Thursday, February 27, 2014

Chris Christie and New Jersey Watch February 27 , 2014 - Chris Christie fading in polling for GOP National Presidential race for 2016 , news and views related to the New Jersey Budget recently prosed by the Governor , Bridegate and Sandygate updates ,


Poll: Plurality of Republicans now say Christie shouldn’t run for president

POSTED AT 11:21 AM ON FEBRUARY 26, 2014 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

  
Of the five big names polled — him, Jeb, Rubio, Rand Paul, and Cruz — Christie’s the only one who’s net negative when Republicans are asked whether each should jump in. Not only that, but the guy with the most support among the five is Bush.
Have RINOs settled on a new champion?
run
The good news for Christie: Bush is deep underwater at 26/43 when independents are asked this question. The bad news: Christie himself trails the other three Republicans named in the poll. Rubio stands at 26/24 among indies, Paul at 30/29, and Cruz at 20/25. Christie is six points underwater at 28/34. Maybe that’s a function of name recognition, with the other, lesser known candidates destined to see their negatives rise as independents get to know them better. But remember, indies are supposed to be Christie’s bread and butter irrespective of how his competition polls with them. He’s the blue-stater who’s going to expand the GOP tent, right? And it’s really not the case that the other three guys are far less well known than him. He and Paul are comparable and Paul polls marginally better. Rubio has a serious liability on his record from spearheading amnesty and he polls better. Even Cruz, whom the media disdains as a kamikaze conservative, doesn’t attract as many thumbs down among independents. What happens between now and next year to turn this around for Christie?
The numbers back home in Jersey are brutal for him too. A morsel from the new Monmouth poll:
temper
Back in September, the split on that question was 56/34. The rest of the poll is littered with sour opinions of him — New Jersey voters think he was personally involved in Bridgegate (50/44), think it was politics as usual for his administration (49/46, versus 39/55 just a month ago), believe he hasn’t been completely honest about the scandal (33/61), and believe that it’s very or somewhat likely that Christie’s administration used Sandy relief funds to exert power over local officials (60 percent). Most strikingly, more Jersey voters would now give the administration a C, D, or F in its handling of the Sandy recovery, which is supposed to be Christie’s most sterling leadership credential, than an A or B. (Six months ago, 72 percent gave them an A or B.) His job approval is down to 49 percent among registered voters, the first time it’s been below 50 since 2011. Absent a major unexpected turnaround, what’s left of the idea that Christie alone among major Republican candidates has some special crossover appeal to Democrats and independents?
Makes me wonder what happens if his numbers haven’t rebounded by this fall. Will he go ahead with a run anyway on the theory that he’ll never have an opportunity as good as 2016 again, no matter how damaged he might be? Or will he calculate that he’s better off passing and campaigning hard instead for someone like Jeb in exchange for a cabinet appointment later? He can’t run again for governor in 2017 and he’s not going to beat Cory Booker for Senate, so unless he’s planning to challenge Bob Menendez, his options are basically 2016 or bust. Exit question: Who’s the biggest winner from that CBS poll up top? Is it really Jeb or is it Rubio? Rubio’s supposed to be DOA because of immigration reform but neither Republican voters nor indies oppose the prospect of him running. If Jeb decides to pass, he’s potentially well positioned as a center-right alternative to Paul and Cruz.


