| Property Taxes, School Funding issues | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Cick on More below for full Budget address, plus Sunday publications 1) Star Ledger article 'Governor looks to cut thousands of N.J. jobs - Upcoming budget plan retrenches on spending' and 2)New York Times political memo 'You Hate His Toll Plan; Ready for His Budget?'
Feb-26-08 Governor Corzine's FY 2009 Budget Address
|
NEWS RELEASE |
FOR MORE INFORMATION: |
Audio of the Governor's budget message is available online at: www.nj.gov/governor
GOVERNOR CORZINE’S FY 2009 BUDGET ADDRESS
As Delivered
Good morning everyone. It’s great to be with you today.
Reverend Clergy ...Reverend Isinta…Rabbi Cooper ...thank you for joining us today.
Senate President Codey ...Speaker Roberts ...Majority Leader Sweeney ...
Majority Leader Watson Coleman and Minority Leaders Kean and DeCroce ... former Chief Justice Zazzali….Chief Justice Rabner.. It’s good to see you..and Judge Karchman.
Former Governors Byrne, Bennett, and, of course, Governor Codey …May be you would like to trade places with me just for a couple of hours today.
Thank you all for joining us.
Members of the legislature and fellow citizens.
Today I present a sober and responsible budget.
The time is long past for the State, its Governor, and its Legislature to end imprudent spending and borrowing that exceeds our means. This budget …does just that.
As you know, over the past 6 weeks, I’ve held 13 town hall meetings in 13 counties regarding our State’s fiscal challenges. It’s been a great opportunity to listen as much as to talk.
I have heard firsthand the public’s frustration and anger generated by too many years of overspending, borrowing, and false rhetoric.
And they’re right. Whether they agree with my financial restructuring plan or not, the public is 100% right to be angry about the state of New Jersey’s fiscal affairs.
Further, the public’s concerns are elevated by their high cost of living and a gathering national economic.
Yes, the public understands the State has a fiscal crisis … but they want us to understand they have one of their own.
It is with this perspective that I present a sobering budget for fiscal 2009 ...a budget, I believe, that represents a “turning point” in the fiscal management of our State.… a turning point away from the patterns of overspending and tortured borrowing.
A turning point toward spending restraint and spending cuts that genuinely address our financial emergency.
That said, this budget still labors under the weight of years of unfunded commitments, court mandates, bad decisions, and declining federal dollars.
Regrettably, taxpayers live in a world where commitments and failures of the past, crowd out the resources for services our people deserve today.
Frankly, New Jersey has a government its people cannot afford.
This budget declares the time of living beyond our means … is over.
To limit and re-set our spending within our means requires many unpleasant choices -- choices about which activities and services are most critical.
It will inevitably mean reducing spending in areas that we all support.
I can tell you, I’m pained by the stress and anguish brought to our people’s lives by the cuts proposed.
We are positioned between a rock and a hard place.
Some may try to wish away the hard choices, suggesting old habits should prevail.
Others may deny that tough choices are being made, seeking to exploit the well-earned cynicism the public holds towards Trenton.
Still others will seek scapegoats from the past, as if that will solve anything in the present, let alone in the future.
On reflection, I hope the representatives in this room know the difference between rhetoric and wishful thinking, as opposed to real choices and real answers.
I call on each of you, Republicans and Democrats alike, to recognize that today a turning point is at hand.
We must turn away from the era of spending and borrowing beyond our means …once and for all.
In practical terms, failing to take on the tough choices will only force New Jersey into a deeper fiscal swamp … and weigh down our taxpayers with more unbearable financial burdens.
For me, that outcome is unacceptable. For our public, it is unacceptable.
To that purpose, today’s budget is honestly balanced, sensitive to core responsibilities, and smaller by $500 million in year-over-year spending.
Let me repeat: this budget cuts spending $500 million below the $33.5 billion budget I signed last year.
In fact, this proposal asks for the second-largest spending cut of any budget in New Jersey history …and only for the fourth time since 1951, the budget will be reduced compared to the budget signed in the previous year.
It also reduces the use of one time revenues by 90% and puts us on track to zero …an outcome we will achieve next year.
This budget goes well beyond the commitment I made to freeze spending as the first element of my financial restructuring and debt reduction plan.
This is “cold turkey” therapy for our troubled spending addiction.
Keep in mind ...this budget contains no debt service relief resulting from any monetization proposal.
