How To Do It

Tom Byrne, in a recent Ledger op-ed, made some interesting comments about how to rein in property taxes (and, indeed, other state taxes as well). Most of his points make good sense.

Of course, toward the end of the piece, he observes that the Democrats are too beholden to the spending interests to actually take his advice, and the ONLY Republicans who take reform seriously tend to come with inconvenient pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun positions as well, which annoy those who believe that The New York Times editorial page is “moderate”. But as inviting as THAT discussion might be, same must abide a future day.

New Jersey ranks among the highest taxed states in the nation. There’s much blame to go around. (Many Republicans, for instance,. idiotically voted for the so-called “millionaire’s tax” last year – only to see the rebates that it assertedly supported targeted for elimination one year later – thereby sacrificing even the slightest credibility on the tax issue). But leave recriminations – however well deserved – aside, too. What can be done to reduce taxes, cut spending, and ensure that it won’t rise again?

First, any proposal that doesn’t incur the mortal wrath of the NJEA, CWA, and, indeed, anyone and everyone with a hand in the governmental till simply isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And, second, a package will need to be crafted which annoys just about everyone – except the taxpayer – and is taken as a whole. Finally, the change must be constitutional; absent that, we’ll end up right back where we started..

What follows are ten thoughts on steps to take; more can certainly be added. But let us commence:

∙ EVICT THE COURTS FROM POLICY DECISIONS: Not just Abbott, but Mt. Laurel, Right to Choose v. Byrne, etc. The constitution should be revised to cement the separation of powers, to ensure that the Legislature alone sets taxation and spending policy. The Courts should NEVER be permitted to compel the expenditure of a single tax dollar.

∙ ABOLISH COUNTIES/MERGE MUNICIPALITIES: Morris County, for instance, has 39 municipalities, with 470,000 people. We could do as easily with (say) 5-10. Home rule would be preserved, but “home” would be redefined. Salem, Warren, and Cape May might become one town rather than one county; Hunterdon two.

∙ REASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY/PREVENT CROSS SUBSIDIES: Once the new lines are drawn, the distinction between state and municipal roles should be clear, distinct, and inviolate. Not one nickel of state funds should flow to any municipality; they should be totally self sufficient. The state should assume “state” functions, like incarcerating criminals, running the courts, recording deeds, probating wills, etc. Municipalities should run the schools and local governments. Local Boards of Education could be abolished, as would all forms of tenure. Any state spending must be strictly limited to “state” projects. Far too much spending is for essentially private or local purposes. Restrain all spending to those projects in which the state interest is clear. Hence, no spending on local parks, local theaters, local roads, all of which would become municipal responsibilities.

∙ PENSION/BENEFIT REFORM: For every new hire, abolish defined benefit plans. Indeed, consider abolishing all benefits entirely, offering public employees the salary they deserve in one check, letting them do with it as they see fit.

∙ POLITICAL REFORM: Power brokers can effectively control legislators by denying them the party line; abolish same. Gerrymandered districts ensure incumbent protection; reform the redistricting commission so that the ONLY considerations for districts are approximate equality of population, contiguity, and compactness. (One starts off in (the former) Sussex County and adds municipalities until you reach one district, then you move on) Enact a Hatch act; if “pay to play” is bad, it pales to insignificance by comparison to the ability of public employee unions to coerce legislators to vote their way. Prohibit governmental employees from taking any role in politics, and their unions from making any donations. Clip legislative leadership’s wings by permitting every legislator to post one bill every other session. One might even consider abolishing one House of the Legislature altogether. Limit Legislators to twelve years in office.

∙ FUNDING FAIRNESS: Either abolish the state income tax entirely, permitting each municipality to impose a flat tax upon their residents’ income, or distribute the state income tax receipts equally to every child in the state in the form of a voucher. The former choice provides somewhat more local responsibility, the latter retains some of the redistributionist character of the existing law.

∙ TAXATION INCREASE SUPER-MAJORITIES: Those favoring spending will ALWAYS have more clout than the taxpayers. By making it more difficult to raise taxes, and with a clear and unequivocal balanced-budget-without-borrowing provision, it should be easier to restrain the appetite – or, at least, the influence – of the spenders.

∙ INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: While permitting the people to draft bills terrifies entrenched interests, they should at least be given a negative. Upon the filing of an initiative, any decision of the Supreme Court, or any statute passed by the Legislature, should be subject to a popular veto.

∙ PROSCRIBE UNAPPROVED BORROWING: No state borrowing should be permitted without popular approval. No “independent” agency with debt not approved by the public should receive ANY general revenue funds. The TTF should be a constitutionally dedicated fund, and not one nickel’s worth of borrowing against its receipts should be permitted.

∙ DECENNIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION REFERENDA: Once every ten years, the people should be entitled to vote respecting whether they believe another, unfettered constitutional convention should convene. Coupled with the limited I & R, this would prevent outrageous Court decisions or legislative enactments from becoming too entrenched, and would enable the people to assess, regularly, whether true, independent reform is necessary.

If I have failed to offend EVERYONE, I respectfully apologize.

The inevitable result of such would be the possibility of lower taxes, but no guarantees. Into the hands of local officials would fall the power to determine for themselves what taxes to impose and what spending to incur. They would answer to the people for their decisions.

Something akin to the foregoing would weight the scales in favor of state taxpayers. It would almost certainly leave urban schools in a bind – there’s no way that they could spend $25K per kid, as they are now – but if the voucher option is selected, ALL kids would have more than sufficient educational choices and education policy, finally, would be driven by what’s best for the children rather than what’s best for the NJEA and the education establishment.

What’s necessary, now, is the recognition that the old models have failed. It’s time for a new vision for New Jersey, looking not at how things are, or always have been, but how they SHOULD be.

But let’s be clear: many folks – some with the purest of motives, others with their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets – will fight like demons against any reform. On urban schools, for instance, many folks will contend that if the cost of lower taxes is less spending on public schools – and it most certainly would be – the price is too high to pay.

The major point of constitutional reform is to permit the people to make those decisions for themselves. At present, “the system” is not only stacked in favor of outrageous spending, such spending is compulsory. Any democracy worth the name permits the people to make those decisions for themselves, through their elected representatives, and provides clear lines of political responsibility such that the people can wreak electoral revenge upon those representatives who get the answer wrong.

True reform is NOT an insignificant or uncomplicated problem. It requires deep thought about the very essence of government, the sort of seriousness so notably absent in most governmental circles, Trenton especially. It entails much risk, and requires precisely the kind of courage so obviously lacking among elected officials of late. And it will probably involve serious transition costs.

Anyone looking for easy answers should get out of government and try quantum physics.

So, let’s be bold. Craft a new vision for a better, freer, more democratic state.

Well, let’s at least start talking.