Is Erik Peterson more neo-anarchist than conservative?

By Rubashov

We used to think there were two kinds of elected conservative leaders: the helmsmen and the engineer. Both are necessary. The first charts a course in broad language and is aspirational. Think of a ship’s captain, all turned-out and resplendent, steering a course.

The second kind, the engineer, gets it done and moves us forward. Their domain is the caucus room – the engine room of government – where the hard business of making the machine turn is done. In a different setting, a famous Marine described them as the people with “instinct in their guts and blood on their boots.”

Of late, we are beginning to see the rise of a third variety of conservative “leader” – the celebrity. He or she most certainly has followers, but there is an underlying purposelessness to this “leader”. Aside from poses and postures, it is all hot air, mere image and gesture, a kind of luftman.

Last week, Assemblyman Erik Peterson strolled into Sussex County to attend the local GOP county committee’s congressional candidates' night. Peterson says the right things and hits the right notes, but mostly he’s against things. His call to repeal the gas tax found its mark and got an oafish grin from fellow Assemblyman Parker Space. But neither Peterson (or Space, for that matter) ever ventured an opinion on what the aftermath of such a move would look like.

They remind us of those reckless conservative “leaders” of yore – the ones who would irresponsibly talk about “blowing up Russia”. We’d think, “Sure boys, launch those nukes… but what then?”

Repealing the gas tax wouldn’t place a break on the rise in gas prices – because that’s all about national politics (President Joe Biden’s war on pipelines and oil companies) and international politics (a war between Russia and Ukraine, with NATO as a silent partner). But it would, almost instantaneously, bankrupt the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) here in New Jersey – and that would throw every county and local budget in the state into the red, necessitating a rise in property taxes to make up for it. What kind of rise? Try $400 to $500 a home. Year after year. And that’s just to pay for the road and bridge maintenance the TTF pays for now.

With the TTF bankrupt, the TTF’s debt would – by law – need to be paid for by New Jersey taxpayers. And then there are all those TAX CUTS that the engineers who fashioned the cog that kept the machine going got in return for a gas tax hike that was half that originally proposed. The Estate Tax would come roaring back, with all it’s devastating consequences to small businesses and family farms. So would taxes on retirees, small businesses, veterans, working people, and consumers. Maybe you are one of them?

Screw it all, say some of these new “conservative” leaders. Let government die, allow the machine to spit and sputter and clunk to its death. So what if the roads become unpassable and if one must say a prayer before crossing a bridge. Too bad for property taxpayers when someone is seriously injured because of an unmaintained street. And too bad for that person, now stuck in a wheelchair, and for their family. Who needs civilization?

To our minds, this is not a conservative position. Dystopia was not what Ronald Reagan was thinking when he described his “shining city on a hill.” Ronald Reagan understood that freedom and liberty rested on maintaining civilization – not destroying it. Taxation is a necessary part of it, but conservatives insist on getting it right, not abolishing it to the point where we are back with open sewers in the streets.

People like Peterson seem to forget that the Dark Ages really did happen. There was Roman civilization and things like running water and baths… and then there was a thousand years of stink. We may have amnesia about a lot of things but let’s not forget that whiskey was once safer than water.

As Governor and President, Ronald Reagan taught us that “user taxes” are the fairest form of taxation. You pay for the roads and bridges you use. Period. That goes for all those out-of-staters too. The roads and bridges they use should not be paid for by the property taxpayers of New Jersey. That should be an easy thing to understand. It shouldn’t take an engineer to explain it to you, but apparently, it does.

President Reagan signed a gas tax increase.

In an upcoming installment, we will discuss Assemblyman Peterson’s role in installing the Highlands Act in its role as slave master to Northwest New Jersey property owners. Look for it soon.

How Steve Oroho finished what Jay Webber started

In the Legislature, you can be a conservative in one of two ways... broadly speaking.  One way is to be a conscience, sit above it all, and vote accordingly.  You could not find a more perfect example of this than Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, who negotiates the prickly halls of Trenton with a Zen assuredness.  He always knows the right thing to do... and he always does it.  Instead of the wilting figure of John McCann, the YR's and CR's could do no better than to adopt Assemblyman Carroll as their Sensei.

The other way is to wade into the muck in an attempt to climb aboard the ship of state and steer it in a more desirable direction.  Sometimes the engine isn't even working and you might need to get down into the boiler room -- knee deep in waste -- and grapple with the machinery of government, just to get it sputtering in some direction.

Assemblyman Jay Webber takes this course... to a point.  He seems well enough suited to steer, but when it comes to the engine room, he doesn't want to get his hands dirty.  That's where he differs from Senator Steve Oroho.  Oroho accepts that he will have to endure the heat and muck in order to get the machine running -- and he doesn't mind busting a knuckle or two while grabbling with a boiler wrench.

A prime example are their differing approaches to preventing the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) from going bankrupt and ending the Estate Tax.  Two very conservative causes.  The TTF, funded by a gas tax, was right out of the Reagan mantra of using user taxes to fund public infrastructure.  Those who use the roads should pay for them, said Reagan, no free rides!  While the death tax -- which is what an Estate Tax is -- has been identified by conservatives for years as the destroyer of small businesses and the ruination of family farms.

Jay Webber waded into the issue assuredly enough.  On October 14, 2014, the Star-Ledger published a column by the Assemblyman.  It's title was "Fixing transportation and taxes together."  Webber was writing about how to raise the gas tax to re-fund the nearly bankrupt TTF, while offsetting that tax increase with cuts to other taxes.  He zeroed in on the Estate Tax:

"NEW JERSEY leaders are grappling with three major problems: First, New Jersey has the worst tax burden in the nation. Two, New Jersey's economy suffers from sluggish growth. And third, our state's Transportation Trust Fund is out of money. There is a potential principled compromise that can help solve all of them.

Of the three problems, the Transportation Trust Fund has been getting the most attention lately, and for good reason: It's broke. There is just no money in it to maintain and improve our vital infrastructure. Without finding a solution, we risk watching our roads and bridges grow unsafe and unusable and hinder movement of people and goods throughout the state. That, of course, will exacerbate our state's slow economic growth.

...we should insist that if any tax is raised to restore the TTF, it be coupled with the elimination of a tax that is one of our state's biggest obstacles to economic growth: the death tax. By any measure, New Jersey is the most extreme outlier on the death tax, with worst-in-the-nation status...

New Jersey's death tax is not a concern for the wealthy alone, as many misperceive. We are one of only two states with both an estate and inheritance tax. New Jersey's estate-tax threshold of $675,000, combined with a tax rate as high as 16 percent, means that middle-class families with average-sized homes and small retirement savings are hit hard by the tax.

It also means the tax affects small businesses or family farms of virtually any size, discouraging investment and growth among our private-sector job creators. Compounding the inequity is that government already has taxed the assets subject to the death tax when the money was earned. Because of our onerous estate and inheritance taxes, Forbes magazine lists New Jersey as a place "Not to Die" in 2014.

That's a problem, and it's one our sister states are trying hard not to duplicate. A recent study by Connecticut determined that states with no estate tax created twice as many jobs and saw their economies grow 50 percent more than states with estate taxes. That research prompted Connecticut and many states to reform their death taxes. New York just lowered its death tax, and several other states have eliminated theirs.

The good news is that New Jersey's leaders finally are realizing that our confiscatory death tax is a big deal. A bipartisan coalition of legislators has shown its support for reforming New Jersey's death tax..."

Taking Webber's lead, Senator Steve Oroho got to work and began the painstakingly long process of negotiation with the majority Democrats.  Oroho was animated by the basic unfairness that New Jersey taxpayers were under-writing out-of-state drivers to the tune of a half-billion dollars a year.  He understood that if the TTF went bankrupt, the cost would flip to county and local governments... resulting in an average $500 property tax increase.  Oroho went to battle to prevent this disaster and even had to stand up to Governor Chris Christie, who wanted to end negotiations too soon and accept a weaker deal from the Democrats.

Unfortunately, Assemblyman Webber didn't stick with it.  When the time came for Jay Webber to be counted as part of that bipartisan coalition, he couldn't be counted on.  Jay got scared off by the lobbyist arm of the petroleum industry and what's worse is that he started attacking those who did what he advocated doing only a short time before. 

Remember that it was Webber who wrote these words in that column more than three years ago:  "Any gas-tax increase should be accompanied by measures that will help alleviate, or at least not increase, the overall tax burden on New Jerseyans." Jay Webber wrote those words, setting the direction.  Steve Oroho was left on his own to get the job done -- to do the negotiating.  The helmsman had abandoned the engineer. 

Webber said at the time that he believed the bipartisan tax restructuring package worked out by the legislative leaders (minus Senator Tom Kean Jr.) and the Governor would result in a net tax increase.  Oroho and others disagreed with him.  Webber is by all accounts a good lawyer, but Oroho is the numbers man.  He's a certified financial planner and CPA.  Before beginning his career of public service, Steve Oroho was a senior financial officer for S&P 500 companies like W. R. Grace and  Young & Rubicam.  It was this knowledge that enabled him to fashion the compromise that he did -- one that turned out to be the largest tax cut in New Jersey's history.

In the end, the Democrats' 40-cent increase on the gas tax was paired down to 23-cents.  The gas tax, the proceeds from which funds the TTF, had not been adjusted for inflation in 28 years, had not provided enough funding to cover annual operations in 25 years, and wasn't even bringing in enough money to pay the interest on the borrowing that was done to keep operations going (in 2015, the state collected just $750 million from the gas tax while incurring an annual debt cost of $1.1 billion).  Even so, Senator Oroho knew exactly where to draw the line... at the minimalist 23 cents and not the 40 cents the Democrats plausibly argued for.

In the end, the engineer got the job done.  Senator Steve Oroho emerged from the boiler room triumphant.  He ended the Estate Tax and secured tax cuts for retirees, veterans, small businesses, farmers, consumers, and low-income workers.  He secured property tax relief by doubling the TTF's local financial aid to towns and counties -- and prevented a $500 per household property tax hike.  He made out-of-state drivers pay for using New Jersey's roads -- and ensured that New Jerseyans will continue to have safe roads and bridges to drive on.

