Breaking Down Governor Murphy’s FY 2023 Budget Proposal

Governor Murphy delivered the first budget address of his second term with New Jersey flush with cash, thanks to stronger than expected revenue collections. Along with targeted federal aid, higher wages, and new, sustainable sources of revenue, this kind of economic growth proves that progressive tax policy is fiscally responsible tax policy. These resources provide the state a big opportunity to invest in communities – with an emphasis on policies that are proven to build the economy from the bottom up and the middle out. The Governor’s $48.9 billion spending plan takes advantage of this windfall by attending to such long-standing obligations as a full pension payment for a second year in a row, another big increase in school aid, as well as no fare hikes for NJ Transit commuters and a property tax relief program to replace the Homestead credit.

With “affordability” the buzz word in Trenton — the Governor mentioned it more than 20 times in the speech — some of the new proposals raise the question: who does this budget make New Jersey more affordable for? The economic fallout of the pandemic continues to wreak havoc in thousands, if not millions, of households across the state, especially among those lacking the financial resources to weather tough times. Many workers who risked their lives on the job as COVID-19 swept through New Jersey have received no assistance. Families with young children still face school closures and a low availability of child care.[1] The state’s poverty rate remains quite high at the same time the highest earners nationally have seen their wealth grow even further.[2] Housing advocates warn of a spike in evictions without additional help. It’s important for policymakers to understand that these devastating effects of the pandemic will not disappear on their own.

A more balanced and equitable approach to crafting the next state budget is essential – one that centers people and communities with the greatest need to ensure an equitable recovery. Proven policies like cash assistance, tax credits for hard-working families, affordable health care, child care, and reliable and cleaner public transit are needed now more than ever to make New Jersey affordable for all.

Healthy State Finances Could Support More Investment

New Jersey’s financial picture is the brightest it has been since before the pandemic, with overall tax collections up 21.7 percent compared to this time last year.[3] Thanks in large part to a strong stock market, wage growth, and an uptick in consumer spending, the state has a $4.5 billion surplus.[4] This comes on the heels of enormous federal support sent to New Jersey state and local governments overwhelmed by the health and economic damage wrought by the pandemic.[5] These resources provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to target immediate relief and make long-overdue investments in New Jersey’s underserved communities, rebuild emergency savings, and put our state on a path to a more equitable economy.

Absent from the budget are major improvements to a state tax code that still has inequitable features and does not bring in as much revenue as it could for important public investments that help communities thrive. While the state appears to be in good fiscal shape in the short term, additional resources will be critical to sustain investments in such areas as public education, the public employee pension system, and property tax relief once federal pandemic relief funds are exhausted and amid an uncertain global landscape.

Pensions

The FY 2023 budget includes another full pension fund contribution — which would be the second in as many years — to bolster the retirement security of more than 800,000 public workers and retirees. A full payment is a necessary step in the pension fund’s long road back to solvency after more than two decades of skipped or incomplete payments. The proposed $6.82 billion payment is possible due to another year of healthy tax collections and New Jersey Lottery receipts, plus freed-up resources thanks to federal COVID-19 relief funds.[6]

If the pension fund’s annual returns cool off in tandem with financial markets, it is expected that resources from other state-funded support and services will have to be siphoned to make the required payments.

Rainy Day Fund

New Jersey’s surplus is expected to total more than 10 percent of the state’s general fund — nearly double what it was in FY 2021. Despite such a robust buffer, the Governor’s proposal does not include replenishing the state’s rainy day fund.

New Jersey has a rocky history when it comes to keeping its emergency savings account ready to cover costs incurred from such unexpected events as a hurricane or a deep recession. A healthy rainy day fund enables the state to meet increased demand for essential state services instead of resorting to deep, harmful budget cuts at a time when families and communities need help the most. New Jersey was left with no choice but to do exactly that when faced with drastic shortfalls at the start of the pandemic. The rainy day fund would have been more robust had it not been left empty for 11 years. Budget experts recommend having enough socked away to run state operations for at least two months.[7]

With an expected $4.6 billion surplus, New Jersey could easily make a deposit of, say, $1.5 billion now and still have billions in surplus to shore up any mid-year shortfalls next year.[8]

Federal Pandemic Relief

New Jersey’s economy works best when it works for all of us. An inclusive recovery is one where those hit hardest by the pandemic — workers of color, and Black and brown women in particular — reach full employment and have the resources they need to make ends meet. That’s why it’s so important for New Jersey to its spend Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) in ways that reflect the principles set by the Biden administration: to directly address the public health crisis, help the people who need it most, and reduce racial and economic inequities exposed and worsened by the ongoing pandemic.

With $3.5 billion in federal relief funds from the American Rescue Plan Act still unallocated, the state should immediately act to stabilize residents facing hardship and keep their children safe from the short- and long-term effects of poverty. Based on past economic crises, it’s clear that some New Jersey residents will continue to experience hardship even after the effects of the pandemic begin to subside.

The most straightforward way to boost household income of families living paycheck to paycheck is to provide direct cash payments with no strings attached and regardless of immigration status. This proposed budget would use $53 million of federal funds for $500 direct payments to individual, low-paid ITIN holders —  an alternative to the now-expired Excluded New Jerseyans Fund. Another approach to FRF-funded cash assistance should be to compensate low-paid workers for the risks taken during the shutdown and as COVID-19 variant surges swept through the state.

Relief funds could also be used to spearhead a robust overhaul of departmental IT platforms, as well as an outreach campaign and application assistance for all social assistance and support services, not just those funded by federal relief dollars. This campaign could target communities that face systemic barriers to learning about and accessing support programs, including immigrants and people of color with low incomes, and should be tailored to families living in poverty who are less likely to owe and file taxes and, as result, may miss out on tax credits for low-paid workers and their families.

Bringing More Relief to Working Families

Every family in New Jersey deserves to live the American Dream and raise their children with the basics they need to thrive. But New Jersey’s high cost of living means that families often need support to pay for rent, bills, unexpected health care costs, and food. The state has a variety of programs to put money into families’ pockets. The proposed budget would increase funding for some helpful programs, but more remains to be done to remove barriers to economic security for working families who do not get paid enough or receive enough hours to pay for everyday expenses.

Tax Credits for Working Families

 Since 2000, the New Jersey Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has provided a critical lifeline to workers and their families.[9] With this tax credit, the state pays back low- and moderate-wage workers for a percentage of their earned income, lowering their taxes or, for those owing little or no taxes because of low incomes, providing cash.

The EITC is a powerful poverty-reduction tool. It helps to reduce racial income inequality while raising low-income households’ bank balances. In FY 2019, over 530,000 households claimed the credit, averaging about $850 per credit. Beginning in tax year 2021, adults ages 18-21 and adults 65 and over without dependents became eligible to apply for the credit, closing key gaps left by the preexisting credit and making 90,000 more taxpayers eligible.[10] The FY 2023 budget continues strong support for the EITC with $114 million in additional funding.[11]

But the EITC could be improved further by eliminating barriers that keep some workers excluded from the credit, such as immigrants who file taxes with an (ITIN). New Jersey should also build on the credit’s anti-poverty effects and raise the credit amount to 50 percent of the federal credit.

Property Tax Relief

Property taxes are a perennial source of concern among New Jersey residents and, fittingly, were a big theme of Governor Murphy’s budget address. The Governor’s ANCHOR proposal would revamp the state’s flagship property tax relief program, the Homestead rebate, by increasing overall taxpayer benefits, eligibility, and funding by more than $570 million. Expanded property tax relief under the proposed ANCHOR would be phased in over three years.

The ANCHOR program would provide relief to homeowners with up to $250,000 in annual income and renters making up to $100,000. Renters, who tend to have lower incomes than homeowners, were previously not eligible for Homestead rebates.

The ANCHOR proposal would expand property tax relief to households earning up to $250,000, well into the top 20 percent of New Jersey households.[12] As proposed, it would provide more funding ($158 million) to households earning $150,000 or more than it would to all renters ($101 million).[13]

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

During the pandemic, millions of individuals and households needed increased assistance. Yet, enrollment in WorkFirst NJ — the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — has dropped below pre-pandemic levels.[14] This decrease is the direct result of the outdated changes in “welfare” during the 1990s that supporters said would assist very low-income families with cash assistance, child care, and job placement.

But the strict eligibility requirements these changes imposed are a barrier to more residents qualifying for WorkFirst NJ and have kept the program’s maximum benefit levels for cash assistance far too low to lift families out of poverty. TANF benefits max out at 30 percent of the Federal Poverty Level —  a mere $559 per month for a single-parent family of three.[15] That inadequate level of support is slated to remain the same, based on the Governor’s proposal for FY 2023.[16]

To meet its goals of helping families and individuals rise from poverty, the WorkFirst NJ program should be reformed in next year’s budget, with higher benefit levels to better reflect the state’s cost of living and new rules so families are no longer punished for saving money and children are no longer cut off from resources.

