Thanks to New Jersey’s Supreme Court, that state’s hopelessly-mismanaged (and sometimes corrupt) urban school districts will be getting even more money. In a 3-to-2 ruling today in Abbott v. Burke, it ordered New Jersey’s legislature and governor to increase spending on these money-wasting school districts by $500 million, blocking Governor Chris Christie’s attempts to reduce the rate of increase in state spending. The state supreme court’s order to increase spending on the so-called “Abbott” districts flouted both constitutional separation of powers principles barring judicially-imposed spending, and the fact that the state constitution only requires a “thorough and efficient” system of public schools.
It is anything but “efficient” to throw more money at dysfunctional school districts that already have more money to spend per student than the average school district in the state — or country. New Jersey already spends $17,800 per student, among the highest in America, and spending in Newark, a supposedly “disadvantaged” Abbott district, is far higher, at $23,000. Audits found that these districts waste 29 percent of their money. If the New Jersey Supreme Court really cared about the state constitutional guarantee of “efficient” schools, it would root out wasteful spending in the schools, instead of ordering even more such spending.
The Court’s 3-to-2 vote was the result of the New Jersey Senate blocking Gov. Christie from appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court to fill a vacancy, resulting in a temporary vacancy on the Court. The liberal Chief Justice then temporarily assigned a liberal judge, Judge Stern, to fill the resulting vacancy. (One of the state supreme court justices, Justice Rivera-Soto, says that temporary assignment violates New Jersey’s Constitution.)
New Jersey spends more money on education than almost any state, resulting in the nation’s highest property taxes (and arguably the highest taxes overall). But to some New Jersey judges, the skyrocketing spending is never enough.
A New Jersey trial judge Tuesday declared unconstitutional the state’s recent attempts to scale back rapidly-rising education spending, “effectively tying Republican Governor Chris Christie’s hands on budget and education reform. Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne ruled that Christie’s budget cuts to school aid left public schools unable to provide a ‘thorough and efficient’ education to New Jersey children.”
In his ruling, “Doyne even wrote that despite the ‘significant increase in spending levels from 2000 to 2008,’ some New Jersey districts are moving even further from adequate proficiency. His solution?” Force the state government to give them even “more money.”
For the last 30 years, the New Jersey courts have been using the New Jersey State Constitution’s goal of a “thorough and efficient” educational system to force the state to increase education spending in ways that are anything but efficient. They have ordered that school systems in underperforming urban areas (often run by corrupt Democratic political machines) be given extra money — which has led to huge amounts of waste without increasing student achievement.
[click to continue…]
What does it take to get governments to deregulate? You might think the answer is “a miracle” or maybe “drugs in the water,” both of which might be right. However, it seems that another way to move free-market legislation forward is economic crisis. Perhaps then it’s unsurprising that New Jersey has been really pushing the economic liberty agenda, considering they were ranked as having one of the worst fiscal situations in the nation.
Since the beginning of the Great Recession of 2008, we have seen several surprising moves to deregulate online gambling and some surprising people backing legislation because of their belief in defending individual rights, as well as their belief that legalized online gambling could be a monster revenue-raiser.
Since New Jersey has a major stake in the business of gambling, it makes sense that they have led the charge on several initiatives that would increase the ease with which bettors can lay down their dough. For example:
Former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine supported a lawsuit initiated by New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak declaring unconstitutional the federal ban on sports gambling. Current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was a little more reluctant to throw his support in that direction.
Yesterday the New Jersey Senate’s Government, Wagering, Tourism, and Historic Preservation Committee met and considered a proposal that would legalize Internet gambling for the state. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Lesniak once again.
Under the provisions of the proposed legislation, New Jersey would receive 20% of gross gaming revenues from the online gambling sites.
According to supporters, allowing online gambling would help alleviate several issues facing the state and its struggling gaming industry. Revenue from online gambling could be used to subsidize horse racing, boost the state Treasury, and help support Atlantic City casinos. Supporters have also said that several thousand support jobs could be created through the legalization of online gambling.
As it seems to always be, the rationale behind legalization is deplorable — it will generate tons of tax revenue for the state — but the result would be an incremental step toward liberty in New Jersey.
The House passed a budget enforcement resolution yesterday. It sets 2011’s discretionary spending $7 billion below what President Obama has requested.
Next year’s discretionary spending target is $1.12 trillion for next year. The $7 billion difference represents savings of 0.625 percent. Barely a rounding error. If total spending (including mandatory and defense spending) ends up at $3.5 trillion next year, the savings becomes 0.2 percent.
Of course, 2010 discretionary spending was $1.39 trillion. 2011 spending will very likely end up much closer to that than the targeted $1.12 trillion. The appropriations process is not kind to non-binding resolutions, however well-intentioned. Especially when the resolution “doesn’t detail how Congress should reach that [deficit reduction] goal.”
Congress lacks the will to cut $270 billion of spending. The interests benefitting from that spending will scream bloody murder the second their programs are put on the chopping block. In an election year when incumbents are more fearful than usual, no politician worth his salt wants to cause an uproar.
Congress need not worry too much, though. Even in anti-incumbent years, re-election are almost always above 90 percent. The vast majority of congressional turnover happens through retirement, running for other office, or death.
The pattern is holding this year, so far. The University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato recently pointed out that 5 incumbents have lost their state primary elections this year, while 240 were re-nominated. That’s a 98 percent success rate. There will be a few more casualties, especially in the November general elections.
Most members are safe. They can, and should, rock the boat by cutting unnecessary spending. If anything, the most aggressive cutters might become folk heroes like Chris Christie in New Jersey. They just don’t have the guts.
I will be more than happy if Congress proves me wrong. We’ll find out over the next few months.
Your host Richard Morrison and co-hosts William Yeatman and Jeremy Lott conspire to bring you Episode 67 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with the looming off-year elections, the unexpected lack of tropical storms and a cash for kids scandal in Pennsylvania. We finish with the fall of a spam king and the swine that didn’t squeal.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 