Oroho's tax cuts were praised by conservative groups like Americans for Tax Reform and conservative publications like Forbes, which called his tax cuts "one of the 5 best state and local tax policy changes in 2016 nationwide." 

That's getting something done.   

Webber's clone lost in LD26, spin won't change that.

There has been a big effort to re-write the history of what just happened in the Republican primary in Legislative District 26.  The origins of the battle just concluded there go back a few years, to when Daryn Iwicki was running Americans for Prosperity (AFP) in New Jersey. 

Then, things were well on the way to securing AFP's support for increasing the users tax on gasoline in order to end the disastrous cycle of debt and borrowing to fund basic repair and maintenance for the state's transportation system.  After 28 years without an adjustment for inflation -- and 25 years since the revenue from the gas tax produced enough to fund the state's transportation needs -- by 2015, the state was collecting just $750 million from the gas tax while incurring an annual debt cost of $1.1 billion.  Something had to be done.

Senator Steve Oroho (LD24) and others had the idea of getting rid of the estate tax as part of a deal to address the imminent bankruptcy of the state's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), which funds most of the state's transportation needs.   One of those others was Assemblyman Jay Webber (LD26), who famously advocated such a deal in an opinion piece published in the Star-Ledger on October 14, 2014.  Its title was "Fixing transportation and taxes together." 

Assemblyman Webber advocated raising the gas tax to end the debt cycle and fund the TTF, while offsetting that tax increase with cuts to other taxes.  He zeroed in on the estate tax:

"NEW JERSEY leaders are grappling with three major problems: First, New Jersey has the worst tax burden in the nation. Two, New Jersey's economy suffers from sluggish growth. And third, our state's Transportation Trust Fund is out of money. There is a potential principled compromise that can help solve all of them.

Of the three problems, the Transportation Trust Fund has been getting the most attention lately, and for good reason: It's broke. There is just no money in it to maintain and improve our vital infrastructure. Without finding a solution, we risk watching our roads and bridges grow unsafe and unusable and hinder movement of people and goods throughout the state. That, of course, will exacerbate our state's slow economic growth.

...we should insist that if any tax is raised to restore the TTF, it be coupled with the elimination of a tax that is one of our state's biggest obstacles to economic growth: the death tax. By any measure, New Jersey is the most extreme outlier on the death tax, with worst-in-the-nation status...

New Jersey's death tax is not a concern for the wealthy alone, as many misperceive. We are one of only two states with both an estate and inheritance tax. New Jersey's estate-tax threshold of $675,000, combined with a tax rate as high as 16 percent, means that middle-class families with average-sized homes and small retirement savings are hit hard by the tax.

It also means the tax affects small businesses or family farms of virtually any size, discouraging investment and growth among our private-sector job creators. Compounding the inequity is that government already has taxed the assets subject to the death tax when the money was earned. Because of our onerous estate and inheritance taxes, Forbes magazine lists New Jersey as a place "Not to Die" in 2014.

That's a problem, and it's one our sister states are trying hard not to duplicate. A recent study by Connecticut determined that states with no estate tax created twice as many jobs and saw their economies grow 50 percent more than states with estate taxes. That research prompted Connecticut and many states to reform their death taxes. New York just lowered its death tax, and several other states have eliminated theirs.

The good news is that New Jersey's leaders finally are realizing that our confiscatory death tax is a big deal. A bipartisan coalition of legislators has shown its support for reforming New Jersey's death tax..."

Unfortunately, the leadership at AFP changed and decided to become part of a political strategy advocated by some GOP Senators.  This strategy argued that the gas tax was a game-changer that would result in a backlash that the GOP could harness to achieve power, much in the way they had in 1991-93.  Extensive polling by a well-respected survey research firm was produced in support of what by now had become a certainty in their minds.  The gas tax was a "third rail" (they said) that would end the career of any Republican foolish enough to vote for it and that would propel the GOP into majority status.

When the time came for Jay Webber to be counted as part of a bipartisan coalition to get the deal done, he couldn't be counted on.  Jay got scared off by AFP and people like NJ101.5's Bill Spadea.   Webber began to enthusiastically attack those who did what he advocated doing only a short time before.  One of those was his running mate, Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce. 

DeCroce found herself cut off from Webber and running alone -- facing two "anti-gas tax" opponents who made no bones about who they were targeting:  Assemblywoman BettyLou DeCroce.  Both opponents were Morris County Freeholders with generally conservative records.  One, Freeholder Hank Lyon, specifically identified with Assemblyman Webber and shared many of the same supporters, in addition to the same issues-grid and talking points.  Like Webber, Lyon billed himself a "movement conservative" despite the fact that the father of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, had not only endorsed the gas tax as a user tax -- he had doubled it as President.

In the end, Freeholder Lyon -- Assemblyman Webber's "clone" -- came up short. 

While some have noted the involvement of non-public, blue-collar, union money in the LD26 race, they neglect to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of prime radio time spent driving up the negatives of the "gas tax" and building momentum to specifically turn out of office legislators who voted for it.  The FCC is currently doing an analysis of the time spent on this campaign and its fair market value.  Add to this the cost of the petroleum lobby's efforts -- in particular AFP -- and we soon see that the working men and women were once again out-spent by corporate interests.

In closing, let us remind our readers that the most effective advertisement used against the Republican ticket in 2008 wasn't reported on any campaign finance or disclosure report.  It was simply a series of commercial broadcasts -- political attack ads, masquerading as comedy.

Hank Lyon: I lied, I didn't move from my parents' house

Freeholder Hank Lyon recently found himself before a judge again, accused -- once again -- of violating New Jersey election law.  Lyon, who is a candidate for the state Legislature in next week's Republican primary election, could face serious ethical and legal issues in the weeks and months ahead -- and could endanger the seat (even handing it over to a liberal Democrat) if a court finds that, as in 2011, he violated the law.

At issue is Freeholder Lyon's residency and the honesty and integrity of the voting process itself.

We all remember how Hank Lyon won a seat on the Morris County Freeholder Board in 2011.  A late infusion of cash from a corporation controlled by his father -- an infusion allowed only because of an election law loophole that says if a candidate still lives at home with his parents, their money is treated as if it was the candidate's own money.

D. Use of Personal Funds  Use of a candidate’s personal funds on behalf of his or her campaign must be deposited into the campaign depository and must be reported as either contributions or loans to the campaign in the same manner as all other contributions or loans. If the candidate intends to be reimbursed fully or partially for personal funds used on behalf of his or her campaign, then the funds must be reported both as a loan and as an outstanding obligation to the campaign if still outstanding at the end of the reporting period. Once a candidate’s personal funds are reported as contributions, the funds cannot be later characterized as loans and be repaid to the candidate. There is no limit to the amount of personal funds a candidate may contribute or lend to his or her own campaign (except for publicly funded gubernatorial candidates). See Gubernatorial Public Financing Program Manual for more information.  Also, a corporation, of which one hundred percent of the stock is owned by the candidate, or by the candidate’s spouse, child, parent, or sibling residing in the candidate’s household, may make contributions without limit to a candidate committee established by that candidate, or to a joint candidates committee established by that candidate.

That infusion of corporate cash was improperly reported.  A judge overturned a close election, a lawsuit followed, another judge overturned the first decision, while an appeal wasn't pursued after the opposing candidate received a gubernatorial appointment.   Lyon's campaign still owes a huge amount of money to this corporation -- $75,966.66 -- according to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC).

Per the NJ election law loophole, this large infusion of corporate cash is only legal while Freeholder Hank Lyon and his father reside in the same household (according to corporate records, Lyon's mother resides in Texas).  Here's where the story gets interesting. 

Hank Lyon has long chaffed at the idea of his political career simply depending on "daddy's money."  He's worked to appear to be outside his father's shadow, going as far as lying on his official Freeholder biography:

"He is a lifelong resident of Morris County, specifically the Towaco section of Montville Township, where he was a member of the Montville Housing Committee.  He now lives in Parsippany."

Lyon even pictured his new home in his legislative campaign's advertising, with the words:  "Recently bought his first house, pictured above."  But if Hank Lyon no longer lived at home with his father, then how is he still using his dad's corporate money and keeping to the law? 

In February 2016, Freeholder Lyon did purchase a residential property in the Lake Hiawatha section of Parsippany-Troy Hills.  However, Lyon never occupied the property.  Neighbors claim to have no idea who lives at 45 Manito Avenue.  Mail has piled up and apparently gone unanswered.  Repairs and renovations have been pursued in a more or less desultory manner.  Then, on April 3, 2017, Lyon executed a mortgage on this property -- borrowing $125,000. 

According to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC), Freeholder Hank Lyon loaned his legislative campaign $35,000 on May 12th and $83,000 on May 16th.  His campaign then purchased $99,997 in cable television advertising that began airing on May 19th.

The mortgage stipulates that the borrower (Freeholder Lyon) "shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower's principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument."  This Saturday, June 3rd, those 60 days are up.

When Freeholder Hank Lyon moves, in three days' time, the loan his father's corporation has with him will go sour.  It was only allowed while the candidate made his father's home his principle residence.  Freeholder Lyon should have paid off the corporate loan that will clearly place him outside normal, ethical, campaign finance limits.  Instead, he borrowed more to finance another campaign for political office.

Little wonder then that as a candidate for the Legislature, Hank Lyon supported borrowing and debt to pay for basic road and bridge maintenance.  He opposed adjusting the revenue source of the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) for inflation, despite it having failed to produce enough revenue to fund the state's transportation needs since 1990.  Because of this "credit card" policy -- endorsed by Lyon -- by 2015, the revenue source (the tax on gasoline) brought in just $750 million annually, but the interest on the debt to fund all that borrowing cost taxpayers $1.1 billion annually. 

Borrowing, paying your bills with a credit card, is not the way of the fiscal conservative... it is madness. 

