Category: Blog

State of the State 2024: Rapid Reaction

Posted on by Peter Chen

Governor Phil Murphy delivered his sixth annual State of the State address last week, marking the start of a new legislative session in New Jersey. The address focused on ways to make New Jersey the best place to raise a family, from protecting reproductive rights and freedoms to new policies to make the state more affordable. However, the speech lacked any reference to how the state would pay for these investments, particularly in the aftermath of lawmakers’ decision not to renew the Corporate Business Tax surcharge by year’s end.

Without the corporate surcharge’s $1 billion in annual revenue generation, lawmakers will be hard-pressed to fund the many programs and services the Governor outlined in his speech. To make matters worse, the state’s financial outlook is not as strong as it was a year ago, with tax collections coming in lower than expected and federal pandemic aid running out.

Below are the rapid reactions from NJPP’s team of analysts on what was in the speech, what was notably absent, and what state lawmakers should focus on in the new legislative session.

Peter Chen
Senior Policy Analyst (Tax and Budget)

Governor Murphy spoke at length about how his administration wasn’t afraid to address the “fiscal elephant in the room,” cleaning up the state’s finances with full pension payments and increased school funding. But other “fiscal elephants” went unmentioned, namely the looming deficits for NJ Transit and the child care sector. These services desperately need funding, as do all other services trumpeted in the Governor’s address. There was no mention of additional revenue to replace the $1 billion lost from the corporate surcharge, and we all know that this revenue will have to be made up somewhere else in the budget.

Additionally, for a speech focused on making New Jersey the best place to raise a family, there were few new policies focused directly on family affordability. Certainly, a proposal to expand affordable housing is welcome news, but there was no mention of direct cash programs to help raise families out of poverty. For example, the Governor did not propose any expansion of tax credits for working families, and there was nothing in the speech about infant and toddler child care.

To address the “fiscal elephants” in the room and make New Jersey affordable for families with the lowest incomes, state lawmakers should:

  • Bring back the Corporation Business Tax surcharge. To pay for New Jersey’s long-term investments and ambitious programs, the state must ensure the biggest and most profitable corporations pay their fair share. Bringing back the 2.5 percent surcharge would be a good start.
  • Expand family and child tax credits. Expanding the Child Tax Credit to older children, increasing the benefit amount, and removing barriers to the Earned Income Tax Credit could substantially reduce poverty and make life affordable for low- and middle-income families.

 

Brittany Holom-Trundy
Senior Policy Analyst (Health and Safety Net)

The Governor used his speech to acknowledge the significant medical challenges residents face across the state, and he outlined some new initiatives to promote affordability in health care. Between medical debt relief through the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act — named in honor of a young policy analyst who tragically lost her life on New Year’s Day — and the elimination of financial barriers to abortion through the Reproductive Equity Act, the Governor’s proposals would make New Jersey a healthier and more equitable state.

It’s important to note that addressing medical debt on the back end is one piece of a broader puzzle regarding health care affordability. Lawmakers should advance this proposal with initiatives that expand access to affordable health coverage options for all residents. This would ensure New Jersey has the leading health system in the country.

Finally, the word “poverty” was not in the Governor’s remarks, as it had been in years past. Despite a theme of making the state more affordable for families, decision-makers continue to leave direct cash assistance programs — namely WorkFirst NJ — to languish. As a result, federal dollars and state resources continue to fall short of their full potential in supporting families with the lowest incomes.

To make health care more affordable for families with low incomes, lawmakers should consider initiatives that:

  • Expand affordable coverage options for all residents, regardless of immigration status, age, race, or gender. This includes removing barriers to NJ FamilyCare and GetCovered NJ to ensure that additional age groups are eligible, building on the success of the Cover All Kids program.
  • Revamp the WorkFirst NJ program, so families with low incomes have the support they need. This includes increasing monthly grant amounts, smoothing exit ramps, and ensuring the program’s requirements meet the needs of residents looking to build a sustainable future.

