New Jersey Governor Proposes closings of state psychiatric institutions

·  

 

---

March 16, 2010

New Jersey Governor Proposes Deep Spending Cuts

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

TRENTON — Christopher J. Christie, the first Republican elected governor of New Jersey in 12 years, unveiled a $29.3 billion budget on Tuesday that relies almost exclusively on spending cuts to reverse the sagging fortunes of a state he sees as battered by the recession and choking on its tax burden.

To close a deficit that he asserted was approaching $11 billion, Governor Christie called for the layoffs of 1,300 state workers, closings of state psychiatric institutions, an $820 million cut in aid to public schools, and nearly a half-billion dollars less in aid to towns and cities. He also suspended until May 2011 a popular property-tax rebate program, breaking one of his own campaign promises.

Democrats were quick to characterize Mr. Christie's proposal as falling disproportionately on the backs of the middle class, the poor, the elderly, schoolchildren, college students and inner-city residents, while leaving largely unscathed the wealthy and most businesses.

But Mr. Christie was ready for that line of attack.

"Today, we are fulfilling the promise of a smaller government that lives within its means," he said at a joint legislative session here. "The defenders of the status quo have already begun to yell and scream. They will try to demonize me. They will seek to divide us rather than unite us. But even they know in their hearts, if not yet in their minds — it is time for a change."

Mr. Christie's budget stands as a stark example of how a fiscal conservative determined not to raise taxes grapples with the budget of a once-expansive, now-humbled state government in challenging economic times.

Over all, his budget would spend $29.3 billion, including $1 billion in remaining federal stimulus money. Setting that aside, it represents a 5 percent reduction in state spending.

New Jersey's budget crunch is hardly unique; dozens of states face similar predicaments. But a budget relying almost exclusively on spending cuts puts the state in a much smaller peer group, along with Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — all led by Republicans, a number of them with national aspirations.

"Time has run out, and the bill has come due," Mr. Christie said in a speech frequently interrupted for applause, mostly from Republicans.

The budget would probably mean higher property taxes for most homeowners, at least in the short term, as local governments try to make up for the diminished state financing. But the governor is also proposing constitutional amendments and legislation to cap property taxes and spending at the local, county and school-district level.

Mr. Christie campaigned last year attacking the teachers' and public workers' unions and their costly contracts, and his budget lived up to his words: The $820 million cut in school aid is 7 percent of the total funding, and the 1,300 state workers being laid off come from a work force of about 65,000.

The governor said "the watchwords of this budget are shared sacrifice and fairness," yet his spending plan calls for only modest tax increases on insurers and hospitals, eliminates the film-production tax credit, and halves a tax credit for high-tech businesses.

The battle to ensue is likely to shape up around the so-called millionaire's tax, a one-year income-tax surcharge on people making more than $400,000 that Mr. Christie vowed not to renew. (Democrats allowed it to lapse in December.) If that surcharge were renewed, it would bring in close to $1 billion.

In his speech, Mr. Christie affirmed his stance on the issue, saying New Jersey's tax burden was already the nation's costliest. "Mark my words today: If a tax increase is sent to my desk, I will veto it," he said.

He said that to accede to any tax increases would be to "kill a job market already on life support."

Democrats greeted this with dismay, while vowing to work closely with the governor on the budget.

"The fact that the governor took that higher income tax off the table, I think is a major mistake on his part," said the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat who has been an ally of Mr. Christie's in cutting public-sector pensions. "This is a very cold budget. There has to be a little more compassion for the middle class and poor, because all the burden is being put on them."

Indeed, Mr. Christie's budget would squeeze those with lower incomes by eliminating cash welfare for the able-bodied, imposing new $310 deductibles and doubling some drug co-payments for Medicaid patients, cutting state-financed school breakfasts and rental assistance and trimming the state's earned-income tax credit to 20 percent of the federal benefit, from 25 percent.

Jon Shure, an expert on state finances at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning group in Washington, said he believed this would be the first time a state had reduced its earned-income tax credit.