ANALYSIS: CHRISTIE OFFERS NO TAX CUT, BUT $205 MILLION IN VEILED TAX HIKES

MARK J. MAGYAR | FEBRUARY 26, 2014
new word cloud test
Somberly warning that New Jersey would have to renegotiate its public employee pension obligations to fund vital services, Gov. Chris Christie yesterday unveiled a record $34.4 billion state budget that made the promised pension payment, left out an expected tax cut, and surprisingly included $205 million in tax increases that were defended as “closing tax loopholes to level the playing field.”
The tax changes, which included the extension of the state’s 7 percent sales tax to Internet sales by out-of-state retailers, did not quite square with the opening assertion of Christie’s Budget Address yesterday that he was presenting a budget that, “for the fifth year in a row, requires no new taxes on the people of New Jersey.”
Nor did Christie’s decision to once again use $324 million in New Jersey Turnpike toll money to balance his budget, forcing him to borrow more money for the Transportation Trust Fund again, square with Christie’s complaint that the rising cost of debt service -- along with pensions and retiree health benefits -- was eating up 94 percent of the funding available for new programs this year.
Overall, however, the budget for Fiscal Year 2015 was a status quo document that did not differ substantially from this year’s spending plan and was based on a 5.8 percent increase in estimated revenue that Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson) deemed reasonable.
The budget recommends small increases in aid for schools and Medicaid, modest competitive grant programs for school districts to experiment with extended school days and for municipalities willing to consider consolidation, and minor increases for drug courts and an innovative substance abuse program tied to employment services.
And while Christie aroused the ire of Democratic legislators and union officials with his call for state leaders to revisit the obligations imposed by the landmark 2011 pension and health benefits bill he pushed through with Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester), the governor’s speech was just that -- a speech.
No call for delaying the seven-year pension payment schedule under which he agreed to make next year’s required $2.25 billion record contribution. No call for public employees to pay more or retire later. Not even a call for a blue-ribbon pension commission. Not a single new pension policy initiative.
“This was the most low-key speech I’ve ever heard this governor give,” said Monmouth University political scientist Patrick Murray, echoing the private sentiments of many of the lobbyists and aides packed into the stairwells and onto windowsills of the Assembly Gallery. “This was racing under the yellow flag. They’re just trying to hold their position.”

A Holding Action

For Christie, holding his position would be a victory in the wake of the disastrous nose-dive in popularity and credibility he has endured since the release seven weeks ago of an email showing that his deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, ordered the infamous George Washington Bridge lane closures in apparent retaliation against Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor for refusing to endorse Christie for reelection.
Since then, Christie has been the subject of 24/7 cable news coverage. Five high-ranking Christie appointees in the governor’s office or the Port Authority have been fired or resigned. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Legislature’s Joint Select Committee on Investigation have flooded the governor’s office and campaign with subpoenas. Christie’s approval ratings have dropped below 50 percent in New Jersey polls and he has lost -- and may never regain -- his frontrunner status in the 2016 Republican presidential race.
It was against this backdrop that a politically weakened Christie gave yesterday’s budget speech, and the drop in the number of national news cameras reflected his plummet in the national polls.
Yesterday’s speech seemed aimed at a New Jersey audience, rather than a national Republican electorate: A pre-Bridgegate Christie still running neck-and-neck with Hillary Clinton in the presidential polls might have been more aggressive and found a way to propose a tax cut -- even if Sweeney and Prieto had already declared it dead on arrival.
Instead, Christie yesterday took what several Democratic leaders praised as a “conciliatory” tone in his speech, focusing on New Jersey issues and resisting the temptation to declare that the threat to New Jersey’s fiscal future posed by mounting pension and retiree health benefits was part of a national problem that he could show the nation how to fix.
The Christie administration didn’t even bother to scatter the five obscure changes in tax laws, exemptions, and penalties throughout the budget to make it harder for reporters to spot them. Treasury’s Budget Summary packaged the $205 million in revenue enhancements together with the explanation that “Governor Christie is taking action to level the playing field and promote tax fairness by closing corporate tax loopholes, removing inconsistencies, and modernizing enforcement for tax delinquents.”
It isn’t that the five changes would be controversial in New Jersey. State Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Bracken applauded Christie’s budget and backed his interpretation that “this budget calls for no tax increases” and that the tax changes were merely a case of “correcting antiquated tax laws.” But Christie attacked his Democratic predecessor, Gov. Jon Corzine, for “raising taxes” because he extended the existing sales tax to services
Grover Norquist and other anti-tax activists would undoubtedly view the extension of the sales tax to Internet purchases from out-of-state retailers or halving the business-to-business sales tax exemptions for companies in some 35 cities and towns with Urban Enterprise Zones as violating a “no new taxes” pledge.
The $205 million in revenue enhancements is almost three times as much as the additional $77 million that New Jersey businesses will save in this fourth year of the five-year business tax cut plan approved by Christie and the Legislature in the budget they passed in June 2011.
Furthermore, Christie and Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff needed the $205 million the tax law changes would raise to balance their budget, which is anticipated to close the next fiscal year on June 30, 2015, with a razor-thin $301 million surplus -- well under 1 percent -- of a $34.5 billion budget.

