Category: Blog

Combating Surveillance and Protecting Privacy: Why New Jersey Needs the Immigrant Trust Act

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Every parent should be able to trust that their child can interact with public programs and systems — like schools and health care providers — without fear of being detained and separated from their family. This trust, however, has been eroded, and for good reason.

New Reports of Mass Surveillance and Data Collection

New reporting has uncovered that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is using a legal loophole to retrieve sensitive data from once-trusted institutions such as public schools and libraries, youth sports leagues, and doctor’s offices. This mass surveillance can result in family separation and is particularly harmful in states like New Jersey, where nearly half a million children live with at least one non-citizen parent.[1] The Immigrant Trust Act (S3672/A4987), which has yet to receive a committee hearing in the Legislature, would help protect these families from the threat of federal surveillance and intervention.

New Jersey is one of the most diverse states in the nation with 41 percent of children in the state living in a household with immigrant parents, according to a recent analysis of Census data by the Immigration Research Initiative.[2] Those most at risk for family separation, however, are the 22 percent of New Jersey children that live with at least one non-citizen parent.[3] These children should be able to attend school — as is their legal right — and see a doctor without having sensitive data collected and stored without the permission or knowledge of their parents or guardians.

ICE uses sensitive data that it collects from a variety of service providers, both public and private, to target, track, and separate families — which has resulted in a dragnet of data, impacting more than 70 percent of US adults. This data collection has resulted in detentions and deportations, destroying families and communities across the country. Mass surveillance also results in a broader “chilling effect,” where many immigrant and mixed-status families fear accessing public services and programs they are entitled to. This puts already vulnerable families at increased risk of poverty, food insecurity, and limited access to health care.

For example, the fear created by ICE surveillance deters participation in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and a lack of health insurance hinders child development and threatens a family’s financial stability. This chilling effect helps explain why U.S. citizen children with at least one immigrant parent are more likely to be uninsured than children with U.S. born parents.

Keeping Families and Communities Together with the Immigrant Trust Act

New Jersey can and must do more to protect the almost half a million children at risk of surveillance and family separation, which can have long-lasting and devastating effects on their mental health, academic performance, and overall well-being. The Immigrant Trust Act will help safeguard New Jersey families by providing equal access to vital services and privacy protections, regardless of immigration status. This act, which codifies and closes loopholes in the Attorney General’s existing Immigrant Trust Directive, would prohibit state and local entities from cooperating with federal immigration authorities and limit the information that can be shared with them, thereby protecting the rights and privacy of New Jersey children and families.

The Immigrant Trust Act would help ensure that all children and families in New Jersey have access to crucial public services and programs without fear of discrimination or deportation. By protecting the rights of immigrants and their families, the state can improve the health and well-being of all residents and uphold its commitment to justice and equity for all.

End Notes

[1] Children is defined as 17 years old and younger. American Community Survey data, 2021.

[2] Immigration Research Initiative analysis of American Community Survey data, 2021.

[3] Immigration Research Initiative analysis of American Community Survey data, 2021.

New Jersey’s Prescription Drug Price Council Must Act To Build on Federal Progress

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

No family should have to choose between life-saving medicine and buying groceries. Yet, prescription drug spending at pharmacies has nearly doubled over the last two decades, intensifying this struggle for many families.[i] Recent federal actions allowing prescription drug price negotiations in Medicare — a federal health insurance program for senior citizens and some people with disabilities or certain chronic conditions — are an important step forward for affordability that will benefit thousands of New Jersey families. However, millions who are not eligible for Medicare still need relief. Garden State leaders can build on the federal momentum by ensuring that, once the final appointments are made, the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Council promptly holds its required public meetings to begin its critical work on data collection and legislative recommendations to improve affordability for all residents.

Recent Federal Actions Will Cut Prescription Drug Costs for Medicare Enrollees

Federal leaders have taken significant steps toward improved affordability by allowing negotiations of prescription drug prices for Medicare enrollees through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. Previously, restrictions had prevented Medicare from pushing back on pharmaceutical companies’ price hikes.[ii] Other major steps in the IRA to address affordability in Medicare include capping out-of-pocket maximums for Part D (prescription drug) coverage and limiting the cost of insulin in the program to $35.[iii]

The first of the negotiated prices, announced in August 2024 and taking effect in January 2026, include 10 prescription drugs covered under Medicare, resulting in 38 to 79 percent in savings.[iv] Further, the IRA establishes a timeline for expanding these negotiations to cover even more drugs: 15 more drug prices from the prescription drug coverage in 2025, 15 from prescription drug and medical services coverage in 2026, and 20 more each year from 2027 onward. With each new list of drugs, the negotiated prices will become effective every other January — two years after for each new list, gradually increasing the number of drugs covered and providing increased cost relief for Medicare beneficiaries.[v]

Medicare Negotiated Rates Benefit a Majority of Senior Citizens, But Few Others

While these federal negotiations are promising, they only benefit Medicare enrollees — meaning that around 82 percent of New Jersey residents will not see cost reductions from the negotiated rates.[vi] Most Medicare enrollees in New Jersey are senior citizens, with 93 percent of residents who are 65 years old and older insured through the program.[vii] In contrast, only around 3 percent of working-age adults and 0.5 percent of children in the state are enrolled in Medicare.[viii] Consequently, the majority of children and working-age adults do not receive the affordability protections provided by these negotiated rates.