 

Alex Ambrose
Policy Analyst (Transportation and Climate)

Governor Murphy recommitted to New Jersey’s 100 percent clean energy goal by 2035, which is crucial for moving away from harmful fossil fuels. However, he stopped short of action by not taking the opportunity to urge the Legislature to pass bills to ensure these efforts become reality. In the last session, lawmakers failed to codify the goal into law, and this year’s bills remain in the balance due to misinformed opposition. The longer the state waits, the more time these fossil fuel-funded misinformation campaigns have to stop offshore wind projects, holding back the state’s transition to a clean energy future. Typically, these campaigns weaponize “energy privilege” when wealthy white communities oppose wind projects, slowing clean energy goals in the majority of Black and brown communities who bear the brunt of the climate crisis.

Also, a notable omission from the speech is NJ Transit and its impending fiscal cliff, which will face a budget shortfall of $120 million in the upcoming fiscal year. That shortfall will quickly balloon to nearly $1 billion (yes, with a ‘b’) by the next fiscal year, threatening a vital service that millions of New Jersey residents rely on. While the Governor has yet to propose a solution, Senate President Nick Scutari recommended using the corporate surcharge to fully fund NJ Transit in his speech during the swearing-in ceremony for new legislators.

During the new legislative session, lawmakers can make progress on clean energy and public transit if they:

  • Establish clean energy standards that center environmental justice. New Jersey needs comprehensive clean energy legislation that prioritizes Black and brown communities that are disproportionately harmed by pollution and the climate crisis.
  • Fully fund NJ Transit. Lawmakers can fund NJ Transit by bringing back the corporate surcharge. Fully funding the agency is the only way to avoid drastic service cuts and fare hikes.

 

Marleina Ubel,
Senior Policy Analyst (Criminal Legal Systems and Immigrants’ Rights)

The Governor spent a minor part of his speech restating his commitment to criminal justice reform, where he acknowledged the failures of the drug war and the state’s glaring racial disparities in incarceration. As he spoke about helping those “unjustly thrown behind bars” get back on track, the Governor mentioned the rollout of a new clemency initiative we’re looking forward to learning more about.

While it’s important that the Governor stated these facts, it’s hard to look past how these words stand in stark contrast to last year’s actions when legislators passed, and the Governor signed various tough-on-crime bills and rollbacks to bail reform. This tough-on-crime approach fuels racial disparities in jails and prisons and is proven to be an ineffective response to public safety, running counter to the Governor’s promise to create a more fair and humane system.

On immigrants’ rights, it was refreshing to hear the Governor recognize immigrants as the backbone of New Jersey, especially now with xenophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric on the rise. However, the context used in his speech was narrow, focusing solely on immigrant business owners. Given the challenges migrants are facing, we would have liked to see the Governor stand up and support all immigrants, from those who have built their lives here to the newcomers dreaming of doing the same.

Looking forward, here are some ways lawmakers can further reform the criminal legal system and make New Jersey a more inclusive state for all:

  • Drop the tough-on-crime rhetoric and policies. We know this approach is ineffective and harmful and that these policies disproportionately harm Black and brown residents. Instead, invest in community-led initiatives and programs that get residents the support they need.
  • Promote accountability in policing. A proposal to create civilian complaint review boards died last legislative session–this year, lawmakers must ensure this bill passes.
  • Codify the Immigrant Trust Directive. The New Jersey Attorney General’s directive currently prevents state agencies from collaborating and sharing private information with ICE. Codifying this directive will build trust between immigrant families and help make New Jersey a truly fair and welcoming state.

New Jersey’s Lowest Income Families Could Lose Their Emergency Assistance

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Thousands of low-income families across New Jersey could lose vital cash support in February unless lawmakers extend a provision in the state’s Emergency Assistance program that eased restrictive limits on benefits.[i] A lifeline for families who fall on hard times and risk losing their housing, Emergency Assistance provides direct support to cover the costs of back rent or mortgage payments, utilities, food, clothing, and more to protect residents from the harmful effects of poverty and homelessness.

