NJ Sales & Property Taxes

Two events occurred recently. First I received an e-mail from an old friend who used to work for my Congressman in Montclair, Congressman Pascrell, and since I disagreed with the contents of his communication, I replied accordingly. Subsequently, I saw a Letter to the Editor written by the President of the New Jersey Chamber Commerce with which I agreed. I set forth a copy of the letter from the Chamber as it appeared in the Fort Lee Suburbanite.

August 4,2006 

Consolidating would help lower property taxes, rising

TO THE EDITOR: 

The elephant in the room during the recent state budget battle was property taxes and how to provide relief to people just trying to make ends meet. 

Our state leaders are rolling up their sleeves at a special summer session, hopefully producing long- term solutions and ending our dubious distinction of having the. highest per capita property taxes in the nation. Everyone involved in this debate knows that in order to enact real change, radical ideas will have to be accepted and the status quo will no longer be acceptable. Property tax reform will only happen when there is consolidation of some of the more than 1,000 layers of government that currently have taxing authority.

The rationale for this system is to allow for mass democratic involvement of our citizenry. We do not have mass involvement, only massive redundancies and the costs associated with them. Consolidation, however, would mean fewer schools, fire and police departments and municipal governments and more shared services - a frightening and confusing concept for residents accustomed to the way things have always been. 

At the conclusion of the budget battle. Governor Corzine won about $600 million to help balance the budget through the imposition of another cent on the sales tax, half of which would off- set operations. The other half of the penny earned has been earmarked for property tax relief, which clearly means different things to different people. 

I am concerned that the $600 million will become just another redistribution of funds, spread so thin that the impact will be nearly meaningless. Certainly senior citizens, those on fixed incomes and the working poor can well use any dollar they get. But is that the best use of the $600 million? 

We're getting to the point in New Jersey that the rebates offered in October constitute a single digit reduction of our ever raising taxes, if that. Used more creatively, the money could get at the heart of what really drives property taxes: Schools and municipal services. 

If the money were put into a fund to incentivize municipal and school consolidations, as the governor and some in the legislature have suggested, we'd see a significant and sustainable decrease in property taxes. Home rule seems to be the boogieman that everyone points to when saying that consolidations will never happen. I, for one, don't care what community's name is on the side of the fire truck when it arrives to douse the flames engulfing my home, I suspect that most would vote for consolidation if we were to quantify the cost of maintaining and growing our own fiefdoms. 

Let's get real about who we are and what can be done to make New Jersey more affordable for all of our families and employers. Let's provide significant amounts of money to those brave communities looking for ways to maintain quality services without driving taxpayers out of their homes and businesses. Other states have done it. 

In theory, we all want to control everything in our hometown. In practice, how many of us actually do anything to control our local destiny? Take a look at the turnout for the school board elections if you're looking for a clue. 

We work hard, take care of our kids and are bright, successful people. Hard to believe that we can't grasp what every large bank in the country has figured out. There are, indeed, economies of scale. Is it worth an additional S2,000 a year in property tax to be sure that the fire truck has your communities name on it? 

Joan Verplanck 
President 
New Jersey Chamber of Commerce

Upon seeing this letter I wrote my own praising the position of the Chamber of Commerce and also set forth my exchange with the former Congressional aide. I set forth a copy of my letter as it appeared in the Fort Lee Suburbanite. 

Scheller asks Schwartz how NJ Could cut taxes

TO THE EDITOR:

I would like to express my appreciation and agreement with the letter from the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce which appeared in the Aug. 4 edition of your paper. I want to add just one caveat and that is that the letter ends with a reference to consolidating fire services. That is the easy part. Schools are the sticking point.

On the subject of taxes I would like to share with your readers an exchange I had recently with a former Congressional aide, Stephen E. Schwartz.

Mr. Schwartz wrote:

"I have never started a grass-roots campaign, although as an aide to Congressman Bill Pascrell I certainly worked with a few. I now see the need to start the back to six campaign. If you are puzzled by the plan to raise the sales tax to 7 percent only to take half the money raised and give it back in the form of property tax relief then you are not alone. Since when is the government a revolving door for our money? "It does not take an accountant to see that the numbers do not add up. The average person will still pay more in taxes. The governor and the legislature need to hear from us or they will not realize how displeased we are by this increase. Given the slump in the real estate and stock markets, rising gas costs and rising interest rates,where will we find the money to pay an extra 1 percent on each and every purchase "Given the slump in the real estate and stock markets, rising gas costs and rising interest rates, where will we find the money to pay an extra 1 percent on each and every purchase? For example a gallon of milk now costs about two cents more and a Toyota Camry now costs $182 more.

"The working men and women of this state will be extremely squeezed by this increase. Even with this so-called property tax rebate, property taxes are still too high. Now the sales tax is too high. The cost of living in New Jersey is fast becoming too high. The excuse for the increase is that; New Jersey has a big debt. Well, forcing hard working people to leave New Jersey or simply spend less money will shrink the amount of taxes collected and result in more debt.

