|
|
Ten Myths on Constitutional Convention on Property Tax
At a Public Forum on Property Tax held June 15th, 2002 on "Why Does New Jersey Need a Constitutional Convention on Property Tax", former Senator William Schluter provided a summary of Ten Myths that he indicated critics most often cite as their major concerns in opposition to this remedy to our New Jersey Property Tax System.
After the event, at the request of PFoPT, the Senator provide an update of the Ten Myths for publication, and on June 25, 2002, the Senator provided the following assessment and observations.
TEN MYTHS
USED BY OPPONENTS OF
THE PROPERTY TAX CONVENTION
6/25/2002
by Senator William Schluter
Property taxes are inordinately high in New Jersey. Virtually everyone agrees. Because reduction of property taxes is very popular, opponents of a convention are reticent to criticize this proposal directly. Instead, they offer amendments and question the convention process in their strategy to defeat the proposal through obfuscation and delay.
An important element of the debate is whether or not the convention should consider state spending as part of its charge. The sponsors have wisely decided not to include spending, because to do so would reduce the convention deliberations to an endless series of special interest harangues, thereby making consensus almost impossible and insuring failure of the entire enterprise. Besides, spending is now a function of the state budget, which is dealt with by the legislative and executive branches. We might not he happy with many of the spending decisions, but at least there is a mechanism, which is being used. On the subject of property tax reform, however, the Legislature has proved that it is incapable of being the mechanism to deal with this thorny issue.
There are many myths that are being used to attack the property tax convention proposal. Here are ten of the most prominent ones:
WRONG. A strong legal opinion by the Office of Legislative services clearly demonstrates, through precedence, that the agenda can be limited.
How can a prerogative be abrogated when there has been total failure to act? The convention is manifestation of the sovereign power of New Jersey's citizens as provided in the State constitution.
WRONG. The convention process limits the number of legislators and partisan functionaries who can be delegates. There is ample opportunity for individuals with qualifications and ability to become delegates, clearly a much greater chance for citizens to express themselves than exists through present channels. In addition, the proposal prohibits slating of candidates, provides incentives for limiting campaign expenditures, and allows for geographic and cultural diversity through appointment of ten at-large delegates.
The convention is open to consider any source of revenue, but overall property taxes must be reduced. It is highly unlikely that the delegates would agree on a proposal that substitutes a statewide property tax for the existing property tax system. And it is even more improbable that the voters of New Jersey would approve such a scheme.
The process does comply with one-person-one-vote because, in electing delegates, every voter has the same weight. The system does set standards for who can serve as delegates --- only one legislator from a district; no more than one member from each of the major political parties per district --- and this does not violate one-person-one-vote.
This is true, but it is better than selecting delegates in a general or primary election where major partisan influences are present and where little attention is paid to those running for delegate. Other constitutional conventions which have been successful have had delegates chosen at special elections. Because of media interest and the openness of the process, it is likely that the public will be fully engaged, and that the results of the special election will be truly representative.
There are many state expenditures in excess of $1 5 million that are considerably less worthy. This amount is less than one tenth of one percent of the state budget. It is a good investment for eliminating the devastating consequences of our present property tax system.
Nonsense. Among new sources are: changes in income tax rates; broadening the sales tax in a non-regressive manner, a wealth tax; business taxes (including closing of the real loopholes); restructuring New Jersey's present property tax relief programs. All excise and other tax sources would be thoroughly reviewed.
Not necessarily so. The convention can impose caps on any such increases in spending.
Such schemes would be picked apart by the press and by legitimate interest groups. And it is hard to imagine that the delegates would not respond accordingly. But the ultimate fail-safe feature protecting against such an eventuality is rejection by the people when they vote on the proposal.
On the issue of Property Tax Reform, the People are way ahead of the Politicians!
| ||||