Bringing Equity to Education Funding 

New Jersey’s public schools consistently rank among the best in the nation, thanks to robust state funding. Schools with adequate funding can provide students with a high-quality education, as well as better health, counseling, and other services to those having difficulty reacclimating after an abrupt and prolonged pivot to online learning. Adequate funding also helps school districts recruit and retain well-qualified teachers[17] and helps keep school buildings in good repair and safe in the face of the ongoing pandemic.[18]

K-12 School Funding

School funding is one of the biggest investments New Jersey makes in any year. Yet, state lawmakers have never fully funded New Jersey’s school funding formula as mandated in the School Funding Reform Act, or SFRA.This formula defines how much each school district needs to provide an “adequate” education. While many affluent districts spend above this amount, many districts spend well below it.[19] Ensuring that all schools have adequate funding must be the top educational priority of the Legislature and the Governor in the current budget cycle and beyond.

In FY 2021, New Jersey schools received $2.4 billion less than the adequacy level set by SFRA. A substantial portion of this adequacy gap was due to districts not contributing their “local fair share,” but the state’s contribution was still well below what it should have been under the law.[20] Many of the students suffering from this chronic underfunding are Black and Hispanic/Latinx children whose districts cannot raise adequate revenues due to systemically racist housing practices.[21]

For FY 2023, the Governor proposed increasing K-12 formula aid by $578 million. This additional aid, as well the redistribution of aid to underfunded districts, will help close the adequacy gap. Still, a large number of students will be enrolled in underfunded schools. As previously reported, funding targets set by SFRA are likely inadequate.[22] This proposed increase is a step toward providing New Jersey’s schools with what they need to properly educate the state’s children. But more work remains to correct the course toward equity.[23]

Pre-Kindergarten

For younger students, New Jersey’s investment in pre-kindergarten education continues to grow steadily. Governor Murphy’s budget proposes $991.9 million toward existing and new Pre-K programs — a 41 percent increase since FY 2009. Of the proposed $70 million increase for FY 2023, $40 million will support 3,000 new seats in 40 school districts.[24]

Greater Investments Needed for Health

COVID-19 Response

As essential workers, working families, and communities continue to face immediate and long-term harm from the COVID-19 pandemic, investments in public health, mental health services, and the broader health care system continue to be essential for an equitable recovery.

Federal dollars through the American Rescue Plan and increased Medicaid and hospital funding support many of these services. In response to a spike in the need for mental health services, the Governor has proposed a $12.8 million allocation to establish a new federally mandated 988 suicide and crisis helpline, as well as allocating American Rescue Plan funds toward student mental health initiatives.[25]

But more is needed. Funding for federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs), for instance, remains below pre-pandemic levels.  These nonprofit, community-based organizations offer comprehensive primary care services and are a key safety net provider for historically underserved people.

Finally, state dollars toward reimbursing charity care continue to grow despite great strides in health insurance expansion. Charity care is the system under which hospitals provide services without charge to patients who cannot afford to pay and are reimbursed by the state. After a recent change in the funding formula for charity care, the Governor’s budget proposes $339 million in funding for FY 2023, an increase of 17.4 percent over pre-pandemic levels.[26] As the state continues to expand coverage for more residents, these costs should decrease in the future.

Harm Reduction

Health care for people who use drugs should meet people where they are, focusing on reducing harm rather than punitive treatments. This helps people who use drugs find their paths to long-term health. Last year saw an increase in state spending to support syringe-access programs, continuing a trend of greater investment since FY 2020.[27] However, this funding was not fully allocated due to restrictions on establishing new syringe access programs beyond the current seven.

This year, state policymakers expanded their commitment to overcoming these obstacles, as Governor Murphy signed two pieces of legislation to decriminalize syringe possession and remove restrictions to expanding syringe-access programs across the state.[28] Funding for the program in the proposed budget reflects this commitment to establishing more harm reduction centers, with an additional $500,000 – a 10 percent increase over the current fiscal year[29]

Reproductive Health Care

Every New Jersey resident, regardless of gender, income, or immigration status, deserves access to the reproductive health care that meets their needs. Legislation signed by Governor Murphy at the beginning of the year codifies abortion rights, yet necessary access and equity improvements remain unaddressed.

Funding in the FY 2023 budget reflects the Murphy administration’s continued commitment to maternal and infant health services in response to New Jersey’s wide racial disparities. This includes an additional state appropriation of $8.5 million to the new Universal Home Visiting program, which entitles all parents with newborn infants to at least one free postpartum home visit.[30] New Jersey is only the second state to implement such a policy.[31] However, the initial proposed budget provides no information on whether covered contraceptive and prenatal services would be expanded to include abortion care.

Cover All Kids Implementation

All kids deserve quality, affordable health care, and New Jersey has taken significant steps toward that goal. After passing Cover All Kids legislation in June 2021, the state eliminated waiting periods and premiums in  NJ FamilyCare, the state’s publicly-funded health insurance program, and expanded outreach to improve enrollment of eligible children.[32] Now, the Governor has proposed taking the next important step toward universal access for children by expanding eligibility for NJ FamilyCare to all children, regardless of immigration status. To fund the expansion, $11 million has been set aside in the proposed FY 2023 budget.[33]

State Subsidies on Marketplace

For many New Jersey residents, health insurance continues to be unaffordable, even with financial assistance that lowers premiums for those with plans in GetCoveredNJ, the state-run health insurance marketplace. To address this, the state introduced additional state subsidies that reach more residents on GetCoveredNJ in 2021.[34]

More than 324,000 residents enrolled during open enrollment for 2022, an increase of 54,000 over  2021.[35] To meet the growing need, funding for these subsidies would increase by roughly 10 percent in FY 2023 to $168 million.[36]

More Pandemic Relief Needed for Immigrants

Excluded New Jerseyans Fund

No one should have to live in fear that getting sick or other circumstances beyond their control will cost them their home or the ability to put food on the table. To ensure this basic protection during the health and economic crises of the past two years, unemployment insurance benefits and federal relief checks were sent to families and individuals. But undocumented New Jerseyans, who are disproportionately represented in service sector jobs, were ineligible forthese programs.

To address this gap, the Murphy administration created the Excluded New Jerseyans Fund, a $40 million state program to support workers ineligible for federal pandemic relief. Using funds from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the relief program got off to a rough start. An onerous application process dictated by federal rules kept the majority of eligible residents from receiving assistance. When the fund expired at the end of 2021, the administration replenished the program using  American Rescue Plan relief funds instead, which allowed for a much simpler application process. When this version of the program ended in February, the Excluded New Jerseyans Fund received over 35,000 applications, making clear that the $40 million total fell far short of the needs of New Jersey’s immigrant communities.[37]

Now, the Governor proposes a one-time, $53 million relief fund for Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) holders who have not received federal stimulus aid. This new program will build upon the Excluded New Jerseyans Fund and provide a $500 benefit to over 100,000 ITIN holders.[38] This investment is key to an inclusive recovery but, as outlined above, does not quite match the need. Individual ITIN holders deserve a $2,000 benefit, matching what the majority of working families in New Jersey received during the peak of the pandemic.

Criminal Justice: More Support Needed for Community Programs

Community-Based Violence Interruption Programs

All New Jerseyans deserve to feel safe in their communities but, often, police responses to issues of public safety cause more harm than good, especially for people who face a legacy of racism, classism, and misogyny. Community-based violence interruption programs that do not involve a law-enforcement response are effective, preventive tools that help keep people safe and out of the criminal justice system.

To combat violent crime, especially shootings, the Governor’s proposal maintains a $10 million investment to support the state’s existing violence intervention programs, which includes 25 nonprofits in 15 communities across the state.[39] Continuing to fund these programs is essential to building upon a safer New Jersey for all and, as the need for a non-police response to crises becomes increasingly evident, the budget should include increased funding for more alternative response teams.

Toward Sustainable Funding for NJ Transit

New Jersey’s future prosperity depends on a safe and reliable transportation system that works for everyone. Over the past decade, however, New Jersey has shortchanged the public with inadequate investments in NJ Transit, resulting in delays, cancellations, and overcrowding. What’s more troubling is that transportation is mostly powered by fossil fuels, which are major contributors to air pollution and worsen the dangers posed by climate change.

While the Governor proposes $2.76 billion for NJ Transit operations — a 21 percent increase since FY 2008 — with no fare hikes, this doesn’t tell the whole funding story.[40] The state continues to supplement funding for the transit authority by diverting $82.1 million from the Clean Energy Fund — resources meant to offer financial incentives, programs, and services to help save energy, money, and the environment, not fund public transit.