"We need to send the governor and the legislature back to the drawing board. Please forward this email to anyone you know and have them email me directly. I will then collect the thousands of emails and forward them to the Governor's office. If I get enough emails, I will alert the media as well. Thank you for your attention.”

To which I replied:

"I find myself puzzled and dismayed by the views set forth in your message. What exactly are you advocating? Is it that New Jersey should operate by running an ever larger deficit while its credit rating plummets and the interest on its debt goes higher and higher? Surely you are savvy enough to know that this is a formula for disaster. Are you advocating that New Jersey should balance its budget by cutting expenses? If so, please spell out where you believe the cuts should be made. Should they be made in Medicaid? In highway maintenance? In the maintenance of state parks? In aid to school districts? Where do you believe cuts can be made without a cut in essential services?

"If you are objecting to the fact that the increase in the sales tax will not deal with the deficit if it is to be used to defray real estate taxes and that it should be dedicated to its original purpose to close the budget deficit as Governor Corzine intended, than I can see merit in your position, but that is hardly clear from your campaign.

"If you are arguing that a surcharge to the income tax would make more sense, particularly if it were to be limited to upper incomes such as more than $100,000, because a sales tax is regressive while the income tax is at least moderately progressive, than I can see the merit of such an argument.

"But if you are simply against all tax increases without discussing alternatives than I suggest that you are indulging in demagoguery worthy of our Republican 'friends'.

"I think you owe it to me and all those to whom you directed your appeal to explain exactly what your position is, and exactly what you are advocating”

I never received a response.

A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Desecration Of The American Flag

H.J.Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag recently H.J.Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.  passed the House but got almost no coverage by the media. This may be because since the 1960s when flag burning was a frequent expression of opposition to the Vietnam war such resolutions passed the House many times but failed to get the needed 2/3 majority needed for a Constitutional Amendment. The difference now is that with a Senate which is more right wing than at any time since the ‘60s this could pass the Senate as well.

Much to my consternation, I discovered that my Democratic, liberal Congressman Steve Rothman, not only voted for the amendment in the House along with 77 other Democrats, including my former Congressman in Montclair, Bill Pascrell, but he was a cosponsor of the amendment. Accordingly I sent him an e-mail expressing my dismay.

I quote  his response below:

“Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to 
H.J.Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the 
American flag. I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the 
opportunity to respond.  

"I understand and share your concerns about threats to First 
Amendment liberties and freedoms. However, while I am a strong 
defender of our First Amendment rights, I believe that the 
Constitution (and our Founders) meant for "reasonable" lines to be 
drawn, limiting some forms of "speech" such as shouting "fire" in 
a crowded theater, public obscenity, threatening a person or a 
group with bodily harm, and child pornography. I believe -- and 
certainly other reasonable people of good will could disagree -- 
that the unique national symbol of America's hard won freedoms 
and liberties should be protected. In that regard, it is obvious but 
important to note, that there are many other ways to express 
disapproval for our government's actions, to oppose political 
leaders, as well as to "protest" about one's general frustration with 
our country's policies. I believe that a reasonable civil penalty 
would be appropriate for those who would desecrate our national 
flag. 

"As you may know, on June 22, 2005, I voted for and 
Congress passed H.J.Res. 10, a proposed Constitutional 
amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag, by 
a vote of 286-130. I know how seriously you and many other of 
my friends and respected colleagues may disagree with me on this 
issue. However, I hope you are also aware that we hopefully agree 
on the vast majority of other important issues facing our country 
on a daily basis. And while we may disagree on this issue, please 
know that I will continue to value your input on all the critical 
issues facing Congress and I will be sure to keep our shared 
support for the importance of free speech very much in mind.  

"Thank you again for contacting me. As your 
Representative in the United States Congress, it is a privilege and 
an honor to serve you and to act as your voice in Washington.  
Please feel free to contact me again with any other issue or matter 
that concerns you. You may also want to visit my website at 
www.house.gov/rothman where you can sign up for my e-
newsletter and keep current with my latest Congressional activities 
and policy statements.”

I did not let the matter rest there but wrote to him again as follows:

“Dear Mr. Rothman,

"Thank you for your kind response to my letter on H.J. Res. 10, the constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. 

"You are quite right that we agree on the vast majority of other important issues facing our country on a daily basis but I can not accept this issue of being of anything but fundamental importance. 

"I wonder if you or your Democratic colleagues, who supported this amendment, have considered some of its ramifications. 

"I recently received a small replica of an American flag in the mail. Will I be violating the law if I throw it in the wastebasket or would I have to keep it in order not to break the law? "If I wear a sweatshirt with the flag on it distorted will I be a criminal? If I have a flag that is old and dirty and throw it into the incinerator will I be guilty of flag burning? If I walk over a carpet bearing a likeness of the flag what would be the consequences.