"That's the kind of decision that could be avoided by going for more on the revenue side," he said. "You're spreading the pain to the lowest-income working people in the state."

Mr. Christie also wants to make steep cuts in aid to towns and counties, impound the $88 million in sales taxes collected in urban enterprise zones, and eliminate efforts by his predecessor, Jon S. Corzine, to prod local governments to consolidate or share expenses.

Mr. Corzine cut property-tax rebates for homeowners last year, though he preserved them for the elderly, the disabled and people making less than $75,000. Mr. Christie, positioning himself as a champion of the middle class, attacked the cuts fiercely and vowed to restore a portion of the rebates.

But in his budget, he is now canceling rebates entirely until next year, when they will begin showing up as credits on quarterly property-tax bills instead of arriving in the mail as yearly refund checks.

He also wants to reduce by attrition the so-called senior freeze that caps property taxes for the elderly, by not admitting new homeowners into the program.

Mr. Christie pointed to a few areas that were spared: state parks, food banks, prescription-drug coverage for the elderly and health insurance coverage for children. He called for sizable increases in food-stamp eligibility and in charity care, which pays hospital bills for the indigent. But taxes on hospitals would rise by $45 million.

The governor took pains to mitigate some of his cuts. The sharp reduction in school aid will be apportioned to limit the blow to any one district to 5 percent of its current-year budget. Districts relying on the state for less than that will see their state aid eliminated. Administration officials could not immediately say how many fell into that category.

Similarly, a broad reduction in state aid to municipalities was structured to raise the tax bill of the average taxpayer in each town by $250.

Mr. Christie's idea for a 2.5 percent cap on increases in property taxes, modeled on Proposition 2 ½ in Massachusetts, would allow no exceptions except by local referendum and would apply to towns, school boards and counties. He also is calling for new handcuffs on towns and school districts as they bargain with unions, to prohibit towns from awarding contracts with pay increases, including benefits, of more than 2.5 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/nyregion/17budget.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

 

http://www.balkanstudies.org

Ukraine's "No" to NATO: An Example for Serbia

By Srdja Trifkovic
Wednesday, 17 Mar 2010

Ukraine's decision to pass a law that will prevent the country from joining NATO should be a model for Serbia to follow. The government in Belgrade is still intent on seeking NATO membership, and it is still encouraged to do so by various ill-informed and not necessarily well-meaning Americans, such as Senator George Voinovich. His advice should be rejected: it is contrary to Serbia's interests, and detrimental to peace and stability in the Balkans.

Bill Clinton's air war against the Serbs eleven years ago marked a decisive shift in NATO's mutation from a defensive alliance into a supranational security force based on the doctrine of "humanitarian intervention." The defensive alliance of 1949 thus had morphed into a blatant aggressor in 1999. The bombing had a profound effect on the Russian perception of NATO. In the eyes of the Russians, it was aimed to prove that NATO is the decisive force in the post-Cold War Europe, and to reassert the leading positionof the United States in that organization. Better than any other post-Soviet event, the Kosovo war exposed the position of Russia in the new world order. Earlier warnings by Moscow's NATO-skeptics were suddenly validated: the US was attempting to encircle Russia, after all. This conclusion has not changed over the years. The National Security Strategy approved by President Medvedev in May 2008 and reiterated last winter identified NATO as a threat to Russian national security.

 

The Traps of Membership - If Serbia were to join NATO, it would inevitably face two major challenges: sharp internal divisions that would further undermine the country's stability, and Russian counter-measures.  It is worth pondering what would Serbia do, once in NATO, if the US asked it to play host to elements of an anti-ballistic missile system, like those introduced to Romania? Far from treating Serbia as a friendly nation, Russia would be perfectly within her rights to respond by targeting Serbia with nuclear missiles. Clearly, in that case there would be a threat, but it would be a threat of Washington's own manufacture. Moscow views plans to deploy an ABM system in Eastern Europe as major threats to Russia's core security interests: if these plans were to come to pass, Russia's deterrent capability—the key to its security—would be drastically undermined. European Russia would be surrounded by hostile forces.