Like many other cash assistance programs for low-income families, Emergency Assistance is an effective anti-poverty tool that is undermined by outdated and punitive restrictions implemented during the welfare reform movement of the 1990s, including arbitrary lifetime limits on benefits. In 2018, state lawmakers recognized that the 12-month lifetime limit on Emergency Assistance was overly restrictive and created new exemptions for families facing the greatest barriers to stable housing and a secure income. However, the exemptions in this law are temporary and are set to expire in February 2024 unless lawmakers act fast.

The 2018 law lifted the lifetime limit for residents who are: living with a disability; full-time caretakers of children or dependents with disabilities; over 60 years old; receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI); or facing persistent barriers to employment.[ii] During the current lame duck session, New Jersey lawmakers and Governor Murphy can make sure these low-income residents and their families continue to qualify for the cash support they need by enacting S3960/A5549 and maintaining the exemptions to lifetime limits on Emergency Assistance implemented five years ago.

Arbitrary Time Limits on Cash Assistance are Punitive and Harmful for Low-Income Families

The time limits in New Jersey’s cash assistance programs within Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) are not grounded in evidence but come from outdated and discriminatory stereotypes from the 1990s welfare reform movement.[iii] Lifetime limits on benefits, like the 12-month limit in Emergency Assistance, set arbitrary cutoffs for people who often still need assistance and face an imminent risk of losing their housing. This punitive approach means that assistance is not provided when it is needed most, further contributing to the cycle of poverty and making it harder for families to build a strong foundation and invest in their future.[iv]

Emergency Assistance benefits provide additional support to families participating in other WorkFirst New Jersey programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and General Assistance — during crisis situations so they can stay housed, fed, and clothed. The assistance ranges in dollar amounts depending on the circumstances, and families can apply for each month they are in need for up to 12 months total. Continuation of benefits requires regular re-assessments of the participant’s need and development of a plan for recovery.[v] Despite its role in filling a critical gap in the state’s cash support system, Emergency Assistance has the shortest lifetime limit of the WorkFirst New Jersey programs, so most participants are only eligible for one-fifth of the total time they are allowed to access other programs.[vi]

In Fiscal Year 2023, more than 5,700 residents receiving TANF and General Assistance each month also received Emergency Assistance benefits, representing roughly 13 percent of recipients,[vii] with an average grant of $1,032 per month.[viii] Thousands of these families received Emergency Assistance every year due to the 2018 law, further demonstrating how more families can get the support they need without lifetime limits in effect.[ix] With the harm of the pandemic still felt throughout the state and far too many families living in poverty, this additional assistance is essential for low-income families.

Unless lawmakers act soon and pass S3960/A5549, New Jersey risks slipping backward in its support for low-income families. There is no sound policy rationale to maintain arbitrary and outdated lifetime limits on assistance, and this lame duck session is an opportunity to strengthen cash assistance programs and create the robust safety net that New Jersey families deserve.

End Notes

[i] NorthJersey.com, Most vulnerable could become homeless if NJ Legislature fails to extend aid, advocates say, 2023. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2023/11/21/vulnerable-could-end-up-homeless-if-nj-legislature-fails-to-extend-aid-shelters/71657027007

[ii] Legal Services of New Jersey, Emergency Assistance and Time Limit Extensions, 2022. https://www.lsnjlaw.org/legal-topics/government-aid-services/emergency-assistance/pages/ea-time-limit-aspx; New Jersey Department of Human Services, Work First New Jersey Emergency Assistance Training, 2019. https://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dmhas/information/provider/Provider_Meetings/2019/DMHAS%20EA_080119_SJM.pdf; N.J. Stat. § 44:10-51 (3). https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-44-poor/chapter-4410-reference-to-county-welfare-board-to-mean-reference-to-county-welfare-agency/section-4410-51-provision-of-emergency-assistance

