Actually, last I heard, Governor Rendell promised to lower taxes by raising them. Doesn't make sense. Well, consider the opposite scenario:
When President Bush signed the law lowering tax rates, many people began to pay more in taxes because they had more after-tax money to invest, either by hiring new employees or buying stocks. Or perhaps the people worked a few extra hours now that they got an effective raise in their wages. These investments in turn generated more income, which increased the total income of these people so much that they actually had to pay more taxes.
Rendell's plan is to raise taxes so much (down the other end of the Laffer curve) that people do not find working harder and longer worthwhile, are compelled to withdraw from investments, and lose their jobs. By instituting these cripplingly high tax rates, most Pennsylvanians actually will pay less money because they will not engage in economic activity that results in taxation.
Accordingly, I fled from the Commonwealth.
Plenty of taxes for all of us to pay
Whether or not life is easy for those who make salaries in the high six figures, buy million-dollar mansions, drive new cars, and get nose jobs, the state budget will make it a little harder.
The plan passed by the Legislature's Democratic majority Friday taxes high incomes more heavily, imposes new fees on the sale of expensive houses, adds a $1.50 surcharge per tire (even the spare) in a new car purchase, and takes a 6 percent cut of cosmetic surgeries.
On the other hand, the budget promises to ease the difficulties of paying property taxes, affording health insurance, and covering college tuition. It boosts tax-rebate checks, reimburses more health care for the uninsured, and provides additional aid to community college students.
Its Democratic architects characterize it as an optimistic document that gives money and services to those who need it, while the Republican opposition calls it an irresponsible orgy of taxing and borrowing. What's certain is that the $28 billion budget, with a 16.8 percent spending increase that is one of the most expansive in state history, will leave few residents untouched.
Although some of its $1.8 billion in new taxes and fees pointedly target the rich, others - such as those on HMOs, telephones, cigarettes, and drivers - will cut across broad swaths of the population. Moreover, because the budget relies on $1.9 billion in long-term debt to be paid back by those taxes, the burden extends decades into the future.
The opposite side of the ledger will have similarly wide-ranging impacts. A near-doubling of spending on property-tax rebates will ensure much bigger checks for 93 percent of homeowners. Schools and towns can count on a modest increase in state aid to offset property taxes. Other significant spending increases will benefit public transportation, hospitals, nursing homes, medical research, and the state child-welfare agency.
Polls show that the most pressing public issue for New Jerseyans is the property tax, which was a major theme in the debate over the budget. But the budget's implications for local levies, and public anger over them, remain unclear, said Ingrid Reed, director of the New Jersey Project at Rutgers' Eagleton Institute of Politics.
"It's a real question whether people's property taxes will still go up, or whether that will change," Reed said. "The budget represents some very bold moves, but it's hard to get across to the public what the benefits of those are, or the shortcomings."
Following are some of the most significant breaks and burdens, and the people who will be affected.
Property tax relief
Democrats clearly hope the budget will diminish some homeowner angst over rising property taxes, though Republicans and local officials argue that it will do little to solve the problem. The budget's largest spending increase nearly doubles the amount dedicated to property-tax rebates to $1.9 billion. Most of that comes from higher income taxes on households earning more than $500,000 a year.
Most of the state's homeowners get an average rebate of $250 after last year's budget cuts. Under the new budget, that figure will double or triple in most cases.
Although the checks are labeled as property tax relief, Reed doubted that most homeowners would see them that way.
"I know politicians like to turn those checks back to the people, and people like them," Reed said. "But I don't think people will sit down with their tax bills and deduct the rebate."
The budget also includes an $847 million increase, about 8.6 percent, in aid to schools, towns, and counties, which rely mainly on property taxes. Accompanying legislation tightened spending limits on school districts and local governments. But local officials remain skeptical as to whether that will hold down property taxes amid rising costs, and after two years of stagnant state aid.
Lawmakers last week also moved toward proposing a constitutional convention on property taxes, which would have to be approved by voters next year. That gathering would consider wholesale changes to the state's tax structure, but the outcome remains nebulous and at least three years away.