Although older adults are more likely to take multiple prescriptions and higher annual health care costs, younger residents with chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes also face significant financial strain from high drug prices. Across all age groups, many individuals are forced to alter how they manage their medications — such as cutting pills or forgoing prescriptions entirely — due to the unaffordable costs.[ix]

Empowering the New Jersey Prescription Drug Affordability Council Will Improve Affordability for All

To ensure affordability for all residents, New Jersey must fully activate its recently established Prescription Drug Affordability Council (PDAC). State leaders passed the prescription drug reforms, including PDAC, expecting them to “bring to light the inner workings and beneficiaries within the pharmaceutical industry and work to combat rising prices.”[x] However, leaders have been delayed in finalizing the last council members; in turn, this has prevented the scheduling of the council’s first meetings and collection of data.[xi]

State law directs the council to research the obstacles to affordability in the pharmaceuticals supply and demand chains, explore further state actions to improve affordability, and make recommendations regularly to the state legislature.[xii] Given the timeline needed to conduct this in-depth research, make the first policy recommendations, pass the policies in the legislature, and provide the departments time to establish new procedures and regulations, every day that delays the work means that relief remains out of reach for New Jersey families even longer.

Once the final members of the PDAC are appointed, they must move swiftly to hold public meetings and begin gathering the in-depth data needed for their work. By moving forward, state leaders will promote a more affordable future for all Garden State residents.

End Notes

[i] RAND Corporation, Prescription Drug Prices in the U.S. Are 2.78 Times Those in Other Countries, 2024. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2024/02/01.html. RAND estimates that retail prescription drug spending increased by 91 percent between 2000 and 2020.

[ii] Congressional Research Service, Negotiation of Drug Prices in Medicare Part D, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11318

[iii] KFF, Explaining the Prescription Drug Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, 2023. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/explaining-the-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/

[iv] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: Negotiated Prices for Initial Price Applicability Year 2026, https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fact-sheet-negotiated-prices-initial-price-applicability-year-2026.pdf; KFF, FAQs about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, 2024. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/faqs-about-the-inflation-reduction-acts-medicare-drug-price-negotiation-program/

[v] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Inflation Reduction Act: CMS Implementation Timeline, 2022. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/10522-inflation-reduction-act-timeline.pdf; KFF, FAQs about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, 2024. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/faqs-about-the-inflation-reduction-acts-medicare-drug-price-negotiation-program/

[vi] NJPP Analysis of Census Bureau – American Community Survey,  Table S2704, ACS 1-Year Estimates 2023. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S2704?q=S2704&g=040XX00US34

[vii] NJPP Analysis of Census Bureau – American Community Survey,  Table S2704, ACS 1-Year Estimates 2023. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S2704?q=S2704&g=040XX00US34

[viii] NJPP Analysis of Census Bureau – American Community Survey,  Table S2704, ACS 1-Year Estimates 2023. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S2704?q=S2704&g=040XX00US34

[ix] For discussion of annual health care spending, see: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, NHE Fact Sheet, 2022, https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-reports/national-health-expenditure-data/nhe-fact-sheet#. For discussion of prescription drug affordability across adult age groups, see: KFF, Public Opinion on Prescription Drugs and Their Prices, 2023, https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/. For discussion of behaviors associated with high prescription drug costs, see: Healthcare Value Hub, New Jersey Residents Worried about High Drug Costs; Support a Range of Government Solutions, 2023, https://www.healthcarevaluehub.org/advocate-resources/publications/new-jersey-residents-worried-about-high-drug-costs-support-range-government-solutions-1.

[x] Quote from Senator Vitale, Chair of the Senate Health Committee. Office of Governor Phil Murphy, Governor Murphy Signs Legislative Package to Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable for New Jerseyans, 2023, https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562023/20230710a.shtml.

[xi] Politico Pro, Assembly Speaker recommends AARP lobbyist for prescription drug council position, 2024. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/04/assembly-speaker-recommends-aarp-lobbyist-for-prescription-drug-council-position-00154731; Politico Pro, Murphy makes long-awaited drug council appointments, 2024. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/03/murphy-makes-long-awaited-drug-council-appointments-00148915

[xii] New Jersey Policy Perspective, The Best Medicine: How the Drug Affordability Council Can Advance Future Drug Pricing Reforms in New Jersey, 2023. https://www.njpp.org/publications/blog-category/the-best-medicine-how-the-drug-affordability-council-can-advance-future-drug-pricing-reforms-in-new-jersey/

Beyond the Pandemic: New Data Reveals Growing Health Insurance Coverage Gaps

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

All New Jersey residents deserve affordable, quality health care, regardless of immigration status, race or ethnicity, gender, age, education, or employment status. However, access to coverage, which helps mitigate individuals’ rising health care costs, remains plagued by significant gaps and challenges.

With a rising rate of residents who lack insurance, New Jersey’s leaders urgently need to address gaps in coverage. Extending existing programs that connect residents with affordable coverage regardless of immigration status and expanding coverage options for all residents would ensure that everyone can access the health coverage they need.

Coverage Gaps Re-appeared with the End of Pandemic-Era Protections

2023 marked the end of COVID-19 pandemic-era protections that kept many people covered by affordable health insurance, resulting in the first increase in uninsured residents since the pandemic began. The end of the main coverage protections was called the Medicaid “unwinding” — the reevaluation of every enrollee’s eligibility for the program after the pandemic-era pause on disenrollments ended.[i] The huge losses in coverage resulted in many families unexpectedly losing or having to change insurance.

