NJ Governor's Race

everyone would like to see lower property taxes in NJ.

However, I don't even want to think about the disaster that we'd face if people begin to believe that it's not worth the hassles to commute from NJ to NYC.  The hit that the tax base would take, and the hit to property values would be a disaster.  And we're one hurricane or one catastrophic equipment failure away from that happening.  We don't have the luxury of electing someone who isn't likely to do a thing about our infrastructure crisis.

At least his unknown plan will be very fast, very rapid. Fast & Rapid.

Runner_Guy said:

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. 

Runner_Guy said:

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.

Why do you believe Guadagno?  She stood by for eight years while Christie actively damaged the state of NJ.  You are clearly deluded about her.  While Murphy might not be ideal, Guadagno is not to even be considered by rational people.

High school babysitters make $15/hour.

Steve said:

Runner_Guy said:

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.

Why do you believe Guadagno?  She stood by for eight years while Christie actively damaged the state of NJ.  You are clearly deluded about her.  While Murphy might not be ideal, Guadagno is not to even be considered by rational people.

Runner_Guy said:

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).

...

If you want to hobble New Jersey's economy, I can't think of a better way than letting one or both of the tunnels into NYC collapse. Like magician making an elephant vanish, watch what happens to the value of your home. 

Isn't it funny how Republicans are all-in for first responders, except for, you know, actually paying them. 

And as for call centers, who among us thinks that they're a valuable part the economy? IMO, they're a parasite. 

I don't believe Guadagno on everything, but she wouldn't be a Republican if she didn't believe that taxes were too high. That's the defining Republican belief.  

There's also no disputing that Guadagno is independent from public sector unions, who are the major obstacle to resolving NJ's debt and property tax crises.

I don't agree that "Christie actively damaged the state of New Jersey," except perhaps on the ARC.  He had a successful first term and won reelection with 60% of the vote.  

In the decade before Christie became governor, property taxes increased by 7% a year. During Christie's term they increased by about 2%.  Although he should have put in even more into the pension funds, he put in more money than his predecessors of the previous 20 years combined.  

It would be catastrophic for the tunnels to NY to fail, but NJ faces a worse catastrophe in its debt.  NJ's debt payments are now 15% of the budget and that will rise to ~30% by the late 2020s.  That isn't sustainable.  The combination of higher taxes and layoffs that the debt crisis will induce will put NJ into a permanent, one-state recession.  NJ is already past the point of no return, but once the pension funds actually deplete there is no getting them back.  They are unrepairable in a way that the tunnels aren't.

The savings from normalizing the state's healthcare spending are greater than the revenue from a millionaire's tax.  Murphy, moreover, wants to _spend_ the money NJ collects in higher taxes on pensionable employees, not use it to pay down debt.  Murphy also rules out any changes to NJ's DB plans, which are needed in order to save money and provide fairness to anyone who leaves a job before a pension vests.  

Runner_Guy said:

I don't believe Guadagno on everything, but she wouldn't be a Republican if she didn't believe that taxes were too high. That's the defining Republican belief.  

I don't agree that "Christie actively damaged the state of New Jersey," except perhaps on the ARC.  He had a successful first term and won reelection with 60% of the vote.  

In the decade before Christie became governor, property taxes increased by 7% a year. During Christie's term they increased by about 2%.  Although he should have put in even more into the pension funds, he put in more money than his predecessors of the previous 20 years combined.  


It would be catastrophic for the tunnels to NY to fail, but NJ faces a worse catastrophe in its debt.  NJ's debt payments are now 15% of the budget and that will rise to ~30% by the late 2020s.  That isn't sustainable.  The combination of higher taxes and layoffs that the debt crisis will induce will put NJ into a permanent, one-state recession.  NJ is already past the point of no return, but once the pension funds actually deplete there is no getting them back.  They are unrepairable in a way that the tunnels aren't.

The savings from normalizing the state's healthcare spending are greater than the revenue from a millionaire's tax.  Murphy, moreover, wants to _spend_ the money NJ collects in higher taxes on pensionable employees, not use it to pay down debt.  Murphy also rules out any changes to NJ's DB plans, which are needed in order to save money and are very unfair to anyone who leaves a job before a pension vests.  

Property taxes have been increasing by 2% a year because Christie jammed through a state measure capping them at that rate. That's all, there's nothing magical he did with state fiscal policy to accomplish that. It's caused a lot of hardship to our school district. And so much for vaunted Republican principles of local control. 