Keep in mind this, my budget takes the necessary and painful steps to reconcile years of mismatch between recurring expenditures and recurring revenues ... by cutting spending. That’s the headline … now let me put this budget and its spending cuts in context.
Consider … cuts must be achieved in the face of $8 billion in current health care costs that are compounding at a nearly double digit rate.
Consider … we carry the weight of twenty years of growing, unfunded pension contributions and post retirement medical benefits for teachers and public employees.
Consider … we pay more for a growing debt service burden than we invest in either higher education or we provide in direct property tax relief.
Consider … all of our spending is aggravated by State and federal court mandates… and we must compensate for declining federal dollars for housing, environmental clean-ups, health care and public safety.
And consider … this budget accommodates $550 million in additional school aid that was approved on a bi-partisan basis for the historic new funding formula.
To achieve the cuts in this budget, we’ve changed the process.
We started earlier … We set clear spending objectives for the departments ...
We sought the ideas and recommendations of independent groups.
Most particularly …I want to thank the bi-partisan private sector members of the GEAR Commission.
These individuals have worked since the Fall scrubbing operational and financial practices with our departments. Many of their recommendations are included in the proposal.
I am grateful for the hundreds of suggestions, I really am,from the public and organizations like the State Chamber of Commerce that have engaged in the broader financial restructuring dialogue.
And I want to thank the bipartisan participants from the Legislature -- Senators Buono and O’Toole along with Assemblymen Greenwald and Malone for their counsel and review.
Although we may not always agree … their partnership is truly appreciated.
And lastly … let me emphasize two points … they’re important points.
For the second year running, my budget contains no new taxes of any kind … while it increases property tax relief.
Now … given these observations, let me review the overall numbers:
When we began our planning process, we were facing mandatory and inflationary spending increases of nearly $2.2 billion beyond expenditures in the current fiscal year.
Our restructuring plan mandated flat funding … that is, fiscal year 08’s level of $33.5 billion.
As I made the point, “flat funding” doesn’t mean no cuts, “flat funding” meant cutting $2.2 billion just to keep at last year’s level.
However, in light of the ongoing economic downturn, revenues aren’t even strong enough to support last year’s expenditures.
As a result, we have cut another $500 million in the budget.
The net result is a budget that spends just under $33 billion -- an absolute reduction of $500 million.
To achieve those spending cuts, we began by prioritizing and protecting the core responsibilities of government:
Educating our children;
Providing for public safety;
Caring for the most vulnerable;
And in New Jersey, sustaining property tax relief.
After these priorities, all spending was on the cutting table.
So … how have we achieved our cuts?
We cut thousands of jobs.
We cut entire departments.
We cut programs …
We cut aid, and we cut inflationary increases wherever we legally or humanely could.
In this budget … government takes the spending hit … not our hard-pressed taxpayers or the most vulnerable.
The cuts are detailed in the “Budget in Brief,” but I’ll give you an overview.
This budget significantly reduces the size … and cost of government.
Spending is down in every department of the Executive Branch.
As best we can tell, this is the first time this has ever occurred.
In total, there are over $350 million in savings directly attributable to a smaller State government.
Over the past two years, through attrition and an ongoing hiring freeze, we reduced the size of the State workforce by nearly 2,000 positions.
With this budget we will have eliminated a minimum of 5,000 total government jobs, including half of all political appointees.
We will eliminate these positions through targeted layoffs, program consolidations, continued attrition and an early retirement program.
To ensure these reductions are permanent, we will eliminate funding for specific positions, not just leave them vacant.
Now ... we know from past experience, early retirement actions have achieved
short-term savings but at a long-term cost.
This has occurred mostly because most positions were backfilled, thereby doubling up retirement costs for the future.
To prevent that from happening, we will allow only 10 percent of the vacated positions to be backfilled … and that will be written into law.
All of the employees who will be included in the early retirement program are currently eligible … we are simply giving those who can, an incentive to do so.
Eliminating positions through early retirement will allow us to shrink the size of government without creating the chaos under the civil services rules that would accompany across-the-board layoffs.
The effect of these personnel reductions will create future savings as our departments are forced to re-prioritize their programs and activities.
They will not only have to do more with less … they’ll undoubtedly have to do less.
Digging deeper, we will further reduce the size of government by proposing the elimination of three Cabinet departments: the Personnel Department; the Agricultural Department; and the Commerce Commission.
The personnel and operational savings from these actions are not intended as one time sound bites.
They are permanent … They will cut costs.
Theses actions will be monitored for savings by the State Comptroller and the GEAR Commission.