One of the budget's myriad small-bore levies also is directed at homeowners. The sale of any home worth more than $350,000 will be subjected to a new "general purpose fee" on top of the existing "basic fee," "additional fee," and "supplemental fee." The charge to sellers ranges from 90 cents to $2.15 per $500; for a $750,000 home, it would amount to $1,550. For homes worth more than $1 million, an additional 1 percent tax will be imposed on the buyer.
Nose jobs, tummy tucks
Like the tax on high incomes and the fee for sales of expensive homes, the 6 percent tax on nose jobs and tummy tucks - the "cosmetic surgery surcharge" - appears aimed at people who will hardly notice. But Dr. Richard D'Amico, chief of plastic surgery at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, doesn't buy it.
"It's a selective and discriminatory tax on middle-class women,'' he said. "I feel for them. There are people who save up for years to have their nose done.''
Women make up 86 percent of those who undergo cosmetic procedures, of which the most common are nose reshaping, liposuction, breast augmentation, eyelid surgery, and face-lifts, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. The tax is expected to generate $26 million a year.
The tax won't apply to medically necessary procedures, but D'Amico said lawmakers should not be deciding what fits that definition.
"I'm embarrassed to be the first state in the nation to tax a medical procedure,'' he said. "I don't want to collect it."
One of his patients, Ellen Schwartz of Englewood, said she would be inclined to go to New York for surgery rather than pay the tax.
"They are targeting a segment of people who they perceive as wealthy, when this not always the case," she said.
A number of other taxes and assessments will probably end up driving the cost of health insurance higher. The budget imposes an assessment on HMO premiums for the first time, adding a 1 percent surcharge to help fund care for those who have no insurance.
Michelle Guhl, president of the New Jersey Association of Health Plans, calls that "perverse logic.'' HMOs will pass the cost of this new assessment on to the people buying insurance, she said. Every time the price of insurance rises by 1 percent in New Jersey, 8,000 additional people go without insurance. So the state's method of funding care of the uninsured may actually end up increasing their numbers, she said.
Other charges for health care: a $5 surcharge for hospital outpatient visits, and an assessment on ambulatory medical facilities, such as dialysis centers and MRI centers.
But the budget may ease the financial pressure on hospitals, more than half of which have been operating in the red. It boosts funding for charity care, which reimburses hospitals for treating the uninsured, by a total of $200 million.
"We're thrilled that the governor and Legislature have recognized the need to provide care for the 1.4 million uninsured in New Jersey,'' said Betsy Ryan, general counsel for the New Jersey Hospital Association.
Good news for seniors
July will be a good month for senior citizens, thousands of whom will receive larger Homestead Rebate checks near the end of the month. The maximum size of the rebate check will grow to $1,200, a more than 50 percent increase.
About 130,000 residents enrolled in the "Senior Property Tax" freeze program will also begin receiving checks around July 15, reimbursing them for this year's property tax increases. The budget will also reimburse 50,000 seniors who filed last year but did not receive a check because the program was suspended.
The governor's budget more than doubled the funding for the senior freeze program to $48 million. The extra money allows the administration to slightly increase the income eligibility limit to $40,028 for singles and $49,082 for married couples.
Help for school districts
The budget spends $8.9 billion on K-12 education, an increase of $760 million. That should mean a boost of at least 3 percent in aid for each of the more than 500 school districts in New Jersey, according to treasury officials.
However, educators say the increase will do little to offset their rising costs, most notably in insurance and fuel. And that means local property taxpayers in many towns will continue to shoulder heavy school expenses.
"It's a small increase, but not where it should be,'' said Frank Belluscio, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association. "There are a lot of factors here where the negative outweighs the positive."
He said the state is underfunding districts by $300 million. His group wanted the governor to direct revenue from the higher income tax to education rather than direct rebates to property owners.
On the higher education front, after two years of flat funding, the budget raises spending by $170 million, to just over $2 billion.
"Basically it's a good beginning for a turnaround in investment in higher education,'' said Paul Shelly, spokesman for the Association for State Colleges and Universities.
But most public colleges and universities still will post tuition increases of 6 to 8 percent for September, said Shelly.
Cellphones, cigarettes
Governor McGreevey and his fellow Democrats are hiking taxes on a pair of common, sometimes habit-forming activities to raise money for the state treasury. The budget includes a new 90-cent-per-month tax on regular and mobile phones and a 35-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes.
Administration officials said the tax will pay to revamp the state's 911 emergency call system, including new technology that would allow police to track the location of mobile phone users who call for help.
