FY 2020 Budget: Rapid Reaction

Welcome to NJPP’s FY2020 Budget: Rapid Reaction, your source for commentary and data analysis on next year’s budget. The transcript below was taken from the Jersey Shore — just teasing, we were in NJPP’s conference room — and has been lightly edited.


Lou (Louis Di Paolo, Communications Director): On Sunday, Governor Murphy signed the Fiscal Year 2020 budget, marking an end to another lively “budget season.” Averting a shutdown, the governor ultimately signed the budget passed by the legislature a few weeks ago, meaning no millionaires tax, with some key changes. Specifically, Governor Murphy line-item vetoed $48.5 million in legislative priorities and put another $235 million of spending in a “lock box,” meaning the funds can only be appropriated once the revenue is guaranteed to be there. He also made a deposit into the state’s rainy day fund, which was empty for over a decade. 

On the spending side, the state will make another record pension payment, boost funding for NJ Transit, and continue to ramp up funding for public K-12 schools. The budget funds other things, too, but we’ll get to that below. Overall, this is a responsible budget that invests in assets proven to build an economy that works for everyone.  

But that’s enough from me — let’s jump right into it. 

My first question is for Sheila, and it’s about the rainy day fund. What is it and why is it so important that the state finally deposited money in it?  

Sheila (Sheila Reynertson, Senior Policy Analyst): A robust and well-designed rainy day fund can give New Jersey the flexibility it needs to weather the revenue impact of economic downturns or the next major climate change disaster. But for over a decade, New Jersey has had trouble maintaining this emergency fund. Before the Great Recession, the fund held $735 million, or roughly 2.2 percent of annual state spending, which was well below the national average. Then in 2009, the state withdrew the fund’s entire balance in response to the recession—and has made zero deposits since then. 

New Jersey was one of only three states (KS, MT) with an estimated zero balance in their rainy day funds at the end of fiscal year 2017. That is a dangerous habit given the fact that all indicators point to another economic slowdown on the horizon. It’s also a habit that credit rating agencies consider a clear-cut symptom of the state’s continuing structural imbalance, insufficient revenue and poor budgetary planning. 

New Jersey’s finalized 2020 budget finally turns the page on this risky chapter with the first rainy day fund deposit in 11 years. The $401 million will be kept in a separate fund that can only be accessed in response to economic changes to avoid unexpected drastic cuts to programs. 

Lou: That’s great news. So how prepared is the state for the next economic downturn? Extra points if you can incorporate a gif into your answer. 

Sheila: Still not that prepared. It’s a good start, but the state needs to continue making deposits like this one well into the future. National budget experts, namely the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, recommend states build up their rainy day funds to at least 15 percent of their annual budget. This one-time deposit isn’t anywhere close to that. 

Here’s a live look at New Jersey if a recession hits and this $401 million is all we have saved:

 

Lou: Extra points for Sheila! So while we’re not totally prepared for the next recession yet, this is a great start that should be commended. To reiterate one of your points, this is the first time in *over a decade* that New Jersey is taking steps to prepare for the next downturn. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that revenue shortfalls, and the subsequent cuts to public programs, disproportionately harm those struggling to make ends meet and communities of color.  

Ray, can you elaborate on what next year’s budget does for these communities? Other than the rainy day fund, of course.

Ray (Raymond Castro, Health Policy Director): First, I am so impressed that the governor and the legislature agree that New Jersey must protect and lift up families struggling to make ends meet. There are many initiatives in this budget that help the working class, the very poor, children, seniors and people with disabilities. This is particularly needed given the enormous income and racial disparities in our state (and big shout out to our friends at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice for reporting on the wealth gap). 

https://twitter.com/NJ_ISJ/status/1120363608326770688?s=20

New Jersey will not be able to compete in the 21st century until everyone has equal opportunity; we are only as strong as our weakest link. We all should all feel good about this budget because without these supports, far fewer New Jerseyans will ever make it to the middle class and NJ will not prosper as it should. The budget does not nearly meet all of the needs in the state, but there is no question that New Jersey is moving in the right direction.

Sheila: We’re definitely moving in the right direction! Anyone else listen to Gossip?

But before I get the song stuck in my head, Ray, can you name a few initiatives that received a boost in funding? The more specific the better. 

