Republicans running to become New Jersey governor want tax cuts
Republicans hoping to reclaim New Jersey's governorship are largely united on how to make New Jersey more affordable.
They want to cut taxes.
Though virtually all five of the GOP candidates to succeed Gov. Phil Murphy support some form of tax cut — whether through rate changes or awards to offset locally set property taxes — they differ some on the details. The primary is June 10.
State Sen. Jon Bramnick lauded a longstanding Republican proposal to adjust New Jersey's income tax brackets for inflation to combat a phenomenon called bracket creep.
GOP legislators have argued that because the state's income tax brackets are not indexed for inflation, residents' tax rates increase over time with their incomes, cutting into any gains in purchasing power.
Bramnick also suggested simplifying New Jersey's tax brackets, though he did not detail those proposed changes. He said the combined changes would produce $1,600 in annual savings for joint filers, or $1,000 for single filers.
He also proposed requiring school districts to return excess state aid to their property taxpayers, saying it would lower average residents' property tax bills by $800. State school aid, pegged for just over $12 billion in the fiscal year that begins July 1, is funded with income tax revenue.
Former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli likewise said he would condense New Jersey's income tax brackets, adding he would 'reduce income taxes for all taxpayers' and introduce exemptions and deductions for home improvements and student loan interest. His platform provides no specifics about either plan.
Ciattarelli, who sought the governor's seat unsuccessfully in 2017 and 2021, pledged to reduce New Jersey's corporate business tax rates by five points over as many years. Currently, New Jersey taxes its businesses on non-marginal rates ranging between 6.5% and 9%, depending on net income.
Businesses with more than $10 million in income face an additional 2.5% non-marginal surcharge for what's called the corporate transit fee (which is intended to fund NJ Transit). Counting the surcharge, New Jersey has the highest state business tax rates in the nation. Without it, the Garden State's rates are the nation's fourth highest.
Ciattarelli said he would cap property tax rates to a percentage of a home's valuation. Statewide, locally set property tax rates in 2024 averaged just over 2.6%, according to Department of Community Affairs data.
Ciattarelli also seeks to reduce state spending by 30%, though it's not clear what programs he would slash to produce more than $17.4 billion in savings. Gov. Phil Murphy's budget plan for the next fiscal year calls for about $58.4 billion in spending.
Longtime radio talk show host Bill Spadea's affordability plan offers few details.
It proposes unspecified cuts to individual and business taxes and cites the large growth in spending under Murphy. Gov. Chris Christie's final budget called for $35.5 billion in spending for the 2018 fiscal year, 40% smaller than the final budget proposal of Murphy's second term.
Much of those increases can be attributed to full funding of pension payments and school aid, which together rose by $7.6 billion between Christie's and Murphy's final budget proposals.
The roughly 31% in inflation between the two budgets accounts for much of the remainder, though some budget items are not directly tied to rising prices.
Former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac's tax plan focuses mainly on property taxes. He said he would seek to cut property taxes, which are locally set, by 2% in each year of his term. The average property New Jersey tax bill was $10,095 in 2024, according to Department of Community Affairs data.
He also said he would seek to cut regulations and business taxes to encourage small business growth but did not provide specifics about either proposal.
Burlington County contractor Justin Barbera has said he would seek to lower taxes for New Jerseyans without children and lower or remove them for seniors, veterans, and those with disabilities.
The details of those proposals are unclear.
Here's how the Democrats running to be governor say they'll make New Jersey more affordable
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Gabbard yells 'Russia hoax' to distract MAGA from Epstein for Trump. It won't last.
