It’s a bit tricky offering commentary on a newspaper’s editorial. After all, editorials express the “views” of the media outlet’s editors and publishers. But even opinion pieces should strive for consistency.
Here's my “op-ed” to a recent Sunday New York Times editorial: “New Jersey’s Shame”.
A brief recap: NYT editorialized on the widening income gap between the rich and the poor in New Jersey, and it credited the state for pouring money into poor school districts. It further opined that “a state like New Jersey, with the second highest median income in the nation, has a moral obligation to see that all students get a solid education.” The editorial recognized the fiscal pressures to reduce aid to poor districts and weighed in against it.
The premise sounds as basic as A, B, C. The problem is something we'll categorize as "editorial memory recall" (EMR).
To shed some light on the subject, let’s review The Times editorial published October 15, 2006: “Crunch Time on Property Taxes”. In it, the editorial highlighted the state’s highest in the nation median housing costs which are tied directly to high property taxes. The editorial even quotes an expert who characterized New Jersey as having “an expenditure problem, not a tax problem.”
After sorting out the state’s painful dilemma, The Times editorial raised the subject of school funding.
Here’s what they had to say last fall.
“At an average of about $11,500 per pupil each year, school spending is higher than in any other state, and it may have to come down. So too may the high rate of spending for schools in Newark, Jersey City and more than 25 other poor municipalities designated as special needs districts. These districts, which are supposed to receive the same amount of public money as the state’s highest-spending districts, receive more than $14,000 per student.”
I'm confused, is NYT, for or against trimming school aid?
Are expenditures (school aid) or taxes (property) Jersey’s problem?
Editorials are opinions. But these opinions also seek to inform and advocate for social and political policy outcomes. It that sense, editors should strive for consistency.
Lt. Gov. Guadagno takes on red tape in N.J. Gov. Christie Whitman declared New Jersey "open for business" in 1994 and appointed an ombudsman to lead entrepreneurs through "the expanding maze of regulation." Before her, an environmental commissioner under Gov. James Florio urged permit applicants to call him directly...
"Never forget, some of those shouting the loudest are the architects of the disaster we are now suffering. Do we really want another decade of economic failure? No, this spring it is time to clear away the underbrush to make room for growth. So, today, we stop sweeping problems under the rug. We will not hide our problems until
another day. And we are certainly not increasing the tax burden we place upon our people. Today, we are taking necessary and decisive action to reduce state spending and reform state government. The problems we have hidden for twenty years are evident for all to see. The day of reckoning has arrived. Some are saying, by their choice of policies, that we should descend further into debt and deficit, and risk driving more people out of the state with “temporary” tax increases that always turn out to be permanent. I say we must face up to our responsibility." -- Gov. Christopher Christie
Press releases are submitted by PolitickerNJ users, not by staff. They do not represent the viewpoint of PolitickerNJ.com.
special needs students
one thing everyone forgets to mention is that while the "ave" student may cost $11k ( which is already kinda high )... i believe this includes special needs students, which ave over $40k per student...
and this thing:
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/njcsa.pdf
is one of the funniest reads i've had in a while... as long as i'm reading it correctly... by 2014 every student will be scoring 100% in math & language arts on their HSPA tests...
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
Modern Times
So, the New York Times plays moral mentor with an opinion piece about "collective guilt" laid upon New Jerseyans. Not one of history's immortal moments, in my view. Sermonizing is done every day, especially in print. One doesn't live long in the USA to understand that conceding an issue, or apologizing for anything is tantamount to treason, and most Un-American. It's been a long tradition under Old Glory. The last few decades have seen a stark perversion into the lawsuit-happy country which is now more rule than exception. I'm okay, so you better be okay
New Jersey's problem
The largest problem with New Jersey isn't born here. New Jersey is one of the few donor States that pay more into Washington then we get back. The cost of living in New Jersey is almost double that of recipient States, yet, the Federal Tax rates do not recognize this fact.
I do not believe any of the New Jersey delegates signing the constitution would have been so willing to sign, if it was explained that we would be funding the programs of other States. Is it fair that someone making $50K in Missippi has the same life style as someone in New Jersey yet they pay only a fraction of the Federal Tax. On the flip side when money comes out of Washington for Medicaid, NJ gets a 50% match while "poorer" States get up to 75%. Yes! New Jersey has it's own budget problems, but if we seek a real resolution to property tax problems why doesn't the Federal Government make property taxes a credit instead of a deduction. This would resolve our property tax problems and balance out some of the inbalance levied upon us.
While many of these recipient States are facing budget surpluses NJ keeps shifting income to them. New Jersey would be the 15th wealthiest country in the world if it were independent. Without the drain of monies to Washington we wouldn't have any problem funding our Schools or providing healthcare. YES! let's clean up our spending! We can cut our budget by 10% fairly easily.
So! ATTENTION all you POLS! Start leaning on Washington to get some of our overpayments back. (Maybe they have one of some of those pallets of money they sent to Iraq laying around)
Yes
And not only do we get less for our federal dollar but residents of these welfare queen states (awash in Federal Dollars) like Mississippi STILL try to pretend that citizens of states like ours are purveyors of the kind of social liberalism run amok that leads to a pervasive and complete welfare state. Hypocrites indeed.
--Saint Joe--