NJ Governor's Race

ARC was estimated to cost $8.7 billion. Christie killed it in 2010, $600 million already had been spent. Scheduled completion date was 2018. NJ was on the hook for $1.25B and Port Authority of NJNY was responsible for $3B. Christie claimed the actual price tag was going to be $2 - $5 billion higher.

Now we have the Gateway Project. It's estimated by Amtrak to cost $20 billion. NY and NJ offered to pay half if the federal government pays the other half.  So NJ is on the hook for $5B. We didn't save the money from ARC, Christie spent it on NJ road projects (possibly illegal use of Port Authority funds). Plus we had to give back some of the money already spent on ARC to the federal government.

The Gateway tunnels won't be done until 2026.  

In the end, NJ will probably spend the same amount on the Gateway project as it would have on ARC but the tunnels won't be ready for another 9 years.

A tunnel is badly needed but ARC went to the wrong place and would have created a confusing mess in Manhattan.  Gateway is better on that score so in the end it is better even if the wait is longer. 

Yahooyahoo,

At the time the ARC was cancelled, the official estimate was $11 billion. The Port Authority money going to the ARC was from New Jersey's share of the Port Authority pot and subtracted from other New Jersey projects, not a bistate 50:50 NJ/NY payment.  So really, you should reckon NJ's share in 2010 as $1.25 billion from the Thruway Authority + $3 billion via our Port Authority money + $2.4 in already-discovered cost overuns + ??? overruns to be created.  

Unless New Jersey was actually going to have to make a payment to New York State to build that tunnel, I can not imagine a more unfair deal for New Jersey.  The tunnel was going to half be in NY anyway, the New Jersey commuters using it would pay taxes to Albany, and since New Jersey Transit serves Orange and Rockland counties and sometimes NYC-city ride the train to NJ anyway, there were thousands of New Yorkers who would use it. 

To be honest, I think that cancelling the ARC was the worst thing Christie did and on transit I loathe him, but Corzine, Cuomo, Patterson, and Spitzer deserve a lot of scorn too.  

yahooyahoo said:

ARC was estimated to cost $8.7 billion. Christie killed it in 2010, $600 million already had been spent. Scheduled completion date was 2018. NJ was on the hook for $1.25B and Port Authority of NJNY was responsible for $3B. Christie claimed the actual price tag was going to be $2 - $5 billion higher.

Now we have the Gateway Project. It's estimated by Amtrak to cost $20 billion. NY and NJ offered to pay half if the federal government pays the other half.  So NJ is on the hook for $5B. We didn't save the money from ARC, Christie spent it on NJ road projects (possibly illegal use of Port Authority funds). Plus we had to give back some of the money already spent on ARC to the federal government.

The Gateway tunnels won't be done until 2026.  

In the end, NJ will probably spend the same amount on the Gateway project as it would have on ARC but the tunnels won't be ready for another 9 years.

A confusing mess? You mean more confusing than what was happening this summer?

Hard to believe. Personally I think commuters could have figured out all their options by lunchtime the first day.

Half the NJT tracks would be by 32nd street and half several floors lower and by 35th street. Where to go? And what about when there is an issue and they switch your train at the last minute to the other terminal? You know it would happen frequently. It was a crazy plan that would have been a horror. 

the fact is that NJ has a lot more to lose if the Hudson River tunnels fail than NY does. All the people who think Christie was wise to cancel ARC might think differently if the tunnels fail and the value of their NJ homes plunge.

And let's not forget the importance of that rail link to all of the NE Corridor from Boston to DC.  The federal government SHOULD be paying for new tunnels, but of course it won't because Republicans don't think other Republicans use mass transit.  But I've got to believe a lot of conservatives ride the Acela. We have to hope that the current tunnels can be maintained until new ones are built.  But of course hope is not a strategy.

ml1 said:

the fact is that NJ has a lot more to lose if the Hudson River tunnels fail than NY does. All the people who think Christie was wise to cancel ARC might think differently if the tunnels fail and the value of their NJ homes plunge.