Say what you want about AI, but powerful artificial intelligence in the hands of a 79-year-old man with zero emotional intelligence makes for ugly outcomes. Tulsi Gabbard was on the outs – literally and figuratively – with President Donald Trump last month after contradicting him about Iran's nuclear program, which he was about to bomb. Gabbard, Trump's Director of National Intelligence, was shut out of planning meetings about Iran and pushed to the intelligence sidelines for asserting that Iran had not been trying to build a nuclear weapon. "I don't care what she said," Trump replied when asked about Gabbard back then. She needed a way back inside Trump's bubble. The president's new "Epstein files" scandal offered an opportunity. Trump has stumbled badly with his loyal base and MAGA influencers by demanding that they just move on from a favorite conspiracy theory: that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in 2019 to prevent disclosure of his "client list" of famous, powerful, wealthy people he had blackmailed. Epstein, you must know by now, was a former Trump cruising buddy and convicted pedophile who died by suicide in federal prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges filed during Trump's first term. Trump has long relied on distraction tactics when his supporters get antsy, like a weary parent shaking car keys in a baby's face to stop the crying. But that wasn't working this time. MAGA was in a meltdown. The base was not buying Trump's new pitch: that the Epstein files they so desperately want to see were a Democratic "hoax." So Gabbard dug deep into the classics of Trump's "hoax" claims, declaring on July 18 that President Barack Obama's top advisors had somehow concocted the notion that Russia had attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won while defeating Hillary Clinton. Tulsi Gabbard caters to Trump by suggesting Obama is a criminal Gabbard issued a July 18 memo claiming to have new evidence of an "Obama Administration conspiracy to subvert" Trump's 2016 win. She pushed it in a post on X, announcing that she was sending information to the Department of Justice for "criminal referral." And she played it up for the weekend morning anchors at Fox News, because, of course. Trump grabbed all that like a drowning man grabs a life preserver. He spent the weekend frenzy-posting on his website, Truth Social, promoting Gabbard's Fox News hit, posting memes of Obama and other prominent Democrats in a jail cell and in prison uniforms. The president of the United States of America even shared a video made with artificial intelligence of Obama being handcuffed in the Oval Office. Say what you want about AI, but powerful artificial intelligence in the hands of a 79-year-old man with zero emotional intelligence makes for ugly outcomes. 'Stupid Republicans': Trump mocks GOP allies for seeking Epstein files release | Opinion Trump and Gabbard won't let facts get in the way of their fresh lies The lit sparkler Gabbard passed off as a bombshell focuses on the discussion within the intelligence community at the end of Obama's second term about whether Russia had used cyberattacks on election infrastructure. She's claiming Obama's team "manufactured" intelligence to hobble Trump's impending presidency after he won. There's a hole in that theory. First, the Obama administration said shortly after the 2016 presidential election that hackers had not tampered with the election results. Marc Elias, who then was general counsel for the Clinton campaign, wrote at the time that they had "not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking" in the election. Opinion: Trump is unpopular, polls show, and he's building an America most Americans hate Trump's tantrums about this have never been focused just on cyberattacks or hacking. He has long insisted that any claim that "Russia, Russia, Russia" wanted him to win in 2016 was a "hoax." Here's another problem with that. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in an August 2020 report issued as Trump was running for re-election, said it "found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling" in the election, including "an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome." Those words came from the archived statement by Marco Rubio, who at the time was a Republican senator from Florida and acting chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and now serves as Trump's secretary of State. He and Gabbard are, in theory, on the same team. You know who else is on that team? CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who earlier this month released a review of his agency's 2016 assessment that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. That review offered some criticism for how the assessment was reached, but didn't challenge its veracity. Gabbard is hoping that Americans will be distracted U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, put out that 966-page 2020 report about Russia with Rubio and still holds that post today. The report's title: "Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Election." Warner, in a July 18 statement, said, "It seems DNI Gabbard is unaware" that the committee found that Russia "used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign in order to benefit Donald Trump." He also noted, "This conclusion was supported on a unanimous basis by every single Democrat and Republican on the committee." Gabbard is dredging back up Russian interference because American voters just don't buy what Trump has tried to sell them about the Epstein files that his administration is still keeping secret, after he promised during last year's campaign to make them public. She appears to have won back his favor, for now. But this distraction is just so shaky, like those keys dangled in a baby's face, that it won't hold America's gaze for long. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Johnson shuts door on House vote before September on releasing Epstein files
Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday said he does not plan to allow votes on any measures related to the Jeffrey Epstein case in the House's final week in Washington before a weekslong recess, despite intense pressure from some of his own GOP members to go on the record on the issue. Some of President Donald Trump's most loyal supporters in Congress have been pressing party leaders to allow for a vote to show they support transparency around the Epstein saga — an issue that continues to animate the MAGA base even as Trump has repeatedly sought to blame Democrats for fanning the flames. The House forcing the Trump administration to turn over materials against its will would represent a remarkable rebuke of the president by his base. But the push has shown little forward momentum among the party's leadership on Capitol Hill. Johnson told CNN on Monday the full House would not vote on a pending measure from members of his own party – a non-binding resolution calling for the release of additional Epstein files – before the chamber's August recess, which is slated to begin at week's end. 