At the same time, the governor proposes using $721 million from the Turnpike Authority to supplement NJ Transit operations.[41] While this is a more reliable source for NJ Transit — and more appropriate than using revenue from the Clean Energy Fund — the state continues to use capital funds to fund operations, which is not sustainable in the long run. For instance, the $4.5 billion in capital needed to implement NJ Transit’s electric bus replacement program still has no identifiable funding source.[42]

The good news is that NJ Transit has been granted $1.6 billion in federal relief funds to support operations plus another $4.2 billion from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to improve public transit infrastructure.[43] This massive investment will enable NJ Transit to retain employees and maintain safe and reliable bus and rail services –  without further diversions from other sources.

 


End Notes

[1] According to the most recent Household Pulse Survey data, for New Jersey families with kids under age 5, the majority of households had to have a parent stay home to care for children. U.S. Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey: January 26 – February 7, 2022: Education

Table 1. New Jersey Childcare Arrangements in the Last 4 Weeks for Children Under 5 Years Old, February 2022. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/hhp/hhp42.html

[2] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FEDS Notes: Wealth Inequality and COVID-19: Evidence from the Distributional Financial Accounts, August 2021. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/wealth-inequality-and-covid-19-evidence-from-the-distributional-financial-accounts-20210830.htm

[3] New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, January 2022 Revenue Snapshot. https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/publications/budget/ols-snapshots/FY22_January.pdf

[4] State of New Jersey, Governor’s FY2023 Budget in Brief, March 2022 at pg. 8 (hereinafter “Budget in Brief”). https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/publications/23bib/BIB.pdf

[5] New Jersey Governor’s Disaster Recovery Office, Financial Summary by Federal Act, December 2021. https://gdro.nj.gov/tp/en/financial-analysis/financial-summary

[6] Budget in Brief at pg. 18.

[7] Government Finance Review, Uncertainty, Risks, and Budgets in the Age of Coronavirus, June 2020 at pg. 27. https://gfoaorg.cdn.prismic.io/gfoaorg/33f669de-20be-4e13-8186-ec2cd632f3c4_GFR_04-2020-UncertaintyRisksBudgets.pdf

[8] Budget in Brief at pg. 73.

[9] New Jersey State Library, Legislative History for P.L. 2000, c. 80. https://repo.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10929.1/20234/L2000c80.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[10] See New Jersey Department of the Treasury, Press Release: As Filing Season Kicks Off, Treasury Reminds Taxpayers that More Money is Available to More People Than Ever Before Under Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit Program, January 28, 2022. https://www.nj.gov/treasury/news/2022/01282022.shtml

[11] Budget in Brief at pg. 50.

[12] U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates, Table B19080: Household Income Quintile Upper Limits (indicating upper limit of 80th percentile at $166,319).

[13] NJPP analysis of Budget in Brief at pg. 12.

[14] New Jersey Department of Human Services, Current Program Statistics, December 2021, 2021. https://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dfd/news/cps_dec21.pdf

[15] New Jersey Department of Human Services, New Jersey State Plan For Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), FFY 2021-FFY 2023, 2020, pg. 63, Attachment B. https://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dfd/programs/workfirstnj/tanf_2021_23_st_plan.pdf

[16] Budget in Brief.

[17] New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Jersey’s Shrinking Pool of Teacher Candidates, May 2020. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-jerseys-shrinking-pool-of-teacher-candidates/

[18] New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Jersey’s School Re-openings Are Racially Unequal, October 2020. https://www.njpp.org/publications/blog-category/new-jerseys-school-re-openings-are-racially-unequal/

[19] New Jersey Policy Perspective, School Funding in New Jersey: A Fair Future for All, November 2020. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/school-funding-in-new-jersey-a-fair-future-for-all/

[20] New Jersey Policy Perspective, School Funding in New Jersey: Preparing Now for the 2020-21 School Year, August 2020. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/school-funding-in-new-jersey-preparing-now-for-the-2020-21-school-year/

[21] New Jersey Policy Perspective, Separate and Unequal: Racial and Ethnic Segregation and the Case for School Funding Reparations in New Jersey, September 2021. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/separate-and-unequal-racial-and-ethnic-segregation-and-the-case-for-school-funding-reparations-in-new-jersey/

[22] New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Jersey School Funding: The Higher the Goals, the Higher the Costs, February 2022. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-jersey-school-funding-the-higher-the-goals-the-higher-the-costs/

[23] New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Jersey School Funding: The Higher the Goals, the Higher the Costs, February 2022. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-jersey-school-funding-the-higher-the-goals-the-higher-the-costs/

[24] Budget in Brief at pg. 13.

[25] Budget in Brief at pg. 63 and 44.

[26] New Jersey State Assembly, A6072 – Increases number of hospitals eligible for highest amount of charity care subsidy payment; appropriates $30 million, 2021. https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A6072/2020; PoliticoPro, Middlesex Dems fast-track bill to boost charity care for St. Peter’s Hospital, 2021. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2021/12/03/middlesex-dems-fast-track-bill-to-boost-charity-care-for-st-peters-hospital-9427950; NJPP Analysis of FY 2022 Detailed Governor’s Budget; Budget in Brief atpg. 32.

[27] New Jersey Policy Perspective, Shining a Light on New Jersey’s FY 2022 Budget, 2021. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/shining-a-light-on-new-jerseys-fy-2022-budget/

[28] Office of Governor Phil Murphy, Governor Murphy Signs Legislative Package to Expand Harm Reduction Efforts, Further Commitment to End New Jersey’s Opioid Epidemic, 2022. https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562022/20220118b.shtml

[29] NJPP Analysis of FY 2022 Detailed Governor’s Budget; Budget in Brief at pg. 30.

[30] Legiscan, S690 – Establishes Statewide universal newborn home nurse visitation program in

DCF, 2021. https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S690/2020; Budget in Brief at pg. 25, 62.

[31] NJ Spotlight News, Home visits boost health of newborns, mothers, July 2021. https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2021/07/new-nj-law-provides-home-based-wellness-checks-for-mothers-and-newborns/

[32] Budget in Brief at pg. 27-28.

[33] Budget in Brief at pg. 27 and 63.

[34] GetCoveredNJ, Get Financial Help, 2021. https://nj.gov/getcoverednj/financialhelp/gethelp/#premiumtaxcredit

[35] NJPP Analysis of GetCoveredNJ Final Snapshots, 2021 and 2022.

[36] NJPP Analysis of FY 2022 Detailed Governor’s Budget and Budget in Brief, pg. 28.

[37] Budget in Brief at pg. 41.

[38] Budget in Brief at pg. 41.

[39] Budget in Brief at pg. 41.

[40] Budget in Brief at pg. 33.

[41] Budget in Brief at pg. 33.

[42] NJ Transit. Capital Plan Project Sheets, Appendix B: Bus Fleet. pg 7. https://njtplans.com/downloads/capital-project-sheets/Bus%20Fleet%20-%20Project%20Sheets.pdf

[43] Senator Bob Menendez, “Menendez, Booker Announce $1.6B in ARP funding to support NJ Transit.” Press Release, January 12, 2022. https://www.menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/menendez-booker-announce-16b-in-arp-funding-to-support-nj-transit; Senators Cory Booker, Bob Menendez, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Delivers for NJ.” Press Release, August 13, 2021. https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-menendez-bipartisan-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-delivers-for-nj

[44] P.L. 2021, c. 308. Available at https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2020/PL21/308_.HTM.

[45] Budget in Brief, at pg. 26.

[46] New York Times, Tracey Tully. “2,258 N.J. Prisoners Will Be Released in a Single Day,” November, 9 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/nyregion/nj-prisoner-release-covid.html

[47] New York Times, Tracey Tully. “2,258 N.J. Prisoners Will Be Released in a Single Day,” November, 9 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/nyregion/nj-prisoner-release-covid.html

[48] New Jersey Monitor, Sophie Nieto-Munoz. “Early release for hundreds of ex-offenders across N.J.” February 11, 2022. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2022/02/11/early-release-for-hundreds-of-ex-offenders-across-n-j/

[49] New Jersey Office of Management and Budget. Summary of Governor’s Budget Recommendations: State of New Jersey FY2023 Budget in Brief, Pg. 42. March 8, 2022. https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/publications/23bib/BIB.pdf

[50] According to the most recent Household Pulse Survey data, for New Jersey families with kids under age 5, the majority of households had to have a parent stay home to care for children. U.S. Census Bureau, Household Pulse Survey: January 26 – February 7, 2022: Education

Table 1. New Jersey Childcare Arrangements in the Last 4 Weeks for Children Under 5 Years Old, February 2022. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/hhp/hhp42.html

[51] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FEDS Notes: Wealth Inequality and COVID-19: Evidence from the Distributional Financial Accounts, August 2021. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/wealth-inequality-and-covid-19-evidence-from-the-distributional-financial-accounts-20210830.htm

Governor Murphy’s Budget Recognizes That You Can’t Cut Your Way to Prosperity

Governor Murphy unveiled his FY 2023 state budget earlier today in the first in-person budget address since the start of the pandemic and at a time when the state for the first time in years has abundant resources to invest in the public good. The proposal makes critical investments in property tax relief, education, support for working families, and much more. In response to the budget address, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) released the following statement.

