Dem. hypocrite criticizes Space & Wirths for opposing Gov. Murphy’s RAIN TAX.

If you don’t think you pay enough in property taxes already – and if you really believe you need to pay more – then do we have the candidates for you…

Democrats Deana Lykins and Dan Smith.

These two Democrats are running for Assembly against Republicans Parker Space and Hal Wirths.  On July 5th, Democrat Lykins posted a video on YouTube in which she criticized Parker Space and Hal Wirths for voting against Democrat Governor Phil Murphy’s controversial RAIN TAX.

Governor Murphy’s RAIN TAX scheme allows government to establish new local bureaucracies with taxing power.  Once established, these “stormwater utilities” would impose a new property tax on local taxpayers based on an estimate of the water run-off coming from their “impermeable surfaces” such as roofs and driveways.  Do you feel the need to pay an extra $100 or so each year in property taxes?  Does that sound good to you?  Because it does to Deana Lykins.

Deana Lykins claims that we need to pay more in property taxes.  Lykins says we need Murphy’s RAIN TAX now to prevent things like the recent algae bloom that closed down Lake Hopatcong to swimmers.  Actually, 15 years ago the Democrats told us the Highlands Act was going to solve the problem and make sure that things like the algae bloom weren’t going to happen.

The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act was signed into law by Democrat Governor Jim McGreevey on August 10, 2004 – just days before he held a press conference to announce his resignation.  Of that press conference, many people still only remember how McGreevey successfully diverted attention from his legal issues, by raising his sexual “identity”.  Many forget that among the host of corruption investigations into McGreevey at the time was one related to land use.  Wikipedia explains… 

David D'Amiano, a key McGreevey fund-raiser, was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison for extorting $40,000 from a farmer, Mark Halper, a Middlesex County landowner cooperating with investigators. In the 47-page indictment, there are repeated references to the involvement of "State Official 1," later revealed to be McGreevey. In a conversation with Halper, McGreevey used the word "Machiavelli," the code arranged by D'Amiano intended to assure the farmer that his $40,000 campaign contribution would get him preferential treatment in a dispute over his land.

The Highlands Act put 859,000 acres – one ninth of the entire state – under the supervision of the state Department of Environmental Protection.  The Act specifically dealt with the issue of stormwater run-off.  In return for 880,000 residents in Sussex, Warren, Morris, Passaic, and Hunterdon counties surrendering their property rights and losing the use and value of their property, issues like algae bloom on Lake Hopatcong were supposed to be resolved.  But the Democrats LIED… as they always do.

Now it is 15 years later and Democrats like Phil Murphy and Deana Lykins claim they need a new PROPERTY TAX (the RAIN TAX) to solve the problem we paid for (in the loss of property use and value) a decade and a half ago!    

Even more disturbing are the lies Deana Lykins tells in her video.  She talks about going to “the lake” as a child… but leaves out that she isn’t from Sussex County and that “the lake” wasn’t Lake Hopatcong.  Deana Lykins is from Kentucky. 

Lykins got a degree in journalism from the University of Kentucky in 1993.  Then she went to work for the New York City Housing Authority – that state’s local version of COAH.  Lykins worked for the Senate Democrats in New Jersey when they rammed through the Highlands Act and sent it to Governor McGreevey for his signature.  Lykins was a legislative staffer in Trenton who assisted in locking up our property use and killing our property values… and for what?  Now she’s back 15 years later to tell us we need to pay more in property taxes to fix what her bosses promised they would fix with the Highlands Act!   

Once she got enough experience from government she joined that never-ending “revolving door” between government and special interests.  Deana Lykins cashed-in and became a lobbyist, first for the pharmaceutical industry and then for the insurance industry.   Lykins was National Policy Manager for Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals at a time when the drugs giant was being accused by regulators (and the New York Times) of making “payoffs to doctors for prescribing the company’s pharmaceutical products.”  She is associated with some of the insurance industry’s worst practices (but that is for another day).

The hypocrisy of this politician is incredible.  Deana Lykins’ embrace of Governor Murphy’s RAIN TAX is yet another reminder of the Democrats’ contempt for, and their malevolence towards, taxpayers.

