SOS 2009: New Jersey In Trouble

I think it's rather fitting that New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's state of the state address is being linked at the following URL: http://www.nj.gov/sos2009/

SOS is rather fitting, considering the dire straits of the state budget. Corzine talks about how he's doing his best to reduce the pain on New Jersey taxpayers while maintaining or increasing services.

This year, Corzine will have to not only deal with the state budget fiasco, but to run for reelection against Republican Chris Christie, the former US Attorney who helped convict numerous New Jersey politicians engaging in corruption and graft.

I will have details of the speech and a critique when the transcript is available.

UPDATE:
Here's the text of the speech. Lovely platitudes and fawning praise for incoming President Barack Obama:

People also came together last November 4th, when our citizens in record numbers voted overwhelmingly to elect Barack Obama our next president.

In doing so, our voters embraced a new vision for America -- a progressive vision we share in New Jersey. In fact, it's a vision we've been working to achieve for three years --
... a vision that we must responsibly share our economic bounty ... that all of our children deserve a thorough and efficient education ... that health care is a right ... that we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth.

Barack Obama's vision is our vision.

And now, thankfully, starting next Tuesday, New Jerseyans have a partner in Washington -- a partner who will join us in pursuing a common vision.

How exactly is Obama going to save the state? Billions of dollars to bail out the state's massive budget deficits? We know that Corzine isn't going to cut spending to get revenues in line with spending. He's already pushed more taxes and fees, so tax and spend is the name of the game, and he's counting on Washington Democrats to pave the way to still more spending.

The national unemployment rate has soared to over 7%, with expectations of a 9% to 10% rate in the year ahead. Our citizens' economic security has been compromised.

Our people did not cause this meltdown -- its causes are beyond their control and are national ... even global ... in scope.

Democrats contributed mightily to the meltdown by demanding the extension of credit to those who were incapable of repaying loans, and when real estate prices began an inevitable correction, everything went sour.

By the close of the calendar year, the deepening recession had required us to cut spending by another $800 million. That's a total of $1.4 billion in cuts in this fiscal year alone.
Let me repeat -- $1.4 billion ...
... not in the rate of growth, but in absolute dollars.

It's been painful, and we've had to make many ugly choices. But together with my partners in the Legislature, we are making the hard choices.

The state budget is bigger this year than it was last year; and the upcoming fiscal year plans on being no different. All the talk about cuts is just that. They're not actually cutting budgets, but reducing the increase in spending year over year. It's still increasing, but just not as much as various groups have wanted.

This is a shell game, and state taxpayers are paying through the nose.

The state authorized billions more for school construction, but anyone following state school construction knows that billions were spent and a fraction of the projects listed ever reached completion. Scandals, corruption, and a failure to properly figure how much projects would cost sapped the funds, and the state fell short of its prior goals.

The new borrowing isn't going to be any different.

However, the line of the day has to be this for its utter cluelessness:

Today, New Jersey's unemployment stands at 6.1% -- nationally, the rate is 7.2%. Make no mistake --as long as one New Jerseyan is unemployed, we have work to do.

This is a call for unending government interference in the marketplace - because there is no such thing as zero unemployment. There is always going to be a segment of the population between jobs or are on unemployment at any one time. Corzine's using this as an excuse to increase state spending.

It is regrettable that over a period of at least 15 years, when the sun was shining and the economy was strong, New Jersey failed to put its financial house in order ... particularly our public pension system.

It's only because of today's financial crisis that I've recommended giving local governments the option of deferring a percentage of their employee pension payments.

To be sure, I have demonstrated a commitment to the solvency of our pension system.

Okay, make that another line of the day, since Corzine has gone on the record saying that municipalities could avoid their pension payment obligations so as to avoid requiring higher property tax payments from taxpayers already suffering under the highest tax burdens in the nation. He says otherwise in today's speech, but the net effect is that municipalities are being told that they don't have to worry about their pension obligations.

For most of the past 15 years, Democrats have ruled the roost in Trenton, and state spending has outstripped revenues and one-shots, borrowing tricks, and fiscal irresponsibility has been the name of the game. Corzine has been no different.

If he truly is serious about squaring the budget mess, propose a zero-growth budget. You wont see him do it, because he really isn't as interested in fiscal responsibility as in being reelected, and he's got state workers to woo.

He further claims that the state workforce has been slashed, but that too is questionable.

According to the State, there were 80,122 on the state payroll as of January 4, 2008. There were 80,744 on the state payroll as of January 1, 2007. Curiously, the 2006 workforce document sheds still more light on state workforce numbers.

For January 8, 2004, there were 79,298 people on the payroll; 82,538 as of January 7, 2006; and by January 1, 2008, the number was expected to grow to 84,401. In other words, the state workforce was expected to grow 6.4% from 2004 onwards. Any cuts to the size of the workforce are a reduction in the growth - not in absolute terms.