In 2023 alone, over 660,000 New Jerseyans were uninsured, a nearly 6% increase from 2022, according to recently released data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This significant increase in state residents living without health insurance raises alarms about the recent reopening of pre-pandemic gaps in coverage and potential threats to the gains made since the introduction of the Affordable Care Act.

Racial and Economic Disparities Continue to Plague the Goal of Universal Coverage

In addition to an increase in uninsured rates, the data shows persistent racial and economic disparities in coverage rates. In particular, residents with incomes between 138 and 399 percent of the federal poverty level (between about $34,300 and $99,400 for a family of three, such as a single mother with two children) were more likely to lose coverage in 2023 than other income groups.[ii] These residents, ineligible for Medicaid and less likely to have employer coverage, faced increased uncertainty as their previous coverage options ended.

Gaps in coverage for low-wage workers and families struggling to make ends meet are closely tied to a history of racism and xenophobia; restrictions in programs like Medicaid, variations in the quality of employer-sponsored insurance, and even limitations on the state health insurance marketplaces have been structured to limit coverage for specific groups.[iii] Unfortunately, residents of color and immigrants still do not have equitable access to affordable coverage. Black residents remain twice as likely to be uninsured than white residents, while Hispanic/Latinx residents are over six times more likely to be uninsured than non-Hispanic/Latinx New Jerseyans. Immigrants, too, are far more likely to lack coverage, with non-citizens remaining over six times more likely to be uninsured than naturalized citizens and nearly 10 times more likely to be uninsured than citizens born in the United States.

Disparities continue at the county level, as counties with larger immigrant populations experience higher uninsured rates. Because of gaps in coverage, residents in counties with the largest communities of non-citizens are twice as likely to be uninsured than residents in counties with similar income levels but smaller communities of non-citizen residents.[iv]

State Leaders Need to Expand Affordable Coverage Options for All Residents

To provide affordable coverage for all, New Jersey leaders need to open the NJ FamilyCare program to older age groups and the state marketplace, GetCoveredNJ, to all residents regardless of immigration status. Additionally, the state should explore the opportunity to establish a state public option that would be available to all residents, covering adults and children who still lack affordable options due to income and immigration status.[v] Leaders must improve outreach and connections between programs so that no one loses coverage unnecessarily.

While state leaders have begun initiatives, such as the highly successful Cover All Kids program, to address gaps, persistent holes in the patchwork of coverage options will prevent the state from achieving significant improvement for all of New Jersey’s residents.[vi] As long as gaps continue for residents based on age, immigration status, and employment, universal coverage will stay out of reach.

With stronger stitching, our patchwork system of coverage can better provide accessible, affordable health coverage for all.

End Notes

[i] Stay Covered NJ, Eligibility Unwinding, 2023. https://nj.gov/humanservices/dmahs/staycoverednj/unwinding/

[ii] NJPP Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2023, Table S2701 and 2023 Federal Poverty Levels at: https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/

[iii] Health Affairs, Structural Racism In Historical And Modern US Health Care Policy, 2022. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01466; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Health Coverage Rates Vary Widely Across — and Within — Racial and Ethnic Groups, 2024. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/health-coverage-rates-vary-widely-across-and-within-racial-and-ethnic-groups

[iv] The average percent of the population across counties made up of non-citizens is 8.6%, based on NJPP Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2023 Table DP02.

[v] See footnote below on the Cover All Kids program. This program was broken into three phases of insurance enrollment goals for: (1) kids who were already eligible for NJ FamilyCare but not enrolled, (2) kids who were income-eligible but previously ineligible for NJ FamilyCare due to immigration status, and (3) kids who are both income-ineligible for NJ FamilyCare but don’t have access to other affordable options such as GetCoveredNJ due to immigration status. As of September 2024, the first two phases have been implemented, but the third phase still remains unaddressed. The law, P.L.2021, c.132., allows for the state to explore public options to fill this gap.  https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2020/S3798

[vi] NJ Spotlight News, Big enrollment of undocumented kids in NJ health insurance program, 2023. https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2023/08/large-number-undocumented-children-enrolled-for-nj-health-insurance-program/; New Jersey Department of Human Services, Cover All Kids, 2024. https://nj.gov/coverallkids/

Taxing “Super Luxury” Home Sales Could Make New Jersey Affordable for More Residents

Posted on by Peter Chen

As the cost of housing in New Jersey continues to soar, making it increasingly unaffordable for many residents, the market for “super luxury” homes – properties with exceptionally high price tags – continues to rise at a faster rate than all other homes. Applying a higher fee to the sale of these expensive homes could generate hundreds of millions in revenue, helping to make the state more affordable for low-income and middle-class residents. Crucially, this tax would be targeted exclusively to the wealthiest households.

New research from national experts suggests that adding a 4 percent tax on the sale of homes above $1 million could raise substantial revenue for the state. With New Jersey already facing a structural deficit, this new revenue source could fund vital programs that make living and raising a family in the state more affordable. These programs could include affordable housing initiatives, rental and mortgage assistance, and working family tax credits like the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit.

The impact of this fee would be limited to a small fraction of the housing market. Statewide, less than 10 percent of home sales exceed $1 million.[i] Levying a 4 percent tax on home sales over $2 million would affect only the top 2 percent of sales, while raising over $200 million in annual revenue for the state. Extending this same tax to homes sold over $1 million could generate hundreds of millions of dollars more for the state.

New Jersey’s existing 1 percent assessment on properties sold for over $1 million has not dampened the luxury home market. In fact, luxury home sales increased in 2023, even as overall sales declined.