 

NATO and the uses to which Washington puts it constitute a messy tangle of contradictions.  Outwardly, it appears to be what it always was: a defensive organization dedicated to collective security. Inwardly it is something else entirely. NATO's mission was to contain the USSR—universally perceived as a threat—through collective security: an attack against one would be an attack against all.  Although NATO had a war fighting doctrine, it sought mainly to deter attack.  In this it succeeded splendidly; but with Marxism-Leninism relegated to the ash heap of history, NATO morphed from a defensive alliance to fend off a commonly acknowledged threat into a vehicle for the attainment of the United States' global ambitions. 

 

By virtue of its location, Russia controls the crossroads of Eurasia and therefore access to its huge natural resource wealth.  As Washington craves cheap and easy access to that wealth, Russia is its target – and the U.S. has an ideology to complement its geo-strategic ambitions. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice described it succinctly: in U.S. foreign policy there is no distinction between ideals and self-interest, she asserted, they are one in the same. U.S. foreign policy is its values, and the US will stop at nothing to assure that its values prevail. The world is divided into two camps: one is made up of states that share U.S. values; the other of states such as Russia and China, who are consigned to a lesser status because their relations with the US are "rooted more in common interests than in common values."  Some of Dr. Rice's statements reflected a mindset reminiscent of the early Bolshevik leaders' revolutionary dynamism: "It is America's job to change the world, and in its own image… The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States because we do not accept that our national interests and our values are at odds… We prefer preponderances of power that favor our values, over balances of power that do not.  We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change to world."

 

Whether viewing U.S. foreign policy through the prism of geo-strategy or ideology, Russia remains in NATO's crosshairs. It has become an important means of changing the world in America's image. If Serbia were to join, Belgrade would be enlisting in a crusade to encircle Moscow for the benefit of those who bombed Belgrade for 78 days eleven years ago. Such policy would be not only geopolitically self-defeating, but also morally criminal.

 

At a time of extreme political, economic, military and moral weakness Serbia needs to pursue its key national interest—that of maintaining friendly relations with Russia. This cannot and will not happen if Serbia resorts to provocative acts such as joining a NATO bent on Russia's encirclement.  In defining its security arrangement Belgrade should adopt certain criteria based on the conventional understanding of Serbia's national interest. They should include:

 

• Attention to cost. The cost of force modernization required to meet NATO standards would overburden and overwhelm the already weak Serbian economy;

 

• Refusal to commit Serbian forces and use them as American cannon-fodder in missions (e.g. in Afghanistan) not directly connected to the country's national interests;

 

• Resistance to being pulled into geo-strategic alignments that are not in the national interest, that are overwhelmingly rejected by Serbia's popular opinion, and would only exacerbate regional tensions.

Serbia should seek its place within a European security architecture that embraces (and balances) the diverse security arrangements maintained by European states. They include NATO members, from Portugal to Estonia and Iceland to Greece; West European states that are not in NATO, such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland; ex-Communist countries with scant interest in or prospect of joining NATO (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia); and Russia, which occupies a category of its own.

 

The reality is even more complex when the European Union is taken into account.  Some states belong to both NATO and the EU—France, Germany, Britain, Poland and a host of others; some belong to the EU but not NATO—Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Sweden; some belong to NATO but not the EU—Norway, Turkey, Croatia and Albania. In rejecting NATO and working to establish a new security strategy Serbia  would be establishing a security system that addresses not only its own needs, but those of all of Europe. Serbia is ideally placed to overcome the artificial division of Europe into "civilizational blocs" and serve as a bridge between the key parts of pan-Europe. There is more of a future for Serbia in this role than in becoming an apple of discord, an irritant in relations between East and West, and a satellite of a remote, unreliable, and often hostile foreign power.