayor has finally given Hamilton Township residents a true picture of what the "most serious financial crisis in our history" was that confronted his administration upon taking office in 2008. His comments also put a spotlight on the fact that this $5 million deficit accrued under an all Republican Township Council's watch.

It was the intentional murkiness of defining what the actual deficit was that allowed John Bencivengo and his Township Council to reorganize the Police Department, lay-off and eliminate 55 township positions, impose an 8 day furplough on all township employees and to raise municipal taxes to historic rates.

Now, this November, Township residents can make an informed decision about the incumbent Mayor's and all Republican Township Council's decision to address a $5 million deficit with a permanent $13.3 million tax hike.

Hamilton Township (Mercer, NJ - They Gave us an Enormous and Unnecessary Tax Hike

by: djkeelan

Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:05:19 PM EDT

This mantra is misleading and boarders on an outright lie.

1) It's Five Budgets not Four, Dummies.

What is important about 4 vs 5 budgets? The incumbants entered office 4 years ago and have introduced their own budget every year while in office, which is 4 years. This year they changed the budget calendar. Because they changed the budget calendar from a fiscal year to a calendar year they naturally had to introduce a transitional budget to cover the period of time from when the the fiscal year ends and the calendar year begins. That is budget number 5.

Why is this misleading? Most voters do not understand the change in budget calendars and the necessity of introducing an additional budget. So, when they hear "4 budgets without a tax increase" they associate that with 4 years, which is the period the up for re-election Mayor and 2 Council people have filled in their first terms in office.

Why mislead the voters? Because the 1st budget included a massive 33% tax hike and they want the voters to forget it.

Here is a link to a Moody's Investor Services report detailing the ongoing source of revenue from this tax hike paragraph 8: (it is free to sign up if you do not have an account)
http://www.moodys.com/research...

2) It was Your Tax Hike and not the Previous Mayor's

When asked, the Mayor and the Council constantly claim that they needed to raise taxes to cover an enormous deficit left by the prior Mayor. And even go as far as saying that "the Tax Hike was his".

Huh? It was an all Republican Council so why aren't they blaned too?

Huh 2? What was this fiscal crisis? They have yet to clearly define it beyond mismanagement, enormous deficit and misappropriation. The Trenton Times said the crisis was $5 million to $8 million. The Mayor states it was enormous amount exceeding $10 million. The Business Administrator said it was $16.7 milllion.

After 4 years, you have not uttered a word about misappropriations, you have not pursued criminal charges...you have not done nor said anything since your election. And once a year in the Maypr's Budget Address you mention "fiscal mismangement" just to remind the voters of the "mess" you inherited.

Huh 3? You honestly feel that a $13.3 million permanant tax hike was the proper response to a $5 million to $16.7 million deficit?

3) You raised taxes AGAIN in 2009

According to Moody's Investor services, and my escrow statements, you raised taxes again by 9% for $5.3 million. Here is the Moody's report see paragraph 6: (it is free to sign up if you do not have an account)http://www.moodys.com/research/MOODYS-ASSIGNS-NEGATIVE-OUTLOOK-TO-A2-RATING-ON-HAMILTON-TOWNSHIPS?lang=en&cy=global&docid=NIR_15963761

4) You cut costs $4 million a year since arriving in office Great, but you did it based upon misleading employees.

I will get back to this later.

5) You raised Township Fees $1 million a year since arriving in office.

6) The math:

$13.3 million x 4 years +
$5 million by 3 years +
$4 million by 4 years +
$1 million by 4 years +
equals $88.2 million

Back out the $10 million deficit (I split the difference from above)
equals $78.2 million

Back out the sum total spending increases of your 5 budgets over the last budget of the previous Mayor equals $30 million

Net amount remaining is $48.2 million. Where is it? You have not paid off bonds? You have not paid off loans. Where is the money?

And since you have so much more ongoing sources of revenue, what justification do you have for laying off employees and furloughing the remainder?

Please God, No.

by: nsodano

Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 12:59:31 AM EDT

Yet all around us, popping up like mushrooms are lawn signs saying that less cops equals more crime, so vote Yes.  Vote to increase taxes.   By how much I ask.   My fearful friend says maybe 30%.   That is about $1200?   Maybe $900 says the friend.  