Expanding the fee on very expensive homes would provide essential funding for affordable housing and critical infrastructure in New Jersey. It would also ensure that the state’s wealthiest residents, rather than low- and middle-income households, contribute their fair share to these vital resources.

End Notes

[i] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) analysis of data from Zillow, the National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Census Bureau, and various state and local agencies. Data on file with author.

 

New Jersey Chooses People Over Profits in the Fiscal Year 2025 State Budget

Posted on by Peter Chen

Headlined by a new tax on the world’s most profitable companies to fund public transit, New Jersey’s latest state budget prioritizes people over corporate profits. The newly adopted Corporate Transit Fee will collect $1.1 billion for NJ Transit, covering the agency’s looming budget shortfall and preventing drastic service cuts that would leave riders stranded.

This choice by lawmakers marks a significant departure from previous budget cycles that favored short-sighted corporate tax cuts and ignored long-term solutions for the state’s aging infrastructure. As the first-ever dedicated source of funding for NJ Transit, the Corporate Transit Fee will not only provide stable revenue to the historically underfunded agency but serve as a model for addressing New Jersey’s other pressing needs, from crumbling schools to an unprecedented shortage of affordable housing.

In this current era of record-breaking corporate profits that never seem to trickle down, there is no better time for lawmakers to call on those with the most wealth to pay their fair share towards the public goods that make New Jersey a great place to live, work, and raise a family.

The Corporate Transit Fee: A Model for New Jersey

At its core, the state budget is about what lawmakers choose to prioritize. This year, the choice was clear: The Corporate Transit Fee clawed back a $1 billion tax cut for large, mostly out-of-state corporations and set aside those funds to save NJ Transit, a pillar of the economy and lifeline for millions of riders.

The 2.5 percent fee will only be paid by corporations making more than $10 million in profits in New Jersey, like Amazon and Microsoft, and more than four out of five of the companies that will pay it are headquartered out-of-state. This policy recognizes that wealth generated in New Jersey is better off reinvested in New Jersey rather than sitting in a billionaire’s bank account or a corporate shareholder’s stock portfolio. And this is just the beginning.

State lawmakers will need to make similar choices in the future to further improve transit, upgrade centuries-old school buildings, develop new affordable homes, expand access to child care, and strengthen programs that make the state affordable for working-class families.

Looking ahead to next year’s budget, Fiscal Year 2026 already looks to be more challenging than this year’s financial outlook. The newly enacted state budget has the state operating at a structural deficit, where the state expects to spend $2.1 billion more than it’s projected to collect in revenue. This is compounded by projected cost increases on everything from health insurance to construction supplies. Making matters worse, the state continues to plow ahead with a regressive and expensive property tax credit program for senior homeowners, which will cost more than $1 billion annually with no funding source to pay for it. Without additional revenue, the state will struggle to afford its existing obligations, let alone any new investments.

And with elections looming in the next budget cycle, there is no shortage of new policy ideas from gubernatorial candidates, from guaranteed income to affordable child care for all to expanding health care access. But all of these ideas will require more revenue. Drawing on revenues from progressive sources like the Corporate Transit Fee will be crucial to ensuring that those who have benefited most from our state’s economy pay back what they owe to the rest of the state’s residents.

New policies that improve the daily lives of New Jersey residents will require broader changes to the tax code. Corporate tax reforms like “worldwide combined reporting” would close loopholes exploited by multinational corporations. The state could also rein in multi-billion-dollar tax credit programs for developers, Hollywood studios, and artificial intelligence companies with questionable returns on investment for residents. Additionally, lawmakers could end sales tax exemptions for high-end professional services and luxury goods like yachts, and reform taxes on inherited wealth on very wealthy estates.

As wealth accumulates further in the pockets of a small group of wealthy individuals and multinational corporations, it will take more of the same thinking embodied by the Corporate Transit Fee to deepen the state’s investments and build an economy that works for everyone.

Highlights and Lowlights

In many ways, the new state budget mirrors Governor Murphy’s proposal from earlier this year. Even with tax collections coming in lower than projected and federal pandemic aid expiring, the budget maintains funding for critical obligations and programs, from NJ Transit to another full pension payment to a record level of school funding.

With the budget now final, here are some highlights and lowlights on some of the key benchmarks and priorities NJPP identified earlier this year.

Highlights:

Corporate Transit Fee for NJ Transit
The new fee will collect more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2025 for NJ Transit, consistent with what Governor Murphy proposed in his initial budget. This will be NJ Transit’s first-ever dedicated funding in its 45-year history. Roughly 600 companies, 81 percent of them headquartered out-of-state, will pay the fee.

Full Pension Payment
The $7.1 billion pension payment continues a four-year streak of full payments, meeting the state’s promise to public workers and retirees while improving the state’s fiscal outlook and credit rating.

Increased School Funding
More than $900 million goes to additional K-12 school funding, including around $45 million to assist districts still receiving cuts even under a fully-funded school formula. Although these additions to the final budget do not entirely eliminate those cuts, the increase in overall school funding puts needed investments in New Jersey’s public school system.

Preserved Surplus
A $6.2 billion surplus maintains the levels from the governor’s original proposal, ensuring the state has funding left over to address any future economic downturns. Lawmakers resisted the urge to spend down the surplus, keeping the state prepared for volatile economic conditions.