Jon Shure, Interim President, NJPP:

“New Jersey’s finances are stronger today than they’ve been in more than a decade — proof that progressive tax policy is fiscally responsible tax policy. The economy is not an abstract concept, but something we all build together by making sure all families have the resources they need to make ends meet.

“Governor Murphy’s budget proposal recognizes that you can’t cut your way to prosperity. Affordability doesn’t come from reducing public investments that help people get ahead, but by funding the building blocks of strong communities. This year’s budget increases investments in education at every level, expands access to affordable health care, and funds the creation of new, affordable homes. These sorts of investments are how we build an economy from the bottom up and the middle out — not the top down.

“With one in ten residents living in poverty, and millions more struggling to get by, the state’s robust financial condition presents lawmakers with a historic opportunity to think even bigger. By expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and other assistance that puts cash back in the pockets of workers and their families, and supporting innovative policies like a state-level child tax credit, lawmakers can advance equity and make New Jersey affordable for all.”

# # #

Using American Rescue Plan Funds for Corporate Tax Cuts Undermines an Equitable Recovery

Good morning, Chairman Madden and members of the Senate Labor Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony. I’m Sheila Reynertson from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on providing state residents with economic security.

New Jersey’s economy works best when it works for all of us. An inclusive recovery is one where those hit hardest by the pandemic — workers of color, and Black and brown women in particular — reach full employment and are the priority they deserve to be in state policymaking. That’s why it’s so important for New Jersey to its spend Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) in ways that reflect the principles President Biden set down: to directly address the public health crisis, help the people who need it most, and reduce racial and economic inequities exposed and worsened by the ongoing pandemic.

S733, by using FRF dollars to protect businesses from taxation, is inconsistent with the American Rescue Plan’s spirit. It undermines a just and equitable labor market recovery.

The sharp rise in joblessness early in the pandemic depleted New Jersey’s unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund, but the finances of the trust fund are not in crisis. Yet, a year ago lawmakers unnecessarily intervened on behalf of business to reduce or delay increases in employer unemployment taxes related to benefits paid during the state of emergency.[i] It’s also worth noting business recipients of assistance through the Paycheck Protection Program got a tax cut on both sides of the ledger – one for receiving the money, and another for spending it – costing New Jersey $1.2 billion needed to fund public support and services that help communities and families thrive.[ii]

Another corporate tax cut – offering to wipe out a federal low-interest loan to the UI trust fund – is shortsighted. Paying back the $580 million loan[iii] with federal emergency aid meant for the more immediate needs of workers who experienced a substantially more severe impact from the pandemic is worse than shortsighted. It is inequitable and insulting to the essential workforce  – workers who put their lives at risk when COVID swept through the state, health care workers who now suffer from PTSD, and child care workers who are indispensable to the workforce yet are still severely underpaid.

In light of the moral obligation to fund an equitable pandemic recovery, lawmakers giving the green light to yet another business tax cut raises serious concerns about the state’s commitment to support other, arguably more urgent, needs of households facing immediate hardships and neglects the opportunity these dollars present to address structural inequities.

If the goal is to assist businesses harmed most by the pandemic, there are more direct and targeted ways to provide that aid. This overly broad proposal serves as a giveaway to profitable businesses to cover a cost they are tasked with paying already and diverts emergency federal aid that people, including laid-off workers, need right now.

NJPP urges committee members to vote no on S733.

Thank you.


[i] P.L.2020, c.150.

[ii]https://www.njpp.org/publications/blog-category/tax-break-on-ppp-loan-expenses-will-cost-new-jersey-more-than-1-billion/

[iii] US Treasury’s Title XII Advance Activities Schedule as of March 3, 2022. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/tfmp/tfmp_advactivitiessched.htm

Revenue from Cannabis Legalization Should Go Toward Strengthening Communities Harmed by the Drug War

Good evening, Chairwoman Houenou, Vice-Chairman Delgado, and Commissioners of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

I’m Marleina Ubel from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

The coming budget year will be the first year that cannabis revenue is available in the state budget, and the Cannabis Regulatory Commission has the responsibility to make thoughtful recommendations. The money from the Social Equity Excise Fee should be distributed back into communities harmed by the War on Drugs and should not be spent on law enforcement. Most importantly, the communities and the individuals who have been directly impacted by the drug war must have meaningful input on how the money is used.

The language surrounding the use of this revenue is vague, allowing municipalities to exercise tremendous discretion in how it’s spent. Therefore, policymakers should set clear parameters on what is acceptable and what is not, along with the expectation that a participatory budgeting process must be followed.

This should not be a slush fund, nor should it be spent on law enforcement, school resource officers, or otherwise invested in the punitive arm of the criminal legal system, which is the very entity that caused the most harm enforcing cannabis prohibition. Law enforcement already receives the lion’s share of public safety funding, according to NJPP’s 2021 report, To Protect and Serve: Investing in Public Safety Beyond Policing, even though other social services, such as public and mental health, school counselors, and social workers are just as important to public safety.

Revenue from the Social Equity Excise Fee should go directly toward promoting stronger, safer, and more resilient communities, as well as services that recognize substance use as a matter of public health. Examples of such investments include: recreation and community programming, harm reduction services, neighborhood restoration, after-school programming, and vouchers or direct payments for individual needs, such as utilities, rent, or medical costs.

This would follow the example set by other states, like Colorado, where cannabis revenue was used to fund school construction projects, improve youth literacy, expand full-day kindergarten, and invest in mental health initiatives and homelessness prevention. One county also funded scholarships for hundreds of students.

New Jersey’s municipalities have an obligation to equitably invest this revenue, meaning they must center racial justice and reparations for people harmed by the War on Drugs. Anything less would fail the very communities and residents that the Social Equity Excise Fee is intended to support.

Thank you.

Making New Jersey Affordable for Families: The Case for a State-Level Child Tax Credit

Picture a child living in New Jersey. Think about what that child needs to grow up safe, healthy, and educated. The child will need food and clothing, a roof over their head, regular doctor’s visits, child care, and before- and after-care if they’re in school — not to mention transportation to and from those places. Given that many families across the income spectrum need help covering these costs,[i] New Jersey should create its own state-level child tax credit to make the Garden State a more affordable place to start a family.

The success of the expanded federal Child Tax Credit has shown how a simple solution — a monthly tax-refund check for families with children — can reduce food insecurity, avoid debt, and improve savings, keeping 3 million children out of poverty.[ii] Building on previous federal tax credits has a strong record of success in New Jersey, notably with the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which boosts the take-home pay for hard-working, low-paid families statewide.

A state-level child tax credit would recognize the unique costs of raising children and the support that most families need to care for their kids and set them up for success. When families can pay for basic expenses and save for their children’s futures, it improves child well-being immediately by reducing key costs like food and rent, makes it more likely for children to reach their full potential, and reduces societal costs created by child poverty later in life.

To support this proposal, NJPP analyzed the benefits of multiple state tax credit scenarios for families based on overall number of people reached, race/ethnicity, and income level.

Based on this analysis, NJPP determined that an effective program, like the current federal program, would start from some basic foundational points:

  • Fully refundable credit going directly to households with children
  • Relatively simple eligibility
  • Must avoid perverse incentive of lower-income families getting less help

 

The two scenarios presented in this report are inspired by the federal expanded Child Tax Credit, focusing on children in low-income and middle-income families — one targeting all families earning less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level (about $69,000 for a family of four, or $58,000 for a family of three)[iii], and one only available to young children up to five years old in the same income range. Both proposals cost roughly $100 million.

Two Proposals for a State Child Tax Credit in New Jersey

Each scenario serves a slightly different group of people, but both scenarios have key features that make them work for New Jersey families, including:

  • Money goes directly to hundreds of thousands of families with children to support their basic needs
  • Most of the money goes to the bottom 50 percent of New Jersey families in terms of income
  • Improving race equity because Black and Hispanic/Latinx families make up such a large share of this group

 

NJPP’s modeled tax credit proposals also include two significant groups of people excluded from the federal Child Tax Credit — children with Individual Tax Identification Numbers and adult dependent children under age 25.

New Jersey will be a stronger state with greater opportunity when every family can provide a safe, healthy life for their children. A state-level Child Tax Credit modeled on either scenario would support families, aid in child development, and — in the process — make the state tax system more equitable.