[iii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance, 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/research/income-security/tanf-policies-reflect-racist-legacy-of-cash-assistance. Congressional Research Service, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History, 2023.https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44668.pdf

[iv] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Three Reasons Why Providing Cash to Families With Children Is a Sound Policy Investment, 2022. https://www.cbpp.org/research/income-security/three-reasons-why-providing-cash-to-families-with-children-is-a-sound

[v] New Jersey Department of Human Services, Work First New Jersey Emergency Assistance Training, 2019, pg. 18-19. https://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dmhas/information/provider/Provider_Meetings/2019/DMHAS%20EA_080119_SJM.pdf

[vi] New Jersey Department of Human Services, Work First New Jersey Emergency Assistance Training, 2019, pg. 25. https://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dmhas/information/provider/Provider_Meetings/2019/DMHAS%20EA_080119_SJM.pdf

[vii] NJPP Analysis of New Jersey Treasury – Office of Management and Budget, Governor’s FY2024 Detailed Budget, 2023, pg. D-224. https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/publications/24budget/FY2024BudgetDetail-Full.pdf

[viii] New Jersey Treasury – Office of Management and Budget, Governor’s FY2024 Detailed Budget, 2023, pg. D-224. https://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/publications/24budget/FY2024BudgetDetail-Full.pdf

[ix] New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, Legislative Fiscal Estimate for S866, 2018. https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2018/S1000/866_E2.PDF

The Best Medicine: How the Drug Affordability Council Can Advance Future Drug Pricing Reforms in New Jersey

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Every New Jersey resident deserves access to affordable medicine. Yet, the burden of high and rising drug prices has put essential medications out of reach for many, harming their health, well-being, and financial stability. To combat this crisis, New Jersey lawmakers recently enacted a number of prescription drug reforms, including a law establishing the Drug Affordability Council.

Even with these new laws, however, more actions are needed to fully address the prescription affordability crisis in New Jersey. This analysis highlights the significant role of the Drug Affordability Council in advancing future drug pricing reforms, and includes four recommendations for the council so it can reach its full potential.

New Reforms Take Important Steps But Leave Many Behind

During the 2023 state budget negotiations, lawmakers advanced several significant initiatives to address prescription drug affordability. A package of bills signed by Governor Murphy include measures to increase transparency in the pharmaceutical market, better regulate pharmacy benefit managers (the middlemen of the pharmaceutical industry), and cap prices for a few essential drugs (insulin, EpiPens, and asthma inhalers) in certain insurance plans.[i] One of these bills, S1615, also established the Drug Affordability Council. Together, these reforms complement actions taken at the federal level in the Inflation Reduction Act, which took steps to improve drug affordability for Medicare enrollees.[ii]

Yet, like a rope bridge with weak and missing planks, the reforms still leave a significant amount of work to achieve affordable prescription drugs for all who need them. Many of these reforms only help residents enrolled in particular insurance plans: the federal Inflation Reduction Act, as mentioned, focuses on Medicare enrollees, while many of the state-level reforms focus on individuals insured through certain state-regulated plans or, at their broadest, help those with insurance coverage that includes extremely high copays for medicines. This leaves many people without meaningful assistance, including those who are enrolled in employer self-funded plans as well as those who are uninsured.

The Drug Affordability Council Can Help Advance Future Reforms

Addressing this affordability crisis for all residents requires addressing the root causes of high drug prices that harm everyone, regardless of insurance coverage. Fortunately, the new Drug Affordability Council holds enormous potential to address these root causes and transform the lives of countless patients who have struggled to access life-saving treatments. While the Council cannot unilaterally enact and implement new reforms, it can provide policy and regulatory recommendations to state lawmakers and administrative officials to stop pharmaceutical companies from inflating drug prices, thereby holding them accountable and curbing unjustifiable cost hikes that hinder patients’ access to life-saving treatments.