Then comes the perplexing comments about a tax shortfall due to the revaluation of buildings in town.   Huh?  The reval is not supposed to change tax receipts I say, right?    Right says friend,  but Nevertheless repeats the non-sequitor that the Tax Assessor says we will be short money due to the Reval.    And by the way, the redevelopment is killing us and tax exempt properties are now up to 40% from their former high of 28%.    

I lament that all these problems are just causing the sacrifice of middle class benefits and jobs when whats needed is for rich people to kick in more.   My friend is obviously not happy with this comment and pushes the conversation back to the point, which is that we really cant allow the feared diversion of UEZ money because the future of the town depends on it.  Perhaps that money could be loaned instead?    

So I say,  this tends to piss people off when i say it, but maybe you ought to try what the cops have done with signs all over town, you know, convince people of your position?  To which my friend replies that the business association was notified.    That's like what, 50 people?
But there seems to be no appetite for actual democracy in my friend.

So, as an encouragement I say that people seem ready to support the cops even if it means paying some more taxes, although probably not a $1200 hike.  To which my friend says that there should be no hike at all, that we should live withing our means.    

Which is exactly why the township council is eyeballing that half million dollars in the first place.  Funny how these "starve the beast" fans never contemplate their own interests in keeping the beast fed.  

I don't think God will intervene on this one.  

Who Will Take The Silver?

by: Couch Potato Politics

Fri Feb 25, 2011 at 07:33:59 PM EST

Call it clever politicking or call it an outright baiting the hook but no matter what you call it, it is a shameless and vile attempt to place a target of hate on the backs of hardworking, middle-class public workers.

A governor is supposed to represent all of the citizens, not just those who are ideologically aligned with him. This governor has showed that he will not bend or negotiate anything to his ideological opposites. He acts as if a weak democratic voter turnout were some kind of mandate empowering him to run roughshod over public workers and union members throughout New Jersey. At the same time, he begs poverty for the state and asks nothing of the millionaires in sacrifice and, in fact, asks less of them than anyone else in the state.

Given recent events regarding New Jersey State Public Defender, Yvonne Smith Segars' letter exposing Christie's attack on her constitutionally protected position, it begs the question, "Does this man know have no shame?"

It is time for a careful reflection on the last year of Chris Christie's performance and to ask the honest questions. Who does he really represent, the majority population of New Jersey in the working poor and middle class or the millionaires and his own aspirations to higher office? Performance would speak to the latter.

Sweeney questions tax cut to super rich. Finally.

by: Adam L

Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:07:16 PM EDT

"The fact that the governor took that higher income tax off the table, I think is a major mistake on his part," said the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat who has been an ally of Mr. Christie's in cutting public-sector pensions. "This is a very cold budget. There has to be a little more compassion for the middle class and poor, because all the burden is being put on them."

Speaker Oliver already said the other night that she believes there is support in her caucus for an extension. The public opposes getting rid of the tax on the super rich across the board, including the more well off. If the Governor wants to take this stand, the Democrats should make him do it and not just talk about it. That can only happen if Senator Sweeney and the Senate join the Assembly sending the Governor a bill that includes it.

And this brings me to the point that we saw back in the marriage equality debate.  Sweeney wants to be the Senate President, which is, by definition, a LEADERSHIP position.  Which, of course, means he should LEAD.  By claiming that Christie will just veto it anyway, he is being a defeatist and not leading HIS caucus to do what the majority of New Jerseyans want anyway.

Say what you want (and we certainly do) about Republicans - but they stand up for what they want, do it unabashedly and don't care if the polls show otherwise.  It is one of the things that people actually respected about George W. Bush - you may not agree with him, but you know exactly where he stands and he won't back down from what he believes.  And the problem with many Democrats - and from what we have seen so far, Senator Sweeney is one of them - they may feel one way but won't stand up for it because of some weak reasoning that makes the public feel that they really won't stand up for what they believe in or what their constituents want.

This is nice that Sweeney is starting to come around, but he should be ahead of this no brainer of an issue - especially as a LEADER.  

In title only, apparently.

So now Christie wants the Federal Government to help?

by: Adam L

Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:10:00 PM EST

What I found humorous about his already broken promise is how he blamed the Federal Government for this tax hike if loans to NJ were not forgiven.  Now, this is not isolated to NJ, as 40 states' unemployment reserve funds are either in or approaching bankruptcy.  But the irony here is that Christie was very outspoken about not having the Federal Government interfere when it was convenient to do so during the campaign, and now he wants the Federal Government to bail him out of his broken promises.