These proposed initiatives to cut government build on last year’s historic, negotiated agreements with civilian state employees and teachers.
These agreements achieved breakthrough long-term savings and reversed years of benefit expansion authored by Governors and Legislators of both parties.
Consider, we raised the retirement age for new employees from 55 to 60.
We increased pension contributions.
We capped the defined benefit pension for new employees.
We mandated for the first time state employees share in the cost of their health care.
And … we kept wage increases well inside the levy cap.
Now, we should work to apply these and additional reforms to all units of government and, we need to make certain the levy cap is considered by mediators and arbitrators in settlements imposed on local governments.
We should also revisit some of the unfinished business from last year’s special session on property tax reform such as eliminating defined benefit pensions for part time workers.
The next broad area for savings involves painful reductions in base-budget aid and grant programs.
This includes some property tax rebates, municipal aid, higher education, hospital assistance and Medicaid.
Cuts in these areas will total almost $1.4 billion.
These cuts are unavoidable as nearly 75 percent of all State spending is grant based or pass through aid.
In terms of property tax relief programs 90 percent, repeat, 90 percent of all homeowners who received a rebate last year… will again.
Those earning $100,000 or less, 70 percent of all households, will receive exactly the same $1,000-plus rebate they received last year.
Those earning between $100,000 and $150,000 will receive at least two-thirds of last year’s rebate.
We will also expand the eligibility for the senior freeze to an income level of $75,000 … helping another 150,000-plus of senior households.
Unfortunately, residents earning more than $150,000 will no longer be eligible for rebates.
In addition, renter rebates will be narrowed while increases in special assistance rental vouchers partially offset this cut.
With regard to local aid, hospitals, higher education and health care we sought to minimize, retarget and share the burdens of cuts as responsibly as possible.
For instance, while all categories of municipal aid will be reduced, communities with populations of less than 10,000 will receive less direct support.
However, these communities will receive priority consideration for $32 million in grants to develop shared services or consolidation agreements.
With regard to hospitals, across the board reductions are proposed, although we focus charity care increasingly toward safety net hospitals.
We also create a stabilization fund as recommended by the Reinhardt Commission to assist hospitals in the most distress.
Higher education and health care -- particularly Medicaid will see the smallest reductions.
This is because we carry grave concerns about the level of potential tuition hikes and the need to maintain access to health care for our most vulnerable.
Finally, this budget is shaped and balanced by two additional steps.
The first is the elimination of all non-contracted inflationary growth for our various aid and grant programs.
This will save about $800 million dollars.
Regrettably, many of the same institutions who will experience absolute cuts will lose inflationary increases.
Finally, we will reduce the use of accumulated surplus from the current fiscal year.
Remember the higher-than-expected surplus was created by our ongoing managerial efficiencies and revenue growth that exceeds projections.
Reducing the use of surplus will move us closer to the principle that current expenditures will be funded solely by current revenue.
As a point of comparison, in fiscal 08 we used $1.6 billion of surplus to balance the budget in FY09 we will use only $500 million.
Of the remaining Fiscal Year 08 surplus, $300 million will go to pre-fund early retirement and unfunded pension liabilities.
And $34 million will go to fund selected capital investments.
I expect this to be the last year we use any surplus to balance the budget.
So that’s a quick overview of a very tough budget – I don’t like it I’m sure a lot of you don’t, but again it is a necessity.
Again, the details are in the “Budget in Brief.”
Let me be clear, cutting spending is only the first step we must take to restore our fiscal health and put us in a position to be a sustainable partner in the success of our people.
Current-year spending cuts makes balancing the budget next year and in the future easier, but it doesn’t make it easy.
The financial restructuring I put forward had four elements because it will take more than spending cuts to cure the broken finances of our State.
First, we have to get state spending under control and today I think we’re do just that.
Second, future spending must match future recurring revenue.
Third, out-of-control borrowing must end.
And fourth, we must reduce our crushing debt load and fund infrastructure investments.
Now whether or not you agree with every element of my plan, there does appear to be agreement that these reforms are priorities …
I understand that the toll proposal is not popular, boy do I understand.
I didn’t expect it to be, but as I have repeatedly said I am open to alternatives that will reduce debt and fund transportation.
But what is not acceptable and what we must reject is allowing the State to muddle through, with more of the same short-sighted fiscal patterns that created the mess in the first place.
Those days are over.
Two years ago, I started an effort to put the State on a sound fiscal footing.
This budget is the latest and most forceful step in that direction.
It will not be the last.