The Council will also have access to data collected through newly enacted transparency measures, as well as any information gathered through its own research and convenings. With this unprecedented level of data access, its members will be able to produce detailed recommendations for legislative and executive measures for effectively lowering pharmaceutical costs. These reports mark a crucial step in prioritizing the needs of patients over corporate interests.

Recommendations for the Drug Affordability Council

State leaders must set a strong foundation for the Council as it gets up and running to ensure it fulfills its potential in meaningfully addressing high prescription drug costs. This starts with thoughtful appointments to the Council, including those with a patient/consumer perspective, and by setting clear expectations on the need for transparency, community input, and bold recommendations based on best practices from other states. Below are four recommendations that the Murphy administration should consider over the coming months.

1. Appoint Members Who Represent the Interests of Patients, Not the Pharmaceutical Industry

Members of the Council will play a crucial role in setting the prescription drug reform agenda, informing data collection and analyses, and communicating recommendations to legislative and executive leadership. This requires a high level of knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry and relevant policy, as well as a critical eye for research. Ensuring that these roles are fulfilled not only by people with experience in the health care profession but also by those who can represent the patients’ perspectives is crucial for the Council’s work.

The Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the Assembly should carefully review candidates’ expertise and backgrounds when considering their appointments, always remembering that this Council is meant to work for New Jersey residents. The law requires that the Council’s membership be established within 180 days of the bill’s enactment, providing a deadline of January 6, 2024 for the appointments.[iii]

2. Establish a User-Friendly Website to Communicate the Council’s Work

Transparency and accountability must be prioritized in the Council’s research, data collection, and reporting on its own activities. Drug affordability boards in other states have created websites that quickly and easily guide visitors to an explanation of their work, any reports issued, and ways that the public or other interested stakeholders can reach out to discuss priorities.[iv]

New Jersey’s Drug Affordability Council and the Department of Law and Public Safety, the department that will house the Council, should follow the lead of other states by establishing an easy-to-navigate site that can keep the public informed and involved.

3. Build Relationships With Communities Early in the Process

Once the Council’s membership is confirmed, those members should quickly establish a regular schedule of meetings with community organizations to gather input on their work. An in-depth understanding of the major issues facing consumers, and a willingness to incorporate those experiences into the Council’s work, will be essential to conducting successful research and making sound recommendations.

The law requires that the Drug Affordability Council hold open meetings and accept public comments, and that the first of these meetings be held within 30 days once its membership is confirmed.[v] While the public’s involvement in these meetings is a good step for transparency, truncated comments at busy meetings will not be enough to understand the complex landscape of affordability obstacles. Members should incorporate residents’ input even more effectively through regular conversations with community partners throughout the Council’s work.

4. Consider Major Policy Recommendations With Guidance From Other States

The Council will not have to start from scratch, as several other states are many steps ahead in their boards’ and councils’ work. While New Jersey’s Council will approach drug affordability through a Garden State-specific lens, that does not mean that complicated policies explored in detail in other states should be ignored. Instead, the Council should consider major reform recommendations made by other boards, including policies with fully developed frameworks, such as upper payment limits.[vi]

By working with already-existing policies and research from other states, the New Jersey Drug Affordability Council can move quickly to recommend significant reforms and finally help Garden State residents struggling with exorbitant prescription drug prices.

End Notes

[i] 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

[ii] Kaiser Family Foundation, 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/

[iii] P.L.2023, c.106, section 10b. https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/S2000/1615_R2.PDF

[iv] Example websites: Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Board and Advisory Council (https://doi.colorado.gov/insurance-products/health-insurance/prescription-drug-affordability-review-board), Maryland Prescription Drug Affordability Board (https://pdab.maryland.gov/), Oregon Prescription Drug Affordability Board (https://dfr.oregon.gov/pdab/pages/index.aspx).

