Christie’s Promises: Relief or Regression?

On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 Republican Chris Christie was elected Governor of New Jersey, beating Democratic incumbent John Corzine by 5.6% of the vote. Christie’s challenges are numerous: an estimated $10 billion budget deficit, the highest properties taxes in the country, rapidly deteriorating roadways, and a distressed electorate. In the wake of Corzine’s sharp property tax hikes––which voters clearly took issue with this Tuesday––Christie campaigned on the age-old platform of lowering taxes and trimming the state budget. This came alongside the mitigated social conservatism that is to be expected from a Republican candidate running in a historically liberal state.

But Christie won by running a brilliantly ambiguous, empty campaign. He has provided minimal insight as to how he would balance the state budget if taxes were cut, he has encouraged a potentially harmful spending cap, and he has promised to deregulate businesses and previously state-supported public utilities, which would come at the cost of the people who use them.  So what will New Jersey look like if Christie’s few campaign promises come to fruition?

Local Spending Caps

First, we need to set up two basic relationships. Higher taxes usually accompany higher spending. Lower taxes usually accompany reduced public services. One of Christie’s post-election promises on Wednesday night was to enforce a stricter cap on increases in spending at the local level, which, according to the New York Times, is the main catalyst for higher property taxes. But an indiscriminate cap (a single cap) on local spending from the Governor’s office would only exacerbate ongoing problems with local services––namely, education. New Jersey’s education system is unique in that many suburban (“I” and “J”) districts are funded 90% locally, while  poorer, “Abbott” districts like Newark receive up to 60% state funding. A stricter spending cap would practically choke suburban districts, while having almost no visible effect on urban ones. The irony is that Christie, who criticized Corzine vigorously on his failed education policy in the first gubernatorial debate, is advocating a similar policy by promising stricter local spending caps. A report by the Education Law Center (ELC), published in May of this year, stated that “the gap in overall funding between wealthy, suburban districts and poor, urban districts rose from $901 to $1066 in just one school year.” That’s an unprecedented 18.3% leap in funding disparity. Haphazardly prohibiting local districts from spending will not solve the problem of suffering urban schools. Redistributing tax revenue will.

Christie’s promises to lower taxes may come to fruition at the expense of both less affluent New Jersey school districts who need to increase spending, and suburban districts who do not rely heavily on state funding. Christie presupposes, with a spending cap, that all spending increases past a certain point are superfluous. This simply is not true. One local Board may fund  expensive programs, like IEPs (Individual Education Programs), that fluctuate on a year-to-year basis (for example, Hunterdon Central School District), while another (like the Lower Cape May Regional School District) may not. A spending cap would hurt local public services in the long run, not help them.

But Christie’s campaign didn’t always look like a referendum on Corzine’s severely augmented taxation. Before offering up his own contrived solutions to Corzine’s 8 billion to 10 billion dollar budget deficit and severely inflated taxes, Christie denounced his opponents’ attempts at balancing property taxes with sales tax as a “tax hike.” Independent candidate Chris Dagget proposed raising sales tax significantly in order to counteract losses in revenue from property tax relief. In New Jersey, there is no sales taxes on clothes, and this is meant to attract business to New Jersey. But thriving business does not signify a thriving population, as we have seen under Corzine. Let’s implement a higher sales tax, so that those who can afford to spend money are taxed, and those who cannot are not penalized with a blanket property tax.

The critical issue is that Christie, so far, has refused to show how he would recoup for lost revenue if he cuts taxes.

Deregulation

Not only does an economically arresting, local spending cap conflict with Christie’s conservative, “small government” platform, it would run alongside Christie’s promise to do the opposite for business––deregulate. And with the gutting of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by Congress (an Act to inhibit internal corporate fraud ), stringent state regulation of business is more important now than ever.

Christie has criticized the “Wall Street philosophy of ‘spend now, borrow now, and pay later’,” saying it “has ruined our state’s finances.” Yet, Christie promises to deregulate business, a critical contradiction of his disapproval of the ‘spend, borrow, then pay’ philosophy. “Believe me, I know how to hold people accountable,” Christie said in reference to his success as US Attorney for the State of  New Jersey. It seems, though, that deregulation would counteract any promises of greater corporate accountability.

Christie has a history of advocating deregulation, too, having been a lobbyist for GPU Energy, New  Jersey’s  leader in the electric and gas industry, and having fought for the Securities Industry Association to prevent the inclusion of securities fraud under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act.

The bottom line is that even if business thrives under a policy of deregulation, keeping sales and income tax stagnant (or lowering both) will not assuage the multi-billion dollar state budget deficit at all. If anything, it will aggravate voters by allowing businesses and once state-operated utilities (like the electrical service, PSEG) to operate freely in the open market, leaving residents to fend for themselves against energy and utility conglomerates that were once regulated by the state for the benefit of the people.

Social Dogma

Fortunately, in the face of pressing economic concerns, Christie has backed a non-imposing stance on most social issues. In regards to gay marriage, Christie is in favor of the State’s current law, which allows civil unions. But he has said that he would veto any bill allowing same-sex marriage, a major hindrance to state equality groups. Christie has also supported the state’s rigorous gun control laws. Christie is pro-life, but says he will not use the governor’s office to “force that down people’s throats.”  He does, however, want to outlaw partial birth abortions (a necessity in some emergency medical cases), and require parental notification, in addition to a 24-hour waiting period. These measures, though small, would restrict existing abortion rights.

Christie’s vague, empty campaign has provided minimal answers as to how the budget will be balanced. Spending caps will harm, not help, high-taxing localities. And Christie’s deregulation will come at the cost of the people who use state utilities. Even the Democratic Legislature, which should serve to moderate Christie’s flawed policies, may be swayed to the right by the fact the State electorate gave Christie 49.1% of the popular vote. But it’s over, New Jersey, and the fat man is singing.

No related posts.