Ray: There is an impressive list, but in terms of supporting working families, there was an increase in funding for preschool, a boost to the state Earned Income Tax Credit (which is now one of the highest levels in the nation at 39 percent), more funding for housing assistance, and a bump in aid for community colleges. There is also funding for nursing homes and child care centers to increase staff salaries to reflect the increase in the minimum wage. The budget also requires that the state come up with ways to increase enrollment in the state exchange that will become operational in 2020 and make insurance more affordable.

https://twitter.com/NJPolicy/status/1144678750069673985?s=20

For the very poor, there was an increase in funding for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, which will benefit 20,000 children who live in deep poverty. This increase was especially needed because the state has among the lowest grants for families in the country. 

There was also an increase in charity care for hospitals that serve low-income New Jerseyans who cannot afford insurance. That will also help to maintain the financial solvency of these hospitals. Also, up to 125,000 SNAP (food stamp) beneficiaries will receive more in nutritional assistance thanks to a slight increase in funding for energy assistance, which qualities them for more in federally funded assistance. That will disproportionately benefit seniors and people with disabilities who have difficulty documenting their energy assistance needs.

Lou: I know this is year two for Governor Murphy, but I can’t help but think what a difference a new administration makes. After the state cut programs like these to the bone, it’s good to see New Jersey is once again investing in ordinary families instead of the wealthy and well-connected. Sheila, any other big appropriations you want to highlight? 

Sheila: Absolutely. The biggest winners include NJ Transit, which received an additional $50 million, as requested in the Legislature’s budget. After years of having its operational budget shamelessly raided, more than $457 million has been allocated to the state-run public transit system for FY 2020. It is not nearly enough to fix the damage done during the previous decade, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. Bumping up my op-ed on this from last year in case anyone’s interested. 

The budget includes a record-breaking pension payment of $3.8 billion for public workers and a larger commitment toward property tax relief for senior citizens and the disabled. Finally, the Governor agreed to include an extra $50 million in state aid for costs associated with extraordinary special education as requested by the Legislature. These increases reflect New Jersey’s need to meet its obligations and provide assistance to communities struggling with property taxes. 

One important increase that seems to be flying under the radar is the Governor’s decision to include the Legislature’s request to expand Medicaid coverage from 90 days to 180 days after the last day of pregnancy. As far as I can tell, New Jersey is the first state to do so. This appropriation is directly linked to the state’s renewed commitment to addressing its dismal racial disparities in maternal health. Reports from national and regional maternal mortality review committees have consistently indicated that the limited Medicaid coverage after the birth of a child is not enough to serve low-income people who disproportionately suffer from common maternal health complications like hypertension, diabetes and depression. Nearly one in five maternal deaths occur between six weeks and a year following childbirth. Of these deaths, 58 percent are considered preventable. Doubling the eligibility timeline to 6 months is an important component of improving maternal health outcomes in New Jersey and it should be widely celebrated and replicated in other states.

Ray: That’s definitely flying under the radar. Thanks for flagging it for us, Sheila. 

Lou: This is why I enjoy having these conversations. I really appreciate you both (and the rest of our colleagues, of course) for digging through the budget line by line so other folks don’t have to. 

For those working in the Trenton bubble, you’d think Governor Murphy and legislative leadership were miles apart with their budget priorities, but this list shows that’s not the case. They’re all committed to building New Jersey’s economy from the bottom up and the middle out. That definitely gets lost in a lot of budget reporting. 

Before we get to their biggest disagreement (spoiler: it’s the millionaires tax), can we talk about the state health exchange? I know this wasn’t technically in the budget, but the bill had to be passed before lawmakers left for summer break so the state could meet an important federal deadline. 

Ray, what can you tell us about the state health exchange? What does this mean for New Jersey’s health care landscape? 

Ray: The establishment of the state exchange is enormously important for working families in New Jersey and to defeating the Trump administration’s sabotage of the Affordable Care Act. The legislature and the Murphy administration were in general agreement that such an exchange was greatly needed to be run by the state, but they differed in the details which got ironed out just in time. 

By taking over the federal exchange, the state will be able to double the length of the open enrollment period, expand outreach, reduce premiums and decrease the number of residents who are uninsured. It can do all that without any increase in state funds. That is because the fees (about $50 million) that insurers in New Jersey send to the federal government to operate the exchange will instead stay here to fund the state exchange. 

In addition, there are over 300,000 uninsured NJ residents who are not participating in the federal exchange, so even if a small percentage of them enroll in the state exchange, the state will see a major increase in premium subsidies which is totally funded by the federal government. 

Lou: New Jersey is cementing its position as a national leader in health care policy. I’m not sure there’s another state that has better responded to the Trump administration’s sabotage of the Affordable Care Act. Again, this is a testament to what New Jersey can accomplish when the governor and legislative leaders unite behind a common goal. 