[v] P.L.2023, c.106, section 10d-g. https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/S2000/1615_R2.PDF

[vi] Three states have empowered their prescription drug affordability boards to set upper payment limits (Maryland, Colorado, and Minnesota). While New Jersey’s Council does not have the power to set upper payment limits itself, it can research potential limits and make recommendations based on that research. Helpful resources from Maryland and Colorado with background research on this policy include: Jane Horvath, Presentation for Maryland Prescription Drug Affordability Board, State Prescription Drug Upper Payment Limits Explained, 22 March 2021. Available at: https://pdab.maryland.gov/documents/presentations/Horvath_Health_Policy_Upper_Pymt_Limits_03222021.pdf or on file with author; State of Reform, Maryland’s Prescription Drug Affordability Board to soon publish draft plan for establishing upper payment limits, 2023, https://stateofreform.com/featured/2023/05/marylands-prescription-drug-affordability-board-to-soon-publish-draft-plan-for-establishing-upper-payment-limits/; Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), presentation to Maryland Prescription Drug Affordability Board, Cost Reviews & Upper Payment Limits, 22 May 2023. Available at: https://pdab.maryland.gov/documents/meetings/2023/havard_med_sch_prst.pdf and on file with author; Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Board, materials on UPL Methodology. Available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/159F04Zi8bWLkRgXrP_uEfsu-uSf4nSJv and on file with author.

Reel Regret: The High Cost of Expanding Film Tax Credits in New Jersey

Posted on by Peter Chen

New Jersey lawmakers are fast-tracking a major expansion of the state’s film and television tax credit program — a move that would cost the state $200 million annually and erode critical safeguards against abuse.

The proposal, S3748/A5091, has four major drawbacks that will increase costs to the state, erode safeguards against abuse, and make it impossible to project the total costs of approved projects. The bill doubles down on the faulty premise that film and TV tax credits benefit the broader economy when mounting evidence and the experiences of other states suggest otherwise.

Extensive research of similar programs across the country finds that film and TV tax credits do not generate the economic activity and job creation they promise. Because most jobs in the industry are temporary and often filled by specialists from out-of-state, film and TV tax credits only deliver pennies on the dollar for state and local governments. Further, these tax credits often do not reimburse actual production costs, and instead are traded and transferred to other corporations, acting as free money for the film production companies. This is a bad investment for New Jersey, especially when the $200 million in funding could go towards public programs and infrastructure projects that directly support families and small businesses.

Given the substantial evidence that film tax credits do not generate the promised economic benefits, coupled with New Jersey’s own long history of corporate tax credit abuse, lawmakers should pull the plug on this costly proposal.

The Four Major Flaws in the Film and TV Tax Credit Expansion Bill

Increases Annual Spending by $200 million
Despite a negative return on investment, the proposal increases annual spending by $200 million annually. This would pit New Jersey against larger states that have recently expanded their own tax credit programs in a costly race to the bottom that only benefits Hollywood studios. To put the increase in perspective, it is roughly 50 percent larger than the governor’s proposed doubling of the child tax credit, a direct investment to support families in New Jersey. Subsidizing profitable Hollywood studios is the wrong policy choice when the state could be strengthening its infrastructure and human capital instead.

Allows New Jersey to Directly Invest in Movie Studio Facilities
The bill includes $30 million for capital spending, putting New Jersey on the hook as a direct investor in private movie studio facilities. If these ventures are profitable, then they should not need state subsidies. If they are not profitable, the state should not be propping them up and liable for losses if the studios fold.

Weakens Accountability Rules and Opens the Door to Abuse
In current law, if a film project costs less than $50 million in production expenses, the amount of the credit is reduced accordingly to prevent studios from overpromising and under-delivering. The new proposal would repeal this. Strong clawback measures are critical to ensure that tax credits at least yield the economic activity promised by the corporate beneficiary.