But only $9 million of the $33 million raised from the tax will cover 911 upgrades. The rest of the money is slated to pay for general state police costs.
The increase brings New Jersey's total tax on cigarettes to $2.40, making it the largest such tax among the states. McGreevey has hiked the tax every year he's been in office, but this year there was an additional maneuver: Future cigarette taxes will be used to pay for bonds that will help cover $1.9 billion in state operating costs. Republicans are seeking to stop that bond sale in court.
Bad drivers will pay
Registration fees will not change, but car owners will have to pay four years of them up front under legislation that accompanied the budget. The new rule could take effect as early as Oct. 1, said Dennis Rivell, chief of staff at the Motor Vehicle Commission.
Drivers who run afoul of the law also face additional fees. Accruing 6 points for traffic violations will cost a surcharge of $150 a year, up from $100. Those who plead guilty to unsafe driving will pay an additional $250.
New car buyers may have yet another charge before driving off the sales lot. A $1.50 tax on each tire of a new vehicle is expected to generate more than $12 million in revenue. The money will be used to dispose of tires and remove snow, said Tom Vincz, a spokesman for the Department of Treasury. Opponents argue that the tax is essentially one more means of raising general state revenue.
The budget bodes well for keeping New Jersey Transit fares at their current level, said spokeswoman Janet Hines. The agency stands to pick up an $85 million increase in budgeted funds, a 44 percent increase.
Trenton Bureau Chief Charles Stile and Staff Writers Pat Alex, Colleen Diskin, John Dyer, Yung Kim, and Lindy Washburn contributed to this article.WHO IS AFFECTED:
DRIVERS
- Motorists with six points for traffic violations will face a $150 surcharge, up from $100.
- Those who plead guilty to unsafe driving will pay a $250 penalty.
- A $1.50 surcharge on each tire of a new vehicle to generate more than $12 million.
SMOKERS
- Will pay 35 cents more in taxes on a pack of cigarettes, raising the total tax to $2.40.
PHONE USERS
- New 90-cent-per-month tax on regular and mobile phones to pay for new 911 emergency network and other security needs.
WEALTHY RESIDENTS
- Face a higher tax - 8.97 percent - on income over $500,000, which will raise $800 million.
PATIENTS
- 6 percent tax on cosmetic surgery.
- 1 percent tax on HMO premiums.
- More "charity care" payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients.
HOMEOWNERS
- Fattened rebates, ranging from $500 to $800, depending on income.
Jerseyans to state: Cut us a break
Anger over taxes sparked the American Revolution. Since then, their popularity hasn't exactly improved.
A recent poll by The Record shows that more than one in three North Jerseyans cite taxes as the worst problem they face.
You'd never know that from this week's news out of Trenton. More than a decade after former Gov. Jim Florio lost his reelection bid over a big bump in government spending, the McGreevey administration has won approval for a budget that's up 17 percent - an increase funded by a combination of tax hikes and new debt.
HOW THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED:
This survey was conducted by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md. A total of 1,008 adults within the circulation area of The Record were interviewed by telephone between March 6 and March 19. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was used to ensure an accurate reflection of the region. The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 3 percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire adult population was sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as age, race, or gender. NOTE: A total of 603 interviews were conducted in Bergen County and North Bergen and Secaucus in Hudson County. The margin for error there is plus or minus 4 percentage points. A total of 405 interviews were conducted in Passaic County and the Morris County towns of Pequannock, Lincoln Park, Riverdale, Butler, and Kinnelon. The margin for error there is plus or minus 5 percentage points. |
The prevailing wisdom is that voters won't stand for significant tax hikes, especially voters who have seen property taxes increase an average of 6 percent in recent years.
So, will Governor McGreevey get hammered over this spike in government spending, or will he benefit from the things it will buy, including a significant increase in property tax rebate checks. Seniors and disabled homeowners will receive checks as large as $1,200; homeowners earning less than $125,000 a year would receive $800 checks, and those earning between $125,000 and $200,000 a year would receive $500 checks.
It depends on whom you ask, and it breaks down largely along party lines.
For their part, administration officials argue that the increases will help local government contain costs that otherwise would be passed on to property taxpayers. And property taxes, they say, are the main cause of frustration for most New Jersey residents.