The Problem: Child Poverty and the High Costs of Raising a Family

New Jersey’s poverty rate remains stubbornly high at 10 percent.[iv] Nineteen states have a lower child poverty rate than New Jersey, which ranks in line with lower-income states like West Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio.[v] For a family of four renting a home in New Jersey, that’s an income of $30,150.[vi]

How does such a high-income state end up with 1 in 10 children living in poverty?

The answer is no surprise — New Jersey’s high cost of living, especially housing costs — which strain the budgets of low-paid families more than in other states. One way to measure housing burden is a household spending more than 30 percent of its income on rent, mortgage, or housing-related expenses such as insurance or taxes. Based on this metric, 76 percent of New Jersey low-income households have a high housing cost burden, even more than such other high-cost states as New York, California, and Massachusetts.[vii]

With such a large chunk of earnings eaten up by such basic costs as housing and child care, New Jersey families with children need a helping hand to meet other basic needs. Many studies over the years document how difficult it is for even middle-income families in New Jersey to make ends meet and pay for routine costs of child-rearing, including the United Way of Northern New Jersey’s ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) report, and Legal Services of New Jersey’s True Poverty rate report. These reports make clear that official governmental poverty measures so badly underestimate the extent to which families struggle to get by as to provide an incomplete picture of financial hardship in New Jersey. The bottom line: many families well above the official “poverty” line can’t make ends meet.

Because of these high costs, the federal Child Tax Credit, even if it is expanded again, will be inadequate to support many New Jersey children. The federal program does not account for varying cost of living from state to state. Families at a specific income level get the same amount of support in any state, even though that income goes much farther in some states than others. A state-level Child Tax Credit could help more families meet basic needs costs such as rent, food, and bills, while freeing up funds to pay down debt.

Living in poverty has dire consequences for the life trajectory of New Jersey children, and higher child poverty rates among Black and Hispanic/Latinx children exacerbate existing inequities among the adult population, especially among young children. Young Black and Hispanic/Latinx children are three to four times more likely to live in poverty than their white counterparts.[viii] These disparities are driven by past and current policy factors such as discrimination in home loans and hiring, school segregation and underfunding, and entrenched wealth inequality.[ix]

And the racial disparity in poverty compounds existing inequities. Children experiencing poverty are more likely to experience:

  • Adverse childhood experiences
  • Worse physical health
  • Structural changes in brain development
  • Decreased educational attainment
  • Increased risky behaviors[x]

 

Beyond the costs that children bear themselves, society suffers when children suffer. Children in poverty are less likely to reach their maximum potential, and higher long-term costs like health care are shared by society as a whole. One recent estimate pegged the costs of child poverty in the U.S. at $1 trillion, roughly a quarter of the annual federal budget.[xi] The overwhelming weight of evidence shows that exposure to poverty, especially early in life and for prolonged periods, harms children in the moment and for the rest of their lives.[xii]

Why Refundable Child Tax Credits Can Help Families Meet Basic Needs

Refundable child tax credits complement existing public investments in children and families in key ways:

  • Filling in gaps left behind by other programs
  • Ensuring aid goes to families who need it most
  • Limiting red tape by paying families directly through the tax system

 

Before diving into these benefits, though, a bit of terminology. Tax credits allow taxpayers to subtract certain amounts from their total tax bill. These are different from deductions (which allow taxpayers to reduce their taxable income) in that taxpayers can directly remove credits from the amount they owe in taxes.

A refundable tax credit means that even if a taxpayer has no end-of-year tax bill or already gets a refund from the government after tax is calculated, the taxpayer still receives the credit as part of their refund.

For the bulk of taxpayers who receive a refund after filing their taxes (roughly half of New Jersey full-time state income tax returns in 2016),[xiii] tax credits only help if they are refundable.

Tax Credits Fill In Gaps Left by Existing Programs

Refundable child tax credits reduce child poverty differently from other anti-poverty programs, like health insurance or food assistance, by putting cash directly in the pockets of families — all without new onerous applications or requirements, as the program uses data in the existing tax filing system.

The new refundable federal Child Tax Credit provides a prime example of how such credits can reduce child poverty. As part of the American Rescue Plan, the Child Tax Credit has provided historic relief to almost 90 percent of America’s children, reducing child poverty by almost half nationally.[xiv] The Child Tax Credit has also reduced food insecurity by more than a quarter among households with children nationally.[xv] These benefits came in the form of direct IRS tax relief payments either directly into bank accounts used for prior tax refunds or as checks to families.

The effectiveness of the Child Tax Credit in child poverty reduction lies in its almost-revolutionary simplicity. Unlike other traditional programs, a refundable Child Tax Credit’s payments are based on essentially only two inputs: their income on their tax returns and the number of child dependents they can claim. By streamlining the process of getting support out the door, the fully refundable Child Tax Credit has provided instant poverty relief for the majority of eligible households in just a few months.[xvi]

The federal expanded Child Tax Credit provides a blueprint for how a state-level credit might function. Because the IRS has banking and mailing address information for all households that submitted tax returns in the past two years, the agency could identify households with children below the income cap and distribute benefits payments accordingly. States could replicate this process through their tax agencies, sending checks out just like tax rebate checks.

Full Refundability Means Tax Relief Goes to Those Who Need It Most

Refundable tax credits allow all taxpayers to collect the full amount of the credit, regardless of whether they qualify for a refund at the end of their tax filing. This is critical for reaching low-income families, who often have lower income tax liabilities but still need the benefits provided by the credit. For example, New Jersey’s Homestead Benefit provides a refundable tax credit for property tax payers, recognizing that even though a property owner may have relatively little income and therefore little income tax liability, they still need assistance in paying their property taxes.[xvii]

Conversely, a tax credit that is only partially refundable or completely non-refundable does little to assist those taxpayers who would already receive a refund. For example, prior to the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the federal Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit allowed taxpayers with children under 13 or other dependents to claim up to $600 for one qualifying individual and $1,200 for two or more individuals. This seems like a substantial benefit for low-income families. But because it was nonrefundable, only those taxpayers who had liability at the end of the tax year received the benefits.

The results: Households with higher incomes made more dependent-care claims than low-income households, despite making up less of the population. By being nonrefundable, a tax credit designed to defray child care expenses ended up directing most of its aid to higher-income families. Recognizing the limitations of nonrefundable credits, the American Rescue Plan converted the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to a refundable credit for the 2021 tax year.[xviii]

Making a state tax credit fully refundable maximizes how much the credit helps the low-income families and children who need it most, without complex new means-testing requirements. A fully refundable child tax credit would also ensure that lower-income families do not perversely get penalized and receive less in assistance than higher-income ones.

Lower Administrative Costs for State Government and Applicants

Child Tax Credits do not have an onerous application process because the agency administering the program bases its payment on information provided in tax returns. Based solely on income and the age and number of children in a household, the agency would be able to calculate the benefit amount and send out the money via check or direct-deposit, the same way it already does with tax rebate checks.

This contrasts with most programs providing benefits to families and children, which require extensive application processes, including in-person interviews, health or financial disclosures, and other information that families may not have easily on hand.

These program restrictions mean many families that should or could qualify for programs often do not receive the benefits they are entitled to or simply do not participate. For example:

  • Only 16 percent of people living in poverty participated in New Jersey’s TANF cash assistance program.[xix]
  • Only 70 percent of working people in poverty participated in SNAP in New Jersey.[xx]

 

Additionally, a tax credit program requires relatively little staffing or overhead at the state level, given that it is largely a pass-through of cash from tax collections back into residents’ pockets.

Child Tax Credit Design Decisions

Small details in Child Tax Credit design can create substantial changes in the number of children reached, how much they receive and, ultimately, how much the program reduces poverty.

Income-Targeting vs. Universal

Almost all social safety net programs must balance targeting benefits to lower-income households with extending benefits to all families who may need them, even in the middle- and upper-income ranges.

In the U.S., states with child tax credits often set eligibility based on a range of incomes, with Maryland limiting the credit to the lowest-income families (below $6,000) while Idaho has no income limit at all.[xxi] For an overview of child tax credits at the state level, the National Conference of State Legislatures has an overview of current state tax credits.

Age-Targeting

Generally speaking, state and local governments provide the bulk of their benefits for children through the K-12 school system.[xxii] By one measure, New Jersey spends roughly 78 percent of its public investments in children in the Pre-K-12 education system.[xxiii] But this leaves out younger children, with very little investment in infants and toddlers.

Some states with Child Tax Credits limit eligibility by age.[xxiv] California and Colorado both provide credits specifically for children 5 years old and under.[xxv] The federal Child Tax Credit expansion also includes a 20-percent higher benefit for children under 6 ($3,000 maximum credit for children ages 6-17 and $3,600 for children under six years old).[xxvi]

When a child is born, their costs are introduced all at once, shocking family finances at a pivotal point in their parents’ economic lives.[xxvii] Young children are more likely to live in poverty than their older counterparts.[xxviii]

Targeting a tax credit to younger ages might help those parents at a critical point in their children’s lives before substantial public investment in public schools. But the costs of children do span their entire lifetimes, not just the early years.