Why are NJ property taxes the nation’s highest?

www.GardenStateFamilies.org

By: William Eames

For many years, the Tax Foundation has listed New Jersey as having the nation’s highest property taxes.

 [1]  Why are they so high?  And why do most folks believe they are powerless to do anything about it?

      First, is it true?  NJ property taxes are higher, per capita, than others.  The Tax Foundation’s ratings[2] rank New Jersey #1 in the nation (highest property taxes per capita) for each of the past five years.

• 2018:  NJ ranks #1 (highest) in property taxes; #50 (worst) in overall tax climate. (data from 2016)  For reference, in property taxes, California ranks 34th!

• 2017:  NJ ranked #1 (data from 2015)[3]; In overall taxes, NJ Ranked 50th (worst).

• 2016:  NJ ranked #1 (highest property taxes per capita)(data from 2014)[4]

• 2015: NJ ranked #1 (highest property taxes per capita)(data from 2013)[5]

• 2014:  NJ ranked #1 (highest property taxes per capita)(data from 2012)[6]

Seven Key Reasons

      Most folks tend to blame our high property taxes on schools or the “Mount Laurel” school funding decisions by the courts.  But there are other causes.  Susan Livio of NJ Advance Media, writing last year for NJ.com[7], listed these:

1. Our population density – of the states, NJ has the highest population density.[8]

2. High labor costs – in the Industrial Era, it was demand that produced high labor costs, but during the Progressive Era and beyond, labor rules and guaranteed benefits have put us near the top.

3. Generally high cost of living – The population density, proximity to both New York and Philadelphia, and demand for housing, utilities, high quality medical services … all boost costs.

4. Property taxes pay most of the costs – While New Jersey taxes just about everything imaginable, it has historically grouped municipal operations, county operations, the lower courts, jails, and schools under the “property tax” umbrella.  In other states, some of those costs are paid by sales taxes or local income taxes.

5. Home rule – This is a point of debate.  Some argue having 565 municipalities, 21 counties and 605 school districts increases costs; others argue that having decision makers close to the taxpayers (“we know where you live”) helps hold spending down. 

6. Public worker pensions & health care costs – This is not in dispute.  The public policy decisions in the 1930s and 1940s to allow governments to offer defined benefit pensions and lifetime health benefits to public employees … and often keep those costs off budget … are now wreaking financial havoc.  Those policies allowed governments to skip putting money into pensions and health funds paycheck by paycheck, and allowed them to pass costs forward, only paying once folks retired.  Kick the can down the road.  This is changing slowly, but the damage of under-funding these programs may result in fiscal insolvency in the next decade.

7. Education costs – New Jersey has good schools, based on the reports.  But it costs a lot to get those results, and decisions in the 1970s to significantly boost starting salaries boosted costs significantly.

A Deeper Look

      But if we take a deeper look, our position as one of the original colonies, as a center for the Industrial Revolution, and our dubious reputation for hosting several of the world’s most progressive liberals (think Woodrow Wilson) all play a role.  Consider:

• In 1875, the 1844 NJ Constitution was amended by adding the infamous “thorough and efficient” clause:  “The [NJ] Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in this State between the ages of five and eighteen years.”  This obligation was carried forward, verbatim, into the 1947 rewrite of the NJ Constitution.  The intent was an outgrowth of this colony’s Quaker origins, and a recognition of the importance (as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville) of enabling each citizen to read.  At the time, the verbalized intent was for the State to pay education costs.  But almost immediately, the State began pushing those costs to towns.

• New Jersey’s own Woodrow Wilson, - as president of Princeton University, then as governor of NJ, 1911-1913, then as President – brought us Progressive policies and liberal labor benefits.  (Including but not limited to labor agreements as policy, like project labor agreements and arbitration, creation of the NJEA and other ‘mandated fee’ associations.)