But let’s pivot to the biggest point of contention in this year’s “budget season.” We all know that Governor Murphy wanted a millionaires tax in the budget, but legislators weren’t behind it. Instead, they took a page out of the Christie playbook and balanced their budget with rosy revenue projections. 

The governor dealt with this in a novel way, putting $235 million in spending prioritized by legislators in a “lock box.” That way, the appropriations will only go out if the revenue exists. Seems like the fiscally prudent thing to do, while also creating some incentive to finally pass a millionaires tax in lame duck. Sheila, what are your thoughts? 

Sheila: My first thought is, will you understand this lock box reference? Were you even born before the Bush-Gore election? 

 

Lou: I do not get the reference. I was in third grade, by the way. Definitely not old enough to vote. But back to the question. Thoughts on the lock box? 

Sheila: This was a well-played strategy. It gives the Legislature the green light on its funding priorities and allows the governor to use his executive power to hit the pause button until there is a better understanding of where the state economy is headed. It sends a strong message that relying on rosy projections has fallen out of favor and signals to credit rating agencies that the state will implement responsible budgeting practices with or without the cushion of new revenue. The question remains about which priorities are in this “lock box” and at what point will they be reevaluated for funding. 

Ray: Agree on all fronts. I’m anxious to see what made it into the box. 

Lou: Same here. But I mostly love that the state is moving away from gimmicks and rosy revenue projections. If the state wants to make new investments — which is should — it needs the revenue in place to pay for them. So, the millionaires tax didn’t make it into the budget, but it’s still super important. Do you think it happens in next year’s budget?

Sheila: Honestly, it could happen even sooner. That’s the beauty of the lock box; it creates an incentive for lawmakers to get serious about raising revenue, independent of the craziness of “budget season.” Remember, New Jersey is one of only a few states that still brings in *less* revenue than before the Great Recession. This is proof that New Jersey has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. 

Given that the legislature passed a millionaires tax five times under the Christie administration, it is the most logical route toward creating new, sustainable revenue. Plus it remains extremely popular among voters of all political persuasions. 

Lou: Well, Donald Trump isn’t a fan. I’m sure you saw his tweet congratulating lawmakers for not passing it? 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1145705584517373953?s=20

I can’t imagine this pat on the back was welcomed by legislative leaders. Reaction? 

Sheila: It was like Christmas in July! 

 

But strategically, it would have been more helpful a month ago. Lol

Ray: Should I be on Twitter?

Lou: Yes. 

Sheila: Yes. 

Lou: So it’s settled. Ray, we’re making you a Twitter account! But we should be wrapping this up. Closing thoughts? Opportunities for next year? Plans for your Fourth of July weekend? 

Ray: The opportunities for next year are unlimited. NJ has already been ranked number one in the nation in combating the Trump administration’s sabotage of the ACA. Next year, and in the year after, the state needs to focus on operating one of the best state exchanges in the nation with the goal of universal health care coverage. To do that, the state will need to be creative in how to reach the uninsured who are already eligible for federal assistance but are not participating. However, it must also make those New Jerseyans who are not eligible for federal assistance eligible. That includes middle-class families who have incomes that slightly exceed eligibility limits and those who are not eligible because of their immigration status.

That will require considerable state resources, but New Jersey can start with children as those costs will be offset by a decrease in state funding for charity care in hospitals and other savings down the road. Also, New Jersey needs to be much better at reducing total health care costs, which will also reduce state expenditures. It should start with lowering prescription drug costs, which have become unaffordable even for middle class families. The state also needs to start taxing entities in a way that discourages unhealthy behavior and use those revenues to provide comprehensive coverage for all New Jerseyans.

Lou: Fourth of July plans? 

Ray: My wife and I are celebrating our anniversary! We got married on July 4th so we would also see fireworks on our anniversary. 

Lou: That’s adorable. Congrats, Ray! Sheila?   

Sheila:Tubing on the Delaware with 5 families! 

Lou: You are both making me feel really lame for not having any plans — yet. But back to the budget. Final thoughts, Sheila? 

Sheila: In the end, New Jersey passed a budget that funded its most important obligations and made strides toward investing in the true drivers of a state economy — all without relying on gimmicks and rosy revenue projections. It managed to cut about $1 billion in spending through collective bargaining, make a long overdue deposit into its rainy day fund and have a bit of a cushion in case revenues come in short.