A Challenge to Assembly candidate Hank Lyon

Yesterday an opinion piece appeared in another blog by yet another Morris County Young Republican.  This young man told the story about how his finances are being put out of kilter by the additional 23 cents in taxation applied to each gallon of gasoline he purchases in New Jersey. 

We question this, because unless he started doing his finances only very, very recently, the price-per-gallon of gasoline is lower today than it was 18 months ago, and well over a dollar less than it was in 2014.  He suggests that he cannot balance his budget now, so how did he balance it then?

The writer, we understand, makes his living as an educator, a teacher.  It is a noble profession and we are sure that he is deeply committed to his work.  But it is a profession which relies on the public purse -- on the taxation of others, regardless of whether or not they use his services as an educator.  And if they don't pay, they face punishment, sanctions, foreclosure, and so on.  This is one kind of taxation.

The gas tax is another kind of taxation.  The gas tax is a classic "user tax."  This is a tax imposed on someone who chooses to access a service or facility.  With a user tax, someone pays for something he or she wants and receives what he or she has paid for.  So if you want to use New Jersey's roads and bridges, you pay for them through a tax on gasoline.  Conservatives believe that user taxes represent a "fair exchange."

The writer attempts to cast doubt on the proposition that if the Transportation Trust Fund wasn't funded, "our roads would be dangerous, bridges would be falling, and people would be out of work."  Well, he would have to take that up with the American Society of Civil Engineers -- professionals, like himself, and the experts in their field.  They issued a report in 2016 and we've taken snapshots directly from it:

Now that is what the professionals -- the best in their field -- had to say.  Some on the Alt-Right and the Far-Left say that we should doubt all professionals, the way they did during the French Revolution.  But we note that the writer himself is a professional, and we doubt that he would want to see his degree rendered meaningless.  If you erode respect for a hard science like engineering, how far behind can a more subjective matter, like education, be?   

The writer continues:  "Now we know that the gas tax and amendment was a ploy by Trenton politicians for their pet projects, such as the Bergen-Hudson Light Rail Extension and we also know half of New Jersey’s gas tax is going back to pay back old debt and not towards infrastructure."

Well, what we actually know is that this writer has been listening too much to the broadcasts coming from the Alt-Right.  What the Alt-Right calls "the gas tax" is actually a Tax Reform bill numbered S-2411/A-12 that included five tax cuts totaling $1.4 billion in cuts and an increase in the tax on gasoline. 

S-2411/A-12 was the result of more than two years of negotiations between Republicans and the majority Democrats who control both Chambers of the Legislature.  Those negotiations were conducted under pressure, with the knowledge that in modern times no political party has controlled the Governor's office for more than eight years.  The Republican negotiators understood that all that stood in the way of the Democrat majority imposing a 40-cent increase on the gas tax -- with NO tax cuts -- was Republican Governor Chris Christie.  They understood that the clock was ticking.

Yes, a great many people use mass transit.  Make it so shoddy and unstable that people stop using it and then imagine what all those hundreds of thousands of commuters returning to the roads in automobiles will do to your rush hour commute -- not to mention the wear and tear on those roads and bridges you don't want to pay for.

And yes, after 28 years of failing to adjust the gas tax for inflation and borrowing to make up the difference there is a whole lot of "old debt."  The last time the gas tax produced enough revenue to pay for New Jersey's transportation needs was in 1990.  Because of the debt that was allowed to accumulate, by 2015 the annual cost of that debt to taxpayers was $1.1 billion -- outstripping the $750 million revenue from the gas tax.  That's what happens when you suspend the iron rules of economics and tell people that they can have something for nothing.

Perhaps this young professional is suggesting that New Jersey goes the way of Argentina?  Ever try building a bridge without financing?  Imagine those property tax increases -- up front -- every time you faced a capital project.    

The writer has some very uncharitable things to say about Assemblywoman Betty Lou DeCroce.  He is very critical of her plan -- the Tax Reform bill numbered S-2411/A-12  that she voted for.  Well, here is what her plan did:

   - A tax cut on retirement income that means most New Jersey retirees will no longer pay state income tax.  This tax cut is worth about $2,000 annually to the average retiree.

- Elimination of the Estate Tax.  This protects family farms and small businesses from being forced to choose between paying taxes or closing and laying-off workers.

- Tax cut for veterans.  Honorably discharged active duty, guard, and reserve veterans now get an additional $3,000 personal income tax deduction.

- Tax credit for low-income workers.  Worth $100 annually to the average worker.

- Sales tax cut.  Worth another $100 annually to the average consumer.

- Property tax relief.  The legislation doubled the amount going to county and municipal governments to repair roads and bridges and so offset property tax increases.

The plan Assemblywoman DeCroce voted for, S-2411/A-12, the Tax Reform legislation -- the bill some people simply call "the gas tax" -- actually cut taxes by $1.4 billion. 

Yes, it did raise the tax on gasoline by 23-cents a gallon.  The Transportation Trust Fund was broke.  Road and bridge projects funded by the TTF were frozen.  That included all those county and municipal projects dependent on TTF funding.  Work had stopped.  Without funding from the TTF, local governments would have had to raise property taxes by an average of more than $500 a household just to make up for the lost aid to keep county and local roads safely maintained.  And if county and local governments failed to repair roads and bridges and allowed people to use them anyway, the eventual cost in litigation to cover the injuries sustained as the result could vastly outstrip the costs to maintain them in the first place.

Yes... hard choices.

Finally, the writer -- this Young Republican -- praises the work of the fellow he would like to see replace Assemblywoman DeCroce.  He's another incumbent Republican named Hank Lyon.  He's a Morris County Freeholder.

Now Hank is a nice young man, but being elected to an all-Republican Freeholder Board doesn't actually provide you with the skills you need to get anything done in a Legislature controlled by Democrats.  You have to be a good negotiator, not an arguer but a builder of trust and of relationships.  You have to leave your comfort zone and learn to sell your colleagues from their point of view.  You have to have humility. 

That... or you can raise the resources to win control of both chambers of the Legislature and capture the Governor's office again, after eight years.  Then you can be as cocksure and prideful as you want.

We know Assemblywoman DeCroce's plan.  She voted for it.  It passed.  A Republican Governor signed it into law.  So here is the challenge to Assembly candidate Hank Lyon:  What is your plan?

We are looking for details here.  Spreadsheet level details.  Work it out and convince us.  And spare us the Alt-Right sloganeering and the NJ 101.5 hashtags.  This is a serious assignment.  Show us what you have. 

We will print it here, without edit.  We await, at your convenience.

NJ GOP must fight Red-Shirt Fascism

On Friday night, a couple members of Bill Spadea's Red-Shirt movement held a "rally" at the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund.  For some strange reason, instead of demolishing the former Camp Nordland, the town leaders of Andover Township have maintained the building that hosted numerous Nazi, Fascist, and Ku Klux Klan rallies in the 1930's.  Sussex County historian Wayne McCabe has written a book about the goings on at "the barn at Lake Iliff in Andover Township."

The Red-Shirts were voicing their opposition to Ballot Question 2, which simply states:

A "yes" vote supports this proposal to dedicate all revenue from gas taxes to transportation projects.

A "no" vote opposes this proposal, thus devoting the same levels of revenue to transportation projects.

The non-partisan organization ballotpedia.org provides the following details:

Amendment design

Question 2 would create a constitutional requirement that all revenue derived from taxes on motor fuels be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF).[1] Currently, only 10.5 cents of the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is required to be deposited into the TTF.

Transportation Trust Fund

Question 2 would require all revenue from tax revenues on motor fuels to be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). The TTF was designed to fund the Department of Transportation and NJ Transit, which then use the revenue for transportation-related projects.[2]

Question 2 and the gas tax

Question 2 was intended to complement a gas tax increase. The amendment itself does not increase the gas tax.[3][4] On September 30, 2016, Gov. Christie (R) and the Democratic-controlled state legislature agreed to increase the gas tax 23 cents per gallon. As part of the agreement, the estate tax was eliminated, the Earned Income Tax Credit was increased, a tax deduction for veterans was created, and the state sales tax will be reduced from 7 to 6.625 percent in 2018.[5] Question 2 would guarantee that revenue from the additional 23 cents gas tax and the existing 10.5 cents gas tax to the Transportation Trust Fund.[6] Gov. Christie signed the bill on October 14, 2016.[7]

Americans for Prosperity, a leader in its opposition to the gas tax increase, supports the passage of Ballot Question 2:

"Americans for Prosperity supports the ballot measure and constitutionally dedicating the remaining revenues collected from the tax on diesel and the petro tax to the transportation fund. At the same time, AFP wants voters to be clear that this referendum does not authorize a gas tax increase, nor does it in any way resolve the transportation challenges the state is facing. The remaining revenue from these two taxes amounts to less than $30 million, a mere fraction of the $1.2 billion collected for the TTF last year. Americans for Prosperity is steadfast in our opposition to a gas tax hike. We continue to urge lawmakers to pursue reforms to rein in wasteful spending and to ensure our transportation dollars are used solely for our roads and bridges."

Ballot Question 2 is the latest BIG LIE seized upon by Red-Shirt founder Bill Spadea for the purposes of (1) increasing his value to the Townsquare Media Corporation, owners of radio station NJ 101.5; and (2) stirring up mistrust, anger, and rage against government and existing political parties for the furtherance of the Fascist Red-Shirt Movement. 

Spadea's argument appears to be that the tax cuts in the Tax Restructuring program (eliminating the estate tax, the tax cut on retirement income for most New Jersey seniors, the sales tax cut, the $3,000 personal income tax exemption for veterans, and the earned income tax credit for low-paid workers) will take revenue that is needed for pension payments for public employee unions. Spadea speciously argues that a vote on Ballot Question 2 would leave "teachers without proper funding".

First of all, this is nonsense and based on some entirely false premise that the Red-Shirt leader cooked up in his head.  Second, it is essentially a left-wing argument, one made by Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan, at odds with the political spectrum Spadea and the other Red-Shirts claim to represent. But then again, they didn't call it national socialism for nothing!