Smaller Regular Payments vs. Annual Lump Sum

The expanded federal Child Tax Credit provided advance monthly payments administered by the Internal Revenue Service.[xxix] Different child allowance systems globally provide the benefit annually, monthly, bi-weekly, or at some other frequency, while some programs allow the claimant to elect for one version or another.[xxx]

Given the relatively small benefit amount of most scenarios NJPP tested, the annual lump sum is more likely to alleviate family costs. In early research on the EITC — when the benefit was much lower than it is today — many families preferred annual lump sum payments.[xxxi] However, a new child tax credit program should provide options with different frequency of benefits delivery, in order to determine whether the frequency affects spending, well-being, or whether families simply prefer one kind to the other.

Phase-Outs

Assuming the full amount of the refundable credit is available to any household earning any taxable income in the year, the question then becomes how and when to phase the credit out. As with other benefits, a steep cliff where benefits go from a maximum amount to vanishing creates perverse economic incentives where it may be more beneficial to stay under an income threshold.[xxxii]

A smooth benefits phase-out can gradually reduce the benefit as a percentage of additional income. But determining where and how the phase-out should begin and end is an open question. And because this is a tax program, the determination will largely be based on annual gross income, rather than poverty status (which is based on the number of individuals living in the household). Nonetheless, the federal Child Tax Credit’s phase outs offer some guidance, with one phase-out for the expanded credit starting at $150,000 for joint-filers and $75,000 for single-filers, while the complete phase-out of the original credit starts at $400,000/$200,000 for joint/single filers and reduces the credit eventually to zero as income increases.

On the one hand, a lower-dollar phase-out targets benefits to lower-income households. On the other hand, stretching the phase-out into higher income ranges may better reflect the higher cost of living in New Jersey. The question of targeting versus universality is essentially functionalized in the question of phase-outs.

Eligibility

The federal Child Tax Credit expansion notably leaves out two key groups: children without a Social Security Number and adult dependent children. Only children with Social Security Numbers, ages 16 and under, are eligible to be claimed.

Children Without a Social Security Number

Roughly 6 percent of New Jersey children are foreign-born, compared to about 3 percent nationally.[xxxiii] Given that the purpose of a Child Tax Credit is to help families receive tax relief to alleviate the high cost of child-rearing, there is no economic distinction between foreign-born and U.S.-born children. Immigrant children must be housed, fed, clothed, and cared for, just like U.S.-born children, regardless of their citizenship.

Nonetheless, noncitizen children are often excluded from the patchwork of child financial supports that exist. For example, immigrant children have also missed out on a wide range of federal COVID-19 relief.[xxxiv] Even citizen children whose noncitizen parents work and file taxes are ineligible to receive benefits through the Earned Income Tax Credit, even after the American Rescue Plan improvements.[xxxv]

Procedures exist to allow children to be included in tax relief. The IRS provides a process to apply for tax ID numbers for minors, even those that do not earn enough income to file taxes.[xxxvi]

Given New Jersey’s diversity, there is no functional reason to exclude otherwise-eligible children from receiving tax relief for basic necessities.

Young Adult Dependents

Federal tax law allows certain adult children to be counted as dependent children, including children up to age 19, children in college up to age 24, and children with qualifying disabilities of any age. However, the new federal Child Tax Credit only applies to children ages 0 to 17.

If an adult child is listed as a dependent, they have low enough income that their parents must still pay for more than half of their basic necessities.[xxxvii] Young adults in this age range are often left behind in tax relief programs, receiving comparatively less in direct public benefits.[xxxviii] Yet, the poverty rate among young adults is the highest for any age range in the United States.[xxxix]

Including adult dependent student children up to age 24 in a Child Tax Credit can help close this benefits gap.

Two Proposals for a New Jersey Child Tax Credit

To model a potential refundable Child Tax Credit for New Jersey, NJPP uses the federal expanded Child Tax Credit as a baseline, then sets the rough cost to the state of $100 million. For comparison, the state EITC costs roughly $486 million, while the state Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit costs roughly $11 million. The cost modeling below was conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

Given the relatively modest outlay of $100 million (by comparison, the federal expanded CTC payments totaled over $1.5 billion in New Jersey in just four months of the year-long program), the proposals have to target a smaller population.[xl]

The phase-out at 250 percent of the federal poverty level was based on research showing that New Jersey’s high cost of living makes a basic-needs budget substantially higher than the traditional federal poverty level.[xli]

NJPP outlines two versions of this credit for low-income New Jersey families — one targeted towards young children (up to age 5) only, and another that includes all children under 18 (and adult dependents up to age 24).

Option 1: Young Child Tax Credit

The proposed “Young Child Tax Credit” helps correct for systemic underinvestment in young children as a part of state spending. New Jersey’s young child poverty rate is routinely one or two percentage points higher than the poverty rate for older children.[xlii] The bulk of state and local spending on children in New Jersey goes to K-12 education, which dwarfs other spending substantially.[xliii] Some of this disparity was recognized in the federal expanded Child Tax Credit, which included an additional $600 of tax credit for children under age 6. California has created an entire Young Child Tax Credit to address this same issue.[xliv]

Directing aid to families with young children addresses the higher poverty rates among young children’s families. This age-targeting will also increase the benefit amount per child by shrinking the pool of eligible children. Although this small credit will not be nearly enough to cover all the expenses of young children, it can help fill in the gaps left behind by other programs. For example, SNAP, WIC, and other food support programs do not cover diapers, a substantial expense for children in this age range.[xlv]

Option 2: All Ages Child Tax Credit

Alternatively, a broader age range would cover more children but provide less per child. This proposal ensures that all families with dependent children get some aid, even if payments only cover a fraction of the true cost of child-rearing. This model would also include adult dependent children up to age 24, who are in school and/or earn so little work income that they qualify as the taxpayer’s dependents.

This universality has advantages, particularly the recognition that regardless of current levels of government program spending by age range, families often need financial support to cover basic needs for their children. The costs of children do not evaporate entirely when they enter K-12 schooling. Continuing the payment through later ages also ensures stable payments rather than a short-term patch, allowing families to plan around it as they do the EITC and other tax credits.

Comparison of Two State-Level Tax Credits for Children

Both credits are provided at the full amount for each eligible child in families up to 100% federal poverty level phasing out to $0 at 250% federal poverty level.

Comparison of Two State-Level Tax Credits for Children

Both Proposals Would Improve Race and Income Equity for Children

Racial income and wealth inequality begins from the moment a child is born in New Jersey, because of systemic injustices, ranging from housing discrimination to wealth inequality. A Child Tax Credit focused on low- and middle-income families would help address some of these inequities while benefiting most New Jersey children.

That is, all households with children benefit regardless of race, especially households with multiple children. But because of the overrepresentation of Black and Hispanic/Latinx families and children in lower income ranges, Black and Hispanic/Latinx households receive a higher share of the tax benefit.

Distribution of Proposed Credits by Race, by Percentage of Total (Regardless of Presence of Child)

Both Proposals Would Target Low- and Moderate-Income Families

In both scenarios, the cap at 250 percent of the federal poverty level means that the entire tax benefit is concentrated in the bottom 60 percent of New Jersey households with incomes below $90,000.

Benefits of the Child Tax Credit Proposals Concentrated in Lowest-Income Households

Recommendations

New Jersey should pass a state-level fully refundable Child Tax Credit to provide cash relief to working families with children to help them meet the high costs of raising children in New Jersey. The credit is an investment in families and children to achieve their full potential and reduce the economic costs of child poverty. Although not a substitute for other community investments, a Child Tax Credit can close existing gaps in programs, while getting investment directly into communities that are under-resourced.

These proposals are a starting point for how New Jersey can ensure that children get what they need from day one, and provide a generalized child tax credit that is not linked to a specific program, use, or parental attributes.