Tapping the Turnpike

Even with the business tax changes, Christie had to tap all of the $324 million in New Jersey Turnpike toll money to balance his budget, once again breaking his 2010 promise to use money freed up from his cancellation of the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) rail passenger tunnel to ramp up pay-as-you-go funding and limit borrowing for the Transportation Trust Fund.
This year’s budget was to include the $324 million in toll revenue, plus $166 million from general state revenues, for a total of $490 million in pay-as-you-go funding for highway, rail and bridge construction projects. But Sidamon-Eristoff acknowledged during yesterday’s press conference that “there is no pay-go funding.”
This makes three years in a row that Christie has used the Turnpike toll money to balance his budget, forcing the state to borrow an additional $261 million for the Transportation Trust Fund in FY13, $375 million extra this year, and $476 million more next year, bringing Christie’s total borrowing for TTF to more than $5.6 billion and pushing annual transportation interest costs well over $1.1 billion in next year’s state budget.
The $324 million in Turnpike toll money is most likely the largest single piece in the $950 million in “one shot” nonrecurring revenues used by the Christie administration this year -- a total that represents just 2.8 percent of the total budget, which is the lowest percentage in Christie’s four years, Sidamon-Eristoff pointed out.
The treasurer said he would detail the nonrecurring revenues within the next couple weeks, but said the one shots included debt restructuring and legal settlements (last year’s the governor used a $60 million settlement in a Passaic River pollution case to help balance the budget, for example).
Not included, however, is a one-shot fund raid like the diversion of $162 million this budget year and $89 million the year before from the Clean Energy Fund, which is paid for by a surcharge on customer utility bills, the treasurer said. Instead, the state is taking $60 million from the Clean Energy Fund to pay for energy efficiencies in state agencies, he said, adding that he expected the program to continue in future years.
The biggest question that remained yesterday was just how the treasurer was going to close the $800 million-plus gap in the current year budget.
Sidamon-Eristoff said yesterday he would rely upon $694 million in lapses -- spending cuts in various programs -- in the current year budget, but declined to detail where those cuts would be made. He confirmed that the state would approve $292 million in supplemental appropriations, with additional snow removal costs from this winter making up about a third of the total.
Sidamon-Eristoff also said he expected improving tax collection to narrow the current revenue shortfall of more than $400 million in this year’s budget by the end of the fiscal year on June 30; that shortfall does not include the hole in the Casino Revenue Fund caused by the five-month delay in the start of Internet gaming and the failure of the program to meet expectations so far. He said the state is now expecting casino revenues to come in at just $33 million, down from the budgeted $160 million.
The treasurer’s projection that revenues would increase by 5.8 percent in FY15 and support a $34.435 billion budget was actually smaller than the increase of 6.5 percent or more that some fiscal experts privately were expecting.
Sidamon-Eristoff’s 8.2 percent projected increase in state income taxes actually is less ambitious than it sounds: The increase in the top federal income tax bracket as part of the federal fiscal cliff negotiations in late 2012 led wealthy individuals to shift hundreds of millions of dollars of income into the 2012 tax year, causing a one-time spike in FY2013 income tax collections and a corresponding reduction in the FY14 receipts against which the FY15 increase is calculated.
The treasurer is anticipating a 6.7 percent increase in corporate income taxes, which he acknowledged are the hardest to project, a 6.1 percent hike in sales tax collections, and only 1.5 percent in the various other taxes that make up approximately a quarter of the budget.
Christie yesterday built on the warning he issued in his State of the State speech in January about the corrosive impact of growing pension and debt payments on the state’s ability to afford the investments in schools, higher education, tax relief, job creation programs, transportation infrastructure funding, healthcare, and crime prevention initiatives.
Christie reminded the Legislature -- and the pension bill’s chief sponsor, Sweeney, who was seated just behind him -- that they had worked together to pass legislation requiring the state to ramp up its contributions, public employees to work longer and pay more into the pension system, and retirees to forgo cost-of-living increases until their pension funds were solvent.
The $2.25 billion payment Christie announced yesterday was by far the largest in state history, bringing the Christie administration’s total pension contributions to $5.3 billion -- more than twice as much as the $2.4 billion put in over 10 years by five previous governors. Of this year’s payment, Christie noted, 78 percent went to help pay off the unfunded liability left by past governors.
“Though the historic 2011 reforms we enacted together immediately reduced New Jersey’s state and local unfunded pension liabilities by 32 percent, it doesn’t go far enough,” Christie warned. “Without additional reforms, New Jersey taxpayers still owe $52 billion to fully fund the pension system.”