The anger is the thing.  Getting listeners to act out in an emotional rage is what Spadea's mission is and the level of sometimes violent rage he's built up is truly remarkable.  The foul and pornographic language, the threats of violence against legislators and their families posted on social media, have been breathtaking. 

Townsquare Media permits Spadea to spew hatred against people who use public transportation as though they were a lower form of human being -- and his Red-Shirt followers (and some elected officials) lap it up.  As a salesman, politician, and movement leader, Spadea appears to know more about transportation engineering than civil engineers and planners, who explain the common sense fact that public mass transportation removes millions of cars from the road that would otherwise be clogging said roads and adding to road wear and lengthening commuting time.

Spadea's latest argument against putting the money from the gas tax into a lock-box for road and bridge repair is that capital projects should be purchased up front instead of being financed over the life of the project.  That would be like buying a house or a car for cash.  Few can afford to do that and taxpayers cannot afford to see their property taxes go up to pay for a new bridge up front  Capital borrowing spreads the cost out over the life of the bridge. 

It's common sense but common sense is not what Bill Spadea and his Red-Shirters are about.  They want anger, they want rage, they want fear, they want hate... and increasingly, they are succeeding.

Spadea's rants have so frightened Assemblyman Erik Peterson, that last week his office put out a press release stating "Peterson has consistently opposed these measures" while apparently forgetting that he voted to put the Question on the ballot in January of this year:

ACR1 Amends State Constitution to dedicate all State revenues from motor fuels and petroleum products gross receipts tax to transportation system.

Session Voting:
Asm.  1/11/2016-  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   -  Yes {75}  No {0}  Not Voting {4}  Abstains {0}

Peterson, Erik - Yes

What a knucklehead!

But that's how it is now.  Emotion trumps reason.  The Big Lie conquers factual truth.  Fear makes people forget their own voting records.  And anger, rage, and hate are the order of the day.  We have been here before, as this footage from a speech by an American Brown-Shirt leader in Madison Square Garden reminds us.  Yes, we have been here before and we have defeated the forces of rage and have survived. 

ICYMI: Mulshine explains the gas tax

Paul Mulshine is New Jersey's top conservative columnist.  He writes for the state's largest circulation newspaper.   

The 23-cent gas-tax hike: Pigs will fly before the opponents find an alternative.

By  Paul Mulshine | The Star Ledger

October 06, 2016

The weather was sunny with a light breeze outside the Statehouse Wednesday after the state Senate took a key vote on a package that would raise the gas tax by 23 cents a gallon.

It was perfect flying weather for pigs.

My reference is of course to that fabled Statehouse rally in 2008 at which a talk-show host from NJ 101.5-FM presided over the release of hundreds of flying-pig balloons to protest a prior attempt to bail out the Transportation Trust Fund.

That was then-Gov. Jon Corzine's  plan to generate billions by having the toll roads run by a state-owned hedge fund that would bond against future toll hikes.

"Pigs will fly over the Statehouse before there's a realistic level of new taxes or spending cuts that can fix this mess," Corzine told the legislators as he introduced his scheme.

But the plan came crashing down to Earth when drivers learned that it called for tolls to eventually rise by800 percent. 

When those balloons rose over the Statehouse, the plan was dead – laughed to death by the voters. So score one for the guys at 101.5-FM.

But if we weren't going to fill the hole in the TTF with toll money, just what source of revenue could we use?

On that score, the talk-radio guys are all talk. The guys at NJ 101.5 have become the loudest opponents of the gas-tax hike.  But a lot of porkers will have to turn into pilots before the critics can come up with a good alternative for funding the TTF.

The three main objections to this plan simply don't make sense.

The first, which is repeated like a mantra among the radio talkers, is "It's too much money" or some variant thereof.

No, it's not. If they had implemented this tax hike when it was first proposed earlier in the year, drivers would have forgotten it by now. There would still be stations charging a bit over $2 a gallon. A few years ago we were paying almost $4 a gallon.

We survived.

Another objection is that the total package is slanted in favor of that group that liberals love to demonize: "the wealthy." The Sierra Club is one of many liberal pressure groups making that point.

"We believe in a plan to fix the TTF with a gas tax, but this would be on the backs of the middle class by tying it to two other tax cuts that benefit the wealthy," Sierra's Jeff Tittel said in a release. "This plan is a complete sellout to working families and will give a huge tax break to the wealthy."

One part  of the plan is the elimination of the estate tax, which now kicks in at the $650,000 level. The plan would eliminate taxation on pension income up to $100,000 a year for a couple.

Given the cost of living here in Jersey, that would include a lot of the middle classas well as thewealthy.

But the more the merrier, I say. So does state Senate President Steve Sweeney. The South Jersey Democrat teamed up with Republican Gov. Chris Christie to push the bill, which passed the Senate yesterday on a procedural vote and is expected to win final passage in both houses Friday.

Sweeney said those cuts will help keep people home after retirement.

"Those are the people who get up and move to other states," he said. "We recently had one person, David Tepper, leave and it cost us $100 million."

Tepper is the billionaire hedge-fund manager who moved himself and his business to Florida. He didn't cites taxes as the reason, but plenty of other retirees become legal residents of Florida to escape our taxes.

Oroho said his fellow financial planners have no choice but to inform retirees Florida's the best option.

"We're losing income. We're losing wealth. We gotta be competitive," he said.

Then there's the third objection. Some critics of the package argue against it on the grounds that the TTF will still have to keep borrowing even after the gas-tax hike.

That's regrettable, said Oroho. In a perfect world, we would be able to put the TTF back on the pay-as-you-go basis that existed after Gov. Tom Kean last hiked the tax in 1988.

But ensuing governors just kept borrowing money rather than raise the tax a few pennies. Now we're so far behind that returning to pay-as-you got would mean some real pain at the pump.

"If you wanted to pay off the current debt plus have no future debt,  then you'd have to raise the tax by almost a dollar a gallon," Oroho said.

Or in other words, if we want to fix this mess we don't need a flying pig.

We need a time machine.

Unless the critics have one stashed somewhere, they need to accept the inevitable.

ADD - THE REAL MISTAKE: The real mistake the Trenton crowd made was to fail to index the gas tax for inflation back in 1988. Pegging it to the price of a gallon of gas did not account for the time value of money. If it had been pegged to inflation, the tax would have slowly rose from 14.5 cents a gallon to 30.5 cents a gallon.

No one would have even noticed such a small hike and the trust fund could have remained solvent. 

Instead we had the usual gutless politicians of both parties who were glad to borrow the money while pretending to be responsible by not raising the tax.

That's what got us into this mess. Judging from the comments, you readers fell for it.

What's up with Jay Webber?

Assemblyman Jay Webber looks the part of a statesman.  Central casting, send us a Governor!  But looks are not always reality.

On October 14, 2014, the Star-Ledger published a column by Assemblyman Webber.  Its title was "Fixing transportation and taxes together."  Jay Webber was writing about how to raise the gas tax, while offsetting that tax increase with cuts to other taxes.  He zeroed in on the estate tax:

"NEW JERSEY leaders are grappling with three major problems: First, New Jersey has the worst tax burden in the nation. Two, New Jersey's economy suffers from sluggish growth. And third, our state's Transportation Trust Fund is out of money. There is a potential principled compromise that can help solve all of them.

Of the three problems, the Transportation Trust Fund has been getting the most attention lately, and for good reason: It's broke. There is just no money in it to maintain and improve our vital infrastructure. Without finding a solution, we risk watching our roads and bridges grow unsafe and unusable and hinder movement of people and goods throughout the state. That, of course, will exacerbate our state's slow economic growth.

...we should insist that if any tax is raised to restore the TTF, it be coupled with the elimination of a tax that is one of our state's biggest obstacles to economic growth: the death tax. By any measure, New Jersey is the most extreme outlier on the death tax, with worst-in-the-nation status...

New Jersey's death tax is not a concern for the wealthy alone, as many misperceive. We are one of only two states with both an estate and inheritance tax. New Jersey's estate-tax threshold of $675,000, combined with a tax rate as high as 16 percent, means that middle-class families with average-sized homes and small retirement savings are hit hard by the tax.

It also means the tax affects small businesses or family farms of virtually any size, discouraging investment and growth among our private-sector job creators. Compounding the inequity is that government already has taxed the assets subject to the death tax when the money was earned. Because of our onerous estate and inheritance taxes, Forbes magazine lists New Jersey as a place "Not to Die" in 2014.

That's a problem, and it's one our sister states are trying hard not to duplicate. A recent study by Connecticut determined that states with no estate tax created twice as many jobs and saw their economies grow 50 percent more than states with estate taxes. That research prompted Connecticut and many states to reform their death taxes. New York just lowered its death tax, and several other states have eliminated theirs.

The good news is that New Jersey's leaders finally are realizing that our confiscatory death tax is a big deal. A bipartisan coalition of legislators has shown its support for reforming New Jersey's death tax..."

Unfortunately, when the time came for Jay Webber to be counted as part of that bipartisan coalition, he couldn't be counted on.  Jay got scared off by the lobbyist arm of the petroleum industry and what's worse is that he's now attacking those who did what he advocated doing only a short time ago.  And it only makes it worse that he's so darn pompous about it.

It was the same way back when Jay Webber was NJGOP chairman and he didn't have it in him to stand up to Governor Christie over the state party adopting the national Republican Party platform.  Not only did Jay fail to stand up for the principles of our party, he failed to defend those who did, and even attacked those who wouldn't sell out.

There's a lot more too, but this isn't about bashing Jay Webber, this is about a request for some humility.  Look, we all understand that sometimes people can't do what they said others should do -- but that doesn't mean that you kick at them and play holier-than-thou when they follow your advice and do it.

Now in fairness to Jay he did write these words in that column two years ago:  "Any gas-tax increase should be accompanied by measures that will help alleviate, or at least not increase, the overall tax burden on New Jerseyans."  And it is these words on which Jay is basing his current bout of ill temper.

