An attitude of status quo
Governor Chris Christie came charging into Trenton pledging to turn it upside down in 2010. He made a left turn onto the Boulevard of Compromise in 2011, cruised the boulevard through 2012 and rode the waves of Sandy through 2013. Now he’s hit a dead end on the bridgegate to nowhere.
The message of the FY 2015 Budget Address is ‘No Change.” Christie warned of the looming crisis we sent him to Trenton to fix and offered no solutions. No reductions in government. An increase in spending. Christie lamented that he couldn’t spend more because of commitments made to people who are no longer working and to repay money that has already been spent.
Christie meekly suggested that more pension and benefit reforms are necessary in order to grow the state government. State Senate President Steve Sweeney said, “We’re not doing it.”
In an unwitting acknowledgement that New Jersey has more government than it can sustain, Sweeney said, “What’s missing here is we haven’t grown our economy, and that’s the issue.”
But Sweeney has thwarted every attempt to stimulate the New Jersey economy that Christie has proposed over the last four year.
Once again Christie touted “no new taxes.” Like McGreevey and Corzine before him, the “revenue enhancements” are closing loop holes, not tax increases.
As he has for the last three years, Christie employs a “Corzine-lite” strategy to “balance” the budget. Instead of our highways tolls being used to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure, $324 million in tolls are being used to fill gaps in the state budget. An other $626 million in what shot gimmicks, debt refinancing and law suit settlements, will also fund state government jobs.
While we’re not growing the economy, Christie’s budget assumes revenue grow 5.8%. Christie is betting that income tax revenue will grow 8.1%, sales taxes will increase 6.1% , corporate taxes will be up 6.7% and other various taxes will grown 1.5%. Good luck with that governor.
Christie’s projections from the last budget are off by about $800 million.
New Jersey has more government than it can afford and certainly more government than it needs. The jobs, benefits and pensions of the government class are a higher priority than the health, prosperity and freedom of New Jersey’s citizens. The government class will protect itself to the determent of New Jersey’s citizens. Chris Christie is not going to change that.
[…] By Art Gallagher | MoreMonmouthMusings.com […]
NJ has the opportunity to lead the way in an innovative way to provide health care to those who cannot afford it. Instead of expanding the wildly expensive and inefficient Medicaid system, we need to take a close look at Senate bill S-94.
With this law, physicians will donate 4 hours a week in non-government free clinics with the actual care costing the taxpayers NOTHING. Instead of paying the doctors, the state will protect them in their PRIVATE practices. Patients will go to these clinics instead of the expensive ERs for non-urgent care.
This will be a win for patients, physicians and taxpayers– resulting in a reduced state budget and a more vigorous economy. More jobs will be fueled by the lower taxes.
Dr. Eck, just out of curiosity, can you explain or do you have a link to your site or another that can explain S-94 and/or why the government has to (or should) pass a law that has physicians donate their skills for 4 hours a week?
I’m not in the medical field, however, I’ think that I’d personally be a bit angry if the government mandated that I must donate an unpaid 4 hours of my skilled, high value labor a week for free. Further, is this the “slippery slope” where next the government mandates that everyone in accounting/finance with a CPA or MBA or whatever MUST donate 4 hours of their time a week to doing other people’s taxes, for free? Or Police MUST donate 4 hours of unpaid time to playground security. Or teachers MUST donate 4 hours of time to tutoring kids. Why only physicians, and will it stop just with physicians?
I’m sure there is more to the bill/your pitch than a simple blog comment can express and I’m asking in order to try to learn more because as I noted, on the surface, something seems amiss.
Willing to listen if you can point me in a direction, Thanks.
Hey Certified Constitution experts how does this bill reconcile with the 13th amendment to the US Constitution? (prohibits involuntary servitude unless one is serving a penal sentence)
[…] By Art Gallagher | MoreMonmouthMusings.com […]