• In 1947, New Jersey’s Constitution was radically revised.[9]  The process was steered by self-admitted progressives within the legal and court system, who openly bragged of their desire for independence for the Courts and of their Progressive leadership and insight.  Chief among the revisions was a complete reorganization of the judicial branch, abolishing the state’s former judicial system and its replacement with an entirely new and independent judicial structure.  Heavily influenced by a well-known and politically powerful attorney named Arthur Vanderbilt, by 1950 the NJ Supreme Court had proclaimed itself as having the exclusive authority to control its own affairs, to interpret the NJ Constitution and to exercise unprecedented new rule-making powers “not subject to overriding legislation.”

  As Chief Justice, Vanderbilt wrote more than 200 opinions, always advocating for a living/breathing judicial system not bound by past precedent or “old” legal doctrines, but one that was responsive to society’s contemporary needs.  That legacy includes court rule-making such as the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and the Abbott school district funding issues.

• In 1972, a group of enterprising attorneys, urban school districts and cities sued the State and Gov. Cahill[10], alleging that the State’s system of funding free public schools was unconstitutional, namely, whether the equal protection and education clauses of the State Constitution were being violated by New Jersey's statutory financing scheme.[11]  According to the court, the argument was that the then-current system of financing public education in New Jersey relied heavily on local property taxes, producing wide disparities in educational expenditures.  The plaintiffs contended that public school education is a state function which must be afforded to all pupils on equal terms. But the state was funding districts on a formula basis that was not “full” funding – forcing each town to tax property to make up the difference (sometimes nearly 80% of the school budget). Thus, actual spending per pupil varied significantly, which they argued violated the “thorough and efficient” clause, as well as the “equal protection” clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Court used statistics to document “a distinct pattern in every county in the State. In most cases, rich districts spend more money per pupil than poor districts,” and argued that “most of the poorer communities must serve people of greater need because they have large numbers of dependent minorities.” The Court ruled that “The Education Clause was intended to do what it says, that is, to make it a state legislative obligation to provide a thorough education for all pupils wherever located.” 

    In the 1975 Robinson v. Cahill decision, New Jersey’s Supreme Court began to exercise “the unprecedented new rule-making powers not subject to overriding legislation” that it had given itself through interpretation of the 1947 Constitution. The Court said, “each child in the State has the right to an educational program geared to the highest level he is capable of achieving, permitting him to realize his highest potential as a productive member of society.” It also said, “that pupils of low socio-economic status need compensatory education [greater funding than others] to offset the natural disadvantages of their environment.” … “Providing free education for all is a state function. It must be accorded to all on equal terms,” the Court said.

   The conclusion was, “The State must finance a "thorough and efficient" system of education out of state revenues raised by levies imposed uniformly on taxpayers of the same class.”  The Legislature and Governor were directed to come up with a new tax plan to equally fund the education of every student.  They didn’t.

• By 1985, the inequities had not been resolved, and a new lawsuit was filed, “Abbott v. Burke”.  This time, the Court named 28 specific school districts (commonly called “Abbott districts”[12]) “that were provided remedies [by the court] to ensure that their students receive public education in accordance with the state constitution.”

• In 1990, another lawsuit was filed which became known as “Abbott II”.  The Court ordered the state to fund the (then) 28 Abbott districts at the average level of the state's wealthiest districts.

A Wikipedia article[13] summarizes in this way: 

Abbott districts are school districts in New Jersey covered by a series of New Jersey Supreme Court rulings, begun in 1985, that found that the education provided to school children in poor communities was inadequate and unconstitutional and mandated that state funding for these districts be equal to that spent in the wealthiest districts in the state.

The Court, in Abbott II and in subsequent rulings, ordered the State to assure that these children receive an adequate education through implementation of certain reforms, including standards-based education supported by parity funding. It added various supplemental programs and school facilities improvements, including to Head Start and early education programs.

      In the time since these decisions, many structural changes have been made, and vast amounts of public money have been spent.  But property taxes remain the highest in the nation, most funding from schools is still from the property tax, and school funding is anything but “equal.”