NY has a large labor pool to draw from, NY, CT, NJ. If NJ commuters can't get to NY, the NY, CT labor will make up the shortage.

If anything, shifting commuters who reside in NJ to NY is a gain for NY. Besides earning there they'll be spending there, increasing the value of NY businesses and homes.

I'm regret that I attempted to defend the ARC cancellation because it's taken the thread away from the 2017 gubernatorial race and the two bad choices we face.

I could never get over how blatantly Phil Murphy has lied about what he is going to be able to do as governor and how long it's taken the media to pick up on that.

Let's start with the fact that NJ is the country's most or second most indebted state, combine with 20 years of economic growth below the nation's average, and then add the highest taxes in the land to boot.

And this is what Phil Murphy comes up with, with cost estimates:

• Pensions: fully fund the pensions, estimated cost based on 2018 deficit relative to the Actuarially Recommended Contribution, $2.5 billion per year.
• K-12 Education: "implement that formula," ie, fully fund K-12 state aid. Although the real deficit is $2 billion, Murphy is only proposing to put another $1 billion in.  
• Create free community college.  $200 million in the first year, $400 million thereafter.
• Pre-K:  Usually Murphy makes a vague promise to provide "more" Pre-K or implement SFRA's full PreK stipulation, which would be $700 million a year.  
• Big increases for New Jersey Transit.
• A $15 an hour minimum wage, which would have large cost increases to the state, mostly for home health aides. 

And then some smaller stuff:

• Increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit from 35% of the federal level to 40% of the federal level, $60 million per year.  
• Create a tax incentive for businesses to offer college loan forgiveness.  Create loan forgiveness for STEM majors (who are the least likely to need forgiveness, but whatever.)
• Increase the Senior Property tax rebate.  The legislative Democrats proposed a $45 million last year.  
• Create a Child Care tax credit.  
• Increase affordable housing.
• Create an "Advanced Industries Accelerator Grant Program."

Murphy rules out any changes to employee and retiree healthcare. 

To pay for a program which would cost $8-$10 billion Murphy is proposing only $1.3 billion in additional taxes, and Murphy's tax agenda relies on the most optimistic projections and even the actions of other states.

For instance, the OLS estimated that Combined Reporting would bring in $110-$290 million a year, so Murphy goes with $290 million.

Yes, the NJ legislature has contemplated taxing Carried Interest, but only if NYS, CT, and MA do the same. Despite the uncertainty of coordinated action by three other states and the OLS's own estimate of $80 million in new revenue, Murphy books this as $100 million.

Murphy used to promise to pay for everything by eliminating or reining in tax incentives, but he's already given up on this, perhaps acknowledging that if a business isn't in NJ in the first place, the NJ Treasury gains nothing.

Murphy also proposes to pay for everything with new revenue, which is a half-truth at best.  Yes, NJ's revenue grows by about 3% a year, but 1-2% of that is inflation anyway.

Now let's compare Murphy to Guadagno.  ...  Guadagno proposes little in new spending. Her "Circuit Breaker" would cost $1.5 billion and KG hasn't really identified a source for that, but creating a Circuit Breaker depends on the legislature's assent, so it's not really something that would kill NJ's budget because KG probably couldn't pass it anyway.

By contrast, Murphy has made so many promises that now he is also acknowledging that he is going to keep NJ on the 10 year rampup to full pension payments.  THat's ******** and it's going to mean that NJ still gets wrecked in the 2020s. 

Maybe some extra money could come from legalizing marijuana.

http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/colorado-billion-legal-marijuana-sales/

I agree with Runner_Guy in that Murphy is a political lightweight and doesn't really understand the nuances of the NJ budget, key issues, or what taxpayers really want in NJ.  

I don't have answers for how we get out of the self-inflicted pension crisis but unrealistic growth charts don't help anyone.  

He ran a smart campaign by eliminating his biggest Democratic rivals and giving voters very little choice if they don't want a Republican governor.

IF (big IF) Murphy proposes a 10" candy cane for everyone for next Christmas, I'm in. 

Meanwhile, KG proposes to find the money to fix everything by eliminating all the waste that's in the gub'mint. Forget that she has had 8 years in a do-nothing job to find all that waste and eliminate it.