The reality is that, immature holding of his breath and irresponsible finger pointing aside, there are things that other states are doing, which NJ can also do, that would be constructive and productive - that is if Christie is interested in doing things other than pass blame and throw up his hands.

For example, take the statement of Senate Majority Leader Buono, who called for a series of specific steps to help NJ employers:

--Continue fully funding the Extended Unemployment Insurance Benefits. This program provides an additional 20 weeks of benefits to the existing 26 weeks of benefits that workers who lost their jobs already receive. Pursuant to provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the extended benefits are funded completely by the federal government until December 31, 2010.

---snip---

--Extend the federal waiver of interest payments and interest accrual on loans received by state unemployment trust funds through the end of 2012. Currently, the waiver expires at the end of 2010.

---snip---

--Forgive the $1.2 billion loan to New Jersey's UI Fund, especially given that New Jersey employees, who are hurting, contribute to the UI Fund and the State contributed significant funds over the past two years.

And here is where I agree and disagree with Buono:

Continuing to fully fund UI benefits is one approach I agree with, as well as waiver of interest and penalties - although I would caveat that to a degree.  But in order to really help NJ employers, I would go a step further and have the state not "charge" employers with the unemployment benefits paid out to claimants if those benefits are funded by the federal government.  This last matter is a NJ matter that will directly help NJ employers without making what I think is an unrealistic plea (or in Christie's case, demand) for a loan forgiveness when almost every other state is in the same boat.

The unemployment tax rates are impacted by 2 things within the employer's control and one that isn't:  benefits paid out and taxes paid in are pretty much within the employer's control (to a degree).  The amount of benefits paid out statewide and the level of the state fund is not.  Right now, I think employers are charged for additional weeks of benefits as directed by the federal government, and possibly also by the additional eligible claimants from the stimulus bill.  Removing those from the "employer calculation" would help individual employers as well - especially since the state isn't paying for such benefits.

Desperate times call for creative solutions, and Buono's proposal gets most of the way there.   On the other hand, finger pointing, hypocrisy and a lack of leadership is precisely what is not needed.

Looks like it is going to be a long four years....

Daggett's tax plan. Thoughts from a "tax guy"

by: Adam L

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 02:21:55 PM EDT

For starters, the property tax problem stems from an entire systemic issue in the state - from the number of towns, municipalities, the waste in certain types of services (for example, in my hometown, I don't need the sanitation workers to come to the side/back of my house to collect my garbage - I can drag the cans to the curb.  But that is a service that takes time and costs money) and the overall duplication of things that property taxes pay for without consolidating localities.  In fact, an entire series of posts can be done just on the property tax issue.

That being said, Daggett's plan, in his own words, would:

deliver up to a 25 percent property tax cut to all New Jersey homeowners to a maximum of $2,500. All senior citizen property owners will receive the maximum cut of $2,500 per year.

Sounds great.  But.....the devil is in the details.  The property tax reduction would be offset by other taxes (mainly by increasing the sales tax base), and really wouldn't deal with the other huge issue - the projected $8 billion budget hole for next year, let alone future years.  Without getting too "tax geeky", here are a couple of issues that I see with this plan - as it relates to the lower and middle income taxpayers.  Personally, my fear is that, while this is relatively revenue neutral, I'd be interested in the overall breakdowns as to the benefit to families earning under $50,000, families earning between $50,000 - $100,000 and families earning over $100,000.

Here's why:

Under the plan, the $1.6 billion spent in this year's budget for property tax relief programs-including homestead rebates, the senior citizen property tax freeze and the income tax write-off for property taxes-would be folded into a property tax credit that would be deducted directly from homeowners' property tax bills, as proposed by the Legislature's Property Tax Study Commission three years ago.

Daggett's tax reform plan would extend the existing 7 percent sales tax to a wide range of personal, professional and household services, including services provided to individuals by professionals such as lawyers, accountants and architects. The sales tax extension would not include business-to-business services. The expansion would add $3.9 billion in tax revenue.