"I don't think anyone would say you shouldn't include more money to school districts or not include more money for towns," said Eric Shuffler, counselor to the governor. "What we're talking about constrains the growth of government."
But Republican campaign strategist Rick Shaftan predicted that the budget will damage McGreevey politically, because it contains a multitude of taxes that touch the common man. He expected those taxes to form the centerpiece of his party's attack ads.
"Tire tax. Cellphone tax. HMO tax. Mortgage tax. Income tax," Shaftan said. "I'll stretch it out. It'll be 40 taxes by the time I'm done with it."
Democrats say that even though spending has increased, taxpayers will benefit by seeing increased services and more money in their pockets, thanks in large measure to increases in rebates budgeted for middle-class homeowners.
"People don't mind government spending as long as it's for worthwhile investments,'' said Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Wood-Ridge. "The spending is not frivolous and it's on worthwhile investments, like homeland security, our children's education."
Ramsey Mayor Richard Muti, a Democrat, lauded the spending plan - covering the fiscal year that begins Thursday - saying it will provide needed property-tax relief to municipalities.
"Residents are going to see something come back to them in more than one way,'' he said. "They are going to see higher rebates and they are going to see their municipal tax burden ease."
But local Republicans say McGreevey is not practicing what he has preached to municipalities about controlling expenditures.
"People are going to be paying more for cellphones and for new tires under this budget,'' said Assemblyman John Rooney, who is also the mayor of Northvale. "He has taxed us to death, and it's the same old thing.''
The Record Poll, conducted before the budget was formulated, confirmed that New Jerseyans are not happy about the cost of government.
Thirty-six percent of respondents identified taxes as the most important problem they face living in North Jersey, more than twice as many as the next-largest group, who cited jobs and the economy as their main concern.
"Taxes are on everything," said Seema Chib, a Paramus resident who immigrated from India in 1978. "There's too many taxes in this country. For the first five months of the year, we're paying taxes. Then after that we pay for us."
The poll also found that residents think they aren't getting their money's worth. Of those polled, more than 60 percent said the cost of government is too high.
"New Jersey residents don't mind paying taxes as long as they're getting a benefit for it," said Dan Clifton, an analyst at Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. "Residents are being asked to fork over higher property and state taxes while not getting any increase of services in return."
In addition to $1 billion in other tax increases, the governor's budget includes a so-called "millionaire's tax" - $800 million in new revenue from households making more than $500,000.
Taxpayers' sense that they are paying more while the quality of government remains the same is precisely why the millionaire's tax is necessary, said Jon Shure, president of New Jersey Policy Perspective, a liberal advocacy group. New Jersey's overreliance on property taxes to pay for education has forced middle-income households to shoulder the most expensive part of state government. Under McGreevey's plan, the millionaire's tax would provide relief to those households in the form of higher rebate checks.
"If New Jersey had a better, balanced system based on people's ability to pay, then the negative numbers in this poll would not be so dramatic," Shure said.
E-mail: dyer@northjersey.com and alvarado@northjersey.com
Why we're taxing the rich
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
By JAMES AHEARN |
|
WHAT DO YOU THINK New Jersey people would say if you went out and asked them what they thought of raising taxes on the rich? Suppose you also told them that the revenue from the higher taxes would be used for property-tax rebates for middle-class families. What then?
Did you guess that a high percentage would support the idea? Congratulations. Your instincts are borne out by professional polls. The normally tax-averse Legislature, with strong support by Governor McGreevey, passed a bill to raise the state income tax on households with incomes higher than $500,000.
The governor signed it Monday. He did so with a grin, ceremoniously, with balloons ballooning, drummers drumming, and seniors smiling. The top rate, now 6.37 percent, will rise to 8.97 percent for income above the half-million mark. If anything of the sort were proposed for taxpayers like thee and me, us honest, hard-working folks, there would be rioting in the streets.
Indeed, when Jim Florio signed an income tax increase as part of an ambitious tax restructuring 14 years ago, there were angry demonstrations, with people waving streamers of newly taxable toilet paper from highway overpasses. Voters turned Democratic legislators out of office, giving Republicans majority control of both houses, and then turned their anger on Florio, denying him a second term as governor.
