Sustainability

As the Legislature prepares to address property taxes, let us jump ahead a bit and assume initial success. That is, assume that, by some miracle, the Legislature musters the political courage to actually cut spending – especially in urban areas – in a manner sufficient to reduce property taxes by (say) 30% or so.

On the day after the Legislature enacts such "reform", the folks who benefit from high spending and high taxes will commence a campaign to undermine it.

Previous attempts to slay the property tax monster failed because they concentrated on replacing property tax revenues with other taxes. This inevitably undercut the incentive for frugality, because the folks spending the money – and benefitting from such spending – were not the same folks as those who collected – or paid – the taxes.

Consider Newark: it raises an infinitesimal amount of the money it spends on itself. What possible incentive do the politicians or voters in Newark have to be frugal? They’re spending other people’s money. Why would the Newark electorate care what the Mayor or Council pay themselves, for instance? Morris County taxpayers pick up the tab. Indeed, present policy creates absurd incentives for Newark voters; since they pay almost none of the taxes which support the massive City governmental edifice, voting in favor of massive spending makes sense.

Or consider public employees. Often, what they cannot obtain at the bargaining table, they obtain legislatively. While public employees are not evil, their interests diverge substantially from those of their neighbors. Given the choice between higher taxes on everyone, and a pay or benefit cut, which hits them personally, their self interest dictates a vote against the common good.

In real life, we sometimes call this a "conflict of interest".

For any property tax reform measure to succeed, it must be "sustainable"; that is, immune from being immediately undercut by powerful spending interests.

Put another way, if taxes are to be kept low – at any level – the special interests which work to increase them must be defanged.

Governor Corzine sang the praises of audits during his recent speech, but the most effective audit is an election. But elections only work if the voters can wreak electoral revenge upon those who ignore their desires. Hence, sustainability requires political responsibility. Elections must be real and meaningful; lines of responsibility must be clear. And powerful spending interests must not be permitted to wield undue influence.

Evicting the CWA and NJEA from politics constitutes a necessary step toward sustainability. As has been amply demonstrated by the comments of The Guv’s ex-girlfriend, these entities will adamantly oppose meaningful property tax reform measures. A state-level Hatch act – a prohibition against partisan political involvement by governmental employees – is a necessary first step. And no public employee should be permitted to hold any political office.

Second, not only should ALL elections be in November, as the Governor implied, but all local power should be consolidated in the Governing Body. Boards of Education should be eliminated entirely. The Governing Body should hire a superintendent, who hires the principals, who hire the teachers. No one gets tenure; if anyone fails to do the job, out they go on their keister. If the electorate disagrees with the way the Governing Body handles its assigned duties, it can get revenge at the ballot box.

And, finally, once we redefine home rule by redefining home, the state needs to step back and ensure that the localities have the rope to hang themselves, if they want to. Some folks might actually WANT high taxes, if the alternative is (say) bigger class size. Why not let municipalities set their own course? If – say – Montclair wishes to tax the daylights out of its residents to support a socialist utopia, that should be a community decision. People who don’t like it, and can’t win elections, can move to Morris County. They’d be welcome.