---snip---

A key element of the tax overhaul is designed to make New Jersey more competitive with other states by reducing corporate and income tax rates. The plan funds the reduction of the top income tax rate from the current 10.75 percent to 8.97 percent, which drops New Jersey's top rate from third-highest to seventh-highest in the nation. The 10.25 percent and 8 percent brackets also return to the previous levels of 8.97 percent on income over $500,000 and 6.37 percent over $75,000.

New Jersey's corporate income tax rate will also be reduced under Daggett's plan. The top rate would drop from 9.36 percent (the statutory 9 percent rate plus a 4 percent surcharge) to 7 percent,

The issues with this are, in a nutshell:

• The sales tax is inherently regressive - that is, it impacts lower and middle income families more than it does for higher income families.  This is because most things (even though NJ exempts a lot of goods that would be paid for by lower and middle income families) subject to sales tax are paid at a higher percentage of income by lower and middle income families.   If you are interested, here is a good write up on the federal "fair tax" that discusses how a flat sales tax is skewed.
• The reduction in the top income tax rate is obviously designed to help those in the upper income levels, and there will not be one penny of savings to lower and middle income families.
• The reduction in the corporate tax rate will also not be beneficial to lower and middle income families, and no, this won't mean more jobs for people in NJ.  The whole "trickle down theory" is a load of crap and we haven't seen any real job growth opportunities from reduced corporate income taxes.  Witness how many Fortune 1000 companies in the US don't pay any corporate income tax on their income and they still give huge perks to top execs at the expense of ever widening wage gaps.
• While somewhat controversial, the plan will eliminate the $1.6 billion rebate program - which is for the lower to middle income families currently.

Now, some of the items that will be subject to sales tax will not be borne by NJ residents, and some of these taxes will be borne by higher income earners.  However, the property tax break and reduction still doesn't (as far as I know) address the REASON for the high property taxes and the services that will be cut from such a reduction.

Unless the overall system is changed, this seems to be no more than an elaborate shell game of reducing taxes on a much larger scale for those who can afford it most, while being at best (relatively) neutral for those who need the break the most.

That being said, at least it is a plan, and that is more than we can say for Christie, who just yesterday promised Neil Cavuto that he would not raise any taxes ever.  And give everyone free chocolate, bunnies and have New Jersey in a permanent sunny day with rainbows.

Menendez against Baucus Health Care Tax

by: Hopeful

Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:58:03 PM EDT

The sixth item is one that Senator Bob Menendez just came out against, as he told reporters coming out of the committee room this afternoon: John Kerry's idea to tax high end, so-called Cadillac health insurance plans. The unions hate this (see AFL CIO and Afscme's comments here) and, as Menendez pointed out, in many states where the cost of living is high - like in New Jersey - teachers and first responders are often lured to lower-wage jobs by offers of high end plans. This is such a big deal to him that it actually overshadows his concerns about the immigration provisions.

The excise tax remains one of several stick points with progressives - the most important of which is still affordability -- also a deal breaker for Menendez who is working on several amendments (which are due tomorrow, by the way).

As for me, there are other provisions that are even worse, but I'm sick of New Jersey getting so little back for our federal taxes. Maybe we could fund health care reform by taxing land area. That would get the red states for a change. Just kidding, my Montana friends, just kidding.  

Report: NJ loses $4.49 Billion to offshore accounts

by: Jason Springer

Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:00:00 PM EDT

Many of the largest corporations in our country hide profits made in the United States in offshore shell companies and sham headquarters in order to avoid paying billions in federal taxes. The result is massive losses in revenue for the U.S. Treasury - which ultimately must be made up by taxpayers. The debt of a few is transferred to many - and to future generations. The U.S. Senate confirmed in the recently-passed fiscal year 2010 budget resolution that the use of offshore tax havens by large corporations "means that honest taxpayers face a higher burden."

The practice of using offshore tax havens has flourished in an era of increasing secrecy and dangerous deregulation. Lobbyists for corporations with offshore tax havens have been able to count on the fact that the missing revenue is never tallied and therefore
appears as though it never existed.

Taxpayers finally have some indication that this era is coming to a close, both here and abroad. According to the GAO, which is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, over 80% of the biggest U.S corporations maintain revenues in offshore tax haven countries, where there are no or nominal taxes and minimal, if any, reporting. The names on the list are familiar: American Express, A.I.G, Boeing, Cisco, Dow, Hewlett-Packard, J.P. Morgan Chase and Pfizer - among others.