Detroit, NJ

Comparing New Jersey’s situation to Detroit, Christie warned that Detroit went bankrupt because it owed $6.5 billion in debt for retiree health benefits and $3 billion for pensions -- a result of “promises made by politicians that they knew they could not keep when they made them.”
However, Democratic leaders and union officials dismissed Christie’s doomsday scenario and rejected his implicit call for Sweeney and other leaders to renegotiate the terms of the pension reform to get further concession from public employee unions and their members.
“We’re not doing it,” Sweeney said emphatically. “We made a commitment. We’re not breaking the commitment. If we stay the course, the pension system will be fine -- it’s not going to bankrupt us. What’s missing here is we haven’t grown our economy. That’s the issue.”
Sweeney said Christie should not be “trying to renegotiate” when he and everyone else involved in the pension legislation understood that it would take seven tough budgets to put the pension system back on track.
Prieto noted that it was the state government -- not public employees -- who failed to make the required payments to the pension system and put it on the verge of collapse, a point made by Wendell Steinhauer, president of the New Jersey Education Association, and other union leaders.
“Gov. Christie is doing the right thing by making the full, legally required pension payment this year. But he is doing the wrong thing by misleading New Jersey residents about the state of the pension system,” Steinhauer said. “Pension costs are not ‘exploding.’ As a result of deep, painful cuts absorbed by public employees and retirees in 2011, pension costs going forward have been curtailed, and the state is finally on the road to responsible, sustainable pension funding practices. It’s not easy, but it’s necessary and it’s legally required."
Milly Silva, the executive vice president of Service Employees International Union Local 1199, United Healthcare Workers East, who ran for lieutenant governor on the Democratic ticket against Christie last November, said “Christie’s attack on public employees is the same old song” – one he always returns to when he is in political trouble.



http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/christie_continues_internal_review_of_bridgegate.html#incart_m-rpt-1

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie tonight said he won't “give in to the hysteria” of press questions about Bridgegate based on new information.

The Republican governor said his office continues to try to figure out why lanes to the George Washington Bridge were closed in September and will eventually announce conclusions of the review.

“We’re going through an internal investigation, all of this stuff will come out over the appropriate period of time,” Christie said on his radio show on NJ 101.5 FM. “And I’m not going to give it to the hysteria of questions that are given by folks who have information today that I didn’t have at the time.”

Later in the broadcast, Christie said he stands behind David Samson, a close adviser and chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Samson has been accused of using the public position to enrich his law firm, prompting Executive Director Patrick Foye to slam Samson in print as unfit to lead the bi-state agency.


"Strong and firmly and I disagree with Pat Foye," Christie said. "I haven’t spoken to him about the latest incident, but the latest incident is nothing new. Ultimately with some of these disputes, Governor Cuomo and I have to resolve it and we do... It’s a dysfunctional agency."
Christie told host Eric Scott he had “no idea” whether one of his former top aides, Bridget Anne Kelly, orchestrated the infamous Fort Lee traffic jam on her own.