Stretches Deferred Compensation Over Two Years, Making Costs Impossible to Project
Film and TV tax credits are normally a percentage of a project’s expenses in any given year. If the expenses reimbursed by tax credits can be deferred into future years, the state will be on the hook for additional payouts with no way to estimate or anticipate those costs. To the extent that tax credits are needed at all, they should be covering costs in the current year, not costs the studio has chosen to defer to the future.

Mounting Research Shows Film and TV Tax Credits Provide Little Payoff

There is a growing consensus among independent economists that film and TV tax credits are a bad investment for state and local governments. These findings are mirrored in studies by non-partisan legislative offices across the country. A recent analysis by Maryland’s non-partisan legislative services found “for every $1 in film tax credits awarded, the State recoups just over 6 cents,” an abysmal 6 percent return on investment. Worse, the report found that the millions in tax credits failed to make sustainable economic development in the short- or long-term.

Below are eight major economic studies showing the high cost and minimal return on investment from film and TV tax credits.

Do Movie Production Incentives Generate Economic Development?
Kennesaw State economist J.C. Bradbury in 2018 noted that “The results indicate that neither [movie production incentives] in general, nor specific types or levels of tax credits, are associated with state economic performance.” The study analyzed tax credits across jurisdictions and time frames and found state film and television tax credits produced a negative return on investment, with the average return totaling just 27 cents per dollar spent.

Evaluation of the Maryland Film Production Activity Tax Credit
A 2015 report on Maryland’s film and television tax credit by the state’s Department of Legislative Services found the credit provided just 10 cents (and only 6 cents in state tax revenue) per dollar spent by the state. Beyond that, the employment effect was minimal: “The state is actually worse off in the later years as there are fewer jobs compared to if there was no credit.”

Lights, Camera, but No Action? Tax and Economic Development Lessons From State Motion Picture Incentive Programs
University of Southern California professor Michael Thom’s 2016 paper found minimal to no impact on employment from film and television tax credits. “We looked at job growth, wage growth, states’ share of the motion picture industry, and the industry’s output in each state. On average, the only benefits were short-term wage gains, mostly to people who already work in the industry. Job growth was almost non-existent. Market share and industry output didn’t budge.”

Do State Corporate Tax Incentives Create Jobs? Quasi-experimental Evidence from the Entertainment Industry
In a 2019 study, Thom followed up his 2016 paper to analyze the employment effects of film and television tax credits. He concluded: “Results mostly show no statistically significant effects.” Thom’s results aligned with the consensus view among economists that “as an economic development strategy, targeted incentive programs that carry large tax expenditures fail to encourage meaningful job creation.”

Do Tax Incentives Affect Business Location and Economic Development? Evidence From State Film Incentives
A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in 2019 found that filming locations do change based on financial incentives, but that “there is no meaningful effect on feature films, and employment, wages, and establishments in the film industry and in related industries.”

State Film Subsidies: Not Much Bang For Too Many Bucks
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Robert Tannenwald found in 2010 that “[s]tate film subsidies are a wasteful, ineffective, and unfair instrument of economic development. While they appear to be a ‘quick fix’ that provides jobs and business to state residents with only a short lag, in reality, they benefit mostly non-residents, especially well-paid non-resident film and TV professionals.”

Motion picture production incentives and filming location decisions: a discrete choice approach
In the Journal of Economic Geography in 2018, Mark Owens and Adam Rennhoff write: “We fail to find strong evidence that incentives create a more permanent movie industry in a state.”

Policy Convergence, State Film-Production Incentives, and Employment: A Brief Case Study
Richard Adkisson in the Journal of Economic Issues in 2014 found that “Ultimately, the evidence suggests that state efforts to attract film-production employment were largely ineffective.”

More Than One in Five New Jersey Workers Can Still Be Fired for Taking Paid Family Leave

Posted on by Peter Chen

With its strong paid family leave program, New Jersey is close to being the best state to raise a family. Yet, more than one in five workers can’t take time off to care for a loved one or bond with a new child without the risk of losing their jobs due to a legal loophole in New Jersey’s family leave laws. Left unaddressed, this loophole will continue to undermine the state’s paid family leave program by deterring workers from taking paid leave that they’re entitled to.