And I can't buy for a second that NJ's debt is a worse catastrophe than the commuter rail system going out of business would be. Seriously, 300,000 NJ taxpayers would have their NYC jobs put at risk by this. If debt gets out of hand the state has a lot of ways to raise revenues, and quickly. Starting with raising the income tax. It won't be pretty but it can be done. But if a rail tunnel goes down we're looking at a decade for repairs, and economic consequences that will last for 20-40 years. 

Speaking of income taxes, so the savings from normalizing healthcare spending are more than a millionaires' tax would generate. Great. 

So why not both. 

Runner_Guy said:


I don't agree that "Christie actively damaged the state of New Jersey," except perhaps on the ARC.  

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

tom said:

And I can't buy for a second that NJ's debt is a worse catastrophe than the commuter rail system going out of business would be. Seriously, 300,000 NJ taxpayers would have their NYC jobs put at risk by this. If debt gets out of hand the state has a lot of ways to raise revenues, and quickly. Starting with raising the income tax. It won't be pretty but it can be done. But if a rail tunnel goes down we're looking at a decade for repairs, and economic consequences that will last for 20-40 years. 

^this times 100

Crossing our fingers and wishing is not a plan.

tom said:

Property taxes have been increasing by 2% a year because Christie jammed through a state measure capping them at that rate. That's all, there's nothing magical he did with state fiscal policy to accomplish that. It's caused a lot of hardship to our school district. And so much for vaunted Republican principles of local control. 

And I can't buy for a second that NJ's debt is a worse catastrophe than the commuter rail system going out of business would be. Seriously, 300,000 NJ taxpayers would have their NYC jobs put at risk by this. If debt gets out of hand the state has a lot of ways to raise revenues, and quickly. Starting with raising the income tax. It won't be pretty but it can be done. But if a rail tunnel goes down we're looking at a decade for repairs, and economic consequences that will last for 20-40 years. 

Speaking of income taxes, so the savings from normalizing healthcare spending are more than a millionaires' tax would generate. Great. 

So why not both. 

It's not only the 2% cap. The 2% cap was passed at the same time as requirements that public employees pay for their healthcare, make bigger pension contributions, and the imposition of the police & fire arbitration caps.  

Yeah, I think that a blunt 2% cap was exactly what NJ needed. One reason property taxes were so out of control here is that if one town or school district granted a big raise, the other towns & districts in the area were pressured to make the same agreement.  The 2% cap with the accompanying additional reforms slowed down dramatically the escalation of property taxes. 

Finally, local control still exists.  All that is necessary to increase taxes above 2% for municipalities and school districts is an affirmative vote from the larger, more representative November electorate.  Since the SOMSD is a BOSE district anyway, there is no change for us, since we have the same "electorate" we had pre-cap.  

Before you scoff at the bluntness of the tax cap, remember that Massachusetts has had a hard 2.5% cap since the early 1980s and their property taxes are below $4000 a household. New York State actually copied NJ's tax cap, but imposed an even higher voter threshold to exceed that cap.  

Yeah, I guess the SOMSD's taxes could increase by 4% a year and we'd be able to avoid all the cuts of the last few years, but our taxes would be $12 million higher.  (I estimate that based on 4% increases on the 2011-12 tax levy of $100 million.)

Honestly, if I were going to argue against the significance of the 2% cap and Christie I'd point out that it was passed by a Democratic legislature and therefore Steve Sweeney and other Democrats should get some credit for it too.  I would say that the only reason the Democrats passed it in 2011 is that Corzine was gone.  Christie had no legislative genius other than he knocked over a liberal and that signaled to the Democrats that they needed to do something on property taxes.)

And I can't buy for a second that NJ's debt is a worse catastrophe than the commuter rail system going out of business would be. Seriously, 300,000 NJ taxpayers would have their NYC jobs put at risk by this. If debt gets out of hand the state has a lot of ways to raise revenues, and quickly. Starting with raising the income tax. It won't be pretty but it can be done. But if a rail tunnel goes down we're looking at a decade for repairs, and economic consequences that will last for 20-40 years. 