Lowlights:

No Improvements to Tax Credits for Working Families
Family tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit remain flat-funded despite the high cost of living in the state. At the same time, the Legislature failed to advance bills to address the state’s appallingly low WorkFirst New Jersey grants for families in extreme poverty. 

Business Tax Credit Frenzy
In contrast to the lack of assistance for low- and middle-income families, the Legislature continued the feeding frenzy of business tax credits, loosening restrictions on credits for film and television productions and real estate development projects, while opening up half a billion dollars in credits to artificial intelligence, an unproven industry with ethical and environmental concerns.

Another Raid of the Clean Energy Fund
Instead of dedicating Clean Energy Fund dollars to support green energy upgrades for NJ Transit, the budget continues the state’s pattern of raiding the fund to pay for the agency’s basic utility costs.

No Reduction in the Cost of Communication for People Incarcerated
The final budget does not include funding to eliminate the high cost of communication for people incarcerated in state facilities. Currently, people who are incarcerated and their families must pay private contractors to send electronic messages and for phone and video calls, and even short conversations can cost more than a day’s pay.

Strengthening Access to Affordable Reproductive Health Care Coverage Advances Equity

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on S3452. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly supports S3452, which looks to protect and improve reproductive health care access and ensure equity across state coverage here in New Jersey.

All Garden State residents deserve the ability and freedom to choose how and when they grow their families. To truly be a family-friendly state, we need to ensure that all those who are pregnant or who may become pregnant have confidence in their health care. This means guaranteeing that they will have access to affordable and quality care, regardless of their health conditions, income, immigration status, and other circumstances. By requiring that all state programs consistently offer all critical coverage for pregnancy, including abortion, and removing financial barriers to that care, this bill gives families the knowledge and certainty that is so desperately needed for the delicate, and often unpredictable, processes of reproductive health.

While we do not yet have a published OLS fiscal note on this bill, we know that the costs, especially because many state programs have already offered this coverage, will likely be minimal in comparison to other spending in the state budget. Additionally, each dollar that is committed to guaranteeing this coverage across programs represents an investment in the future; with health care, we know that accessing vital care when it is needed reduces long-term health problems and future — and, often, growing — costs for on-going medical issues. As a result, this investment saves the state money in the long run.

There is simply no need to artificially continue gaps in coverage and needlessly threaten uncertainty in health care for any New Jersey residents. Doing so creates economic hardship and discourages families from growing and investing in their own futures. It continues sexist, racist, and xenophobic tropes that we know we should leave far behind in our history. In the year 2024, no one in our state, which offers such great opportunities for advanced medical care, should have to wonder if they can access or afford life-saving reproductive care.

We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill today.

Thank you for your time.

How StayNJ is Even More Regressive Than at First Glance

Posted on by Peter Chen

At first glance, StayNJ sounds like a promising initiative to help New Jersey’s senior homeowners stay in their homes. Who wouldn’t want to “cut property taxes in half for seniors”? However, the new property tax credit program disproportionately benefits the state’s wealthiest homeowners, an issue made worse by an overlooked flaw in StayNJ’s design: how it interacts with New Jersey’s two other major property tax credit programs.

In addition to the program’s high income cap of $500,000, higher benefits for more expensive homes, and the exclusion of renters, the regressive structure of StayNJ is compounded by how it interacts with ANCHOR and the Senior Freeze, resulting in even larger payments going to the highest-income households rather than the lower-income homeowners and renters who are most likely to be housing insecure.

As the newly released StayNJ Task Force Report details, the maximum property tax credit of the StayNJ, ANCHOR, and Senior Freeze programs combined is capped at half of one’s property tax bill, up to $6,500. Because the income eligibility for StayNJ ($500,000) is much higher than that of ANCHOR ($250,000) and the Senior Freeze ($150,000), the combined cap results in households having their ANCHOR and Senior Freeze benefits subtracted from their StayNJ benefit. Meanwhile, households with more than $250,000 in income would receive the full credit.

To illustrate how this works in practice, the case study below identifies how the combined cap would determine the property tax credit benefits for three hypothetical households: the Trentons, Hamiltons, and Princetons.

The Hamiltons and the Princetons, two households paying the same property tax bill but with vastly different incomes, would get different tax credit amounts from StayNJ because the program counts the Hamilton’s ANCHOR benefit against their StayNJ benefit. The higher-income Princetons would get nearly a quarter more in StayNJ benefits than the Hamiltons due to their higher income and ineligibility for ANCHOR.

The even lower-income Trentons would get dramatically less from StayNJ, both because of their lower property tax bill and the property tax credits they receive under ANCHOR and the Senior Freeze. In this scenario, the lowest-income homeowner would get nearly nine times less from StayNJ than the highest-income household, and roughly half of the total property tax credit amount from the three programs combined, with the Trentons receiving $3,500 total and the Princetons receiving $6,500 in total.

Take these examples and apply them across the state and one can see the bigger problem. Using the already regressive structure of StayNJ and subtracting out benefits from ANCHOR and the Senior Freeze results in an even more regressive program, where households with incomes higher than $250,000 receive the largest StayNJ benefits by virtue of earning too much to qualify for the state’s other property tax credits.

In a program as complex and costly as StayNJ, details matter, and the layering of StayNJ with other property tax credits tilts the tax code even more in favor of the state’s wealthiest homeowners at the expense of everyone else.

For more information on the shortcomings of StayNJ for low-income seniors and renters, see NJPP’s analysis of the program and testimony to the StayNJ Task Force.