      Finally, Federal tax policy that favored a few “high cost” states, allowing them to write off property taxes against federal income tax obligations, allowed a few states including New Jersey to skirt responsibility for their spending.  There are arguments on both sides of the recent tax changes that took this write-off away, but while it lasted, it gave New Jersey towns the ability to spend more while lessening the threat of taxpayer revolt.

Why do most folks believe they are powerless to do anything about high property taxes?

      Many citizens say they’re not actively engaging in policy issues because they’re too busy and stressed from all the obligations of living in such an intense part of the country.  While we’re all stressed, in my experience, it would be more accurate to say the obstacle is that they’ve never gotten involved.  That’s not a criticism, but an observation.  When we run orientations, or take “newbies” to a public meeting or to a legislative hearing, they often report that it wasn’t intimidating at all. 

      Many volunteer to go to another, or to several, because the “live action” beats television any day of the week … and there are no commercials.

      This, however, is very serious business, with very serious consequences for Christians, Jews, and ordinary citizens.  That’s because those who can gain from the favors of legislators work every day to assure their future economic benefit.  More often, these days, their efforts also restrict our freedoms.

      Want some fun?  Research the origin of this quote:  “If not us, who?; If not now, when?”  But it deserves some really serious consideration.  “Politics” is the civil side of policy.  You can be absolutely certain of another quote by Edmund Burke:  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  You can rest assured that evil men are active.

      The Center for Garden State Families is a starting point.  But a few active citizens isn’t enough.  Emails to legislators are good, but they’re not enough.  A check for $25 is good, but it isn’t enough.

      Get involved.  No experience necessary.

      God Bless.

# # #

[1] The Tax Foundation, Tax Foundation

[2] The Tax Foundation, 2018 Facts & Figures

[3] The Tax Foundation, 2017 Facts & Figures

[4] The Tax Foundation, 2016 Facts & Figures

[5] The Tax Foundation, 2015 Facts & Figures

[6] The Tax Foundation, 2014 Facts & Figures

[7]see http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/7_reasons_why_njs_property_taxes_are_highest_in_us.html

[8] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population_density

[9] see https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/courts/supreme/vm/vanderbilt.html

[10] Robinson v. Cahill litigation

[11] see https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1972/118-n-j-super-223-0.html

[12] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district

[13] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district

*Mr. Eames has worked as an instructor for the Center for Self Governance and has been a candidate for NJ Senate, LD 27.  He has served as CEO of the New Jersey Tooling & Manufacturing Association and the Greater Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce.

Hear Holly Schepisi discuss NJ's affordable housing crisis

At 7pm on Tuesday, April 24th, Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi will speak at a town hall meeting to discuss New Jersey's affordable housing crisis.  The event is being held at the West Windsor Municipal Building (Room A), 271 Clarksville Road, West Windsor, NJ 08550.

The meeting is being sponsored by the West Windsor Republicans, the Princeton Republican Committee, the Hopewell Valley Republican Association, and the republican Women of Mercer County.  The event is free and open to the public.  Light refreshments will be available.

Assemblywoman
Holly Schepisi's  Biography, (R) LD-39

Click Here to Register

New Jersey's lack of affordable rentals and housing is not due to a lack of housing stock.  Rather, it stems from residents paying property taxes that are often as much as their mortgage payments.  The latest onerous court mandates are not the right solution.  They will only drive our property taxes higher.

Since the 1970's, state courts have mandated that municipalities build low-income housing in New Jersey.  Despite constructing 92,000 units over the last three decades, a recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court is mandating more than 201,000 additional units.  This far-reaching decision could increase required COAH units by up to 142 percent.

What is worse is that under the builders' remedy, more than a million new dwelling units could be built, making way for a 30 percent population increase. Even while our State has experienced significant out-migration, our communities are being forced to approve new units rather than remediating existing housing stock where it is needed most to help restore those communities.

If population booms at the rate contemplated by the courts, education costs would increase by over $11.75 billion alone.  The communities that are targeted for these massive population increases receive very little funding from the State for educational purposes.

Who is to PAY for the $11.75 billion in increased educational costs?  YOU, the New Jersey taxpayer, will foot the bill.