What was strikingly different this budget season was the renewed public interest in Trenton politics after the release of the Comptroller’s audit of the Economic Development Authority and the subsequent task force investigation. The EDA story has it all: insider lobbying, potential fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars. I think the budget process benefited from the unfolding EDA story as it put Trenton in a bigger spotlight than it’s used to. That’s a good thing, the more the public is engaged with the budget season the more likely the state’s priorities will reflect the values of the many, not just the few. 

The law that governs the corporate tax subsidy programs expired at the end of June and the Governor has clearly stated he will not sign the Legislature’s bill to simply expand the law for another 7 months without major reforms. Stay tuned for that showdown!

[Brandon enters the chat]

Brandon (Brandon McKoy, President): Hey team! What did I miss? 

Lou: The Knicks didn’t get Kevin Durant. Or Kyrie Irving. 

Brandon: 

[Brandon exits the chat]

Lou: Happy Fourth of July, New Jersey!

FY 2020 Budget Turns Page on Gimmicks, Invests in Rainy Day Fund

Earlier today, Governor Murphy signed a $38.7 billion budget for Fiscal Year 2020. The budget protects most of the legislature’s spending priorities and dedicates $401 million to the state’s reserve fund — the first deposit in over a decade. In response to the budget, and lack of a millionaires tax, NJPP releases the following statement: 

BRANDON McKOY, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE: 

“The budget signed by Governor Murphy is about much more than dollars and cents, as it represents a commitment to New Jersey’s middle class families and the state’s long-term fiscal health. It also strikes an important balance between the governor’s original proposal and what was ultimately passed by the Legislature. Collectively, these efforts make huge investments in assets proven to grow the economy, like NJ Transit and good public schools, and provide the state with sustainable savings achieved through collective bargaining. 

“Through an executive order, Governor Murphy also made the first deposit into the rainy day fund in over a decade, preparing New Jersey for the next recession and improving the state’s standing in the eyes of credit rating agencies. This is a nationally recognized budgeting best practice and a win for taxpayers of today and tomorrow. 

“Governor Murphy signed a responsible budget that turns the page on the short-sighted gimmicks of the past, but more must be done to position the state for long-term prosperity. New Jersey takes in less revenue than it did before the Great Recession, a direct result of almost a decade of tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthiest individuals and corporations. The restoration of a millionaires tax remains necessary for the state to reliably meet its obligations and continue investing in areas that enable everyday New Jerseyans to thrive.”

# # #

Legislature’s Budget Built on Shaky Foundation

Yesterday, the New Jersey Senate and Assembly unveiled their FY 2020 budget proposal. The spending plan totals $38.8 billion, $200 million more than Governor Murphy’s budget, but does not include enough new, sustainable sources of revenue like the millionaires tax to support those investments in the long-term. In response to the Legislature’s proposal, NJPP releases the following statement.  

BRANDON McKOY, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE:

“The budget proposed by the Legislature is an important, but incomplete, step in building an economy that works for all New Jerseyans. This proposal makes important investments in areas proven to lift working families like NJ Transit, property tax relief, health care, and public education. However, these new investments are not backed by sustainable sources of revenue, threatening their long-term viability and the well-being of New Jersey’s low-paid and middle-class families and children.

“This budget, like many before it, does not include the reliable revenue and savings necessary to meet the state’s long-term needs. By depending on rosy revenue projections and canceling a deposit in the state’s empty rainy day fund, the Legislature has doubled down on short-sighted fiscal practices and dismissed the warnings of budget experts and ratings agencies alike. New Jersey is woefully unprepared for the next economic downturn and the state’s window to build up a healthy rainy day fund is rapidly closing. This is a missed opportunity to bolster the state’s reserves and protect New Jersey families, workers, and businesses from the next recession.

“Lawmakers should have learned by now that new investments must be paired with reliable sources of revenue. The fact remains that after eight years of tax cuts under the previous administration, New Jersey is a national outlier in that it still collects less revenue than it did prior to the Great Recession. Without restoring proper tax rates on wealthy residents, the state will continue to put its long term economic growth — and its chances of closing enormous economic and racial inequities — at risk.”

# # #

Corporate Subsidy Proposals Lack Necessary Reforms

NJPP President Brandon McKoy delivering testimony to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Thursday, June 13, 2019.

This testimony on A4730 and A5343, proposals to extend New Jersey’s corporate subsidy programs, was delivered to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Thursday, June 13, 2019.

Good morning Chairman Johnson and members of the committee.  My name is Brandon McKoy and I am the President of New Jersey Policy Perspective. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on this very important issue.

New Jersey Policy Perspective has researched and analyzed the state’s economic development programs for over twenty years. We closely monitor the tax credits awarded by the state Economic Development Authority, how many jobs created and maintained the state gets in return, and we regularly compare New Jersey’s corporate subsidy programs — and the laws that guide them — against those in other states across the nation.