Jay Webber thinks the bipartisan tax restructuring package worked out by the legislative leaders (minus Senator Kean Jr.) and the Governor will result in a net tax increase.  Others, like Senator Steve Oroho, disagree with him.  Now Jay is a lawyer and by all accounts a good lawyer.  Steve is a numbers man. He's a certified financial planner and CPA.  Before beginning his career of public service, Steve Oroho was a senior financial officer for S&P 500 companies like W. R. Grace and  Young & Rubicam.  Now you take your advice from whom you think best.

There is one word you won't find in Jay Webber's 730-word column.  That word is debt.  Yep... D-E-B-T.  Because there are a whole lot of Republicans who don't think on that word too much.  To their minds we can spend and spend and leave it for another generation to pay. 

We hope that Jay Webber isn't one of these Debt & Spend Republicans.  There sure is a lot of it going around.  They think that never voting to raise a tax makes you a conservative, but that's just silly.  Conservatives, real conservatives, balance their expenditures with their revenue.  They enter into debt for long term projects only when they have a plan and the means to pay it back.  Real conservatives don't starve revenue for political points while piling debt upon debt.  That's not being conservative, that's being bankrupt.

If Assemblyman Webber is truly determined to take on what he describes as New Jersey's "worst tax burden in the nation," he's going to need to focus on the state's highest in the nation property taxes.  It is the state's property taxes that gives it the highest foreclosure rate in America.

To do that, New Jersey is going to have to take a step that Jay Webber, as a lawyer, might find distasteful.  New Jersey is going to have to elect its State Supreme Court.  It was the unelected Supreme Court that seized the Legislature's power nearly 40 years ago and with it the people's income tax revenue. It is the unelected Supreme Court that to this day uses that money to its ends and not for the ends promised to the people, namely property tax relief.  And because this money is wasted, New Jersey must have the highest property taxes in America to pay for the education  of its children.   

Until you wrest away that money by voting them out of office, you will never have a low tax, low debt, and prosperous state.

The Debt and Spend Republicans

There was a time, way back, when Republicans balanced the books.  Yeah, you could trust those Democrats to maybe go off on some flight of fancy, some childish attempt to throw money at a problem, but Republicans were the party of the adults, straight-laced and bottom-lined.  Those years when the Democrats were in charge and went off the rails -- spent too much, ran up debt -- those would be followed by lean years with the Republicans cutting spending and paying down debt.

That's not how it works anymore.  Like modern families, both political parties have learned that the shortest route to becoming "most favored parent" is to buy it for the kids and put the debt on the credit card.  Under no circumstances must the voters be taught lessons in budgeting and that spending money you don't have has consequences.

The debate over the funding of the Transportation Trust Fund has produced a curious dichotomy within the GOP.  On the one hand, you have a small group of starched-assed Republicans who simply refuse to continue the Santa Claus myth that a revenue source can remain constant for nearly three decades and magically fund all our transportation needs. 

They know that the last time the revenue collected from the gas tax covered the cost of the transportation program it was designed to fund was in 1990 -- 25 years ago.  Year after year we've fallen further and further behind in debt, to the point where last year the tax on gasoline and diesel brought in just $750 million.  That same year the cost to pay the debt was $1.1 billion.  It had to be paid before a single pothole was filled.  And paid it was -- with more debt. 

For 25 years we've been using roads and bridges that we couldn't afford to pay for and nobody seemed to notice, nobody seemed to care.  And anytime anyone dared to suggest paying off some of that debt you could hear the howls and cries of the children's chorus.  Why is it that we only hear calls for savings when there's talk of paying more?  Why doesn't anyone ever notice the debt until the credit card statement is due? 

For 25 years we have watched our incomes rise in an attempt to keep up with inflation, while those on Social Security received cost-of-living adjustments to combat inflation --  increases of 5.4% in 1990, 3.7% in 1991, 3% in 1992, 2.6% in 1993, 2.8% in 1994, 2.6% in 1995, 2.9% in 1996, 2.1% in 1997, 1.3% in 1998, 2.5% in 1999, 3.5% in 2000, 2.6% in 2001, 1.4% in 2002, 2.1% in 2003, 2.7% in 2004, 4.1% in 2005, 3.3% in 2006, 2.3% in 2007, 5.8% in 2008, zero in 2009, zero in 2010, 3.6% in 2011, 1.7% in 2012, 1.5% in 2013, 1.7% in 2014, and zero in 2015 -- but the price we paid to maintain our roads and bridges remained the same?  Didn't we ever wonder how?      

New Jersey is a fiscal mess because it has the nation's highest property taxes and runaway debt.  According to the Tax Foundation, New Jersey has the worst business climate in America -- 50 out of 50 states -- because, and let's quote them here:  "New Jersey is hampered by some of the highest property tax burdens in the country, is one of just two states to levy both an inheritance tax and an estate tax, and maintains some of the worst-structured individual income taxes in the country."

So the adults in the Republican Party, fashioned a plan to attack a big part of this sorry state of affairs.  Being in the minority, in both chambers of the Legislature, they had to work out a compromise with the Democrats.  But they had an ally in Governor Chris Christie, who wouldn't let anything less than comprehensive get past his veto pen.  Painstakingly, they worked out a very detailed plan that gets rid of the estate tax before the Governor leaves office, eliminates the tax on retirement income for most seniors, cuts the sales tax to boost commerce, provides a tax credit for working people with low-paying jobs, and provides a personal tax exemption for veterans.  The plan also addresses debt by raising the tax on gasoline and diesel to make up for all those 28 years it hasn't been adjusted for inflation. 

Even with the increase, all of the existing tax and the first 10 cents of the increase is needed just to start paying down the irresponsible debt New Jersey ran up while nobody wanted to pay attention.  Without a 23 cent increase, we cannot maintain and repair our roads and bridges, fund our transportation system, and start to pay down the debt.

You know that meetings have been held with Republicans around the state, asking for ideas on what to cut and how to cut to make transportation construction more efficient and less costly to taxpayers.  And we have to tell you, that the same people who demand savings have been less than forthcoming with specifics.  Everyone has a hashtag but nobody has specifics.  And how did it come to pass that Republicans are so scared shitless of numbers?  Lots of hooting and waving of hands until you ask somebody to put it down on paper, run the numbers.  They look at you as if you asked them to go to the moon.  If we are going to have savings, we are going to have to do better.

Can  you hear the howls?  They're coming from the debt and spend Republicans.  See the hashtags?  They read #NOGASTAX.  Now there is a responsible plan... isn't it?  With such a plan we can solve all New Jersey's debt issues.  Three short words squished together gets it done.  Brilliant!

Remember when Republicans busied themselves with spreadsheets instead of hashtags?  Remember those Republicans in the boring white shirt sleeves and ties, who had survived Patton's winter drive through France, who had lived through MacArthur's island-hopping, and who came out of it to remake the Republican Party and launch the new conservative movement?  Remember them?

Well, they are not with us anymore.  Oh, there are a few who keep to the path begun by them. But for too many, understanding spreadsheets and budgeting is hard work.  Reading requires attention.  So the new Republican is content to be a celebrity-chaser who has given up reading white papers for hashtags and tweets, who requires entertainment instead of facts, ice cream lies instead of hard honesty.  Piss on knowledge.  Lie to me, they say, lie to me and make me feel righteous in my anger.  It feels so good to play the victim.

When Benjamin Franklin was leaving Independence Hall at the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked by a Mrs. Powel, "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?"  To which Dr. Franklin replied:  "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Citizenship was never meant to be easy.  It requires attention, interest, and vigilance.  Hashtags are no substitute for reading the legislation or for understanding the numbers.  Tweets should not replace books. 

As residents of America our distractions are many but as citizens of America our attention must be to the Republic.  We have self-governance in our hands if we merely make time for it.  But that will mean putting aside those with the too-simple-to-be-true answers that allow us to happily keep to our distractions. If we want our Republic back, we are going to have to grow a set of balls, learn to read the bills and understand the balance sheets, demand to be told the unpleasant truths, and brook no easy lies. 

And yes, we are going to have to wean ourselves off debt and learn to pay our way.  Because if we don't, we will condemn our children and our grandchildren to be debt slaves to Red China.   

Reason Study author says gas tax must go up

We've all heard about the Reason Foundation study that claimed New Jersey had the most expensive roads in America.  The Reason study was controversial and other studies refuted it -- such as the one coming out of Rutgers University's Voorhees Transportation Center.

Some politicians seized upon the Reason study to argue that cost-cutting efficiencies should be put in place before any more money went to repair and maintain the state's roads and bridges.  We wonder if they would feel the same about the grossly mismanaged Veterans Administration -- close all those hospitals and services and dump the wounded out on the streets until the VA operates more efficiently. 

Others claimed that they could fund the entire Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) with savings from efficiencies and cost-cutting.  No numbers were produced to support this, but in testimony, Barauch Feigenbaum (Reason's Assistant Director of Policy) offered some excellent recommendations as to the areas in which significant savings could be achieved. 

The lamentable fact is that not since 1990 has the state's user tax on gasoline and diesel produced enough revenue to cover the cost to maintain the state's transportation system.  That year the gas tax collected $404.9 million to fund a $365 million transportation program.  The tax on gasoline and diesel hasn't gone up for 28 years, hasn't even kept up with inflation, leading to more and more being borrowed to pay for road and bridge maintenance and repair.  Today the cost of the debt service alone exceeds $1.1 billion.  In contrast, the gas tax collected just a bit more than $750 million in 2015. 

No wonder the author of the Reason study, David Hartgen (Emeritus Professor of Transportation Studies at UNC Charlotte), recently told New Jersey media that there was no way around the revenue problem the now-bankrupt TTF faces: 

Even as some say his report proves that New Jersey must cut costs before hiking the gas tax, Hartgen says the opposite may be true. The transportation trust fund is now $30 billion in debt. Without new revenue from the gas tax or some other source, it cannot spend any money on new construction. 

“I don’t think budget cuts will work,” Hartgen said. “They need to look at the gas tax.”

The time has come for facts. Not rhetoric.

Here is a question for our friends over at AFP and SaveJersey and the Reason Foundation:  How is debt service a part of road construction?  