In its FY 2023 budget, New Jersey should include this Child Tax Credit with the following features:

  • Fully refundable for all eligible families. As described above, full refundability without preconditions or additional requirements is critical to ensuring that children can have their needs met. Anything short of full refundability creates perverse inequality that disproportionately hurts children living in the lowest-income households.
  • Focus on low-income and middle-income families. Although the federal Child Tax Credit includes many families in higher income ranges, New Jersey’s more limited fiscal toolbox makes this program a better fit for a smaller population to maximize each credit’s impact. However, families should remain eligible even if their income goes past the range traditionally considered “low-income” (200 percent of federal poverty levels), given New Jersey’s high cost of living.
  • Easy, user-friendly eligibility determination. Rather than juggle work requirements or complicated income calculations, a straightforward child tax credit should be easy for all working families in New Jersey to complete and easy for the state tax agency to calculate and distribute from existing records.
  • Expanded eligibility to include groups excluded by the federal CTC. All children need food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education. These have costs on all children regardless of the happenstance of their place of birth. A state-level Child Tax Credit should include a method for child dependents without a Social Security Number to be claimed.
  • Substantial outreach for free tax filing and non-filing support. In many ways this prong may be the most important. New Jersey and the federal government already use the tax code to distribute tax relief. Yet, many families are unaware of these benefits or deterred from using existing filing or non-filer portal systems. A state-level child tax credit should include a budget for outreach to potentially eligible taxpayers as well as grants to community organizations in high-poverty communities to assist parents and caregivers. This could build on existing services like Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) and online services like MyFreeTaxes.com.

 

Conclusion

New Jersey’s competitiveness and long-term success as a state depend on ensuring that raising children in New Jersey can be affordable for working families across the income spectrum, not just the wealthy.

Using either of these two proposals as a base, a state-level Child Tax Credit would provide a huge win for New Jersey families by reducing high costs for low- and middle-income families raising children in the state, helping to close New Jersey’s pernicious racial child poverty gap, and building resilience among children to succeed later in life and mitigating the harms of poverty on child development.

 


End Notes

[i] As of 2018, the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parity calculation estimated that New Jersey residents pay roughly 13 percent more for goods and services than the national average. See Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Economic Research Division, Cost of Living Calculator, available at https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/cost-of-living/calculator (retrieved on November 9, 2021)

[ii] Zachary Parolin et al., Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Monthly Poverty Rates Among Children After the Expansion of the Child Tax Credit, 5 Poverty & Social Policy Brief No. 4, at p. 3, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/612014f2e6deed08adb03e18/1629492468260/Monthly-Poverty-with-CTC-July-CPSP-2021.pdf

[iii] U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, HHS Poverty Guidelines fo 2022, available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines

[iv] NJPP, when possible, uses the Supplemental Poverty Measure. Kids Count Data Center, Children in Poverty According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/11230-children-in-poverty-according-to-the-supplemental-poverty-measure#ranking/2/any/true/1985/any/21625 (retrieved November 9, 2021)

[v] NJPP, when possible, uses the Supplemental Poverty Measure. Kids Count Data Center, Children in Poverty According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/11230-children-in-poverty-according-to-the-supplemental-poverty-measure#ranking/2/any/true/1985/any/21625 (retrieved November 9, 2021)

[vi] Liana E. Fox and Kaylee Burns, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2020, September 2021, at p. 29, available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.pdf.

[vii] Kids Count Data Center, Children in Low-Income Households with a High Housing Cost Burden in the United States, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/71-children-in-low-income-households-with-a-high-housing-cost-burden#ranking/2/any/true/1729/any/377 (retrieved November 9, 2021)

[viii] American Community Survey 5-year averages for 2015-2019 indicate poverty rates for Black children under age 5 at 27% and for Hispanic/Latinx children under age 5 at 24.7%, while white non-Hispanic children have a 7.8% rate. For a helpful summary, see the New Jersey Department of Health’s State Health Assessment Data indicator report for children under five years of age living in poverty, available at https://www-doh.state.nj.us/doh-shad/indicator/complete_profile/EPHT_LT5_pov.html

[ix] Areeba Haider, Center for American Progress, The Basic Facts about Children in Poverty, January 2021, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2021/01/12/494506/basic-facts-children-poverty/

[x] The National Academies of Sciences published an extensive report on child poverty, summarizing existing research and proposing evidence-based solutions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty (2019), available at https://www.nap.edu/read/25246/. This list is derived from that report’s summarized findings. Ibid. at 73.

[xi] Michael McLaughlin & Mark R. Rank, Estimating the Economic Cost of Childhood Poverty in the United States, 42 Social Work Research 73 (2018), available at https://academic.oup.com/swr/article-abstract/42/2/73/4956930?redirectedFrom=fulltext.

[xii] See National Academies of Sciences report at 89, https://www.nap.edu/read/25246/chapter/5#89.

[xiii] State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Office of Revenue and Economic Analysis, Statistics of Income: 2016 Gross Income Tax Returns (2019) at Table D, “Cash Payments Summary by Return Type”, https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/pubs/soi-tables2016.pdf

[xiv] Congressional Research Service, The Child Tax Credit: The Impact of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2) Expansion on Income and Poverty, July 13, 2021, at p. 12, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46839.

[xv]Claire Zippel, After Child Tax Credit Payments Begin, Many More Families Have Enough to Eat, Off the Charts Blog, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 30, 2021, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/after-child-tax-credit-payments-begin-many-more-families-have-enough-to-eat.

[xvi] The American Rescue Plan Act was signed into law on March 11, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text Child Tax Credit payments began July 2021. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-monthly-child-tax-credit-payments-begin

[xvii] New Jersey Division of Taxation, How Homestead Benefits Are Calculated, July 16, 2021, https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/homestead/hrhomeowneramounts.shtml

[xviii] Congressional Research Service, The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC): Temporary Expansion for 2021 Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2), May 10, 2021, at . 2, available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11645

[xix] Laura Meyer & Ife Floyd, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Cash Assistance Should Reach Millions More Families to Lessen Hardship, November 30, 2020, at appendix table 1, available at https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/cash-assistance-should-reach-millions-more-families-to-lessen

[xx] See Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, SNAP Participation Rates by State, Working Poor People, last updated August 2020, available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/usamap

[xxi] Compare Idaho Stat. 63-3029L (2021) available at https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title63/t63ch30/sect63-3029l/, with Maryland Code Sec. 10-751 (2021) available at https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N10B5DBA0801E11EB901A96A6365F968D?originationContext=document&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False&viewType=FullText&contextData=%28sc.Default%29.

[xxii] Julia B. Isaacs, Eleanor Lauderback, & Erica Greenberg, Urban Institute. Public Spending on Children in New Jersey, April 2021 at 4. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104122/public-spending-on-children-in-new-jersey-an-analysis-from-the-urban-institutes-state-by-state-spending-on-kids-dataset_1.pdf

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] See National Conference of State Legislatures, Child Tax Credit Overview, October 19, 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-tax-credit-overview.aspx

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] See Congressional Research Service, The Child Tax Credit: Temporary Expansion for 2021 Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2), May 12, 2021, at p. 2-3, available at

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11613

[xxvii] Bridget Ansel, Having a Child Comes with Significant Financial Consequences, October 4, 2016, https://equitablegrowth.org/having-a-child-comes-with-significant-financial-consequences/.

[xxviii] See Areeba Haider, The Basic Facts about Children in Poverty, January 12, 2021 at fig. 4, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2021/01/12/494506/basic-facts-children-poverty/

[xxix] Internal Revenue Service, Child Tax Credit Update Portal, https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/child-tax-credit-update-portal (retrieved on November 9, 2021)

[xxx] Sophie Collyer et al., The Century Foundation, What a Child Allowance Like Canada’s Would Do for Child Poverty in America, July 21, 2020, at tbl. 1, https://tcf.org/content/report/what-a-child-allowance-like-canadas-would-do-for-child-poverty-in-america/?session=1

[xxxi] Jennifer L. Romich & Thomas Weisner, How Families View and Use the EITC: Advance Payment versus Lump Sum Delivery, 53 Nat’l Tax Journal 1245 (2000), available at https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.17310/ntj.2000.4S1.09

[xxxii] See Manoj Viswanathan, The Hidden Costs of Cliff Effects in the Internal

Revenue Code and Proposals for Change, 164 U. Penn. Law Review 931 (2016), available at

https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2265&context=faculty_scholarship.

[xxxiii] Kids Count Data Center, Child Population by Nativity in New Jersey, updated October 2020, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/116-child-population-by-nativity?loc=32&loct=2#ranking/2/any/true/1729/76/448

[xxxiv] Protecting Immigrant Families has provided an extensive list of eligibility for various federal programs here: https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/immigrant-eligibility-for-public-programs-during-covid-19/

[xxxv] Crystal Muñoz, Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, Immigrant-Inclusive Tax Credits Are More Important Than Ever, https://gbpi.org/immigrant-inclusive-tax-credits-are-more-important-than-ever/

[xxxvi] Internal Revenue Service, FAQ: Dependents, Last updated Nov. 4, 2021, https://www.irs.gov/faqs/filing-requirements-status-dependents/dependents/dependents.

[xxxvii] Internal Revenue Service, Publication 501 (2020), Dependents, Standard Deduction and Filing Information, at table 5 https://www.irs.gov/publications/p501#en_US_2020_publink1000196863.

[xxxviii] James Hawkins, Berkeley Institute for the Future of Young Americans,The Rise of Young Adult Poverty in the U.S., Issue Brief (June 2019) at p. 5, available at  https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/page/poverty_FINAL_formatted.pdf.