I think there is a solid solution to the pension crisis in the form of reducing NJ's health benefits spending for active employees and retirees.  This was the central recommendation of the Healey-Byrne Commission, which said that reducing the Obamacare "Platinum Plus" level benefits to just "Gold" level benefits would save $2.2 billion a year and that money could be recycled into the pension funds.

That savings, plus some modest new revenue, would be enough to pay the Actuarially Recommended Contribution.

Because Guadagno supports the recommendations of the Healey-Byrne Commission, because she doesn't support any expensive unfunded mandates, because (except for the "Circuit Breaker") she doesn't support any new state spending, I think she would be much better for NJ than Murphy on debt and property taxes.

Murphy has already ruled out any changes to healthcare benefits, no matter how inflated they are.  

Guadagno is also fairly good on school aid.  She clearly supports redistributing Adjustment Aid and creating a rational formula for construction aid. Right now the Abbotts get the state to pay for 100% of everything, while non-Abbotts get the state to pay for 16-40%.

Guadagno does favor marijuana legalization.  I don't know if she wants an excise tax or not, but I don't see her adamantly opposing one either.  

Guadagno is inarticulate and I don't like her being Christie's sidekick either.  However, you can't assume that she agreed with Christie on everything in those years or that she hasn't changed her mind as conditions have changed. We have no idea what Murphy thought of anything before 2015, but it's hard to believe that he's spent his whole adult life as the Berniecrat he's running as.  Murphy won the Democratic nomination not just because of his spending, but because he could perfectly position himself on every issue and not have a record contradicting his current stances.

You make some good points, but she didn't open her mouth during eight years of destructive policies.  She never stood up to Christie on anything.

Maybe Murphy will just write us a check.

Has Guadagno denounced Trump?

I can not forgive Guadagno her craven opposition to the gas tax increase. Even Christie came to accept that money was needed to fix infrastructure. The fixed gas tax had not been increased in years so was much reduced in real terms. Guadagno stuck with the false line that money for infrastructure could be found by reducing "waste".

Ideally NJ needs a "grand bargain" where every ox is gored to some extent. But Murphy does not appear to have the courage or political skill to pull that off. He will likely be eaten alive by interest groups. 

I believe the N.J. Supreme Court ruled that health care benefits for retirees are not to be reduced.

Runner_Guy said:

I think there is a solid solution to the pension crisis in the form of reducing NJ's health benefits spending for active employees and retirees...

  ....

This isn't accurate.  In the Burgos and Berg cases, the NJ Supreme Court said that the (base) pension benefits can't be reduced, but healthcare benefits don't have much (if any) legal protection.

The 1997 law that made pension benefits "non-forfeitable" specifically excluded healthcare.  I cannot find a link to the 1997, but in the past I've read the law and it's in plain English that healthcare isn't protected.

The specific exclusion of healthcare was the key argument that Charles Ouslander made in Berg v Christie when he argued that cutting COLAs violated the law.  Ouslander reasoned that since the legislature specifically excluded healthcare from the "pension benefits program," that, ipso facto, COLAs were protected.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

I believe the N.J. Supreme Court ruled that health care benefits for retirees are not to be reduced.

Runner_Guy said:

I think there is a solid solution to the pension crisis in the form of reducing NJ's health benefits spending for active employees and retirees...

  ....

Here is the proof that post-retirement medical benefits are not protected.

The legislation is Chapter 113.

It's plain English.

C.43:3C-9.5 "Non-forfeitable right to receive benefits" defined, contributions; construction of act.

    5. a. For purposes of this section, a "non-forfeitable right to receive benefits" means that the benefits program, for any employee for whom the right has attached, cannot be reduced. The provisions of this section shall not apply to post-retirement medical benefits which are provided pursuant to law.

Those few words are the only hope New Jersey has.  Post-retirement medical can be cut and NJ can save a lot of money on medical benefits for active workers.

Higher tolls + post-retirement benefits reductions = hope.  