These decades of research and analysis bring us to a simple conclusion: New Jersey’s economic development programs have been improperly designed, poorly measured, and insufficiently examined since the implementation of the 2013 Economic Opportunity Act, which I will heretofore refer to as the 2013 EOA. While the Economic Development Authority in and of itself is not a problematic entity, the legislation guiding its operations leaves much to be desired. 

Since the passage of the 2013 EOA, New Jersey’s corporate tax subsidies have risen to unprecedented levels, with an enormous financial reward to very few corporations and an enormous cost to Garden State taxpayers. New Jersey is now a national outlier for how much it spends on corporate subsidies and how little it receives as a return on investment. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As the current laws guiding the state’s corporate subsidy programs are set to expire on June 30, this legislative body has an incredible opportunity to revamp the state’s approach to economic development so it benefits businesses, their workers, and taxpayers alike. 

The purported goals of the legislation being considered today may have good intentions, but they lack the critical reforms necessary to get New Jersey’s economic development strategy back on track. It is NJPP’s position that the extensive flaws in the 2013 EOA must be addressed before any consideration of extending these programs. 

While bill A4730 would slightly improve eligibility requirements for the Grow New Jersey Assistance Program, it lacks key reforms that would reel in an out-of-control corporate tax subsidy initiative. It contains no annual spending caps, no mandated reporting to verify outcomes, no recurring evaluation process, no annual forecasting or multi-year cost projections, and no labor protections. In fact, this legislation rewards corporations that hire contract workers. 

Meanwhile, A5343 would simply extend the existing program to January 31, 2020. For a program with well-documented flaws that is projected to rob the state budget over $1 billion in revenue annually for the foreseeable future, this makes little sense. Rational and attainable fixes have been suggested time and time again to this legislature, both by NJPP and national experts, and yet they remain conspicuously absent from both of these proposals.

Before considering extensions, we must recognize that these programs have not produced results as intended. The cost to the state remains too great, and the means to verify impact remain insufficient. 

Before 2013, New Jersey’s corporate subsidy spending was in line with the national average, at about $16,000 per job created or maintained. Since the passage of the 2013 EOA, the state has awarded enormous corporate subsidies that are more than five times the national average. In return, the state has received little verifiable performance or uptick in jobs, development, and economic growth. Simply put, rather than being another tool in the toolbox of economic development, corporate tax subsidies became theeconomic development strategy of New Jersey. 

For years, NJPP has raised the alarm about the enormous cost of these programs to our state, at a time when New Jersey can least afford to gamble away future tax revenue. These bills proposed today do not sufficiently assuage the concerns we have documented.

And you don’t have to just take my word for it. Other than the findings of multiple reviews and analyses by other independent actors, the Fiscal Impact Statement that accompanied the final version of the 2013 EOA clearly states that the loss of revenue to the state’s Treasury, due to credit redemptions, would be enormous. It also says that the levels of Corporate Business Tax uncertainty and losses, even with implied increased local spending and jobs development, could be substantial and result in a decade of direct business tax revenue reductions and losses. While some would like to deny the reality, those warnings have come to fruition.

Without implementing annual spending caps for awards, shorter term lengths for awards, penalties for bad actors and known tax dodgers, wage protections for workers, and nationally recognized best practices for assessment and review, New Jersey Policy Perspective cannot support these bills as currently constructed. 

I understand that this body and the legislature are on a short time line with regard to the sunset of the 2013 EOA, but NJPP and others have been commenting on these issues to lawmakers for years. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone.

Given the scope and cost of New Jersey’s corporate subsidies, the laws guiding the Economic Development Authority will be among the most consequential pieces of legislation passed this session. Passage of any extension without the inclusion of critically necessary reforms leaves the state extremely vulnerable to uncertain and insufficient economic outcomes.

This presents you an incredible opportunity to fix the problems with New Jersey’s existing corporate subsidy programs and ensure future economic development benefits all New Jerseyans — business owners, their workers, local communities, and taxpayers alike. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you all as New Jersey revamps its approach to economic development.

 

Gov. Murphy’s EDA Reforms Are Necessary to Correct Flaws in EDA Programs

Governor Murphy announcing a corporate subsidy reform package in Cherry Hill on June 5, 2019.

Earlier today, Governor Phil Murphy unveiled a package of reforms to New Jersey’s corporate tax incentive programs. The proposals follow months of independent reports and task force hearings highlighting fraud and waste at the state Economic Development Authority. In response to the proposed reforms, New Jersey Policy Perspective releases the following statement.