This time, though, there was bipartisan support for the so-called "millionaire's tax." Nearly a third of Republican legislators voted for it and for the higher property-tax rebates it would finance, which would particularly benefit elderly homeowners. Nevertheless, conservative legislators from safe Republican districts disagreed, calling it class warfare.
"Burn, baby, burn!" cried Michael Patrick Carroll of Morris County, recycling the mantra of urban rioting in the Sixties. "We're making envy the cornerstone of our tax policy." His Morris colleague, Richard Merkt, declared, "This administration wants to send everyone in New Jersey a check with the governor's name on it before the next election."
Actually, Merkt had it right. Problem was, most of the Legislature, not just the governor, had decided this was smart politics. The simple math of the thing indicated how it would turn out. Those subject to the higher tax numbered 28,500 households. Those benefiting numbered 1.8 million.
Anyone inclined to shed tears for the 28,500 must confront the scale of the incomes some of them are pulling in. Admittedly, the average is skewed upward by some truly rich people. The Record supplied publicly available figures for several prominent corporate executives: Ara Hovnanian, home builder, total 2003 compensation $17.5 million; Vernon Hill II, Commerce Bancorp, $11.4 million; Patricia F. Russo of Lucent, $4.5 million. And so forth.
Still, even those at the low end of the bracket, those earning a measly $510,000 or so, are doing pretty well. And they don't dispute that. Suppose they did. Suppose they said, "Hey, it costs a lot to belong to a country club these days, and have you priced a Maserati lately?" They would look ridiculous. So they and their representatives make dire comments instead about damaging the state's business climate.
So, too, with the new fees the state will start collecting on the sale of expensive houses. The fees will be significant, kicking in at $350,000. For a million-dollar house, a new general-purpose transfer fee will be imposed of just under $4,000, paid by the seller. This will be in addition to three previously authorized fees. Also, for a house costing more than $1 million, a separate new fee will be collected, paid by the buyer, at the rate of 1 percent of the amount over that threshold.
For a $2 million house, the new fees will add up to $18,296. Real money, even for someone who can afford to pay that much for a home. I think the fees are nevertheless defensible. The revenues will be used for general state purposes. The buyer might have to take out a mortgage for a bit more than he planned, or for a longer term, or the seller might have to accept a bit less, but the fees enable the state to profit from the extraordinary run-up in real-estate values in places like Saddle River and Short Hills.
So, yes, the state is hitting the rich in their wallets, and they will complain it's unfair. But who can better afford to pay?
James Ahearn is a contributing editor and former managing editor of The Record.
Soaked in New JerseyWhy would anyone want to move to the Garden State now?
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT New Jersey is the butt of many jokes, and some of them are even unfair. But the Garden State will soon deserve its reputation as one of the highest-taxed places in America. Moreover, it is falling into the same "progressive" tax trap that has done so much damage to California and New York.
On Monday the Legislature passed Governor Jim McGreevey's "millionaire's tax" (which actually kicks in at $500,000 of household income, but never mind). The state's top marginal tax rate is set to rise by 41%--to 8.97% from 6.37%--and make New Jersey's top income bracket the fifth-highest in the country. Mr. McGreevey was elected pledging not to raise taxes, by the way.
Politicians usually need a crisis to justify this kind of betrayal. But Mr. McGreevey and his fellow Democrats dominate Trenton and are ramming it through as a "tax reform." In reality, it is an attempt to finance a permanently higher level of state spending, as the nearby chart shows. The Governor has proposed a $27 billion budget that's expected to pass and includes a 13% spending hike, the largest in state history.
Mr. McGreevey is spending so much so fast that he also plans to borrow at least $1.5 billion in addition to the tax increases. It will be the third consecutive year that New Jersey has resorted to debt bonds to cover ongoing operations, and Moody's is now threatening to downgrade the state's credit rating.
None of this will help New Jersey's economy, which has been leading the Northeast's slow recovery. The state's jobless rate is 5.3%, compared with 5.6% nationally and 7.5% in nearby New York. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says New Jersey was responsible for two-thirds of the New York metropolitan area job creation in the 12 months that ended in March.
In the past year alone, New Jersey's private sector has added close to 60,000 new jobs, the fourth-highest in the nation. The catch is that many of these new jobs are being created by employers fleeing the high tax levels of New York State and City. By raising levies, Mr. McGreevey is stripping the Garden State of its comparative regional tax advantage.