No Matter What You Call Them, Private School Vouchers Are Bad for New Jersey

Posted on by Mark Weber

New Jersey’s public schools are among the strongest in the nation, a direct result of robust state funding that supports districts and students in every corner of the state. This investment in public schools is now threatened by a sweeping new bill that would establish the first-ever school voucher program in New Jersey, providing tens of millions of dollars in public funds to students attending private schools.[1]

The bill text is careful not to include the word “voucher,” a tactic recommended by anti-public school organizations like the Cato Institute.[2] Instead, the bill uses coded terms like “scholarships” and “tax credits,” but the ultimate outcomes remain the same. With an annual cost of $37.5 million, this proposal would funnel scarce public dollars to unaccountable private schools, harming students, taxpayers, and the future of public education in New Jersey.

New Jersey Cannot Afford School Vouchers, “Tax Credits,” or “Scholarships”

The proposed bill would grant tax credits to corporate and individual taxpayers who make contributions to “student support organizations.” After collecting their administrative fees, these groups would redistribute the funds to private school families. Proponents argue this is different than private school vouchers, which give state funds directly to parents or schools. But that’s a distinction without a difference.

Every public dollar in tax credits for private school scholarships is a dollar that has to be made up somewhere else, either in cuts to public programs or in higher taxes.[3] Given the state’s current fiscal situation, the last thing New Jersey needs right now is a multi-million-dollar giveaway to private schools.

In other states, wealthy individuals and businesses have used similar tax credit schemes to reduce their tax liability by more than the amount of their donation, essentially making money on private school vouchers.[4] The New Jersey bill, as proposed, would create incentives to do the same.

It’s worth noting that in other states, voucher programs started small, but grew enormously in a short time. Arizona’s voucher program, for example, totaled $57 million in 2012 and ballooned to $218 million by 2022.[5] It’s telling that the original version of the New Jersey bill set the total cost at $250 million; if it passes, it wouldn’t at all be surprising to see the bill reach this extremely high cost in the near future.

Most Funding Would Benefit Those Already Enrolled in Private School

The bill sets the income threshold for a family of five at $176,000 — nearly twice the median household income[6] — meaning families that can afford private schools on their own will now take money from the rest of the state’s taxpayers to subsidize their children’s private school education.[7]

Some argue voucher programs do not cost states school funding because the state doesn’t have to pay to educate students who would otherwise attend public school. This logic fails, however, up against the fact that large numbers of private school students wouldn’t attend public school under any circumstances. More than half of New Jersey’s private schools students, for example, attend religious schools; it is reasonable to assume many of their parents would always choose a religious education for them, no matter the availability of private school vouchers.[8]

In fact, data from other states confirm that similar programs subsidize large numbers of private school families whose children never attended public schools. In Florida, for example, 69 percent of students who enrolled in the state’s voucher scholarship program for the first time were already attending private schools.[9] Similarly, two-thirds of Iowa’s voucher students were already enrolled in private schools.[10] Other states have similar figures.[11]

New Jersey Already Gives Extensive Support to Private Schools

By law, New Jersey’s school districts must provide funding to private schools for textbooks, handicap services, nursing, technology, and other programs and services.[12] According to state data, public schools transferred nearly $80 million to private schools in the 2021-22 school year.[13] There is no public audit available showing how, exactly, this money was spent.

In addition, public schools must provide transportation to resident children attending private schools within a 20-mile radius.[14] How much this costs taxpayers is unclear; state data does not separate out transportation costs between public and private school students, further highlighting the state’s lack of oversight for its current private school subsidies.

The current bill doesn’t rescind this private school support; instead, it piles even more subsidies on top of an unfunded mandate, pulling even more money from public schools.

Private Schools Lack Oversight and Are Allowed to Discriminate

Despite receiving public funds, New Jersey’s private schools have little to no accountability to the state’s taxpayers. Private school students do not take state tests, so there is no way to determine if they are receiving an adequate education. Unlike public schools, the state doesn’t have a true monitoring and accountability system in place for private schools.[15]

Privatization advocates will often argue that parental “choice” is the only accountability taxpayers need. This is, of course, absurd. If taxpayers are going to foot the bill for private school education, they deserve a real oversight system to protect their interests. Such a system, however, requires significant resources — funding that could be used to improve public schools, which are open to all students.

The current bill has no provision for private schools to change their admissions policies, meaning schools receiving taxpayer funds could systematically exclude students with learning disabilities or students who are English Language Learners, concentrating these students — whose costs are greater — into public schools. As is the case in other states, religious schools that discriminate against LGBTQ+ students would also be eligible for public funding.[16]

Voucher Programs Lead to Worse Student Outcomes

Proponents of private school vouchers used to claim that private schools get better academic outcomes than public schools. Their claims were based on decades-old, small-scale studies that inadequately controlled for differences in student characteristics.

As researchers at the University of Indiana point out, more recent studies with better methods paint a very different picture.[17] States that have implemented large-scale private school voucher systems have seen dramatic declines in student outcomes. In some studies, the effects have been larger than estimates of the learning loss from the COVID-19 pandemic.[18]

There Are Better Ways to Support Students

 Public school leaders across New Jersey have begged the Legislature to revise the state’s school funding formula, which has been shown to be inadequate in meeting the current needs of students.[19] Implementing a new scheme for funding private schools takes time and attention away from this important work. It also diverts funds away from public schools and toward private schools, which have no meaningful oversight and can pick and choose who they admit.

New Jersey’s students deserve better. The Legislature should drop this bill and get back to the work of ensuring that every student can attend a well-resourced public school.