AFP: The pothead/ amnesty for illegals wing of the GOP

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” (Eric Hoffer)

Is AFP even conservative anymore?

Looking at their positions on some of the major issues facing New Jersey, you would have to conclude NO.

Establishment GOPers are very good at worming their way into conservative causes and turning them into husks.  A short history of this could occupy a chapter in a book -- or a lengthy article.  A good starting point would be what happened to "Hands Across New Jersey" after the Whitmanites offered their help and money.  And the 2009 gubernatorial primary with Brother Todd and his checkbook would make interesting reading too.

GOPAC was once a dynamic organization and a pillar of the conservative movement.  Today -- in New Jersey at least -- it is run by Ocean County GOP boss George Gilmore.  Would anyone in their right mind describe George Gilmore as a "movement conservative"?

Establishment types apply the word "conservative" the way old tarts apply makeup -- to hide many sins.  But trust one and see what you are left with.  It won't be fresh faced idealism. 

They say they are "conservative" and then they vote to make your daughter share her high school shower with someone sporting a penis.  They vote to confirm a judge who backs COAH and Abbott.  They vote to obstruct a woman's ability to obtain a legal handgun to protect herself and her family.  They vote to fund abortion. 

Last year, we suggested an alternative to the "screw card" put out by AFP.  We said it should be based on the highest authority in the Republican Party -- the platform of the Republican National Committee.  Well, a couple people took up the idea and word is they'll soon have the money necessary to publish and distribute a score card that is truly representative of the conservative movement in New Jersey.

Of course, there are those within the NJGOP who will feel threatened by this and who will work against it, as they work against all alternative ideas.  They don't like the First Amendment, preferring worship to speech.  But they shouldn't be threatened, because nothing attracts and grows a cause or a party better than open debate and free participation.  It breaks the stale boring monopoly of establishment language and ads the spice of truth.

Loosen up and all will be well.

Say NO to the Democrats' Sanctuary State scheme

Democrat Phil Murphy and his party are planning to turn all of New Jersey into one big "Sanctuary State" -- making it a no-questions-asked destination for folks here illegally.  In last week's terrorist attack in New York City, we witnessed the latest example of what happens when our government fails to properly vet people entering our country.  Now Murphy and the Democrats want to dial that process down and have no vetting at all.

A 'sanctuary state' will mean a huge influx of people who need the social services safety net more than average.  The Democrat gubernatorial ticket has promised to impose a so-called 'millionaire's tax' that will chase away those who currently fund the state's social safety net.  Those who are left... the middle class who can't leave because of a job, or because they can't sell their home for what they paid for it, or because their child wants to finish school -- they will have to make up for the shortfall in higher taxes.

That won't be easy, because at 26.1% of income, the cost of living in New Jersey is, according to Bloomberg, by far the most expensive in the nation.  Meanwhile, state household income is nearly seven percent lower than it was in 2008 and has only grown by a little more than one percent since then. 

Those coming to the new 'Sanctuary State' of New Jersey will enter the workforce of the gray economy, where the minimum wage doesn't apply.  But for everyone else it does -- which will leave trade union workers, manufacturing, medical care and health workers, service industry workers, and mothers with part-time jobs all at a disadvantage when competing for a job.  It will be bad news for people trying to pay their mortgage, their property taxes, those hoping to avoid foreclosure. 

And just where will all these newcomers to the 'Sanctuary State of New Jersey' reside?  Why in subsidized sanctuary housing -- courtesy of COAH and its plan to build tens of thousands of new subsidized no-questions-asked units throughout New Jersey. 

This will require massive infrastructure investment by taxpayers -- and an increase in property tax collections.  To pay for it, the Democrats intend to scrap the 2-percent cap on local government spending.  Under the Democrats property taxes rose an average of 6.1 percent a year -- triple the rate of inflation.  Since the cap, property taxes have gone up an average of just 2.1 percent a year.

If the Democrats ever build a border wall, it will be to keep working taxpayers in -- not criminal illegals out.  That is the shame of it.

Why Does Phil Murphy hate average Americans?