Look at Connecticut.  They passed a $1.5 billion (per year) tax increase in 2015 and their revenue is no higher now than it was before because of outmigration and lower income among the ultra-rich on whom CT is dependent for revenue.  CT is facing multi-billion deficits forever.  The outmigration is so obvious that most Democrats there, including Dan Malloy, have given up on raising income taxes.  

CT is also nearly zeroing state aid to about a third of school districts there.  

So, as awful as a failure of one of the tunnels would be, commuters could, with difficulty, adapt through more busses, ferries, the PATH, and the remaining tunnel.  There is a fiscal catastrophe that I think Murphy is worse on.  

Runner_Guy said:

I don't believe Guadagno on everything, but she wouldn't be a Republican if she didn't believe that taxes were too high. That's the defining Republican belief.  

There's also no disputing that Guadagno is independent from public sector unions, who are the major obstacle to resolving NJ's debt and property tax crises.

I don't agree that "Christie actively damaged the state of New Jersey," except perhaps on the ARC.  He had a successful first term and won reelection with 60% of the vote.  

In the decade before Christie became governor, property taxes increased by 7% a year. During Christie's term they increased by about 2%.  Although he should have put in even more into the pension funds, he put in more money than his predecessors of the previous 20 years combined.  


It would be catastrophic for the tunnels to NY to fail, but NJ faces a worse catastrophe in its debt.  NJ's debt payments are now 15% of the budget and that will rise to ~30% by the late 2020s.  That isn't sustainable.  The combination of higher taxes and layoffs that the debt crisis will induce will put NJ into a permanent, one-state recession.  NJ is already past the point of no return, but once the pension funds actually deplete there is no getting them back.  They are unrepairable in a way that the tunnels aren't.

The savings from normalizing the state's healthcare spending are greater than the revenue from a millionaire's tax.  Murphy, moreover, wants to _spend_ the money NJ collects in higher taxes on pensionable employees, not use it to pay down debt.  Murphy also rules out any changes to NJ's DB plans, which are needed in order to save money and provide fairness to anyone who leaves a job before a pension vests.  

Right, Republicans would rather borrow and spend.  A much better approach.  How many billions of dollars of additional revenue would the state have had Christie approved a re-authorization of the millionaires tax?  Where would we be if we had obtained the RTTT monies?  Where would we be if Christie had supported PPACA and not simply toed the GOP line?  Maybe a move towards single-payer would help resolve the health insurance funding shortfalls.  As for DB plans vs. DC plans, the only difference is that the government cannot defer contributions.  Where would we be if the gas tax had been raised earlier and the revenue used to reinvest in infrastructure?  Why is it that NJ's economy is the slowest growing in the northeast?  All that time, Guadagno stood by her man.  

Capping tax increases only serves to slowly decimate local government/controls through the inability to fund necessary programs and activities.  To think otherwise, is just foolish.  Just look at what is happening to our schools and roads.

I don't need to repeat how wrong you are about mass transit.

At the end of the day, we in NJ expect the state to provide services and good services.  That takes money.  Money comes from tax revenue.  This really goes back to Whitman and her cutting the income tax which led to cuts in local aid which necessarily led to increased property taxes.

All I have to say is I'm glad that you're no longer on the BOE.

Runner_Guy said:

So, as awful as a failure of one of the tunnels would be, commuters could, with difficulty, adapt through more busses, ferries, the PATH, and the remaining tunnel.  There is a fiscal catastrophe that I think Murphy is worse on.  

This is a truly stunningly stupid and uninformed comment.  The capacity is simply not there for additional busses, ferries, the PATH, and the "remaining tunnel."  IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

The 2% CAP on property taxes and the 2% cap on arbitration awards have been key to slowing the rate of increase in our property taxes.  It is shocking that Murphy won't say if he will support extending the arbitration cap, solely to pander to Unions so he can get elected.

Kudos to the South Orange BOT for passing a resolution this week  urging the Legislature to extend this cap:

http://southorange.no-ip.org/weblink8/0/doc/605613/Page1.aspx

Steve said:

Runner_Guy said:

So, as awful as a failure of one of the tunnels would be, commuters could, with difficulty, adapt through more busses, ferries, the PATH, and the remaining tunnel.  There is a fiscal catastrophe that I think Murphy is worse on.  

This is a truly stunningly stupid and uninformed comment.  The capacity is simply not there for additional busses, ferries, the PATH, and the "remaining tunnel."  IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

It is literally not physically possible. But we all know that the physical world has a well-known liberal bias. 

