Bloomberg ‘New Jersey Voters Want Spending Cuts Over Higher Tax Following Budget Deal’

By Simone Baribeau - Aug 4, 2010 5:30 AM EDT Wed Aug 04 09:30:00 UTC 2010

New Jersey voters support lower spending over higher taxes by almost three to one after the state passed a budget which cuts funds for welfare, mental health and in-home nursing care, a survey shows.

The state should “hold the line” on spending even if that results in cuts to “many” programs, according to 60 percent of the respondents to a Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind survey, released today. That compares with 22 percent who say the state should raise taxes to support services if necessary. Opposition to higher taxes, down about 12 percentage points from last year, has changed little since a March 30 poll, after Governor Chris Christie’s first budget speech.

“What’s interesting here is that this figure holds steady in the midst of so many budget cuts,” Peter Woolley, the survey director, said in a statement. “Second, there is agreement on this point among many different groups of voters.”

Among Democrats, 48 percent supported spending cuts over tax increases compared with 28 percent who preferred tax increases. Republican support for reduced outlays touched 78 percent, compared with 14 percent who favor higher levies.

New Jersey lawmakers in June passed a budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, closing a $10.7 billion deficit without raising taxes. The spending plan cuts $74 million from welfare and other social programs, $820 million in public school aid, and $445 million from municipal funding. The budget also skips a $3 billion payment to the state’s pension funds.

In today’s survey, Christie’s job-approval rating rose to 47 percent, the highest level since March 3, when it reached 52 percent, the survey said. In a May 25 poll, 44 percent held a favorable view of Christie’s job performance.

The survey of registered voters was conducted by telephone from July 27 through Aug. 2, with 801 respondents. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

To contact the reporter on this story: Simone Baribeau in New York at sbaribeau@bloomberg.net

The Record Editorial: Painful reforms

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

The Record

NEW JERSEYANS have been hit hard by the Great Recession. We are weary. And yet, after more than two years of high unemployment, zero-interest bank accounts and depressed home values, here come price spikes for health insurance and property taxes.

We support long-term solutions and believe that health care and property tax reform are long overdue. But we worry that the cure may do more immediate damage than the disease. Many New Jerseyans are in crisis, with social welfare programs on the chopping block and home lenders unwilling to renegotiate. Officials must be ready to smooth the bumps in the road ahead, to be flexible and lend assistance to the state's most vulnerable citizens.

There is some good news. The first effects of a new federal health insurance law are appearing, including the announcement this week of NJ Protect, which will cover uninsured residents with pre-existing conditions and cost about 30 percent less than current individual plans. The program will run until 2014, when a new mandated health-insurance exchange becomes available, Staff Writer Lindy Washburn reported.

We are thrilled to see expanded access, especially for individuals with acute health care needs. But contrast that with a disturbing report on affordability. Rich Balka, who employs 32 workers at a small industrial plant in Trenton, says he is considering dropping health coverage for his employees in order to save their jobs. Premiums rose by 75 percent between 2000 and 2009 on average nationwide; Balka's bills are expected to go up another 20 percent next year.

Proponents of the federal health insurance law say that the mandates for coverage will eventually expand the pool of insured and lower premiums for everyone. But even if it has the intended effect, we could face years of pain in the interim.

Property taxes are at a similar crossroads in New Jersey. They are increasing sharply this year, thanks to unprecedented cuts in state aid to school districts and cities and the cancellation of an individual tax rebate program. That helped close a wide gap in a revenue-starved state budget and win political points, but also pushed the pain out of the State House and into local tax bills.

Governor Christie has proposed 33 laws he calls a "tool kit" to help cut local spending, such as changing union negotiation rules. Proponents say that once the Legislature codifies the changes, spending and taxes will eventually come under control. Christie also promised to restore the rebates as credits on taxpayers' individual bills — but that was before the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services projected a $10.5 billion budget shortfall next year.

In both cases, the politicians who devised these reforms say they were necessary to stop never-ending cost increases. We agree that change was needed. Whether the changes are bearable is another question. The timing of these reforms makes them a bitter double whammy.

We can't know what will happen in the next several years: if jobs will return, if tax reform will finally take hold, if the new health insurance mandate will have its intended consequence. We can only hope — and keep close watch over our elected officials, and pressure them to retool these reforms if the costs are too dear and the benefits too little.

NEW JERSEYANS have been hit hard by the Great Recession. We are weary. And yet, after more than two years of high unemployment, zero-interest bank accounts and depressed home values, here come price spikes for health insurance and property taxes.

We support long-term solutions and believe that health care and property tax reform are long overdue. But we worry that the cure may do more immediate damage than the disease. Many New Jerseyans are in crisis, with social welfare programs on the chopping block and home lenders unwilling to renegotiate. Officials must be ready to smooth the bumps in the road ahead, to be flexible and lend assistance to the state's most vulnerable citizens.

There is some good news. The first effects of a new federal health insurance law are appearing, including the announcement this week of NJ Protect, which will cover uninsured residents with pre-existing conditions and cost about 30 percent less than current individual plans. The program will run until 2014, when a new mandated health-insurance exchange becomes available, Staff Writer Lindy Washburn reported.

We are thrilled to see expanded access, especially for individuals with acute health care needs. But contrast that with a disturbing report on affordability. Rich Balka, who employs 32 workers at a small industrial plant in Trenton, says he is considering dropping health coverage for his employees in order to save their jobs. Premiums rose by 75 percent between 2000 and 2009 on average nationwide; Balka's bills are expected to go up another 20 percent next year.

Proponents of the federal health insurance law say that the mandates for coverage will eventually expand the pool of insured and lower premiums for everyone. But even if it has the intended effect, we could face years of pain in the interim.

Property taxes are at a similar crossroads in New Jersey. They are increasing sharply this year, thanks to unprecedented cuts in state aid to school districts and cities and the cancellation of an individual tax rebate program. That helped close a wide gap in a revenue-starved state budget and win political points, but also pushed the pain out of the State House and into local tax bills.

Governor Christie has proposed 33 laws he calls a "tool kit" to help cut local spending, such as changing union negotiation rules. Proponents say that once the Legislature codifies the changes, spending and taxes will eventually come under control. Christie also promised to restore the rebates as credits on taxpayers' individual bills — but that was before the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services projected a $10.5 billion budget shortfall next year.

In both cases, the politicians who devised these reforms say they were necessary to stop never-ending cost increases. We agree that change was needed. Whether the changes are bearable is another question. The timing of these reforms makes them a bitter double whammy.

We can't know what will happen in the next several years: if jobs will return, if tax reform will finally take hold, if the new health insurance mandate will have its intended consequence. We can only hope — and keep close watch over our elected officials, and pressure them to retool these reforms if the costs are too dear and the benefits too little.