Unable to embrace his neighbor, he embraces the world.

The sneering contempt that many in the American "elite" have for average working Americans has been extensively documented.  It comes, quite naturally from the lips of say, a Chelsea Handler, when she says that incest doesn't happen among people like her but only in places like the South and among the working class. 

Of course, this is in marked contrast to the excuses the same "elites" make for violent criminals, cop-killers, terrorists, totalitarians like Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot.  Excuses, excuses... some even make excuses for Sharia law and for its advocates -- like Women's March co-chair Linda Sarsour.

It was Linda Sarsour who called for "jihad" against the government of the United States of America.  She did so in a speech in which she praised Siraj Wahaj, a controversial New York imam who federal prosecutors alleged was a possible "co-conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  You can catch her act here:

Did candidate Phil Murphy distance himself from Linda Sarsour and her organization?  No he did not.  He did not criticize her at all.

When Linda Sarsour made some horrible remarks about a Black woman, a victim of genital mutilation, and noted reformer in the Muslim world, did candidate Phil Murphy say a word about it?  No he did not.  He continues to support Sarsour, her organization, and its goals.

In contrast, candidate Phil Murphy has been quick to play holier-than-thou over a band banner and the word "bitch" used in a private conversation that was illicitly recorded.  Apparently these are worth endless commentary but calling for Islamic "holy war" against the elected government of the United States -- while we have American military men and women in the field -- is not worth candidate Phil Murphy batting an eyelash over.  Apparently, candidate Phil Murphy has no opinion on whether or not Linda Sarsour was out of line when she told a female victim of genital mutilation that she "wanted to take her vagina away."  Maybe Murphy thought that was "cute"?

Now candidate Phil Murphy is complaining because average working Americans can't understand why he would further erode their standard of living in New Jersey.  He and his allies in the establishment media have taken to calling these average working Americans names like "racist" because they don't agree with Murphy's plans to make New Jersey a "sanctuary state" for illegal aliens. 

Former Mayor Steve Lonegan explained what making New Jersey a "sanctuary state" would do to average working Americans living in New Jersey:

Lonegan quoted from a recent letter as to what the Democrats' "sanctuary state" policy would mean to the average taxpayer:

"A 'sanctuary state' will mean a huge influx of people who will need the social services safety net more than average.  The Democrat gubernatorial ticket has promised to impose a so-called 'millionaire's tax' that will chase away those who currently fund the state's social safety net.  Those who are left... the middle class who can't leave because of a job, or because they can't sell their home for what they paid for it, or because their child wants to finish school -- they will have to make up for the shortfall in higher taxes.

That won't be easy, because at 26.1% of income, the cost of living in New Jersey is, according to Bloomberg, by far the most expensive in the nation.  Meanwhile, state household income is nearly seven percent lower than it was in 2008 and has only grown by a little more than one percent since then. 

Those coming to the new 'Sanctuary State' of New Jersey will enter the workforce of the gray economy, where the minimum wage doesn't apply.  But for everyone else it does -- which will leave trade union workers, manufacturing, medical care and health workers, service industry workers, and mothers with part-time jobs all at a disadvantage when competing for a job.  It will be bad news for people trying to pay their mortgage, their property taxes, those hoping to avoid foreclosure. 

And just where will all these newcomers to the 'Sanctuary State of New Jersey' reside?  Why in subsidized sanctuary housing -- courtesy of COAH and its plan to build tens of thousands of new subsidized no-questions-asked units throughout New Jersey. 

This will require massive infrastructure investment by taxpayers -- and an increase in property tax collections.  To pay for it, the Democrats intend to scrap the 2-percent cap on local government spending.  Under the Democrats property taxes rose an average of 6.1 percent a year -- triple the rate of inflation.  Since the cap, property taxes have gone up an average of just 2.1 percent a year."

"If the Democrats are successful with their idea, they will have to build a wall to keep taxpayers in," Lonegan said.  True enough.  But it still doesn't explain what candidate Phil Murphy has against average working Americans and why he is so determined to make the lives of those living in New Jersey more difficult.