It's amazing what non-commuters think can happen.  Stunning stupidity.  I have to attribute it to willful blindness of reality.

Yes and no. The catastrophe that wasn't this summer shows that Hoboken and ferries do have some additional capacity. And towns like Maplewood were able to run additional buses. But a total tunnel shutdown would likely exceed the available slack. 

Steve said:

Runner_Guy said:

So, as awful as a failure of one of the tunnels would be, commuters could, with difficulty, adapt through more busses, ferries, the PATH, and the remaining tunnel.  There is a fiscal catastrophe that I think Murphy is worse on.  

This is a truly stunningly stupid and uninformed comment.  The capacity is simply not there for additional busses, ferries, the PATH, and the "remaining tunnel."  IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.

The Summers also tend to have reduced ridership, correct? So, it was the best time of year to find additional capacity.

(And anecdotally, my spouse negotiated additional work from home days over the summer due to the increased commute time. Others may have also reduced their number of commuting days due to the rail line construction).

The current rail tunnels are owned by a public/private national entity which has many stake holders.  New rail tunnels are needed not just for NJ and NY, but for the region and, as interstate transportation infrastructure, for the Nation.  There are many stake holders who should invest in solving this problem.

NJ's debt crisis is solely owned by NJ, and will only be resolved by NJ.  There are no other stake holders (Except bond holders, who invested with peril).  If the state does not resolve the debt crisis it will enter an economic death spiral with very few available remedies.  

It seems to me one candidate understands this, the other won't admit the problem exists.

I understand a feeling that someone will not vote for a Republican Govenor because of national politics.

I wonder if they also have reservations about the conduct of Goldman Sachs for the last few decades, and how one might square those reservations with voting for a former Goldman Exec.

Steve, 

I said that  Murphy was better on transit.  I think the debt crisis is worse than the tunnel situation because it is permanent, self-accelerating, and it would ruin the entire state.  

Why let facts and context get in your way about the other things you said?

NJ's economy isn't the slowest growing in the Northeast, unless you exclude Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont.  NJ's growth is only somewhat behind Rhode Island's and Pennsylvania's as well.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/economy

Whitman actually increased state aid. For schools, aid increased from $3.7 billion a year to $5.5 billion a year.  That's a significantly faster rate than inflation or population growth.

What changed is how that aid was distributed, with most of the state being essentially flat-funded while all the new money went to the Abbotts and other low-income districts and then, towards the end, state-funded PreK in the Abbotts.  During that time as well public employee salaries also increased by more than enough to require ever-larger property taxes.

Flat-funding and negative funding the 220 highest wealth districts was the NJ Supreme Court's de facto requirement in Abbott II.

Whitman's greater budgetary mistake is that, fed by the booming 1990s economy, she increased spending dramatically.  During her years, state spending increased by $12 billion a year to $20 billion a year. 

Of the fastest growing states in the US, only one, California, has high taxes.  The Blue States that have fast economic growth, such as Washington, Massachusetts, and Colorado, have moderate taxes.

Of the least indebted states all are solidly Republican.

Of the most indebted states all except Kentucky are Democratic, and Kentucky is an exception-that-proves the rule since it was a "union-security" state until recently.

Republicans are not "borrow and spend" in every state, but when Republicans NJ in the 1990s they were not able to resist pressures for spending and then increasing pension generosity.  

Like I said, Murphy has even less of a plan/hope to reach the full Actuarially Recommended Contribution than Guadagno and his spending priorities will increase the long-term debts by increasing public employment.  

"Capping tax increases only serves to slowly decimate local government/controls through the inability to fund necessary programs and activities.  To think otherwise, is just foolish.  Just look at what is happening to our schools and roads."

You also seem not to understand that the tax cap and pensions are linked. If NJ didn't have the tax cap, public employee salaries (and their numbers) would increase even faster and NJ's pension debts would grow even more.  Undoing the tax cap = accelerating the bankruptcy of the state.

https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

Steve said:

Runner_Guy said:

Right, Republicans would rather borrow and spend.  A much better approach.  How many billions of dollars of additional revenue would the state have had Christie approved a re-authorization of the millionaires tax?  Where would we be if we had obtained the RTTT monies?  Where would we be if Christie had supported PPACA and not simply toed the GOP line?  Maybe a move towards single-payer would help resolve the health insurance funding shortfalls.  As for DB plans vs. DC plans, the only difference is that the government cannot defer contributions.  Where would we be if the gas tax had been raised earlier and the revenue used to reinvest in infrastructure?  Why is it that NJ's economy is the slowest growing in the northeast?  All that time, Guadagno stood by her man.  

