Princeton Packet Editorial
Voters have a chance to make a statement about New Jersey government Tuesday — and not only by casting ballots for their favorite candidates.
There are four questions on the ballot, three of which follow in the tradition of the general shortsightedness that has characterized the state’s approach to spending over the last two decades.
The questions call for: dedicating the revenue from 1 percentage point of the sales tax to property-tax relief; authorizing $450 million in new borrowing for stem-cell research; authorizing $200 million for a short-term loan to keep the state’s preservation fund solvent; and changing the state constitution to remove the phrase “idiot or insane person.”
We believe voters should reject three of the questions, one because it is bad public policy and two because adding to the state’s already mammoth debt is unwise, given New Jersey’s precarious budget situation. The fourth question, changing the language in the state’s constitution, deserves voter support.
Question 1 is being sold as permanent tax relief, but is nothing more than another in a long line of gimmicks designed to appease voters without fixing the systemic fiscal problems facing the state.
Diverting another stream of revenue, as the question asks voters to do, has three basic flaws, as the liberal interest group New Jersey Policy Perspective points out. It would diminish budget flexibility; reduce available revenue and exacerbate the recurring budget deficit; and delay real reform.
If voters are interested in true reform — and this means not just lower property-tax bills, but a complete realignment of spending and taxing priorities — they will reject the ballot question and push legislators to call a constitutional convention.
Voters also are being asked to endorse a total of $650 million in new borrowing for a couple of obviously worthy causes at a time when the state’s total debt is at record levels.
In principle, we support stem-cell research and believe subsidies from the state and federal government could lead to host of new treatments for an array of ailments.
The question is whether the state can afford at this time to borrow another $450 million for new facilities and other subsidies.
The same calculus influences our thinking on the proposed $200 million in temporary debt the state wants authorized to keep its preservation programs afloat.
Our concern is an already excessive state debt load — about $33.7 billion at the beginning of the fiscal year that started in July, or about $4,500 for every man, woman and child in New Jersey.
While supporters are correct in saying that the bond issues will have no immediate impact on state taxes, they ignore the constraints that debt repayment place on the state’s annual budget.
Debt payments in the 2007-2008 budget totaled $2.7 billion — about 8 percent — a figure that The Star-Ledger reports is on the rise. That means that one of every $12 that the state takes in goes to paying off previous spending.
As the governor pointed out in his budget address in March, the state can no longer go “from budget to budget to budget” without a solid plan for reducing the size of the state’s debt and paying for other fixed costs (such as pension payments and healthcare). That plan still does not exist. Borrowing more money without such a plan just doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