'My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing, and if further congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that, but I don't think we're at that point right now, because we agree with the president,' he said. As part of a deal to approve the White House's rescissions package last week, Johnson reached an accord with GOP holdouts that allowed the House Rules Committee to advance that non-binding resolution calling for the Epstein files release. But it is unclear if that measure will make it to the House floor, with Johnson firmly standing behind Trump on the matter. 'There is no daylight between the House Republicans … the House and the president on maximum transparency,' Johnson said, adding that Trump wants 'all the credible files' on Epstein to be released and asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce grand jury testimony related to the case and 'all of that is in process right now.' Still, a bipartisan group of House members — led by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie — is seeking to circumvent Johnson and force a vote on a separate bill calling for the release of the files. Massie will need a majority of House members to sign on to what's known as a discharge petition to force a floor vote. That measure wouldn't be considered by the full House until after Labor Day at the earliest if Massie is successful. Johnson's leadership team had been privately signaling they would not bring up any Epstein measures this week, two Republicans familiar with the matter told CNN. Enough GOP support secured to force vote Ten House Republicans have now signed onto Massie's measure – a level of GOP support that would trigger a full vote by the GOP-controlled House on the measure if all Democrats supported it, as expected. But don't expect a new tranche of documents to immediately be made public. A vote to compel the full House to consider the effort can't come until after Labor Day at the earliest when lawmakers return from their five-week summer recess. That's because Massie and California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna are using a discharge petition. That procedural maneuver requires seven legislative days before House lawmakers can formally collect the necessary signatures. Once they prove they have support from 218 members, it would force party leaders to bring it to the floor. Trump's attorney general has asked for grand jury material to be made public – which also is likely to be a slow-moving effort, and one that requires court approval. But the Massie and Khanna measure goes significantly further, requiring the Trump administration to release 'all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials' related to Epstein within 30 days. It would also require the White House to release a 'list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials' — a list that Trump's base has been demanding. Khanna previously told CNN's Jake Tapper that he would deliver 'all 212 Democrats' on the measure. While many Democrats previously decried the promotion of conspiracy theories about Epstein, they have in recent days pushed for greater transparency, arguing Trump is trying to protect himself and aiming to further drive a wedge between Trump and his base. 'Why do we think President Joe Biden or President Barack Obama's names are being invoked because Donald Trump is running scared, and the Trump administration is running scared. What are they hiding from the American people, release the files so that the American people can make a decision on their own,' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters during a press conference Monday. With all Democrats behind the effort, 10 Republicans would be more than enough to meet the necessary 218 threshold. Along with Massie, the Republicans already on board are: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eric Burlison of Missouri, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Eli Crane of Arizona, Cory Mills of Florida, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Max Miller of Ohio and Nancy Mace of South Carolina. 'I think momentum will build for transparency. I don't think this is going to go away,' Massie told CNN on Monday. 'And I think when we return in September, we'll get phase two of the Epstein files.' The move, of course, could end as many things in Congress do – with a lot of talk, a little corresponding action. Last week, Republicans held up a vote to approve a $9 billion package of spending cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting, something Trump wanted, as they debated what to do on the Epstein case. They settled for the non-binding resolution calling for the release of additional files – which doesn't immediately force any action and to which Johnson has been noncommittal. Even continued talk of the Epstein case, though, is likely to irk Trump. Over the weekend, the president seemed to acknowledge the intractability of the subject as he noted he had ordered the release of grand jury materials. 'With that being said, and even if the Court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'Sunlight is a good medicine' But a chorus of conservative and moderate Republicans – including some of the president's closest allies, like Greene – ratcheted up their demands for the release of more information on Monday. 'People want the information. They don't want things covered up especially when it comes to the most well-known convicted pedophile in modern day history,' Greene, told CNN, noting that the 'highest volume' of recent constituent calls to her office have been about Epstein. Responding to Trump's frustration with even his own supporters for not moving on from Epstein, Greene said she really likes Trump and thinks 'he has a great pulse on things,' but 'on this issue the American people really want to see transparency.' 'I think sunlight is a good medicine,' Rep. Don Bacon, a swing district Republican who recently announced his retirement, concurred, telling CNN he would vote for a standalone bill to press the administration to release more Epstein information. 'I think there's too much conspiracy theory and it's just better to put light on it.' Bacon said he thinks Trump administration 'misled' Americans into believing there was more to the Epstein case, adding, 'It's a good lesson for everybody. It's better to keep your powder dry and don't speak until you've got the facts.' The Justice Department announced earlier this month that there is no Epstein 'client list,' even after Bondi teased having that information on her desk, and that the accused sex trafficker was not murdered in jail. The Nebraska Republican noted that Congress has oversight authority and 'those who are interested' would have an opportunity to question Bondi when she appears before committees overseeing the Department of Justice. This story has been updated with additional details. CNN's Morgan Rimmer, Nicky Robertson, Arlette Saenz and Jenna Monnin contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Seven years, three OUIs: Does the State House have a drinking problem?