Even with the difficult $2.7 billion in cuts in this budget, we project next fiscal year’s budget to have a significant structural shortfall … approximately $1.7 billion.
The borrowing and benefits committed to over the past twenty years don't go away.
They get more expensive every year.
In fact, debt service is one of the few things that actually goes up in my proposed budget.
And it will go up in every budget in the future unless we do something different.
Some will argue that our debt burden isn’t a problem … that we should just deal with it some other day.
But that’s not an option. It’s not a real option.
It’s clear debt service payments crowd out important priorities every year.
We should be cutting debt service, not closing parks or raising co-pays.
Fixing our fiscal problems without addressing debt reduction is a fiction ... and if we try to do that, we are misleading the public.
With these thoughts in mind, I need comprehensive action by all of you to restore the state’s long term fiscal health:
First … approve a budget that stays within the strict spending limits I have proposed.
Second … pass legislation to limit growth in spending to certifiable recurring revenue.
Third … put on the ballot this fall the Lance-Lesniak constitutional amendment to limit state borrowing.
And fourth … work with me to develop a plan to pay down debt and fund vital capital investments.
I must say … it is not enough to just reject the toll proposal.
If you don’t like that alternative, give me another viable approach to significantly reduce debt and fund important, vital transportation improvements.
Many of you have begun that process. I welcome it.
When I was given the honor of serving as New Jersey’s Governor, I made a commitment to be accountable and to be honest … not just in my actions, but in the way I approached problems.
Our state has spent too much money.
And we carry far too much debt.
These twin problems are a threat to the well-being of the people we serve.
My financial restructuring plan
is part of a much larger undertaking.
I knew it would be challenging and at times unpleasant ... and it has fully lived up to my expectations.
But it has been worth the effort.
To see the impact of the debate … the intense level of public discussion and involvement … and the alternatives that have been offered …
We are now closer to financial stability – some might say sanity.
Now in closing …
We often hear New Jersey is too expensive a place to live.
We hear how our business climate has become uncompetitive and our residents are fleeing for greener … or at least cheaper pastures.
At the heart of these concerns lies New Jersey’s broken finances.
Today, we can’t make the investments that we all know we should make in transportation, alternative energy, mental health facilities, schools, and medical research.
Just look at the missed opportunity in stem cell research.
That research would not only save lives …it would have potentially driven an economic boon for the medicine chest state of the world…
Unfortunately --our finances are so broken, the public wouldn’t support that investment.
This must change … and this budget is a start.
It’s certainly not a budget designed to please … I can tell from the applause lines… but it is a prudent blueprint to meet difficult economic circumstances, correct past mistakes and it lays a foundation for a responsible future.
It doesn’t spend more than we have.
It doesn’t borrow to pay operating costs.
It doesn’t raise taxes.
It does contain the largest increase in school aid ever;
It does preserve property tax relief for the middle class;
and it does protect the most vulnerable in our society.
It meets the public’s expectations that government live within its means.
Make no mistake -- this is a turning point … not the end point.
By itself, these cuts won't solve the problem. They can’t.
A long term answer requires deeper changes.
My friends ... in the next three months, let us come together let us come together in a bi-partisan demonstration of responsible governance and find the common ground to restore our state’s fiscal viability.