Debt service isn't caused by the workers, contractors, or engineers who actually build the roads and bridges that we depend on.  Debt service is caused by the political class of both parties. 

Correct us if we are wrong, but wasn't it a Republican-controlled Legislature that in the 1990's uncapped the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) so that spending could spiral out of control?  And then didn't successive administrations extend the life of the debt so they could borrow and spend more?  Didn't they spend more and more while failing to raise the gas tax to pay for it?

Didn't they place us in the position we are in today, where it will take all of the 14 1/2 cents per gallon of gas that we currently pay to fund the TTF and the first 10 1/2 cents of any gas tax increase just to pay the interest on that debt our politicians ran up, year after year? 

It pains us to see lawyer/ politicians like a certain GOP Assemblyman and lobbyist/ politicians like a certain GOP Senator blame blue-collar workers for the high cost of transportation construction and then make as part of that denunciation the high cost of paying interest on the debt that they ran up.  Especially as their choice would be to run up that debt -- and those interest payments -- even further.

Do we really need to go through a very painful re-examination of who did what over the last two decades to put the TTF in the position it is in?  Does anyone really believe that the GOP will come out unscathed once the blame has been apportioned?  Let's depart from the Star-Wars meme for once and paraphrase Shakespeare, who reminds us that no cause, be it ever unspotted, has for it an army of all unspotted men.

Lacking any religious belief worthy of the name, some of the partisans in the TTF battle have imbued in it the stuff of a religious war.  Heretics are called pigs, with some adherents calling for their death.  The salivating gotchas and smell of overworked snark all shields the fact that this is a rather pedestrian debate over a means to an end. 

Does anyone believe that we don't need roads and bridges?  Does anyone not believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the universal law of decay -- that everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time?  Does anyone dispute that material things are not eternal?

So if we believe these things, then the question becomes how to pay for them.  That is a question of the most mundane sort. 

And yet it is with a religious fervor that SaveJersey would like to claim that the Reason Foundation is infallible, that its pronouncements are "confirmed." This on a day when any person paying attention to the Senate Budget Committee hearing would have seen the Reason Foundation embarrass itself by attempting to compare a dirt road in Texas to a highway in New Jersey. 

If how we pay for roads and bridges has now become as religious a divide as transubstantiation, facts will not matter.  It will all come down to belief and to which priest or priestess you follow.  If, however, rational science still plays a role, we suggest bringing together those researchers from the Reason Foundation, with those from Rutgers University and elsewhere, to have them present their methods, discuss their differences, and using rational science, come to some useful conclusion -- more useful than a mere rhetorical device in some bizarre new liturgy. 

Senator Beck should drop support for trans-men in girls' toilets bill

If we are to avoid another performance like 2015, the Republican legislative caucuses of both chambers should use 2016 to prepare for 2017.  The most important thing is to do yourself no harm. 

We've detailed before how bills like S-283 have no base of support and how they could do enormous damage -- not only to the prospect of turning out our base -- but with any voters who believe in privacy between the sexes and with protecting vulnerable women and girls.  Polling shows large majorities in favor of traditional privacy no matter how the question is posed. 

Such a poll was recently conducted in the Eleventh Legislative District in Monmouth County.  More on that later.

Suffice it to say that modesty might draw barbed mockery from some, but in a district in which 48 percent of all registered Republicans are aged 60 or over and 66 percent of Republican super voters (3 of 4 or above) are aged 60 or over, it is a safe bet that it still counts for something.  And we can't wait to find out.

When educated as to the number of convicted male sex offenders who could use a law like S-283 to gain access to girls and women for their self-gratification, the response is off-the-charts.  Republicans, Democrats, Independents -- it doesn't matter.  Many in the LGBT community break ranks with their lobbyist class and oppose S-283 on the grounds that it leaves too many people vulnerable to sexual abuse, rape, and even murder.

We understand from a highly placed source in the Legislature that S-283 will be making an appearance again.  This source also confirmed that S-283 will have GOP support. Prominent among those GOP supporters is Senator Jennifer Beck, a co-sponsor of S-283.

We didn't expect such a betrayal of the Republican base in an election cycle as rebellious as 2016-17 is turning out to be.  Of course, Senator Beck is making a lot of noise on other issues in an attempt to get conservative voters to forget who she really is, and her decades-long record as a lobbyist and legislator devoted to the liberal causes dear to the heart of the political and corporate establishment.     

If passed into law, Beck's legislation allows a man, with a penis, to become a legal "woman", simply by saying that he is seeing a therapist and then re-submitting his birth certificate to reflect his "new sex".  No surgery required. 

And it won't be recorded as an "amended" birth certificate.  It will be filed as the original.  The government will pretend that it can go back in time to correct the "perception" of the doctors and nurses who saw a child with a penis and checked "male".  The government will, in fact, lie and pretend that the attending physician checked "female" when, of course, he did not.    

What S-283 will do is endanger the lives of women and girls in New Jersey.  And come election time every legislator who supports S-283, regardless of their party, is going to have to answer some tough questions from average constituents about why you had to do this and not something important, like lowering property taxes, ending the tax on retirement income, or fixing the Transportation Trust Fund. 

Watch the video below and see if you are ready to answer those questions:

Poll: Sen. Beck is "out-of-touch"

Yesterday evening, on the grassy verge of some sad-assed gas station in Freehold, Senator Jennifer Beck rallied the remnants of the Monmouth County Tea Party movement to wave signs (paid for courtesy of the petroleum industry) and cheer on this lobbyist turned politician.  Dozens of tea partiers attended, but hundreds more were missing.   Why? Because they've moved -- just like conservative Senator Steve Oroho warned they would, unless something was done to keep them in New Jersey.

Senator Oroho's plan:  An average $1,200 tax cut for every retiree in New Jersey.

Senator Beck's plan:  Screw those retirees and let's keep paying for out-of-state drivers to have a free ride.

So that accounts for the smaller-than-in-the-past numbers at Beck's rally last night.  Many of the tea partiers who would have been there simply don't live here anymore. They've moved to states like Florida, North Carolina, and Delaware -- just like Senator Oroho warned they would.

Of course, the cause and the people are only a convenient backdrop for the kick-off of Senator Beck's 2017 re-election campaign.  After losing both her running mates to the Democrats last year, Beck is running scared.  She thinks the "anti-gas tax" slogan is a winner -- and that's partly the fault of the leader of her caucus, Senator Tom Kean Jr. 

It was Kean who fed his caucus polling numbers that bear no resemblance to the context in which these issues will be presented in an actual election -- by people with many times the resources Senator Kean and the NJGOP will be able to muster.  In short, the Gag will be upon them and then it will be too late.

But Beck really believes it.  She's bought into the idea that the Democrats (or her primary opponent) will frame the issue as it was framed to her.  Here's what she told NJTV reporter David Cruz at last night's "rally" in Freehold:

"This rally is about making it clear that the people of the state of New Jersey are opposed to a billion dollar, 23-cent gas tax increase. In case anyone wasn’t sure, you should know today that they are absolutely opposed and that you’re really out of touch if you think people are OK with that."

So this is the Gag...

Earlier this month, a poll was conducted in Monmouth County by a well-known, nationally-recognized survey research firm.  Now Monmouth County is far more Republican than is Legislative District 11 -- Senator Beck's district.  So one would think that the county as a whole would be more anti-gas tax than her Democrat-leaning district.  And that turned out to be true, because the pollster broke the county data down by legislative district.

We're releasing some of the county data but not the district data.  That's because we would like to be instructive but not prejudicial.  So here's how the data looks, when you place it in a campaign context:

T10. Thinking now about New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund, and different proposals to fund the maintenance and repair of roads and bridges. One proposal would borrow 4.4 billion dollars and freeze education funding for seven years, and would avoid having to raise the state gas tax. Knowing this information, do you support or oppose this proposal?

Total Support .......................................................... 41%

Total Oppose .......................................................... 47%

Strongly Support ...................................................... 19%

Somewhat Support .................................................. 22%

Strongly Oppose ..................................................... 35%

Somewhat Oppose .................................................. 12%

Unsure, No Opinion ............................................... 12%

T11. The Transportation Trust Fund is funded by the state gas tax, and is nearly out of money. When it runs out of money, county and local governments will have to raise property taxes to pay for road and bridge maintenance repairs. Knowing this information, which of the following do you think is the best option to pay for repairs to roads and bridges?  An increase in the state gas tax or an increase in property taxes?

Gas tax .................................................................... 73%

Property tax ............................................................... 6%

Unsure or No Opinion ............................................ 21%

T12. Approximately one third of gas tax revenues in New Jersey is paid by out-of-state travelers, while 100% of property taxes are paid by New Jersey residents. Knowing this information, which of the following do you think is the best option to pay for improvements to roads and bridges, and increase in the state gas tax or an increase in property taxes?

Gas tax .................................................................... 81%

Property tax ............................................................... 3%

Unsure or No Opinion ............................................ 16%

T13. As you may know, New Jersey is at risk of losing 1.6 billion dollars in federal funds for road repairs and maintenance, which would lead to an increase in property taxes. Knowing this, would you support or oppose a proposal to increase the state gas tax to minimize the increase in property taxes? 

Total Support .......................................................... 77%

Total Oppose .......................................................... 16%

Strongly Support ...................................................... 58%

Somewhat Support .................................................. 19%

Strongly Oppose ..................................................... 13%

Somewhat Oppose .................................................... 3%

Unsure, No Opinion ................................................. 7%

T14. Would you support or oppose a proposal that would increase the state gas tax and eliminate other taxes, like the state tax on retirement income? 

Total Support .......................................................... 69%

Total Oppose .......................................................... 18%

Strongly Support ...................................................... 48%

Somewhat Support .................................................. 21%

Strongly Oppose ..................................................... 13%

Somewhat Oppose .................................................... 5%

Unsure, No Opinion ............................................... 13%

T15. A proposed increase in the state gas tax would cost the average driver an extra 200 dollars each year. Eliminating the state tax on retirement income would save the average retiree more than twelve hundred dollars each year. Knowing this information, would you support or oppose a proposal that would increase the state gas tax and eliminate the state tax on retirement income at the same time?