[xxxix] Ibid.

[xl] See U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Advance Child Tax Credit Payments Disbursed October 2021, by State, October 15, 2021, available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/Advance-CTC-Payments-Disbursed-October-2021-by-State-10142021.xlsx

[xli] Legal Services New Jersey, Poverty Research Institute, True Poverty: What It Takes to Avoid Poverty and Deprivation in the Garden State, July 2021, at 20, https://proxy.lsnj.org/rcenter/GetPublicDocument/00b5ccde-9b51-48de-abe3-55dd767a685a (identifying 320 percent federal poverty level as the true cost of living for New Jersey families with children). Other estimates place the real survival budget near $88,000 for a family of four, see United Way of Northern New Jersey, ALICE in New Jersey: A Financial Hardship Study, 2020 New Jersey Report, at p. 4, available at https://www.unitedforalice.org/Attachments/AllReports/2020ALICEReport_NJ_FINAL.pdf.

[xlii] Kids Count Data Center, Children in Poverty by Age Group in New Jersey, last updated September 2020, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5650-children-in-poverty-by-age-group?loc=32&loct=2#detailed/2/32/false/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/17,18,36/12263,12264

[xliii] See Julia B. Isaacs, Eleanor Lauderback, and Erica Greenberg, Urban Institute, Public Spending on Children in New Jersey, April 2021, at 4. Available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104122/public-spending-on-children-in-new-jersey-an-analysis-from-the-urban-institutes-state-by-state-spending-on-kids-dataset_1.pdf

[xliv] For more detail on the California Young Child Tax Credit, see Alissa Anderson, California Budget & Policy Center, The CalEITC and Young Child Tax Credit: Smart Investments to Broaden Economic Security for Californians, October 2019, https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/the-caleitc-and-young-child-tax-credit/.

[xlv] Diana Boesch, The Gender Policy Report, Federal Assistance Does Not Help Poor Mothers Pay for Diapers, May 29, 2018, https://genderpolicyreport.umn.edu/federal-assistance-does-not-help-poor-mothers-pay-for-diapers/.

Property Tax Reduction Should Target Renters with Low-Incomes

Good morning, Chairman Singleton and members of the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

I’m Sheila Reynertson from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on providing New Jersey residents with economic security.

NJPP is in support of legislation that would reduce taxes owed by renters as long as those with low-paying jobs are specifically targeted as beneficiaries of the change. Based on S343 as currently drafted, it does not include any language to ensure that the renters most in need of help get it.

We recommend adding two amendments to this legislation. First, the property tax deduction should be converted to a tax credit for renters making less than a certain amount taking into account household size as well. And, more importantly, the credit itself must be refundable so that all renters, regardless of taxes owed, can benefit from this income tax reform.

Finally, a fiscal note from OLS would have been helpful before today’s hearing giving the public a clear picture of the percentage of New Jersey renters by income level who take advantage of the current property tax deduction. This data could have provided key insight into which renters benefit the most and which renters get skipped over by this tax break – data that could be used to strengthen S343.

We respectfully request that the proposed bill be amended to ensure equitable distribution of the tax break among all renters.

Thank you.

Comptroller Report Highlights Lax Oversight of Corporate Tax Subsidies

A report by the state Comptroller’s Office released today finds that the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA) can and should do more to ensure businesses do not receive tax credits they have not earned. Specifically, the report highlights how the EDA still allows corporations to self-report data on job creation without independent oversight or auditing. In response to this report, New Jersey Policy Perspective releases the following statement.

Sheila Reynertson, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“This report shows that, with billions of taxpayer dollars on the line, the honor system is not an appropriate monitoring system.

“Handing out corporate tax credits based on the promise of ‘job creation’ works only if the state routinely verifies that the jobs are actually created. Unfortunately, no such verification system is in place. Instead, corporations are asked to report their own jobs data without effective oversight or independent auditing. Accountability to the people of New Jersey shouldn’t be treated as an afterthought.” 

# # #

Casino Tax Break a Bad Bet for New Jersey

The New Jersey Senate today passed legislation that would provide Atlantic City casinos tens of millions of dollars in annual tax breaks despite having a banner bounce-back year in 2021. The bill, S4007/A5587, would reduce casinos’ payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) each year until 2026. In response to the passage of this bill, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Peter Chen, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“Despite booming profits and rapidly expanding sports-betting revenues, state lawmakers gave casinos an early Christmas present of at least $145 million in tax breaks. The casinos’ own profit and revenue data shows nearly $600 million in profit in the first three quarters of 2021 alone. Once again, the house wins.

“Casinos already get special tax treatment through the 2016 payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) law. This legislation accounted for fluctuating revenues by basing the PILOT amount on how much money the casinos brought in every year. Now, casinos are coming back for more, reducing their annual payments, as well as excluding from future calculations the fastest-growing part of their business: online sports betting worth more than $1 billion in 2021 so far.

“This losing bet for New Jersey deprives the state and its residents of much-needed public investments in schools, roads, services, and other building blocks of a strong economy.”

Read NJPP’s testimony in opposition to the bill here.

# # #

Casinos’ Healthy Profit Margins Render Tax Break Unnecessary

Good morning. I am Peter Chen and am a Senior Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and strategic communication.

NJPP opposes A5587 and encourages the committee to vote against its passage.

Atlantic City casinos have had a banner bounceback year in 2021. Profits for the first three quarters of 2021 of $529 million have topped each of the previous 5 years except 2017. This explosive growth has been buoyed by sports gambling, with a record-setting $557 million in revenue for sports wagering alone, a 150 percent increase from the first nine months of 2020.

TABLE: Atlantic City casino profits well in line with historical data

Source: Division of Gaming Enforcement Statistical Summaries, Third Quarter 2016-2021, available at https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/division-of-gaming-enforcement-home/financial-and-statistical-information/quarterly-press-releases-and-statistical-summaries/

The closures and subsequent shock to the hotel and entertainment industries were devastating to the balance sheets of casinos in 2020. But it’s notable that even in the depths of the pandemic, the casinos nonetheless maintained a profitable year, followed by the 2021 bounceback.

Given the successful rebound of Atlantic City casinos, it is unnecessary to adjust the payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) payments to further reduce their financial liabilities. Wealthy corporations need to pay their fair share. PILOT payments for 2021 were already reduced due to the financial conditions of casinos in 2020. The formula adopted by lawmakers in 2016 takes into account the possibility of adverse financial conditions. It’s unclear why new changes are needed to reduce the amount casinos pay, beyond what current law provides.

And with the expansion of sports betting as a larger fraction of casino revenue, there’s no justification for removing these revenues from PILOT calculations. The casinos’ healthy profit margins suggest that whatever extra third-party expenses these betting operations require are more than offset by the revenues generated by them.

Again, NJPP urges the committee to vote No on moving the bill out of committee today. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

When is Enough Enough for Corporate Tax Subsidies?

Good morning. I am Sheila Reynertson and am a Senior Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, and analysis.

NJPP opposes A6070 and encourages the committee to vote against its passage.

It’s shocking that the film and digital media tax credit program is back again for another round of corporate tax subsidies. When exactly is enough enough?

Here is a recap of how this program has ballooned in the past year:

Right out of the gate, the film and digital media tax subsidy program was given special privileges in the first draft of the Economic Recovery Act passed a year ago. While all other programs in the ERA were to expire in four years, the film and digital program was first revised to a 10-year program to expire in 2028. At the last minute, the program became a 16-year program, expiring in 2034 – 4 times as long as originally proposed.

Tax subsidies in this program were originally proposed to equal at most 25 percent of production costs. This clean up bill increases that to 35 percent. It also increases the annual tax credit limit for digital productions from $10 million to $30 million. Payments above $500,000 to a “highly compensated individual” screenwriter, director, music director or actor currently cannot count toward a tax credit. That reasonable threshold would now be increased to $15 million.

The annual program cap is currently set at $100 million. But that turns out to be negotiable, too. If there are unused tax credits at the end of the year, this legislation allows the Economic Development Authority to wave them around and say, “Anyone want the leftovers?” These aren’t drink tickets. These are tax dollars that New Jersey will have to forgo for decades.

Now, we learn there is an even more egregious amendment. Beginning in 2025, when all this will be in the distant past, the annual program cap may be lifted to $200 million for digital productions and $450 for film productions, at the discretion of the EDA. What’s going on here? Why have a $100 million annual cap at all if it’s going to be tinkered with until it’s meaningless?

This is just another example of New Jersey’s unhealthy relationship with corporate tax subsidies. And it’s the responsibility of this committee to be skeptical stewards of taxpayers money. It’s the responsibility of this committee to ask “When is enough enough?”

We respectfully ask the committee to vote no on A6070. Thank you.