Capping tax increases only serves to slowly decimate local government/controls through the inability to fund necessary programs and activities.  To think otherwise, is just foolish.  Just look at what is happening to our schools and roads.

I don't need to repeat how wrong you are about mass transit.

At the end of the day, we in NJ expect the state to provide services and good services.  That takes money.  Money comes from tax revenue.  This really goes back to Whitman and her cutting the income tax which led to cuts in local aid which necessarily led to increased property taxes.

All I have to say is I'm glad that you're no longer on the BOE.

Guadagno is only taking a salary for her position as Secretary of State. All she does as Lt. Governor is not compensated.

See https://data.nj.gov/payroll_explorer

Runner_Guy

You're deluded.  Are you seriously trying to tell me that property taxes did not increase as a result of the impact of Whitman's tax cuts hit?  Are you trying to tell me that Whitman didn't "borrow" from the pension funds to pay current expenses following the tax cuts?  You forgot about MN concerning taxes and healthy economies.  You ignore the fact that the deep south states simply don't provide services to their residents.  They also tend to get an oversized piece of the federal government pie.  Take MS for example.  The feds cover 75% of its Medicaid costs (as opposed to 50% for NJ).

And, for ****'s sake, he cut a deal with the public employees and almost immediately failed to meet his obligations, resulting in making the financial situation worse.  

How about that credit rating which is driving up the cost of borrowing in what should be a very low cost to borrow time.  Like I said, Christie actively harmed the state of New Jersey in his quixotic attempt to become President of the United States.  He was pandering to midwest primary GOP voters instead of doing his job.  Please.  How anyone could possibly support any candidate associated with his administration is beyond me.

Burner said:

Yes and no. The catastrophe that wasn't this summer shows that Hoboken and ferries do have some additional capacity. And towns like Maplewood were able to run additional buses. But a total tunnel shutdown would likely exceed the available slack. 

The tunnels remained open this summer, and just portions of track were closed. Closing one tunnel would reduce capacity by much more than closing some tracks did. 

Do you know what the Abbott II said?  Do you know about the subsequent Abbott rulings of the 1990s reinforced what Abbott II said?

Abbott II said that the base aid (meaning a per student minimum) that the state was then providing to all districts was unconstitutional because it was "counterequalizing" and allowed affluent and middle-income districts to spend more than "urban poor" districts.  Chief Justice Robert Wilentz also hinted that he wanted to declare the state's TPAF payments in affluent and middle-income districts as unconstitutional too, calling them "constitutionally infirm."  (Florio took this as a clear-cut sign that TPAF payments were unconstitutional.

So yes, Whitman's changes to state aid did increase property taxes, but those were changes that were forced on her by the NJ Supreme Court.  

What I don't get about the criticisms of Whitman is that she kept income taxes higher than they were under Kean.  The top bracket was still above 6%.  Due to the booming 1990s economy revenue actually grew.  Whitman decreased pension contributions, but due to the stock market, the system was still well funded until 1999.

Whatever about the Deep South and the Republican Party.  If you were inclined to be civil, we could talk about the split of Republican governance where some of the best-governed states in the country in the West are Republican while so are the worst-governed states, such as ones in the Deep South.  

As for Minnesota.. indeed, it is a high-tax state and it has a healthy economy, but I have not found it among the ten fastest growing in the US, nor have I found Minneapolis-St. Paul among the fastest growing metro areas.  

If you would like to add Minnesota to California as a fast-growing, high-tax state then sure, include it, but adding Minnesota doesn't change my argument that most of the fastest growing states have low taxes.  

Note, in case you miss a detail, this isn't to say that "most low tax states & metro areas are thriving."  I am saying "most thriving states & metro areas have low taxes."

Steve said:

Runner_Guy

You're deluded.  Are you seriously trying to tell me that property taxes did not increase as a result of the impact of Whitman's tax cuts hit?  Are you trying to tell me that Whitman didn't "borrow" from the pension funds to pay current expenses following the tax cuts?  You forgot about MN concerning taxes and healthy economies.  You ignore the fact that the deep south states simply don't provide services to their residents.  They also tend to get an oversized piece of the federal government pie.  Take MS for example.  The feds cover 75% of its Medicaid costs (as opposed to 50% for NJ).