“You folks are the only folks at the moment who are asking me about this,” Christie said.
In the meantime, the U.S. Attorney and state Legislative committee are moving ahead with dual investigations.

Since his last news conference, the marathon Jan. 9 Statehouse event, the governor has consistently avoided reporters. He continued to ignore questions while in Washington for governors meetings this past weekend.

Christie said residents he called on in two recent town hall meetings didn’t ask about the scandal because they have other priorities.

“The public understands that there are a lot of important issues that confront the state,” he said. “I will be dammed if I let any of this stuff get in the way of me doing my real job. And this is my real job and I’m doing it.”

Christie’s once sky-high approval ratings have taken a hit since the scandal reached its zenith last month.

“The poll numbers are still better than most governors in the region, and most governors across the country,” Christie said. “So I have no problem with my poll numbers and in fact, most of the folks in state Legislature would like to have poll numbers like that.”
In a veiled reference to Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s recent uptick in travel and public appearances, Christie said it’s too early for Democrats to jokey for the 2017 governor’s race.

Star-Ledger staff writer Christopher Baxter contributed to this report.
Watch live streaming video from townsquaremedianj at livestream.com

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/hgi_billed_nj_51m_for_six_months_of_sandy_work.html#incart_m-rpt-1

The firm hired to administer New Jersey’s two main Hurricane Sandy housing recovery programs signed a three-year, $68 million contract with the state last spring but charged $51 million for less than eight months of work, documents released today show.

The documents released by the state Treasury Department also show that the firm, Hammerman & Gainer Inc., whose contract was terminated, has been paid $32.7 million and is demanding $18.4 million more.

Residents applying for grant money to help repair their storm-damaged homes complained the application process was poorly managed by HGI, citing lost paperwork and a lack of communication.

Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Richard Constable, whose department oversees much of the Sandy recovery, said this week the state relayed residents’ concerns to the Louisiana-based firm and "ultimately it was deemed more appropriate by both parties to severe the relationship."

A Feb. 7 letter from HGI’s lawyers said the state made repeated demands that the firm perform work outside the scope of the contract which "far exceeded the manpower and services upon which the initial budget was estimated."


The state and HGI agreed in early December to end the contract but never publicly announced it.

"New Jersey’s unwillingness to be clear on what HGI did wrong makes it impossible for the public to be sure the problems have been resolved," Adam Gordon, a staff attorney for the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center, said today.

"We still don’t know if, or how, the state is correcting these problems, and how much more it will cost in money that could be used to actually help people still out of their homes," said Gordon, whose group has been critical of the Christie administration’s distribution of Sandy aid.

Testifying before a legislative committee earlier this week, Constable defended hiring HGI.

The only other bid came in at more than $190 million, he said, nearly three times as much as HGI’s proposal. "So in real time that was the appropriate choice to be be made," he said.

A spokesperson for HGI did not return a call for comment. A lawyer with McCarter & English, the New Jersey law firm representing HGI, said he could not comment.

As agreed, HGI officially stopped working for New Jersey on Jan. 20. Under the agreement, the state paid thhe firm $9 million for outstanding invoices and $1.5 million for interim compensation.

Constable said in his testimony that he could not provide details about why the contract was terminated because "lawyers are engaged."

HGI was hired to manage housing initiatives supported with federal money, including the state’s major rebuilding grant, the Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation, or RREM, program. The DCA oversees that program.

The RREM program provides up to $150,000 to residents to repair their Sandy-damaged homes. However, homeowners have criticized the program, saying they haven’t been able to get answers to seemingly simple questions, including where their applications stand.

A second program, the Homeowner Resettlement Program, was also administered by HGI.

DCA spokeswoman Lisa Ryan said "the state severed its relationship with HGI due to performance-related concerns."

The Fair Share Housing Center said today that HGI also did not submit the weekly and monthly reports it had promised as part of its bid.

The housing group, which requested those reports as part of an open records request, said the state told them they do not exist.