BRANDON McKOY, NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE PRESIDENT:

“The tax subsidy reforms proposed by Governor Murphy are necessary to correct the serious flaws in New Jersey’s economic development programs. Since the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act in 2013, New Jersey has been a national outlier in how it operates its tax incentive programs, with the state spending five times the national average on corporate subsidies. With the programs guiding the Economic Development Authority set to expire at the end of the month, there has never been a more opportune time for meaningful reform.

“This package of reforms is forward thinking and, more importantly, follows best practices from across the nation. Hard caps on awards and stronger oversight will protect taxpayers and the state’s budget, while better targeting of awards and improved labor protections will ensure the benefits of corporate subsidies are shared broadly among business owners, their workers, and local communities alike.

“We look forward to working with Governor Murphy and members of the Legislature in the pursuit of economic development policies that are fiscally responsible and prioritize the best interests of everyday New Jerseyans.”

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic justice and prosperity for all New Jerseyans through evidence-based, independent research, analysis and advocacy. NJPP has long-advocated for reforming New Jersey’s corporate subsidy programs.

# # #

Driver’s License Expansion Would Pay for Itself and More

Expanding access to driver’s licenses to all New Jersey residents, regardless of immigration status, would make the state’s roads safer and its economy stronger. The proposal would also pay for itself by bringing in tens of millions of dollars in recurring revenue for the state’s general fund, according to an NJPP analysis of new data from the New Jersey Office of Revenue and Economic Analysis. This is a win-win for drivers, working families, and the state’s finances.

Over the first three years of implementation, driver’s license expansion is projected to generate $21 million in revenue from permit, title, and driver’s license fees. Once fully implemented, new drivers will generate $90 million annually from registration fees, the gas tax, and the sales tax on purchases made at gas stations and motor vehicle and auto parts retailers.[1]

New Jersey is one of the most diverse states in the nation and is home to approximately 484,000 undocumented residents, representing 5.4 percent of the state’s total population. Of the nearly half million undocumented residents, 91.5 percent are of driving age (16 and older). Based on the experiences of the twelve states that have already expanded access to driver’s licenses, NJPP estimates that 222,000 residents would obtain a drivers license during the first three years of implementation. This equates to a 3.5 percent increase in the total number of people in New Jersey with a driver’s license.[2]These new drivers would pay a collective $6 million in permit and license fees over the first three years of implementation.

These drivers are also estimated to purchase 80,000 cars over the same three year period, representing a three percent increase in the number of vehicles registered.[3] Title and plate fees associated with these new vehicles will generate almost $15 million in revenue.

According to NJPP’s analysis of new data from the New Jersey Treasury Department’s Office of Revenue and Economic Analysis, driver’s license expansion would also generate the state tens of millions of dollars in recurring revenue as new drivers register their vehicles and purchase gasoline as well as auto parts and associated retail goods at gas stations and auto part dealers. Using the Treasury’s data on sales taxes collected from gasoline stations and auto parts stores, combined with revenue figures from the petroleum gross receipts and motor fuels tax, NJPP projects that driver’s license expansion would generate $90 million annually in sales and gas tax revenue. Revenue from the gas tax would go directly to the Transportation Trust Fund, which currently collects 41.5 cents per gallon of gas sold. This will make the state’s gas tax collections less volatile and could lower the odds of a future gas tax increase.

In addition to making New Jersey’s roads safer and its economy stronger, expanding access to driver’s licenses would more than pay for itself, generating $90 million in tax revenue every year.


Methodology

Number of Undocumented Immigrants of Driving Age and the Number Who would obtain a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation

There are three estimates used to quantify the number of undocumented immigrants: 452,000 (Center for Migration Studies), 475,000 (Pew Hispanic Center), and 526,000 (Migration Policy Institute). The average of the three estimates is 484,000. There are two estimates for the percent of New Jersey’s undocumented immigrants who are 16 years or older: 90 percent (Center for Migration Studies) and 93 percent (Migration Policy Institute). NJPP took the average of the two numbers (91.5) and multiplied that by average number of undocumented immigrants to get the estimated number of undocumented residents who are of driving age: 444,000. We assume that New Jersey would have a high-end participation rate after three years, similar to Illinois’ rate of 47 percent. We project New Jersey’s rate will be slightly higher at 50 percent given driving is necessary to getting around the state’s sprawling suburbs. The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) similarly uses this take up rate in their projections for New York. Thus, we multiply the number of undocumented residents of driving age by the take up rate of 50 percent to project that approximately 222,000 undocumented immigrants who would obtain a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation.

