| Publications | Commentary | Newsletters | In the News | Press Releases |
 |
 |
Twenty years ago a new President preached tax-cutting as though it were religion, got what he wanted and had-among other things-a direct impact on the race for Governor of New Jersey. We can only hope history doesn't repeat itself.
While the tax cut part seems assured under George W. Bush, it's not too late to make sure tax-cut politics doesn't trickle down. The last thing we need in New Jersey is a diversion from the tax issue that really should matter: how to reform and restructure finances and so reduce the crushing burden of local property taxes.
When 1981 came around there was no shortage of people wanting to run for Governor. Brendan Byrne was in his second term and couldn't run again. An open seat and the extension of public funding into primaries (four years earlier New Jersey held its first publicly funded November election for Governor) helped spur a large field. By the April filing deadline, 8 Republicans and 13 Democrats had submitted the required petitions to the Secretary of State-including the Secretary of State himself. Perhaps not surprisingly the Republicans hewed to the right in an effort to emulate the appeal of President Ronald Reagan.
The GOP nominated former Assemblyman Thomas Kean who, though his reputation to that point had been as a moderate Republican, based his fall campaign on a pledge to cut both the state sales and income taxes. Embracing the supply-side mantra of the day, Kean said cutting those taxes would so stimulate New Jersey's economy that state government would take in more revenue, not less.
Kean's opponent was then-Congressman Jim Florio, who would not support tax cuts. Supply-side wouldn't work, Florio claimed, and was an especially bad idea when the federal government was reducing aid to states. In the campaign give-and-take, Kean accused Florio of having a secret plan to raise taxes. Kean was elected in the closest gubernatorial election ever in New Jersey. Before long, reality set in and in an economic downturn Kean cut neither tax and actually raised both. Times got better, his campaign pledge was forgotten and Kean won reelection by the largest margin in state history. But the lesson of how he got to the State House in 1981 wasn't forgotten. Candor about taxes is not a hallmark of elections in New Jersey.
If the candidates running in 2001 are similarly tempted we could be in for trouble because what's been put off for too long in New Jersey is a broad, honest debate about taxes. Instead, one candidate sticks a toe into the water by coming out vaguely for reform and immediately has it chomped off by the rival, who says something like, "See, he wants to raise taxes."
The state would be well served if the candidates would say proclaim: "I'm running for Governor because I believe we have to get our tax system in order so New Jersey can grow and prosper in the new century. I don't mean taking in more money, but I do mean shifting the burden, changing how we raise the money. I know there's a danger my opponent will accuse me of wanting to raise taxes. I'm willing to face that because two things are true. One is that the people of this state are ahead of the politicians; they are ready for a real debate. The other is that anyone running for this state's highest office who won't address this issue shouldn't want the job and doesn't deserve it. Whoever wins the election, this is the problem waiting behind the door when you walk in the first day-whether we have the guts to talk about it in this campaign or not."
The truth is that the only way increasing other taxes, preferably those that (unlike the property tax) are based on peoples' ability to pay, can we really reduce property taxes. Everything else is a short-term gimmick and everyone smart enough to run for Governor knows it. But will anyone say it?
One could if the other would. It takes two to make a debate. So, who will go first? More important, who will go second?
This commentary appeared in The New York Times, Sunday March 18, 2001.
| © 2008 New Jersey Policy Perspective |  |