Vote No on All Ballot Questions

There are four questions on next month’s ballot.

Do you approve the amendment of Article VII, Section I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, to provide for the annual dedication and annual appropriation of an amount equal to the annual revenue derived from a tax rate of 1% imposed under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, exclusively for the purpose of property tax reform through a special Property Tax Reform account established in the constitutionally dedicated Property Tax Relief Fund?

Soon after the New Jersey Legislature and Governor Corzine struck a deal to raise the sales tax in the summer of 2006, I posted that the electorate should not vote to dedicate half of the sales tax increase to property tax reform:

I love how our government works. Decide to tax us to the tune of $600 million (that’s only one-half of the sales tax increase) and then not know what you’re going to do with it.

Folks, this is why this money should never travel from your wallet to Trenton. Furthermore, do not vote to agree that this money has to continue. It is ludicrous!

The tax increase was passed without voter approval. If voters now agree to guarantee that half the tax increase is to be used for property tax relief, then there is no turning back; the sales tax increase will be locked in.

Dear reader, recall that former Governor Florio also raised the sales tax. Not only was he voted out of office for that, the sales tax was repealed. That cannot happen if we agree to lock it in.

The way to combat high property taxes is not to raise taxes. Rather, slashing state spending is the correct tool. Anything else is a shell game.

I vehemently oppose this initiative.

Shall the “New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act” which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $450 million for grants to fund “stem cell research projects,” as defined in the act, at institutions of higher education and other entities in the State conducting scientific and medical research, and providing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, provided that recurring revenues of the State are certified by the State Treasurer to be available in an amount equal to the sum necessary to satisfy the annual debt service obligations related to such bonds, be approved?

New Jersey’s debt is burdensome. The vig interest has become problematic. We now borrow to pay the interest on previous borrowing. Certainly everyone can see the downward spiral of that policy.

Regardless of the issue of stem cell research (personally, I am not in favor of government sponsoring it), the state just cannot afford to spend on anything new. New Jersey needs to get its house in order. Now!

I will not vote in favor of spending tax dollars in 2007.

Shall the “Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres, and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007,” which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $200 million to provide moneys for (1) the acquisition and development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, (2) the preservation of farmland for agricultural or horticultural use and production, (3) the acquisition for recreation and conservation purposes properties in the floodways of the Delaware River, Passaic River, and Raritan River and their tributaries, that are prone to or have incurred flood or storm damage, and (4) funding historic preservation projects; and providing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, be approved?

I play a lot in the natural resources New Jersey has. It is one of the absolute joys of living here. Ten years ago, then Governor Whitman supported the initial ballot question to dedicate $100 million annually for 10 years to purchase open space. New Jersey is the densest state in the union. It was easy to support.

If all had worked well, I would still vote against the re-authorization. As I stated about the second question, I will vote for no tax dollar spending in 2007. New Jersey cannot afford it.

But not all went well with the program. When I voted for the spending initially, I envisioned the state purchasing large tracts of land to tack onto Wharton State Forest. While that did happen, most of the money funded parks, ball fields, and other municipal recreation. The state even purchased a golf course. Now the state runs the golf course. It was not converted to its natural state. For me, that is not preserving open space.

Don’t forget, dear reader, that there is other spending looming. There are billions of dollars of repairs needed to fix our crumbling roads and bridges. Do you recall the corrupt and broke School Construction Corporation? It needs more money to build schools. We haven’t heard squat about that recently, have we? Last time the same folks who hiked the sales tax on us took $10 billion of our tax dollars without asking, created a dysfunctional agency, and blew through the money without getting the job done. We can’t afford to add to our spending woes.

I will vote No on this question as well.

Shall the amendment of Article II, Section I, paragraph 6 of the Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, revising the current constitutional language concerning denial of the right to vote by deleting the phrase “idiot or insane person” and providing instead that a “person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting” shall not enjoy the right of suffrage, be adopted?

Is this a case of political correctness? Apparently so. The accompanying text (for the idiots in the voting booth?) states:

Reasons to vote “yes”:
·Language is powerful. Needless and stigmatizing language should be eliminated from our constitution and laws.

Um, okay.

This really seems to be a complete waste of taxpayer time and resources. Does this matter a hoot to anyone? Will anything change if it isn’t passed? If it is? Just how does this make any difference?

This makes it four-for-four: No!

Also blogged on this date . . .

4 Responses to “Vote No on All Ballot Questions”

  1. By Bob on Oct 20, 2007

    Since I wrote this piece, I began seeing signs about declaring just my point. I just went out and took a photograph of one to add to this.

    It appears Steve Lonegan is responsible for this campaign.

  2. By Lynn on Nov 3, 2007

    How much will it cost the average taxpayer for us to stop referring to people with mental impairment as “idiots”? If you had a mental disability, like Down’s Syndrome, would you want people to call you an idiot? You can call it political correctness — it’s about time we stop insulting the disabled. I think to disagree is idiotic.

  3. By Bob on Nov 4, 2007

    I don’t know how much it will cost. This is the type of thing that should be fully flushed out prior to asking voters to approve it. It has not been done so.

    I could support the language change but like everything else with this administration, it has not been handled well. Therefore, I do not support the change as it is presented.

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Oct 23, 2007: DynamoBuzz » Blog Archive » Stem Cell Bond Question = More NJ Patronage Jobs

Post a Comment

By submitting a comment here you grant ladow.net a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.