End Notes

[1] https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2024/S3035

[2] https://www.cato.org/education-wiki/scholarship-tax-credits-vouchers

[3] https://networkforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Are-tax-credits-scholarships-a-voucher-by-a-different-nameƒ.pdf

[4] https://itep.org/tax-avoidance-fuels-school-vouchers-privatization-efforts/

[5] https://azdor.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/REPORTS_CREDITS_2023_fy2022-private-school-tuition-org-credit-report.pdf

[6] https://data.census.gov/all?q=New+Jersey+Income+and+Poverty

[7] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/20/2024-03355/child-nutrition-programs-income-eligibility-guidelines#p-15

[8] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/

[9] https://www.wmfe.org/education/2023-09-14/florida-policy-institute-school-voucher-data-step-up-for-students

[10] https://educate.iowa.gov/press-release/2024-01-26/certified-enrollment-2023-24-holds-steady-16757-esa-participants-enrolled-iowa-accredited-nonpublic

[11] https://www.ncpecoalition.org/voucher-recipients

[12] https://www.nj.gov/education/nonpublic/

[13] https://www.nj.gov/education/finance/fp/ufb/

[14] https://www.nj.gov/education/genfo/faq/faq_transportation.shtml

[15] https://www.nj.gov/education/qsac/

[16] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2020/01/23/anti-lgbt-florida-schools-getting-school-vouchers/

[17] https://ceep.indiana.edu/education-policy/policy-briefs/2023/research-on-school-vouchers.pdf

[18] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/research-on-school-vouchers-suggests-concerns-ahead-for-education-savings-accounts/

[19] https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/unlocking-academic-success-revitalizing-new-jerseys-school-funding-formula-for-student-achievement/

What to Look for in the New Jersey Budget for Fiscal Year 2025

Posted on by Peter Chen

New Jersey’s state budget can be a powerful tool to reduce income inequality, advance racial equity, and improve the standard of living for working families. This requires investments in areas that boost widespread economic security and opportunity — like strong public schools, affordable health care, and reliable mass transit — supported by a fair tax code that primarily raises revenue from profitable corporations and individuals with the highest incomes and wealth.

The investments made in the state budget are vital to the state’s social and economic health, especially now as many working- and middle-class residents struggle to keep up with rising costs. But with lawmakers touting affordability as their top priority in the State House, working families may see cuts to essential programs or have to pay more in taxes, fares, and fees to make up for lower-than-expected revenue collections and a newly enacted $1 billion corporate tax cut.

Without additional federal pandemic aid to draw from, Governor Murphy and legislative leaders have a choice. They can either balance the next state budget on the backs of families who need the most help or require the wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute more toward the public investments that helped fuel their success.

Ahead of Governor Murphy’s budget address for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, NJPP has identified the following key benchmarks and priorities to evaluate whether the next state budget sufficiently advances economic, social, and racial justice.

Overall Fiscal Health

Bring Back the Corporate Surcharge on Big Businesses
New Jersey is set to lose $1 billion in annual revenue after state lawmakers allowed the Corporation Business Tax surcharge to expire on January 1. This tax cut will make it difficult for lawmakers to balance the state budget as-is, let alone one with any new or expanded programs aimed at boosting affordability. Since the corporate surcharge is only paid by the most profitable corporations in the world — including multinational corporations headquartered outside of New Jersey — lawmakers should bring back this targeted 2.5 percent tax to balance the state budget without raising costs for low- and middle-income households.

Fully Fund Pensions and Schools
Beyond the inherent value that pensions and public schools provide to retirees and students, respectively, New Jersey’s long-term fiscal health improves when the state fully funds its major obligations. After years of skipped pension payments and underfunding the school funding formula — culminating in 11 credit downgrades during the Christie administration alone — Governor Murphy has reversed course, and the state has seen its credit rating upgraded multiple times as a result. Higher credit ratings result in lower interest rates when borrowing and paying off debt, providing savings to the state and taxpayers alike. To keep up this momentum, lawmakers should make another full pension payment and continue ramping up state aid for public schools.

Maintain a Healthy Surplus
A healthy surplus allows the state to weather difficult economic conditions, such as a recession, without resorting to drastic budget cuts when tax collections come in lower than expected. In the past, New Jersey failed to maintain a robust surplus, leaving the state unprepared at the onset of the pandemic. At the start of the current fiscal year, New Jersey had a surplus of roughly $8 billion, which should be maintained, at a minimum. Raiding the surplus, as some lawmakers have suggested, would do nothing to fix the state’s long-term structural deficits and leave the state vulnerable during the next economic downturn.

Family Affordability

Expand and Improve Tax Credits for Working Families
New Jersey has two notable tax credit programs designed to put money back in the pockets of low- and middle-class families across the state: the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Together, these tax credits provide targeted, direct assistance to workers and families who often spend that money immediately in their local communities, providing a broader economic benefit. Expanding the eligibility and benefit levels of these credits would go a long way toward the governor’s goal of making New Jersey the best place to raise a family. Specifically, the CTC should be expanded to include children up to age 12, and the EITC should include taxpayers who file with an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN).

Increase Benefits in WorkFirst NJ to Reduce Poverty
To make New Jersey affordable for everyone, the state should prioritize the lowest-income families who have the hardest time keeping up with the rising cost of living. Yet WorkFirst NJ, the state’s temporary assistance program targeted to residents with the lowest incomes, has not kept up with inflation and has a benefit amount well below the poverty line. The benefit level in WorkFirst NJ should increase to reflect the actual cost of living rather than an outdated, insufficient number.