You talk of this new crime being subject only to civil penalties. Is there a provision in the amendment that limits the penalties to civil ones and if so does it prevent the penalties from being excessive? 

"Is our National Anthem any less our National symbol? If people sing it, but distort the words so as to change the last line of the Anthem to, “Over the land of slaves and the home of cowards?” would you support an amendment to ban distortion of our anthem? 

"A few years ago the Brooklyn museum had a display that deeply offended Catholics. Then Mayor Giuliani felt it should not be allowed to be shown. Would you support such a ban? 

"If someone published material denying the Holocaust and saying while it isn’t true it, it would nevertheless be a good idea to kill all Jews, do you think our laws should make this criminal, (as it probably is in present day Germany) or even attach civil penalties.

"I do not see how you can support the flag amendment, which you not only supported but sponsored, without asking yourself, and answering these questions.

"I would be grateful if you would let me have a detailed response even though no form letter could serve this purpose.”

At about the same time there appeared in my local paper, the Fort Lee Suburbanite the following letter to the Editor:

Senators must support flag protection

"TO THE EDITOR: 
"Once again, a large majority of the U.S. Senate is committed to send the Flag Amendment for an up-or-down vote by representatives of the people. Once again, this majority may be just shy of the required two-thirds. And, once again, a few "swing" senators are coming up with old excuses for stifling a uniquely democratic process of constitutional lawmaking. 

"These senators say they agree with most Americans: Congress should be allowed, as in the past, to protect the flag from physical desecration. They say there's a need to protect the American flag from defecation, urination and burning. They do not claim it would somehow erode free speech to do so. But, here is where the excuses come in. 

"First, they insist there's another way. A flag protection statute, they say, would be better than a constitutional amendment. This misses the point. The point of the constitutional amendment is precisely to permit the enactment of a statute. A senator who supports a statute must support the amendment. There is no way around it. 

"The reason, of course, is that a bare (5-4) majority of the Supreme Court- for the first time in our history, 15 years ago - held that specific statutory protection of the flag is impermissible. The five justices said that physical desecration is "speech" and that singling out the American flag for protection amounts, in itself, to favoring one point of view over other competing points of view. Under this reasoning any flag protection statute will be invalid. 
 
"The "swing" senators claim disagree with the Supreme Court. But they are reluctant back up their disagreement with their vote. Instead, they want to imagine the court never did and said what it did and said. When pressed on this point, they move on to a second excuse for blocking progress of the amendment. The court, they imagine, will soon change its mind. This is a fantasy. 

"Four Justices have joined Supreme Court since it last faced the flag protection issue. Of them, three (Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) would surely stick with the previous decision. Along with two others (Scalia and Kennedy) who were in the majority 15 years ago, that makes a majority of five. If the fourth new Justice (Thomas) were to agree with Scalia, as he often does, that would make six. 

"What is more, the three Justices thought most likely to retire in the next several years (Rehnquist, Stevens and O'Connor), were all in dissent on the issue. Their replacement with pro-flag protection successors would make no difference at all. 

"Again, there is no alternative. The "swing" senators either must accede to the court's continued ban on any statute specifically protecting the flag, a position with which they say they profoundly disagree. Or, acting on their professed support for flag protection, they must allow the 50 states to vote on the proposed constitutional amendment, thus permitting correction of what they say is the court's mistake. 

"Of course, an amendment ought not be undertaken lightly. It ought to have sustained, very substantial popular backing before being sent to the states. Not many could pass that test. But the Flag Amendment does. For a decade and a half, the overwhelming bulk of the American people have supported it.

"The "swing" senators say they, too, support flag protection. Now, the time has come to see if they really do. 

Richard D. Parker
Professor of Law
Harvard Law School 

I couldn’t resist and wrote my own Letter to the Editor which was published in Friday’s edition of the paper as follows:

“The letter to the Editor by Professor Parker of Harvard Law School which appeared in your July 8, 2005 edition is notable for the fact that it goes on paragraph after paragraph extolling the desirability of a Constitutional amendment to limit the First Amendment so as to allow Congress to pass legislation banning flag desecration, without ever discussing the pros and cons of such an extra-ordinary act other than that it is popular.

  "That it is popular is true, but it is equally true that it is popular because its consequences have never really been discussed and discussion has been suppressed by labeling anyone who does not support it as being something less than patriotic. But support of free speech by words or symbols is the height of patriotism. It is what our flag stands for.

"I recently wrote a letter to Congressman Rothman, who represents this district and I believe I can best address this issue by simply quoting my letter to the Congressman…. “

I then quoted the letter to the Congressman omitting, for brevities sake, the part about the Holocaust.

It will be interesting to see whether the Congressman responds. In the meantime I would be very happy to have comments on this controversial subject.