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/9697/Bills/PL97/113_.HTM

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

I believe the N.J. Supreme Court ruled that health care benefits for retirees are not to be reduced.

Runner_Guy said:

I think there is a solid solution to the pension crisis in the form of reducing NJ's health benefits spending for active employees and retirees...

  ....

Re: marijuana

I didn't know precisely what KG's stance was on marijuana legalization is, but she just said she was for decriminalizaiton, not legalization.  She doesn't want people jailed for marijuana, but doesn't want revenue from it.

So if you want cheap pot, vote KG. If you want money for the Treasury, vote PM.

that's a no-brainer 

Good to see that Phil Murphy has a detailed, comprehensive, realistic plan to fully fund NJ's pensions.  (sarcasm)

Guadagno leaves a lot to be desired, but she supports the Healey-Byrne commission's recommendations.  The savings from that would be enough to nearly hit the Actuarially Recommended Contribution. 

Murphy came across as a creepy used car salesman.

The position of Lieutenant Governor is not a paid position. Kim took the job to get her foot in the door around the usual selection process by party bosses. She used the time talking to people all through the State and learning how Trenton is working these days. I would like to think of her as an intern who has learned the job and is ready to make her mark for the benefit of us all.

I like to think of her as someone who rode the coattails of a Trump apologist who destroyed our Transit system, and never spoke up.

FilmCarp said:

I like to think of her as someone who rode the coattails of a Trump apologist who destroyed our Transit system, and never spoke up.

^this.

If your priority is NJTransit then vote for Murphy.  

If your priority is mitigating NJ's taxes and facing our debt and not hobbling our economy even more then vote for Guadagno.  

Guadagno favors very few unfunded mandates. Her support for Healey-Byrne is a sound plan for our pension crisis. If she agreed to a compromise on a tax increase with the legislative Democrats, we could actually begin to reduce our unfunded liability.  Murphy's plans to increase spending on pensionable employees like police, firefighters, and teachers would actually increase our pension debts.

I think a $15 an hour minimum wage will destroy agriculture and call centers and do damage to manufacturing.  It'll further advantage Amazon over bricks&mortar retail.  It'll make childcare even more unaffordable (an unintended consequence no $15 an hour advocate will even admit).

Guadagno is not a beacon for principled leadership, but there are areas where she disagrees with her party. She supports mandatory school consolidations. She supports the RGGI. She is pro-choice and not xenophobic.  While she is not articulate, she is polite and civil. She actually does give out her cell number. I even had it (I had a 15 minute conversation with her on state aid in 2016)

Murphy has not a single position that differs from the Democratic base.  He is sometimes more articulate than Guadagno, but he is also the most repetitive politician I've ever seen who just repeats the same locutions over and over and over again.  

It'll be pathetic if NJ elects Murphy, but people get the government they deserve.

What ethical person would remain a Republican with Trump in the White House?  I have voted for Republicans on a couple of occasions in the past.  At this point I would no more vote for a Republican than I would for a Nazi or a member of the Khmer Rouge.

You want to not pay taxes and dump raw sewage in the river?  Fine, form a new party but the one you are in now is soiled beyond any hope of reclamation.

truth said:

The position of Lieutenant Governor is not a paid position. Kim took the job to get her foot in the door around the usual selection process by party bosses. She used the time talking to people all through the State and learning how Trenton is working these days. I would like to think of her as an intern who has learned the job and is ready to make her mark for the benefit of us all.

The Lieutenant Governor is paid.  This is from the NJ Constitution defining the office -

10.  a.  The Governor and the Lieutenant Governor shall each receive for services a salary, which shall be neither increased nor diminished during the period for which the Governor or Lieutenant Governor shall have been elected or appointed.
    b.     The Governor shall appoint the Lieutenant Governor to serve as the head of a principal department or other executive or administrative agency of State government, or delegate to the Lieutenant Governor duties of the office of Governor, or both.  The Governor shall not appoint the Lieutenant Governor to serve as Attorney General.  The Lieutenant Governor shall in addition perform such other duties as may be provided by law.

So, in truth, she is being paid, despite what someone may have told you otherwise.