Health Care

Expand Affordable Health Insurance Options
New Jersey has successfully reduced the uninsured rate for children through the Cover All Kids program, which expanded NJ FamilyCare to all income-eligible kids, regardless of immigration status. However, thousands of children still lack coverage because their families do not qualify for Medicaid and are barred from accessing the state marketplace, GetCovered NJ, even at full price. The budget should eliminate these barriers to affordable health coverage by creating a buy-in option for NJ FamilyCare plans and opening the marketplace and its state subsidies to all residents, regardless of immigration status.

Increase Outreach for NJ FamilyCare
The end of pandemic-related health coverage expansions has forced more than 360,000 New Jersey residents to lose their coverage, with more than 3 in 4 losing their insurance for procedural reasons alone. The state has invested in outreach to reduce the number of eligible residents being disenrolled, but state funding must increase to prevent more families from losing their health insurance.

Continue to Fund Harm Reduction Expansion
Harm reduction centers have been shown to prevent overdose deaths, which account for more than 3,000 deaths annually. By providing critical resources such as naloxone and safe-use supplies, harm reduction centers save lives and connect people who use drugs to the care and support they need. However, as the state looks to double the number of harm reduction centers after decades of disinvestment, additional funding will be required to meet increased demand and further reduce overdose deaths.

Environment and Transit

Fully Fund NJ Transit to Avoid Drastic Fare Hikes
NJ Transit plays a vital role in the daily lives of commuters and the state’s broader economy. However, the agency’s future is in jeopardy with a $200 million budget shortfall that will grow to $1 billion next fiscal year. To cover this year’s deficit, the agency proposed a 15 percent fare increase, but this will not solve the structural issue behind the agency’s financial woes: a lack of sufficient dedicated state funding. Fare increases also function as a regressive tax on working-class commuters and have been shown to reduce ridership. NJ Transit desperately needs sustained, dedicated state aid, as NJPP identified in a report last year. Without a plan to use progressive sources that tax those with the most wealth, the state runs the risk of drastic service cuts and fare hikes.

Use the Clean Energy Fund on Clean Energy
For the last decade, money dedicated to clean energy has been diverted to NJ Transit to pay for basic maintenance instead of its intended purpose of promoting the use of clean energy. If lawmakers continue to divert money from the Clean Energy Fund to NJ Transit, the budget should include specific language to ensure these dollars are used to transition the agency’s buses, trains, and buildings to green energy and zero emissions.

Criminal Legal System

Eliminate the Cost of Communication for People Incarcerated
Last year, New Jersey took a monumental step in addressing the hardship of fines and fees in the criminal legal system by eliminating public defender fees. The state budget should continue to reduce these hardships by addressing the exorbitant cost of prison communication. The families of people who are incarcerated must pay private contractors for phone and video calls with their loved ones, and a short conversation can cost more than a day’s pay for people in state facilities. Communication with family can reduce recidivism and help those incarcerated maintain ties with their community. The state budget should cover these costs, as other states do, and ensure meaningful access to phone and video services.

New Jersey’s Population is Actually Growing, Despite Data from Moving Van Companies

Posted on by Peter Chen

Every year, surveys from moving van companies sound the alarm on people moving from New Jersey. But in reality, New Jersey keeps growing in population, workers, and income. While these companies excel at transporting household possessions, research isn’t exactly their forte.

What’s worse, these “studies” are used to fuel the false narrative that taxes cause wealthy people to leave the state. This leads to demands for tax cuts for the wealthy, which would cost the state billions of dollars in revenue and hurt essential public investments such as schools, environmental protections, and public transportation.

New Jersey Keeps Growing in Population

New Jersey’s population is rising, contrary to the conclusions of moving company surveys. Between 1970 and 2020, the state’s population increased by 30 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census. With its consistent methodologies, comprehensive, inclusive approach, and official government oversight, the Decennial Census is the most reliable measure of population.

New Jersey's Population Grew 30% Since 1970 - Table detailing population growth from 7,168,164 in 1970, to 9,288,994 in 2020.

The Census data contrasts sharply with moving companies’ data conclusions about population changes. Their flawed methodologies only show the interstate movements of people who use one moving company – their company. A single moving business doesn’t encompass the wide range of movers available, and many people move without the use of professional movers or rental trucks. Additionally, consistent with the rest of the country, most New Jersey moves are in-state, not out-of-state.

New Jersey Keeps Adding Wealthy Residents, Not Losing Them

Wealthy people are not leaving the state in droves. Despite anecdotes suggesting otherwise, IRS statistics show that the number of New Jersey high-income households (and their total income) keeps increasing. Specifically, these households have increased by about 26 percent since 2016, according to the IRS Statistics of Income (SOI).

New Jersey's Millionaire Population Grew 26% Since 2016 - Table detailing millionaire population growth from 19,070 in 2016 to 23,950 in 2020.

The SOI IRS data shows that New Jersey continues to add taxpayers, income, and high-income residents. Even when high-earning individuals leave for other states, New Jersey’s booming economic engine generates more than enough wealth and high-income employment to make up for it.

Taxes are rarely the reason why people move, as evidenced by exhaustive research. Rather than resorting to drastic tax cuts for the wealthy that undermine critical infrastructure and services, policymakers should focus on making life more affordable for working families and improving and maintaining the amenities that make New Jersey a great place to live.

Older Posts »»