Steve said:

Like I said, Christie actively harmed the state of New Jersey in his quixotic attempt to become President of the United States.  He was pandering to midwest primary GOP voters instead of doing his job.  Please.  How anyone could possibly support any candidate associated with his administration is beyond me.

10000%

Chris Christie screwed NJ in pursuit of his delusional belief that he could be president. 

Please.  You and others like to lay all of the blame for the economy at the feet of the NJ Supreme Court and the Abbott decisions. The funding was improper.  Education could have been funded in a way that was both equitable and legal.  It wasn't.  Doing so would have required additional money and not permitted Whitman to roll back the sales tax rate to 6% - how'd that work out (hint: what's the current rate) and cut the income tax.  She also screwed the pooch on the pensions by not funding them.

Compare MN and WI economies and approaches to taxation and spending.  Which is doing better?  How about that wonderful economic laboratory called KS?  It's pretty clear - if one wants services, one must have taxation.  It really is that ******* simple.  Low taxes are fine if you want to live in a place that has substandard educational opportunities, poor healthcare, and impoverished neighbors.  I don't want to live in a place like that.

Also, the red states that are "doing well" according to your metrics have natural resources to plunder or some sort of significant federal support, right?  What happens when they run out or demand runs dry.

She is on the books as Sec of State in the payroll data at $141,000 per year.

Wikipedia says that the Lt. Governor gets a salary is $141,000 per year (Edited to add: The footnote says this is her Sec. of State salary).  

My assumption is state law prevents her from collecting salaries for two separate jobs.

But let's be honest, the role of Lt Governor is mostly ceremonial until something happens to the governor. 

truth said:

Guadagno is only taking a salary for her position as Secretary of State. All she does as Lt. Governor is not compensated.

Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't as similar as you think they are.

Minnesota's economy has done better than Wisconsin's for a very long time, including in the 2002-2010 period, when Minnesota had a Republican governor (Tim Pawlenty) and Wisconsin had a Democratic governor (Jim Doyle).  This is due to a few things, like Minnesota having larger biomedical, tech, and finance industries than Wisconsin and those sectors doing well in the last few decades.

Also, Minneapolis-St. Paul is a larger metro area than Milwaukee or Madison and this is now an age of big metro areas.  One interesting point I read about Wisconsin is that it was a mistake for Wisconsin to not make Milwaukee its capital, since govt+private sector would have created a lot of dynamism.  

Compared to MN, Wisconsin is still a manufacturing and agriculture state and those sectors haven't thrived like biomedical, tech, and finance.

I understand why a progressive would want to trumpet the Wisconsin to Minnesota comparison (even if it ignores history before 2010), but if you compared Wisconsin, to its other neighbor, Illinois, Wisconsin looks quite a bit better.

Steve said:

Please.  You and others like to lay all of the blame for the economy at the feet of the NJ Supreme Court and the Abbott decisions. The funding was improper.  Education could have been funded in a way that was both equitable and legal.  It wasn't.  Doing so would have required additional money and not permitted Whitman to roll back the sales tax rate to 6% - how'd that work out (hint: what's the current rate) and cut the income tax.  She also screwed the pooch on the pensions by not funding them.

Compare MN and WI economies and approaches to taxation and spending.  Which is doing better?  How about that wonderful economic laboratory called KS?  It's pretty clear - if one wants services, one must have taxation.  It really is that ******* simple.  Low taxes are fine if you want to live in a place that has substandard educational opportunities, poor healthcare, and impoverished neighbors.  I don't want to live in a place like that.

Also, the red states that are "doing well" according to your metrics have natural resources to plunder or some sort of significant federal support, right?  What happens when they run out or demand runs dry.

Compare anything to Illinois and it looks better.  Find me an ex-governor who is not either dead, in prison, or relatively recently released from prison.  And, MN and WI are more alike than you acknowledge.  Look at the trajectories.  WI has technology - in fact, they just blew a few million dollars per worker on a commitment to FoxConn.  Rather than investing within the state, it engaged in a massive corporate giveaway in exchange for a misleading (at best) press release.

You are stunningly fact-resistant.