Total Support .......................................................... 74%

Total Oppose .......................................................... 14%

Strongly Support ...................................................... 58%

Somewhat Support .................................................. 16%

Strongly Oppose ..................................................... 12%

Somewhat Oppose .................................................... 2%

Unsure, No Opinion ............................................... 12%

Does the Gagging ever end?  No, it never ends.  It just goes on and on...

Is Sen. Beck the new Christie Whitman?

Senator Jennifer Beck is a strident social liberal, out of step with the Republican Party platform, but very much in-step with the views expressed by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman.  Whitman, the author of It's My Party Too! (a liberal tract that urges the Republican Party to become more like the Democrats), "presented" her policies as fiscally conservative and "anti-tax".  Off course, those of us who were there remember just how unsound and un-conservative her policies turned out to be -- and how they caused a property tax explosion. 

These days, Senator Beck appears to be following the Whitman playbook on more than just the social issues.  Like Whitman before her, Beck is presenting a campaign talking point as a policy prescription.  The term "anti-tax" is a useful blurb during a political campaign, but how anti-tax is the slogan "anti-tax" if it prevents cuts in the tax on retirement income and the phase out of the estate tax?  How anti-tax is the claim "anti-tax" if it causes property taxes to rise?

The controversy revolves around how to fund the bankrupt Transportation Trust Fund (TTF).  Without money from the fund, the repair and maintenance of the state's roads and bridges will grind to a halt.  On this, Senator Beck is in danger of becoming a casualty of the "inside-the-box" thinking of her leadership.  It was they who presented the option of a user tax on gasoline without context.  This is like asking voters if they "support or oppose war" and then using the result to make "war" some political "third rail."  Of course voters will always claim to "oppose war" -- until it is placed in the context of a December 7th or September 11th.  Then those numbers change in a hurry.

This is illustrated by the data from a poll conducted last week in Monmouth County by a highly respected, national survey research firm.  Look at what happens when an increase in the user tax on gasoline is placed in context with a tax cut on retirement income:

T15. A proposed increase in the state gas tax would cost the average driver an extra 200 dollars each year. Eliminating the state tax on retirement income would save the average retiree more than twelve hundred dollars each year. Knowing this information, would you support or oppose a proposal that would increase the state gas tax and eliminate the state tax on retirement income at the same time?

Total Support .......................................................... 74%

Total Oppose .......................................................... 14%

Strongly Support ...................................................... 58%

Somewhat Support .................................................. 16%

Strongly Oppose ..................................................... 12%

Somewhat Oppose .................................................... 2%

Unsure, No Opinion ............................................... 12%

The Tax Foundation -- the granddaddy of conservative think tanks (founded in 1937) -- is a proponent of user fees/taxes simply because it is the fairest way to impose a tax.   Americans innately understand the fairness of paying your own way and that there is no free ride.  But that's the biggest problem we have with Senator Beck's plan to fund the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) -- it makes New Jersey residents subsidize out-of-state drivers for the use of our roads and bridges.  And we're talking billions here -- billions of dollars in taxes that we could be collecting from out-of-state drivers to maintain and repair our roads and bridges but that instead we will make New Jersey residents pay. 

See, here's the FACT that you just can't get around:  The ONLY way to make out-of-state drivers pay their fair share is through a user tax on gasoline.  That's it.

And the voters who live in Senator Beck's Monmouth County agree.  Here's what they told that polling company last week: 

T12. Approximately one third of gas tax revenues in New Jersey is paid by out-of-state travelers, while 100% of property taxes are paid by New Jersey residents. Knowing this information, which of the following do you think is the best option to pay for improvements to roads and bridges, an increase in the state gas tax or an increase in property taxes? 

Gas tax .................................................................... 81%

Property tax ............................................................... 3%

Unsure or No Opinion ............................................ 16%

That is a pretty darn unambiguous finding.

We've been looking at the whole of Senator Beck's plan to address the TTF and how to fund road and bridge maintenance and repair.  There are lots of very optimistic assumptions and unanswered questions.  Here are just a few of the things Senator Beck could maybe help us understand better:

(1) New Jersey is a chronically low-growth state and its current tax structure makes it just about the worst place in America to start a business.  Senator Beck's plan does nothing to address the current tax structure, the damage done by the tax on retirement income and the estate tax.  There are no tax cuts in her plan, no attempt is made to address the out-migration of income and capital.

(2) And yet the Senator's plan is entirely reliant on economic growth and it will fail if there is an economic downturn.  Her estimate of 3.15 percent growth is more than double the current year revenue growth of 1.5 percent.

(3) Senator Beck's plan relies on timely savings from the mergers of departments and agencies (remember that the TTF is broke NOW) but fails to mention possible contractual hurdles and bond covenant issues.

(4) Her plan assumes $1.4 billion in health plan savings that have been recommended but not acted upon by the Legislature.

(5) And then there are the freezes:  K to 12 school aid is frozen, municipal aid is frozen, property tax relief is frozen, tuition aid grants are frozen, NJ Stars is frozen, student financial assistance is frozen, higher education funding is frozen, hospital funding is frozen, the State Police is frozen, and the Clean Energy Fund is raided.

Does anyone believe that this is the basis for a bi-partisan plan?  And it will have to be bi-partisan in order to get through the Democrat-controlled Legislature.  So what that leaves is politics and pre-campaign posturing.  That has merit for its own sake. . . but it won't maintain any roads or repair any bridges.

To hike the gas tax on not to hike the gas tax, that is the question

By Dr. Murray Sabrin

The Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) will essentially be out of money for new projects after June 30 if the "gas tax" is not raised. The reason gas tax is in quotes is quite simple, the gas tax is a user fee. Motorists pay a fixed fee per gallon to use the roads and bridges.  The gas tax is an efficient way for the government to collect the funds necessary to maintain a crucial component of a civilized society and growing economy-- roads and bridges are indispensable to provide the means by which goods go from factories to distribution centers to retailers. And now with e-commerce taking a greater share of retail sales the roads become even more important as the Postal Service, Fedex, UPS have seen their business increase because of changing consumer buying patterns.

In addition, maintaining this crucial component of our infrastructure makes New Jersey a more livable place for not only residents but also tourists.   The miserable conditions of our roads, highways, and bridges has an impact on both commuters and tourism.

There is no need to rehash the failure of both Republicans and Democrats in Trenton to keep the transportation trust fund solvent. Suffice it to say that if legislators and governors from both sides of the aisle since 1988-- when the gas tax was last raised – had increased the gasoline tax by only a penny per year, we would not be in this predicament today. So much for the "farsightedness" of legislators who have been sent to Trenton to serve the people.

Instead, the political jockeying continues as both Gov. Christie and the Democratic controlled legislature have refused to do what is necessary to not only keep the Transportation Trust Fund solvent with cash to maintain the state’s roads, highways, bridges and other assets but institute needed reforms that would make New Jersey's economy more robust and vibrant in the years ahead.

Several proposals have been put forward to provide the cash needed for road, bridge, and rail projects throughout the state.  Democrat Senator Paul Sarlo, chairman of the budget committee, has backed Republican Steve Oroho on a proposal that increases the gas tax while reducing several other taxes such as the estate tax, the tax on retirement and pension income, and adding a charitable contribution deduction for individuals.  These are proposals that every Republican should embrace because it means New Jerseyans would have a substantial tax cut that would be offset by a minuscule increase in the so-called gas tax.

According to one analysis the average New Jersey family would save at least $1200 per year if these tax cuts were enacted.

What would a gas tax increase of say $.10 per gallon cost the average motorist? Well, if you drive 15,000 miles per year and your car gets 30 miles per gallon; you would purchase 500 gallons of gasoline per year, costing you $50 a year extra in gasoline purchases, or about a dollar per week.  Look at the trade-off, a $50 increase in gas costs as opposed to a $1200 a year tax cut. Who would not want to take that deal? The gas tax could then be increased a few pennies each year for five years to keep the TTF humming to make New Jersey’s roads, bridges and other vital transportation assets in tip top shape.

But more is needed to get a bigger bang for our gas tax bucks.  According to one report, which has been disputed by a Rutgers University study,  the cost of repairing and constructing highways in New Jersey is much greater than the national average.  Whether it's the case or not, it wouldn't hurt for the Department of Transportation to open up the bidding process to allow out-of-state contractors who work on roads, highways, and bridges throughout the country to come into the state and help reduce construction costs for the people of New Jersey.   This is only common sense. 

Life is about trade-offs and in this case the trade-off is compelling, a slightly higher gas tax for substantial tax relief.  Gov. Christie and the legislative leadership should show some guts and get New Jersey on the right track—smooth roads, safe bridges and much needed tax relief for the beleaguered taxpayers of New Jersey. 

Murray Sabrin is professor of finance at Ramapo College and former Libertarian gubernatorial nominee and Republican U.S. Senate candidate.  

A challenge to AFP

Yesterday, AFP circulated an arrogant missive filled with lies about Senator Steve Oroho, one of the most consistently conservative legislators in New Jersey.  You know the Steve Oroho we're talking about  -- the guy who started attending Right to Life marches when he was a teen.  Oh, that's right, AFP doesn't support the Right to Life, we forgot.  On the Second Amendment, Steve Oroho rates an A+ for his leadership -- but that wouldn't impress AFP, because they couldn't care less about the Second Amendment. 

The people who fund AFP aren't much on Religious Freedom or traditional values, but they wouldn't mind legalizing prostitution and narcotics.  The thing they are really passionate about it not raising taxes on petroleum products -- like gasoline.  And that's because they make their billions in the petroleum industry.

The email was circulated by AFP's field director, a young man who doesn't need to worry about property taxes, because his mom and dad do.  There's nothing wrong with being young, but should he really be the one lecturing us on life choices?    

Steve Oroho has spent his life trying to squeeze the most out of a dollar.  As a young CPA, he worked for W. R. Grace when the leadership of that company was charged by President Ronald Reagan to find ways to cut spending and make the federal government run more efficiently.  Steve honed those skills as a senior financial officer of an S&P 500 company, as the Sussex County Freeholder who saved money and reformed the budget process, and as the conservative leader on the Senate Budget Committee.