He's also setting his state up for even more budget pain down the road. Heavy reliance on income taxes from the wealthy is a notoriously unreliable way to fund government, and leads to revenue booms and busts. Tempted by windfalls from high-income earners during the boom years of the late 1990s, politicians in California and New York spent without regard for the next economic downturn and suffered for it later.
The legitimate fear is that Mr. McGreevey is setting up New Jersey to repeat those mistakes. A recent New Jersey Chamber of Commerce study said that, in 2001 and 2002, taxable income in the state fell by $9.62 billion, and "$9.5 billion of the fall came from taxpayers who had taxable income of $500,000"--Mr. McGreevey's "millionaires." When the state's next budget crisis comes, we predict it won't be only "the rich" who pay.
McGreevey's Millionaires
If you make $500,000, you've got New Jersey's governor seeing double.
Sunday, May 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Maybe it's New Jersey's version of the New Math. But Governor Jim McGreevey has made it official: People in the Garden State who earn $500,000 a year are now "millionaires."
Alas, this doesn't mean that things are so good that people are about to double their incomes. To the contrary, it means that if you make $500,000 you qualify for the new "millionaire's tax" Mr. McGreevey is betting the Democratic-controlled legislature will approve. Given what we're seeing in Virginia and hearing from John Kerry at the national level, what's going on in New Jersey today looks like a rehearsal for what will happen if Democrats retake the White House come November.
Let's put aside the obvious: That the tax hikes passed by a Democratic Governor in Virginia and now proposed by Mr. McGreevey violate pledges not to raise taxes made by each during their respective campaigns. We've not been shy about faulting Republicans from Connecticut and Ohio and Alabama who've also sold tax increases as solutions to their states' fiscal woes, often breaking their antitax campaign vows too. The thing to note about the Democratic proposals is that they are part of a political strategy to raise taxes by pretending they will do so only on the rich.
Look at Mr. McGreevey, who no doubt remembers that it was the tax hikes imposed by New Jersey's last Democratic governor, James Florio, that delivered the state to Republicans in the early 1990s. He recognizes that New Jerseyans now pay the highest property taxes in the nation, and that they've risen 14% in the two years since he's been Governor. But instead of seeing this as a burden that inhibits growth and opportunity, his choice is to keep property taxes high, offer rebates to make people feel a little better while plotting to jack up the rates elsewhere. Thus the "millionaire's tax" ruse.
The McGreevey proposal would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 8.97% from 6.37%, and he defends it by claiming it would apply only to 28,000 people, or 1% of all Jersey taxpayers. But people who earn that much tend to be highly mobile and can leave the state for lower tax climes. When they do, revenue comes in lower than expected, so the higher rates are gradually applied to more people as incomes rise ("bracket creep") or as "millionaire" is defined ever lower.
Back in 1992, Bill Clinton also campaigned for a "surcharge" on millionaires. Cut to February 1993. Here is the lead sentence in the Reuters story about his first big economic speech after winning election: "U.S. President Bill Clinton's plan to seek higher taxes from everybody making more than $30,000 a year means even George Bush underestimated how far Clinton would take tax hikes if elected." His tax proposal ended up slapping his "millionaire surcharge" on anyone who earned more than $250,000.
Mr. Kerry's similar promises to reverse the Bush cuts by targeting only the "rich" suffer from the same illusion that there are enough millionaires to finance the spending ambitions of the political class. But there never are. Just as the estate tax was designed to hit only the Rockefellers but has ended up engulfing mom-and-pop storeowners, so the "millionaire's tax" always creeps down sooner or later to soak the middle class. Because politicians know that's where the real money is.
New Jersey, NJ, legislators poised to pass a budget early, 13% Increase! McGreevey will Sign
McGreevey skips spotlight and signs budget privately [budget boosts taxes by $1.7 billion and...]
N.J. Mulls Cosmetic Surgery Tax
FEC levels one of largest fines against NJ developer [McGreevey appointed Kushner...]
McGreevey's the boy who can't say no
Kerry holds slim lead over Bush in N.J. poll (Kerry 46, Bush 40, Nader 7; [2000: Gore 56, Bush 40])
'Millionaire's tax' up for vote in Legislature