The lie that is the threat of "millionaires flight"

by: Adam L

Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 10:45:00 AM EDT

On the facts related to the current economy, the argument doesn't hold up.  Based on history, the argument doesn't hold up.  And on the merits of this particular proposal, the argument doesn't hold up.

Let's start with the current economy.    Home sales are predicted to drop substantially over the next year in Northern New Jersey - home to some of these very millionaires.

HousingPredictor.com is projecting a 19.4% decline in Manhattan home prices in 2009. And Moody's Economy.com is predicting that condo prices in New York City, Northern New Jersey, and Westchester County will fall 29% by the fourth quarter of next year.

"Nationally, we think this recession is going to be worse than anything we've seen in 40 years," said Marisa DiNatale, senior economist for Moody's Economy.com. "If the economy gets that bad, then you will start to see foreclosures in Manhattan as well."

This has already started in the Northeast as both the number of home sales and sale prices dropped dramatically - pretty much the worst region in the country:

The number of existing homes sold in January in the Northeast plummeted nearly 15 percent compared with the previous month, far outpacing the rest of the country, according to a report released today by the National Association of Realtors.

Year-over-year, existing-home sales fell 23.8 percent in the Northeast, while prices fell 14.7 percent, the report stated.

Anecdotally, I live close enough to or drive through some of these communities, and there are a LOT of for sale signs - many of which are for houses well in excess of $1,000,000 and many of which have been on the market for quite some time.

Quite simply, who would take a loss (or decline in value) on their homes of hundreds of thousands of dollars - voluntarily (since they are choosing to move due to a few thousand dollars of income tax)?  

Nobody that isn't already planning on or needing to move to begin with, that's for sure.

And what about history?  Well, this was the same threat we heard a few years ago when the top income tax rate had to be increased slightly:

New Jersey raised taxes on the wealthy in 2004, increasing by 2.6 percent the tax rate levied on those making more than $500,000 a year; and Gov. Jon S. Corzine this month proposed a new increase on high earners.

But a study by Professor Massey and two colleagues, published in September, estimated that the previous tax increase cost New Jersey only 50 to 350 existing "half-millionaire" households - a relatively small number against the total of 44,000 such households in the state.

While those departures cost the state about $38 million a year in revenue, the study estimates, the higher taxes levied on those who stayed have brought in an average of $895 million a year.

So let's see, not only does it not make people leave, it brought in close to $1 billion EACH year, net of the lost revenue from the people leaving.  Seems like a no-brainer there.

And lastly, as part of the "where are they going to go?" reply - both Pennsylvania and Connecticut have personal income tax rates that are far below NJ's top rates, and have for quite some time.  And the proposed increased rate of 10.25% is still lower than the combined NYS/NYC rate of 10.498%.  

If you want to compare the "incredibly high property taxes paid in NJ", then consider that nearby Westchester County in NY had one of the three highest property taxes in the nation just 2 years ago.   Interestingly, the entire top 10 for 2006 was all NY and NJ, and there was no meaningful difference between the various counties.  So there are basically similar property and income taxes between New York and New Jersey.  Connecticut and Pennsylvania already have lower taxes, so people could have moved there at any time due to the much bigger tax differential.

And looking at the falling home prices, the costs of moving and the reality of historical data, it is crystal clear that this so-called threat is nothing more than empty rhetoric by those whose loyalties lie with the poor ones making more than $500,000 per year.

Frank Lautenberg backs new Apollo Project: Not the one you'd hope

by: Hopeful

Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EDT

The Apollo Alliance: The proposed environmental project to obtain clean energy.  

Will the Democrats get behind a massive government effort of engineers and scientists?

Of course not.  Frank Lautenberg is one of thirty U.S. Senators instead who is a co-sponsor of Disney's Apollo project:

JAY RASULO STOOD IN FRONT OF TWO MASSIVE SCREENS, each projecting his balding visage, and did what he loves to do: sell a big idea. The dapper, diminutive chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts implored 500 tourist industry executives to ask the federal government for an expensive favor.

Speaking in the grand ballroom of the Capital Hilton hotel in downtown Washington on an un-seasonably warm day in January 2006, Rasulo said he believed Congress could be persuaded to fork over a great deal of money for an advertising campaign that would lure millions of foreign tourists to the United States. This "destination marketing" program would enrich his company and others like it, of course. But to make the money flow, he told the luncheon crowd, the industry would have to remake its lobbying capabilities on a man-to-the-moon-like scale.