|
Governor looks to cut thousands of N.J. jobs Upcoming budget plan retrenches on spending Sunday, February 24, 2008 BY JOE DONOHUE AND JOSH MARGOLIN Star-Ledger Staff Jon Corzine on Tuesday will become the first New Jersey governor in a decade to propose a state budget that cuts total spending, when he presents a plan that has no new taxes or fees, shrinks the state payroll by as many as 5,000 jobs and eliminates three departments, according to three individuals familiar with the budget. Having pledged to keep total state expenses below the current $33.5 billion, the governor also will propose slashing state aid to towns and cities by about $100 million, and "charity care" funding for hospitals by as much as $200 million, according to the individuals, who requested anonymity because Corzine's plan had not been made public yet. And while administration officials have said aid to school districts defined by New Jersey's school funding formula will increase by $530 million, overall school funding will be about the same as last year because of other reductions, not yet disclosed. In addition, the spending plan will eliminate rebates to about 152,000 homeowners. Administration and legislative officials said last week homestead rebates would be limited to families making no more than $150,000 instead of the current $250,000 limit. The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services estimates that move will save more than $100 million. Rebate amounts are expected to remain about the same. They averaged $1,051 for homeowners and $303 for renters last year. Not since Gov. Christie Whitman proposed a slightly downsized budget in her re-election year in 1997 has a governor sought less spending than the year before. Last year, Corzine recommended a $2.4billion increase, and the budget he signed in June padded that by $200 million. SHORT AND DIRECT Like most of his speeches, the governor's third budget address has been written by Corzine himself, though aides helped fine-tune it. In keeping with the gravity of the occasion, the speech to be delivered in the Assembly chambers will be short and direct. In his State of the State address last month, the Democratic governor, who faces re-election next year, vowed to freeze spending as part of a broad strategy to put state finances on sounder footing. He also called for new long-term controls on future spending and borrowing. Corzine's complex plan to halve the state's debt and create a pot of cash for decades' worth of road projects has included a sharp increase in road tolls. But Corzine conceded last week the toll plan needs major retooling to have any chance to pass the Legislature. The proposed budget does not include the estimated $600 million in savings the governor's tolls-for-debt plan would bring, the sources said. The proposed budget would produce big savings by laying off about 1,000 state workers and offering incentives for 3,000 to 4,000 already eligible for retirement to leave this year. The total job cuts would come on top of the 1,850 net positions eliminated by Corzine since he took office two years ago. The full-time payroll now stands at 68,430. The source confirmed the departments of Personnel, Agriculture and Commerce all face the ax, though the administration has not yet decided where their essential functions would be transferred. Municipal officials are expecting to be one of the biggest casualties of the budget, which now funnels nearly $2 billion to the state's 566 municipalities. In addition to plans to reduce that amount by about $100 million, Corzine will propose cutting a $75 million inflationary adjustment that municipal representatives say they deserve under state law. William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, said the combined cut would be "unprecedented" in scope and lead to either higher property taxes or layoffs of police, firefighters and other municipal personnel. "It will have a catastrophic impact," he said. "It's a perfect budget storm, and the people who are going to take it on the chin are going to be the property taxpayers." Such a reduction in state aid could force big cuts on the local level because Corzine last year signed a law seeking to prevent towns from raising property taxes by more than 4 percent. FEARING FOR THE POOR Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) said that while cuts are inevitable, lawmakers will try to ease the pain where possible. The Democratic-controlled Legislature must adopt a final budget by July 1. "If anyone thinks all of the cuts are going to be restored, they are wrong," Codey said. "That doesn't mean the ones that affect people the most we won't try every way possible to restore them, especially the ones that hit the middle class and the poor the most." Hospital officials and their legislative defenders were equally nervous about a reduction of "charity care" aid in the range of $200 million. This year, 51 hospitals and hospital systems received $716 million. Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), chairman of the Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, said he expects any major reduction would be "fundamentally harmful" and could trigger more hospital closures. Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center in Plainfield last week became the fifth hospital in recent months to announce plans to close. Vitale said that within a month he intends to introduce legislation that would revamp and try to stabilize state hospital funding as part of a plan to provide universal health insurance. "We will be working overtime to try to address this issue now," he said. To keep the budget below the present $33.5 billion level, the governor would have to offset the school funding increase, rising pension and health care costs, salaries, debt payments and other costs where growth is locked in. That would mean slashing more than $2 billion in expenses elsewhere. Lilo Stainton, the governor's spokeswoman, said Corzine will outline a plan "that reduces spending by billions. The budget will be austere -- it will reduce the size of state government, but also seek to protect property taxpayers and society's most vulnerable as much as possible." Joseph Doria, commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, said his department already is feeling pinched by the loss of 140 positions since Corzine took office two years ago. For example, the former Assembly speaker said, while there is a new law requiring the DCA to inspect single- and two-family homes for lead contamination, a hiring freeze prevents the department from employing the 25 to 30 inspectors needed to enforce it. Doria said while the public may be clamoring for budget cuts, they should prepare for fewer public services. "People want the services they believe the state should be doing, but they don't believe it costs money," he said. Jeffrey Tittell, a lobbyist for the New Jersey Sierra Club chapter, said the Department of Environmental Protection "will collapse" if the governor continues to pare its payroll, which he said has shrunk by nearly 1,000 positions during the past decade. While some are gearing up to fight the budget-slashing, Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean (R-Union) said Republican legislators are ready to help Democrats scale back the budget. "We will support real cuts in government spending and we look forward on a bipartisan basis to find those cuts that are real and sustainable," he said. Staff writer Tom Hester contributed to this report. Joe Donohue may be reached at jdonohue@starledger.com or (609) 989-0208. © 2008 The Star Ledger © 2008 NJ.com All Rights Reserved. |
Political Memo
You Hate His Toll Plan; Ready for His Budget? By DAVID W. CHEN
Published: February 24, 2008
TRENTON — His grand plan to save New Jersey from fiscal purgatory is in tatters. More residents than ever before are unhappy with him. And things are unlikely to get better anytime soon.