In 2022, Democratic state Representative David LeBoeuf of Worcester Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Democratic state Senator Michael Brady of Brockton Alcoholism is a disease. Any person struggling with alcoholism should be treated with compassion, empathy, and help in finding treatment. But driving while drunk is a dangerous choice. All three lawmakers faced the typical sentence for first-time offenders: a 45-day loss of license, enrollment in an alcohol education course, and payment of fees and fines. In each case, the charges were continued without a finding, to be dismissed if the offender maintained a clean record for a year. Advertisement To their credit, each man took responsibility, apologized, and pledged to improve. 'What happened was completely unacceptable. I make no excuses. I am committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again,' Lawn said. In many ways, the Legislature is similar to any employer: It has a diverse body of members with different struggles. 'It's a testament that addiction affects everybody in all walks of life,' said former representative Timothy Whelan, a Republican from Brewster. 'I think it's more of a human issue than it is related to any one particular field of endeavors.' But interviews with 17 current and former lawmakers paint a picture of an institution where, particularly in the House, drinking with colleagues can be one way — though not the only way — to get 'in' with leadership and build the social bonds that make one a more effective lawmaker. As one current representative, speaking on condition of anonymity, put it, 'Being social is part of being in the building, and being social in America as an adult generally involves drinking.' Former representative Denise Provost, a Democrat from Somerville, said she never personally witnessed overconsumption, but 'as in the rest of the culture, whenever there was hospitality, there was frequently alcoholic beverages served or on offer.' Multiple current and former lawmakers said there are legislators who keep alcohol in their offices and drink with colleagues. One person recalled walking in on an alcohol-fueled party with lobbyists and lawmakers in an office during a late-night session around 2018. Several lawmakers said drinking in the State House isn't common but tends to occur during late-night sessions, particularly budget weeks, when lawmakers have to sit around for long hours, often with little to do. Advertisement Max Ratner, a spokesperson for House Speaker Ron Mariano, said in a statement, 'The Speaker does not condone alcohol consumption by Members and staff inside the State House, and expects them to use common sense and act responsibly at all times.' One former lawmaker told me he believes alcohol should be banned inside the State House, as it is in public buildings like firehouses and police stations. While that may put a damper on office holiday parties, it's an idea worth considering. Of course, part of the job of a lawmaker is attending events with constituents and lobbyists, where alcohol may be served. Multiple lawmakers told me that there are also groups of lawmakers who frequently get drinks after work. Some lawmakers compared the culture to an 'old boys' club' or a high school 'cool kids' clique. House Majority Leader Michael Moran, a Democrat from Boston who didn't respond to a request for comment, has spent $2,361 from his campaign account at the 21st Amendment, a Beacon Hill tavern, since 2024 for 20 meetings with colleagues and staff, according to campaign finance filings. Since January 2024, state officials — primarily legislators — have spent $56,591 at the 21st Amendment, as well as $92,954 at Carrie Nation and $50,710 at Emmets, two other bars near the State House, according to filings with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. All these restaurants sell food and drink, so there's no way to know how much was spent on alcohol. Advertisement Several lawmakers interviewed for this column — generally those who live far from Boston or have children at home — say they usually go home after work. Others, including some in recovery, don't touch alcohol. Some said they weren't aware of drinking beyond occasional social events. The House may be no different from other corporate cultures. Some lawmakers drink often, some don't, and a few drink excessively. Certainly, adults are free to hang out in bars after work. But when lawmakers choose to drink, they should remember that they are public role models and the mantras drilled into 21-year-olds still apply: Find a safe and sober ride home, and friends don't let friends drive drunk. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