Number of new cars on the road

To analyze new cars on the road after driver’s license expansion, NJPP projects similar automobile purchases and new licenses as FPI projected for New York. Multiplying FPI’s take-up ratio by the number of New Jersey residents that would get a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation projects 80,000 new cars. Note that new cars means new car purchases, not brand new automobiles. For more information, see: Expanding Access to Driver’s Licenses: Getting a License Without Regard to Immigration Status and Expanding Access to Driver’s Licenses: How Many Additional Cars Might Be Purchased? (http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FPI-Additional-cars-report-2017.pdf)

Numbers for Annual Revenue  

The annual revenue includes: registration fees, gas station and auto part sales tax revenue, and gas tax revenue. The projected 80,000 new cars after three years represents a 2.86 percent increase in registered cars in New Jersey. We multiplied the 2.86 percent increase to the latest figures on gas station and auto part retailer sales tax revenue and to annual gasoline purchases subject to the state gas tax (including petroleum gross receipts and motor fuels).

Revenue from the first three years of implementation

Regardless of a person’s age, first time drivers must pay a $10 dollar permit fee. NJPP multiplied this fee by 222,000, the number of estimated new drivers during the first three years of implementation. We also include revenue associated with title and license plates fees. We multiplied the one time fee of $46.50 times the number of estimated new cars, 80,000. Finally, we multiplied the number of people who would get a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation, 222,000 by $18 the price of a basic driver’s license according to Assembly bill A4743.


End Notes

[1] Does not include the revenue from sales tax of new car purchased.

[2] NJPP divided the estimated number of people who would get a license during the first three by the number of licenced drivers in NJ. Highway Statistics 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2017/dl201.cfm

[3] See Methodology.

Pension and Benefit Cuts Are Bad Public Policy and Even Worse Optics

Earlier today Senate President Steve Sweeney unveiled a package of 27 bills from his Path to Progress working group. In response to proposals to reduce working class pensions and health benefits, NJPP President Brandon McKoy released the following statement.

NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE PRESIDENT BRANDON McKOY

“Trickle down economic policies got New Jersey into its current fiscal mess and more of the same will not lift the state out of it. It is bad public policy — and even worse optics — to ask more than 350,000 working families to make further sacrifices while protecting 17,000 millionaires from a modest tax increase. In this era of historic inequality and wage stagnation, the choice before lawmakers is clear. They can continue to balance budgets on the backs of middle class families or ensure the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.”

“Lawmakers must not forget history. Under the Christie administration, the state cut taxes time and time again for the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations. As a result, middle class families now pay a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than millionaires do.

“Last year, lawmakers challenged Governor Murphy to find significant savings before they would consider a millionaires tax, and he did just that. It’s time for lawmakers to fulfill their promise and ask the wealthiest among us to pay a little bit more.”

# # #

Treasurer’s Testimony Highlights Need for Sustainable Revenue

Earlier today the Office of Legislative Services and State Treasurer Muoio testified at the Senate Budget Committee hearing and delivered updated revenue collection figures for FY 2019. In response to today’s testimony, NJPP releases the following statement.

NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE SENIOR POLICY ANALYST SHEILA REYNERTSON

“Today’s budget testimony delivered good news that revenue collections are above projections for the remainder of the fiscal year. But just as the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services warned, this is good news that should be taken with caution. This year’s budget relies on over $1 billion in one-shot revenue sources that are set to disappear. Lawmakers must pursue reliable and sustainable sources of revenue, like the proposed millionaires tax, to make up for these lost funds and continue investing in assets proven to grow the economy. A millionaires tax would also promote tax fairness, as the current tax code results in middle class families paying a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than the state’s top earners.

“The $317 million deposit into New Jersey’s rainy day fund — the first in eleven years — is a noteworthy accomplishment and a good budgeting practice that will reflect well in credit agency evaluations. However, more can and must be done to help prepare the state for the next recession or natural disaster. The state must build on last year’s successes and commit to new, renewable sources of revenue, robust surpluses, and continued deposits into the rainy day fund.”

