Saturday, October 27, 2007

VOTE NO ON BALLOT QUESTIONS

VOTE NO ON Question 1!
PUBLIC QUESTION # 1
DEDICATES ANNUAL REVENUE OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A TAX RATE OF 1% UNDER THE STATE SALES TAX FOR PROPERTY TAX REFORM

Do you approve the amendment of Article VII, Section I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, to provide for the annual dedication and annual appropriation of an amount equal to the annual revenue derived from a tax rate of 1% imposed under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, exclusively for the purpose of property tax reform through a special Property Tax Reform account established in the constitutionally dedicated Property Tax Relief Fund?

If you vote YES on Question 1, you will be voting to give yourself an 8% sales tax.

Last year Trenton Democrats raised the sales tax from 6% to 7%. The one penny increase in the sales tax passed in 2006 was to provide additional money to help balance the budget. Dedicating this increase leaves the state budget under funded which will force budget cuts or borrowing to fund programs not defined for use by the property tax relief fund.

In essence you are giving State Legislature a reprieve of looking into Tax Reform. Trenton is betting that you will vote YES, to make their job easier. There will be no need for them to come up with a new tax funding formula.

This supposedly dedicates sales tax to property tax reform, i.e. paying bureaucrats to send you a little bit of your money back. Wouldn't it make more sense just to lower taxes?

Should Question 1 pass revenues “lost “to” property tax relief (which never goes to suburban and rural homeowners) is going to have to be made up with higher sales taxes. The increase in the sales tax passed in 2006 was to provide additional money to help balance the budget. Dedicating this increase leaves the state budget under funded which will force budget cuts or borrowing to fund programs not defined for use by the property tax relief fund.

Trenton politicians need more money to fill up their pork barrel, and this is a last ditch attempt to fool voters into raising their own taxes.


VOTE NO ON Question 2!
PUBLIC QUESTION # 2
STEM CELL RESEARCH BOND ISSUE

Shall the “New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act” which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $450 million for grants to fund “stem cell research projects,” as defined in the act, at institutions of higher education and other entities in the State conducting scientific and medical research, and providing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, provided that recurring revenues of the State are certified by the State Treasurer to be available in an amount equal to the sum necessary to satisfy theannual debt service obligations related to such bonds, be approved?

If you vote YES on Question 2, you would be voting for something Wall Street investors wouldn't fund.

Question 2 uses deceptive language to imply that this is a vote to fund adult stem cell research projects actually producing cures to diseases. But this needs no government funding, Wall Street and the Drug Companies are already paying for it.

This question is asking the voters to give away a half billion dollar corporate welfare handout for Embryonic Stem Cell experiments involving human cloning. While they claim this money will cure diseases ranging from Cancer to Alzheimers to Diabetes, in 35 years of this "Fetal Tissue Research" hasn't cured anything, nothing at all. It's the ultimate in taxpayer rip-off. Embryonic stem cell "research" has never produced any cures to any diseases -- not one.

With $33.7 billion in state debt, which costs $3 billion in interest and principal payments each year, this is not the time to add more debt. $45 million a year in grants is 0.15% of the budget. Finding a way to budget this expenditure, would be more fiscally responsible, without the extra interest payments on debt.

The need for the state government to get involved is not warranted, especially not to the extent of a total of nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars.

If embryonic stem cell research holds so much promise, why doesn't the private sector invest sufficient funds for research? Medicine is a huge business and the idea of bleeding the public for unreliable and morally questionable research reeks of big investors trying to hedge on poor investments, by bolstering their failed research attempts with a forced investment by the rest of us.

Government should not be in the risk business of funding questionable research, especially with tax dollars we do not have and cannot afford.

It is a gamble that will take many years of research and money, and still not have any tangible results.


VOTE NO ON Question 3!
PUBLIC QUESTION # 3
GREEN ACRES, FARMLAND, BLUE ACRES,
AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOND ACT OF 2007

Shall the “Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres, and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007,” which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $200 million to provide moneys for (1) the acquisition and development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, (2) the preservation of farmland for agricultural or horticultural use and production, (3) the acquisition for recreation and conservation purposes properties in the floodways of the Delaware River, Passaic River, and Raritan River and their tributaries, that are prone to or have incurred flood or storm damage, and (4) funding historic preservation projects; and providing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, be approved?

By voting YES on Question 3, you will be voting in favor of Eminent Domain, thus giving government more power in eminent domain cases.

We need to define what constitutes eminent domain, before giving government broader powers.

If this passes you will give the state the power and money to start "negotiations" with homeowners who live near rivers to sell their land to the state for "open space" -- part of an ongoing effort to stop construction of one family homes in New Jersey in favor of high density attached townhouses, condominiums and apartment buildings.

While the question says land will only be taken from "willing sellers" does anyone think a homeowner or small business owner will have any leverage when a judge or bureaucrat decides that "preserving Open Space" is more important than your property rights.

With $33.7 billion in state debt, $3 billion in interest and principal payments each year, now is not the time to add more debt.

The state is asking to borrow money to buy open space and fund stem cell programs because the budget is already running at a deficit.

New Jersey needs to start reducing debt. We are already spending 10% of the annual budget or $3 billion paying off current debt, we cannot afford any new spending.

The state already cannot maintain the land it currently owns, the more land the state buys, the less land will be available for people to build homes and businesses, thus forcing high density housing on our towns.

Defeat of the ballot questions will send a message to Trenton that the citizens of New Jersey have had it with more debt.

Aside, from the fact of where you stand on the questions, New Jersey is broke, we do not have the money. We are cutting education programs, cutting state aid to our towns and muncipalities, property taxes are going throught the roof, people leaving their homes, businesses are laying off, and thousands leaving the state. If we do not have the money to take care of the mess we already have, why are we creating more debt?

Are we ready for more tax and spend? Ask yourself, can we afford it?

No comments: