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.

20,000 NJ businesses applaud end of estate tax

The New Jersey Business & Industry Association (NJBIA), represents more than 20,000 businesses in New Jersey.  These 20,000 member companies employ more than 1 million people in New Jersey -- that's right, 1 million NJ jobs. 

Michele Siekerka, NJBIA president and CEO, wrote the following column.  Her research shows her that eliminating the estate tax will improve New Jersey’s economic climate.  Siekerka writes: "Scrapping it signals we might finally address the issues that make the Garden State so expensive for residents and businesses."

Along with other conservative leaders, Senator Steve Oroho has long championed eliminating the estate tax.  Unfortunately elements of what can only be described as the "Alt-Right" or alternative right (alternative to the traditional American variety of conservatism practiced by William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan), have attempted to incite opposition to ending the estate tax by using various, often openly Marxist, arguments.  At the forefront of these efforts has been Bill Spadea and his fellow "Red Shirts" -- like Sussex County's Kevin Mazzoti, whose writings are violent and pornographic, nearly every sentence containing the word "f**k."

In this column, published today in New Jersey Spotlight, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association President and CEO explain the benefits that come from eliminating the estate tax:

The elimination of the estate tax was one of the key provisions of the recently enacted law that increased the gas tax but reduced taxes in several other key areas, including taxes on pension income for retirees.

Getting rid of the estate tax has been a very high priority for the New Jersey Business & Industry Association.

First, the name “estate tax” is very unfortunate. The name itself connotes wealth — yachts, country clubs, private schools and heirs. Although the opponents of estate tax elimination would surely like it to be so, the estate tax is really about none of these things.

New Jersey is only one of two states with both an estate tax and inheritance tax and its estate tax has the lowest threshold in the nation at $675,000. This means that if a small business is worth more than that — as many are— or if a taxpayer owns a home, has a life insurance policy and a small 401k, they are likely over that limit and will be taxed.

In particular, the estate tax hurts business succession planning, most specifically with family- owned businesses. It’s not uncommon for a family-run business to have to sell business assets in order to pay the estate tax bill. In our 2016 Business Outlook Survey, two-thirds of our members said they take the estate and inheritance taxes into account when making business decisions and that they would not retire in New Jersey.

Opponents of the estate tax elimination are fond of pointing out that general fund revenue would be lost if the estate tax was eliminated. To only fixate on the potential lost revenue completely misses the point. Rather, we need to focus on the revenue that would be kept in state if residents did not leave to avoid the tax.

NJBIA has found that this amount is significant.

If just 20 percent of the taxpayers older than 45 who left the state in 2013 had stayed it would have resulted in an additional half a billion dollars in adjusted gross income that would have stayed here, flowing through the economy along with over $300 million in economic activity.

As we have learned, outmigration is a significant issue that is hurting New Jersey and its economy. The state’s tax burden is a significant factor. New Jersey is now at or near the bottom of every category including, income, sales, property, corporate and estate and inheritance taxes. And where do the residents go? While the naysayers are fixated on Florida, it is actually Pennsylvania and New York that are the top two outmigration states, both of which fare better on these taxes than New Jersey.

During the last 11 years we have lost a total of $20.7 billion in net adjusted gross income. The loss of these funds resulted in a loss of $13.1 billion in economic output, nearly 87,000 jobs, and $4.6 billion in total lost labor income.

The elimination of the estate tax is an important signal that New Jersey is finally serious about addressing real tax reform and the issues that impact affordability for our businesses and residents. It is only the first step in what we hope will be an ongoing discussion about comprehensive tax reform in which we take a deep dive and look closely at how we raise revenue and, most importantly, how we spend that revenue.

We thank our courageous policymakers for taking this very necessary step toward comprehensive reform. NJBIA will continue the difficult and challenging work of making New Jersey affordable for businesses and for families.

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.

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.