# # #

Lobbyists Drafting EOA is Privatization of the Legislative Process

Earlier today New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) President Brandon McKoy testified at the Economic Incentive Task Force hearing on the NJ Economic Development Authority and crafting of the Economic Opportunity Act of 2013. In response to the hearing and yesterday’s exposés by WNYC and the New York Times, NJPP releases the following statement:

NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE PRESIDENT BRANDON McKOY

“The fraud and abuse at the Economic Development Authority extend far beyond lax oversight and personnel — they are a direct result of the legislation guiding the state’s tax subsidy programs. Quietly drafted by corporate lobbyists who had a financial interest in the bill, the Economic Opportunity Act of 2013 is riddled with narrowly tailored loopholes ripe for exploitation. There is no question that this law was written to benefit already wealthy and well-connected individuals and corporations, not ordinary New Jerseyans. This represents a privatization of the legislative process and corporate cronyism at its worst. New Jersey taxpayers deserve better.

“Nothing about the laws guiding New Jersey’s economic subsidy programs is normal. New Jersey is an outlier in how much it spends on incentives and how little it gets back in return. Taxpayers cannot afford for the Economic Development Authority to continue doing business as usual. New Jersey must follow best practices utilized by other states and reform its subsidy programs so they are targeted, properly monitored, and capped. These common-sense reforms will ensure the EDA promotes developments that benefit all New Jerseyans, not just a select few.”

Watch Brandon McKoy’s testimony to the Tax Incentive Task Force here:

https://youtu.be/U-GG3tP7chA?t=22410

# # #

 

A Proposal to Fix the Federal Tax Code for Working Families

A new proposal introduced last week by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) would help fix the tax code and provide relief for low-paid workers as they support themselves and their families by putting money back in their pockets for basic necessities like home repairs, car maintenance, or in some cases, additional education or training to get a better, higher-paying job.

The bill, aptly named the Working Families Tax Relief Act, would substantially expand both the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), boosting the incomes and economic security of 46 million households nationwide, including 1,049,000 million households in New Jersey. The EITC and CTC are widely recognized as some of the most impactful policies that help working people with low-paid jobs make ends meet, reduce poverty, and improve children’s opportunities and outcomes later in life.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Increase the EITC for families with children by roughly 25 percent
  • Substantially increase the EITC for workers not raising children and lower the eligibility age to 19
  • Make the full $2,000 CTC available to all low- and moderate-income families
  • Create a new Young Child Tax Credit that would provide families with children under 6 years old an extra $1,000 per child (for a total of $3,000 per child)
  • Make the CTC equally accessible to families in Puerto Rico and expand Puerto Rico’s EITC

Addressing the upside down tax code and 2017 federal tax cuts

Working families have seen their incomes stagnate for decades — through no fault of their own — without much relief from the federal government. Instead, recent tax law changes have exacerbated inequality and skewed the tax code to further benefit already wealthy individuals and corporations. This is exemplified by the deeply flawed 2017 federal tax cuts, which delivered large cuts to the wealthy and profitable corporations, yet failed to strengthen the EITC and left more than 11 million children in low-income working families with either no CTC increase or a token increase of $75 or less. The Working Families Tax Relief Act  would begin to fix the upside down nature of the tax code in three important ways. It would strengthen the EITC for working people not raising children, ensure that millions of poor children aren’t left out of the Child Tax Credit, and target additional income support to low-income families with very young children.

Boosting the incomes of working-class people across racial and ethnic backgrounds

Working-class households of all races — especially those with working-age people without a college degree — have enjoyed only small income gains in recent decades. Many of these working people have low-paid jobs that do not allow them to meet their most basics needs. The problem of low wages is further compounded in communities of color, where many people face barriers like housing discrimination. Under the Working Families Tax Relief Act, a single mom of two earning $20,000 a year would get a $3,700 annual boost. A married couple with two young kids making $45,000 a year would get a $3,500 boost. This is real relief for families that need it the most — and it would have a ripple effect throughout the broader economy.

Lasting benefits for millions of children and their families

The Working Families Tax Relief Act recognizes that the best investment a government can make is in its children. Refundable tax credits like the CTC and EITC have many direct and indirect benefits for kids, as parents who have higher incomes from tax credits tend to get more prenatal care, experience less maternal stress, and have healthier babies. Research also indicates that children receiving tax credits do better in school and are more likely to attend college. This improves kids’ economic prospects well into adulthood through more years of schooling, higher skills, and thus higher earnings. Kids whose families receive tax credits are also likelier to avoid the early onset of illnesses associated with child poverty.

It’s time to fix the federal tax code for working families

Many of America’s low-income working families are struggling to stay afloat as decades of stagnant wages have not kept pace with rising costs of living. This has resulted in far too many parents with low-paying jobs struggling to provide for themselves and their families. The Working Families Tax Relief Ac would begin to fix the federal tax code to better serve working people and help those struggling to keep their heads above water and give their children a good start in life.