The Courage to Talk

Several years ago, supporting a budget which increased state spending by a whopping 17%, Lou Greenwald, the Democratic Chairman of the Budget Committee, rose on the floor of the Assembly, exhorting his sleepy colleagues (it was about 3 AM) to find "the courage to spend".

To all appearances, the Democrats never wanted for "courage" when it came time to spend other people’s money. Of late, they’ve even developed the "courage to tax", increasing every tax imaginable over the past five years, solidifying New Jersey’s unfortunate status as the most heavily taxed state in the nation.

Given their history, it’s difficult to take Democratic professions of concern over high taxes as anything more than rhetoric. Recall a few years back, when Governor Codey assumed the podium before the assembled State pooh-bahs to deliver the State of the State. The outlook, Hizonor proclaimed, was bleak. Codey observed that the state was broke, noted that the ever increasing costs of public pensions and benefits threaten fiscal disaster, and, akin perhaps to Bill Clinton, contended that the era of Big Government is over.

And, then, having accurately described the issues confronting the State, Codey did precisely nothing to address them, and rode that inaction to a crest of public popularity.

Alas, it appears that the lesson the Dems learned from Codey’s experience is that if they openly and honestly admit the existence of an undeniable problem, their popularity soars, despite blithely continuing exactly the same policies which produced the crisis in the first instance. The majority makes headlines daily, receiving a media bye, for having the "courage to talk".

But, heretofore, they have demonstrated absolutely no courage to act.

A cynic -- and I know one -- might assert that it’s all well choreographed political theater. Having gone through the exercise of talking about the problem, and entertaining the fiction that spending might actually be cut, (even sending Senator Sweeney out to encourage the view that curtailing outrageous public sector benefits is thinkable) the Dems will (with expressions of heartfelt sorrow) conclude that virtually every nickel of spending must be preserved (perhaps with some window dressing "cuts"), necessitating a large income tax increase on those "rich" folks making $50,000 per year or so. The Guv, despite his oft-stated aversion to income tax hikes, will cluck that he was forced into it by the Legislature.

Are the Dems serious about even considering spending cuts? Recollect that the constitutional convention proposal which passed the Assembly last term expressly forbade any consideration of spending cuts, despite the Majority’s oft-repeated contention that "everything was on the table". If cutting spending is the price which must be paid for property tax reform and relief -- and it is -- that’s a price the Dems have repeatedly been unwilling to even consider. If history is any example, their present willingness to talk simply represents grist for the media, providing cover for the inevitable income tax hikes on those misbegotten "rich" when no other "solutions" can be effected.

To reiterate, any property tax reform package which receives anything other than the undying enmity of the NJEA, the CWA, urban schools, and other assorted Spending Interests simply isn’t worth fussing over.

Talk is great; it’s taken five years to get the Dems to even permit a discussion on the subject. And an honest discussion it might yet turn out to be. But, ultimately, property tax reform/relief can only be achieved by substantial spending cuts. Those cuts will inevitably strike at the heart of the Democratic constituencies among public sector unions and urban districts. I remain persuaded that forced to choose between providing real property tax reform/relief, and maintaining the massive spending status quo, the Dems will opt for the latter.

I hope they prove me wrong, but it simply strikes me that if they were serious about property tax reform, they’d be Republicans.