After a difficult week in which he had to admit that he lacked the legislative support to raise tolls sharply, Gov. Jon S. Corzine is poised to unveil a budget on Tuesday with at least $2.5 billion in spending cuts and probably a steeper drop in revenue than expected.
“The budget address is going to be nothing but bad news,” said James W. Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. “And it will have a much broader impact than simply the tolls. Unfortunately, the budget address has the capacity to make virtually everyone in the state unhappy.”
Mr. Corzine is expected to propose a budget of $33.5 billion, or maybe less, that threatens to spare few, if any, areas — not higher education or hospitals or local governments.
Administration officials and lobbyists say he is also considering shrinking the state work force by at least 3,000 employees through buyouts or early retirement packages, and closing as many as three departments. No wonder he expects a backlash from interest groups that, in prosperous times, would be allies.
“We are going to hold our spending at flat, or even reduce it, in the budget that I present, but that has to obviously impact some of those things that I think the public wants to see,” the governor told reporters after an event in Princeton on Thursday. “There’s a real tension that goes with trying to correct problems.”
For Mr. Corzine, the grimness of his assessment was matched by the realization that his ambitious plan to reduce the state’s debt and finance transportation, on which he has staked much of his first term, has been rejected by legislators and taxpayers.
Under his original plan, the state would help to create a nonprofit corporation empowered to raise up to $38 billion in bonds, backed by toll increases of 50 percent every four years from 2010 to 2022 on the New Jersey Turnpike, Garden State Parkway and Atlantic City Expressway. That money would pay down half the state’s debt of $32 billion and establish a steady stream of financing for transportation projects.
But in the last several days, the governor watched powerlessly as one Democratic legislator after another offered a buffet of alternatives that could be called, collectively, Anything-But-Corzine. Last Wednesday, Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski, the chairman of the Transportation and Public Works Committee, offered the first comprehensive alternative to Mr. Corzine’s plan.
Mr. Wisniewski, who has opposed the governor’s plan since it was introduced last month, proposed smaller toll increases as well as an increase in the gas tax — now one of the lowest in the country, at 14.5 cents a gallon — by 18 cents over three years. He also suggested a new water consumption tax that would finance preservation of open space.
State Senator Raymond J. Lesniak, a Democrat from Union County who is a leading ally of Mr. Corzine, said he was encouraged by Mr. Wisniewski’s plan, though it would not pay down nearly as much debt as the governor’s. But the Senate majority leader, Stephen M. Sweeney, said he would oppose any plan that included an increase in the gas tax.
As the Democrats scrambled to find an alternative to Mr. Corzine’s plan, the governor’s approval ratings continued to plunge. A New Jersey poll by Quinnipiac University, made public on Wednesday, found that a record 52 percent of respondents disapproved of Mr. Corzine’s performance.
Asked Thursday about the status of his fiscal plan, Mr. Corzine seemed a bit resigned and noted that he did not have the majority of votes necessary in either the Senate or the Assembly. “I’m not conceding that it’s dead,” he said in Princeton. “On the other hand, I’m a realist. I don’t have 21 and 41 votes for this — I might not have any votes for this.” He said he would look closely at Mr. Wisniewski’s plan.
And while Mr. Corzine insists that there is no causal relationship between the budget and his plan to raise tolls and lower the state’s debt, he must perform a juggling act that will require at least two hands.
Complicating matters, tax revenue in December was below projections by 1.7 percent, or $53 million. The January figures have yet to be released, but administration officials, who required anonymity to discuss the situation because they were not authorized to speak to the news media, said they expected a further softening.
Mr. Corzine is notorious for tinkering until the very last minute, and the budget process this year is even more nerve-racking than usual for legislators and lobbyists, because of the dire steps said to be under consideration: eliminating the Departments of Personnel, Agriculture and Commerce; reducing higher-education subsidies; cutting property tax rebates for the wealthiest residents; closing state parks; and shortening hours at offices of the Motor Vehicle Commission.
“We may not get everything I want with regard to these issues,” Mr. Corzine said, “but if we get a long way down that path, I think we will make real change, real contributions, to both the present and future of the state.”