"We need the equivalent of an Apollo project for destination marketing," Rasulo proclaimed.

Right, why bother paying for ads yourself when you have a multi-million lobbying budget: Just get our foolish Congress to collect billions for you.  Here's what Henry of Crooked Timber reports:

I was at a sort-of DC power lunch yesterday with staffers from the Hill (the first such lunch I?ve ever gone to, and likely to be the last for a while), and the conversation turned to a piece of legislation that?s being pushed hard by lobbyists for big players in the tourism industry, the so-called Travel Promotion Act. The Act is supposed to create a $200 million fund to promote tourism, by levying a charge on visitors to the US. The charge is non-trivial ? the estimates I heard suggested that in order to raise $10 a head to give to the travel industry?s promotional fund, the government will likely have to impose a total fee of $25 to cover administrative overheads.

If it's not entirely obvious to you, kos and Crooked Timber express how this will discourage visitors even as it uses the government to benefit Disney.  

Frank Lautenberg should be ashamed that he supports this bill.  You'd think the benefit of having millionaire businessmen in Congress would be to make them independent of lobbyists, but of course once again we see it's not true.

TSTC supports gas tax hike

by: John C

Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:18:21 PM EST

The TSTC has long argued that the more sustainable solution to New Jersey's Transportation Trust Fund [TTF] woes is to raise the gasoline tax to an appropriate level. New Jersey's gasoline tax, at 10.5 cents per gallon (14.5 cents if you add in the petroleum products gross receipts tax) ranks third lowest in the country, with only Alaska (8 cents) and Georgia (7.5 cents) boasting a lower rate. Last raised in 1988, the 10.5 cents gasoline tax is worth about 6 cents today when adjusted for inflation.  ...

Sadly, when presented with another chance to redeem the TTF in 2005 - the last time the TTF was set to go bankrupt - Governor Corzine opted for the quick fix. No new tolls, no new taxes, billions in new debt - all so the TTF could have a few more years of borrowed time (see MTR # 521).  ...

In short, although increasing the gas tax may not be politically popular, it is necessary. Whether or not Corzine's asset monetization plan is implemented, NJ needs a constitutionally dedicated source of revenue and the gas tax is the most logical and equitable means to that end. Without constitutional dedication, future legislatures will be able to divert funding that should go to the TTF - one of the practices that started this downward spiral (revenues statutorily dedicated to the TTF have been poached by the state, as will be explained in the next article in the series). The unwillingness of state officials to seriously consider a gas tax increase only serves to continue the cycle of debt and endanger the future of NJ's transportation infrastructure.

This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue.  The political fear and cowardice among NJ's senators and assemblymen (and the Governor) is bipartisan.  Do you prefer a modest gas tax hike - say, 10 or 12 cents per gallon - or do you prefer a monetization boondoggle?

Sunday, April 23, 2006 News Roundup

by: mariel2036

Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 10:51:15 AM EDT

Support Your School Budget, And Make Jim Gearhart Cry

by: Steven Hart

Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:40:10 AM EDT

In the course of urging his listeners to shoot down their local school budgets (taxes, you know), Gearhart vended unattributed and unsourced rumors about teachers who strong-armed people to support school budgets by threatening to "mess with" their children. He ended by calling the New Jersey Education Association, the statewide teachers union, "the only federally approved terrorist organization."

Jon Shure: Here they come

by: huntsu

Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:57:18 AM EST

"We cannot tax our way to prosperity." This is the new vogue sound bite from the right, already being employed against the budget proposal Gov. Corzine puts out today. The budget needs to be thoroughly vetted and we look forward to doing that. But in the meantime, progressive-minded folk need to be out front countering the taxes-are-evil mantra. Taxes aren't good and they aren't bad. They are part of a government's financial plan and what's important is who's taxed, how much and how the money is used.

We can't borrow our way to prosperity. We can't spend our way to propserity. We can't budget-cut our way to prosperity. Each of these statements is as ridiculous as the other. And we can't lie our way to prosperity either. It's a little more complicated than that. Who--and what message-- controls the terms of the debate is crucial. We need to keep that in mind.