The state is faced with a very difficult choice on how to fund roads and bridge repair -- raise property taxes or raise the gas tax.  Approximately one-third of gas tax revenues in New Jersey come from out-of-state drivers.  All property taxes come from the people of New Jersey.  So which do you think is the best way to pay for improvements to roads and bridges, an increase in the gas tax or an increase in property taxes?

Steve Oroho has worked very hard to fashion a plan so that raising property taxes will not be necessary to fund road and bridge repairs.  Instead, a modest increase in the gas tax to fund the TTF would be balanced with several tax cuts.  These would include the elimination of the tax on retirement income and a phase-out of the estate tax. 

So who at AFP instructed their young field director to tell us that a property tax increase is preferable to a gas tax increase, that the end of the tax on retirement income isn't worth fighting for, and ditto for the phase out of the estate tax?

How does AFP decide on which issues to fight for and  which to ignore?  Who decided that the tax on retirement income should remain and that property taxes should fund roads and bridges instead of a tax on petroleum products, and at what level was the decision made?

The paid staff at AFP have titles like "field director" and "executive director", but excuse us -- did anyone vote for you?  Did anyone elect your state chair or your leadership? Steve Oroho is a Senator because he won a contested election in 2007 and then three more elections after that.  Steve Oroho won an election in which every member of the Republican establishment in Trenton supported his opponent.  And this wasn't his first victory as an underdog, in 2004 he defeated an incumbent Freeholder Director who had the support of her county party.  What elections have you won?

AFP's executive director loves to brag that the group has over 100,000 "members."  Okay then -- do those members get a vote?  Are they really members or just consumers?  You know, consumers of the bullshit AFP dishes out to them when its real "members" -- its billionaire shareholders -- decide to turn it on to lobby to prevent at all costs a tax on one of their petroleum products?

We're just asking.  Now AFP can prove that their "members" are really members.  All it takes is a vote.  Here in America, we're big on votes.  So here's the challenge to AFP. Send a private mailing to each of your members and ask them to mark on a secret ballot which of these taxes they would most like to see eliminated:

-- the gas tax

-- the property tax

-- the tax on retirement income

-- the estate tax

Then, with the consent of your "members" and guided by their will, they can direct that young field director as to which issues to push and which to ignore.

AFP boss says Clinton would make better President than Trump.

Taxpayers' don't want a property tax explosion

Americans for Prosperity is funded by some of the biggest petroleum industry tycoons in the world.  They will do anything to prevent their products from being taxed.  Even if it means raising property taxes in New Jersey to an even more crushing level.

Here's what AFP isn't telling you.

The Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) collects money from the gas tax and then uses that money to maintain and repair state roads and bridges.  The TTF also sends money to local governments (counties and municipalities) so that they can afford to maintain and repair the roads and bridges that they own. 

The TTF is nearly bankrupt.  There will be no money for the maintenance and repair of the roads and bridges owned by the state AND there will be no money to send to local governments to maintain and repair their roads and bridges.

It's happening already.

Last month the town of Montville, in Morris County, went to the TTF for funding to repair a road.  It was turned down.  Note the shock of township leaders:

Due to the New Jersey Transportation Fund’s unfunded state, Canning said he saw something he had never seen in 25 years of working in government: a grant denial.

“There were 641 applications to the NJ Department of Transportation requesting more than $253 million of the $78.75 million available in municipal aide grant funds,” said Canning, “and they did not approve our Brittany Road project, therefore, all $650,000 will have to be self-funded.”

What that "will have to be self-funded" means is that the property taxpayers of Montville will be stuck paying for those repairs.    

As more and more local governments get turned down, their leaders will have a decision to make:  Either they raise property taxes on every homeowner and business to pay for the maintenance and repair of roads and bridges; or they allow those roads and bridges to fall into disrepair, and become unsafe. 

If local governments take the second option and allow roads and bridges to become unsafe, they will be left with just two choices:  Close those roads and bridges as they become unsafe, or accept that there will be lawsuits for negligence when people are injured or killed on those unsafe roads and bridges.  Of course, the legal bills and settlements for such lawsuits will also result in the need to raise property taxes -- so the taxpayer will lose either way.

Don't think it will happen?  Well, it already has. 

It took 145 victims, 22 children, 13 deaths, and one bridge collapse for the Legislature in Minnesota to finally raise the gas tax to fund road and bridge maintenance and repairs.  Of course, at that point they also had to pay out many millions more in hospital care, rehabilitation, on-going health care, and negligence settlements -- as well as totally reconstructing a bridge.

Do AFP's petroleum masters really want to wait until we are burying children?

In the real world, we all know that when the money runs out, and the workers don't get paid, the repairs will stop.

And then there's this to consider:  Right now, New Jersey taxpayers subsidize out-of-state drivers who use our roads.  If we do nothing, we will end up paying $11 billion over the next 25 years to subsidize out-of-state drivers.

Approximately one-third of gas tax revenues in New Jersey come from out-of-state drivers.  All property taxes come from the people of New Jersey.  So which do you think is the best way to pay for improvements to roads and bridges, an increase in the gas tax or an increase in property taxes?

Let us know how you feel.  Your thoughts and ideas are always welcome.

Tom Moran wants to be New Jersey's Donald Trump

Tom Moran runs the editorial section of the Star-Ledger, a small piece of the multi-billion dollar corporate empire that includes Discovery Communications, the company whose lobbyists ensured that they make money off the implementation of Common Core.  Yes, that's the difference between the rich and the rest of us.  We pay money to the government .  The rich pay lobbyists to harness the government so that it pays money to them.  That's who Tom Moran works for.  And that's why he always supports making us pay more taxes to government.

As the chief spokesperson for two of America's richest men, Tom Moran has watched as his newspaper screwed its unionized workers -- replacing them with cheap, out-sourced labor, and part-timers.  Moran's prescriptions come right from the hip, the better to avoid all that messy reasoning, and with the force of a petulant child.

Moran plays the liberal -- to salve the knowledge that he, in fact, speaks for the richest 1% of the 1 percent.  But try as he will, that self-awareness keeps breaking through, which leaves him a touchy, nasty sort.  Disagree with him and he'll write that you are "insane."  Tell him he's mistaken and he'll come back at you with the accusation that you want to kill people.  It's wild stuff, and a bit hypocritical, when you consider all the lives of workers Moran has watched destroyed, silent, so long as he kept getting his.

For years and years, property held by his rich masters benefited from the subsidy redistributed from the working poor in rural and suburban New Jersey.  Disagree with that subsidy and you would be called a "racist."  That's cute, coming from two old, rich white guys.  Moran wrote, and as he wrote, New Jersey has gotten poorer and poorer.  Is there a worst state in America to grow a business, find a job, keep a roof over your family's head, or see that your children don't go hungry?

His latest prescription is to raise taxes on this already over-taxed state -- without any accompanying tax cuts.  On top of a high income tax, the sales tax, and the highest property taxes in America, Tom Moran wants to see higher taxes on workers who commute and a special tax on those high earners who haven't yet been convinced to move outside the state.  The workers -- many underwater with a mortgage or who need the support of an extended family -- they'll have to just take it, because they're too poor to move.  As for the rich.  Well, money spends well everywhere.  Moran should ask the guys he works for and they'll tell him.  Rich people always find a better deal.

And when enough rich people move you will begin to see shortfalls in income tax collections.  Taxes on spending will suffer too -- and then there goes your safety net.  At a time of high unemployment and growing dependency, New Jersey needs high earners to provide the life support that others depend on. 

There is no loyalty to the state of New Jersey in the way there is to the nation of the United States.  Even top members of the political class who structured the high-tax, low-job creation, corporate crony playground that New Jersey is, bolt to low-tax states when they get the chance -- and their pension checks and spending follows them.  Case in point:  Former Democrat Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Norcross).

According to figures provided by the Internal Revenue Service (that's President Barack Obama's IRS) over the last ten years those leaving New Jersey have taken $19 billion more income away with them than the those moving into New Jersey have brought with them.  This is called net outflow -- and a $19 billion net outflow allowed to grow at the same rate, year by year, will in time kill New Jersey's ability to fund a safety net.  Then who will be left to tax?  People who can't afford it, that's who.

Tom Moran can trot out as many career government bureaucrats or career Wall Street bankers as he wants.  It won't lessen the pain of the screwing they're preparing for the people of New Jersey.

Does the Left really want to negotiate on TTF?

In the run-up to the November election, the Democrat leadership in both chambers remained resolutely silent on raising the gas tax to fund the Transportation Trust Fund.  Good politics on their part -- and it paid off.  Republican leaders, on the other hand, put on their policy caps and openly discussed any and all options for addressing the problem.  They put policy before politics and look what it got them.

Meanwhile, the coalition of Leftists -- underwritten by funding from corporate leaders and working people's union dues -- who it appears are charged with passing the gas tax without compromise, made a lot of noise against any tax cuts to balance a rise in the tax on gasoline.  Saul Alinsky would be proud.  Somebody has read "Rules for Radicals."

So along come two libertarian Republicans -- Senator Mike Doherty and Senator Jennifer Beck -- with an idea about how to address the TTF funding issue without raising the gas tax and they are attacked as if in a political campaign by a "mainstream" TTF group -- again, underwritten by funding from corporate leaders and working people's union dues.  When have Democrat Senators faced such a coarse response?

This should not be tolerated by either Republican caucus.  If these folks (and they are not without sin) want to make this political, then let's make it political.  The Democrats have their nicely expanded majority and they can pass pretty much whatever they want to.  Well then... do it.  You have all the firepower you need.  Throw down boys.  Make it an all-Democrat show and see what happens.

If, on the other hand, the Democrat leadership -- and their house Leftists, front groups, and corporate funders -- want to make this a serious policy discussion, treat your Legislative colleagues in the Republican Caucus with respect and address their ideas from the position of policy... not politics.