In total, 840,000 workers across the state lack job protection if they take leave, even if they qualify for paid family leave benefits, all because they work for a business with fewer than 30 employees. For the state’s family leave program to work as intended, job protection must go hand in hand with paid leave for all New Jersey workers.

The Family Leave Loophole

How could so many workers who qualify for paid family leave not have job protections for taking leave? After all, almost all New Jersey workers pay into the state’s Family Leave Insurance program, with roughly  3.7 million New Jersey workers covered.[1]

The problem is that job protection is covered by a different law from paid leave, and they each have their own eligibility criteria. Job protection for taking leave is part of the New Jersey Family Leave Act, which only applies to employers with 30 or more employees.[2] And there are additional qualifications for coverage under this law — such as number of hours worked and duration of employment — that exclude even more workers.[3]

The arbitrary 30-employee threshold means that a majority of New Jersey businesses are exempt from providing job protection entirely. Businesses with fewer than 30 employees make up nearly 90 percent of all New Jersey businesses.

The promise of paid leave is empty if not accompanied by strong job protection for the person taking leave. According to a recent study by Rutgers University, fear of job loss is a top reason workers do not take their paid family leave, even when eligible for benefits.[5] The solution is simple: Add job protection to the paid family leave program, so everyone who needs to take paid leave can take it without fear of being fired.

All workers deserve the opportunity to bond with their children or care for their disabled, sick, or aging loved ones without fear of termination, demotion, or retaliation.[6] It’s time for state lawmakers to stand with workers and close this loophole.

End Notes

[1] New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Office of Research and Information, Family Leave Insurance and Temporary Disability Insurance, Combined Annual Activity Report 2021 (2022), p. 3. https://nj.gov/labor/myleavebenefits/assets/pdfs/Annual%20FLI%20TDI%20Report%20for%202021.pdf

[2] N.J. Stat. Sec. 34:11B-3f.(4). https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-34-labor-and-workmens-compensation/chapter-3411b/section-3411b-3-definitions

[3] N.J. Stat. Sec. 34:11B-3e. https://casetext.com/statute/new-jersey-statutes/title-34-labor-and-workmens-compensation/chapter-3411b/section-3411b-3-definitions. A recent estimate is that roughly 28 percent of people ineligible for family leave job protection.were ineligible because they worked fewer than 1,000 hours in the prior 12 months. Rutgers Center for Women and Work, Fact Sheet: NJFLA Coverage Gaps:Who has job protection under NJFLA (and who is left behind)? (April 2022) https://smlr.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Centers/CWW/NJFLA%20Coverage%20Gaps%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

[4] For more information on the base year calculation, which refers to the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters before a claim is filed, please see the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Glossary of Terms, Base Year (retrieved October 31, 2022), https://nj.gov/labor/myleavebenefits/help/glossary/index.shtml#BaseYear.

[5] A majority of New Jersey employees stated that concerns about job loss (56%) or loss of seniority or advancement opportunity (54%) would be a major or minor reason that they did not use Family Leave Insurance. Sean Simone et al., Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, New Jersey’s Earned Sick Leave Law and Family Leave Insurance Program: Measuring the Awareness and Opinions of New Jersey Workers, October 2020 to October 2021 (2022), p. 6. https://heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/New_Jersey%E2%80%99s_Earned_Sick_Leave_Law_and_Family_Leave%20Insurance_Program.pdf

[6] Kathleen Romig & Kathleen Bryant, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, A National Paid Leave Program Would Help Workers, Families, April 27, 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/a-national-paid-leave-program-would-help-workers-families

GILTI as Charged: New Corporate Tax Proposal Would Accelerate Tax Avoidance

Posted on by Peter Chen

At a time of record corporate profits and continued economic uncertainty for everyday New Jerseyans, a new corporate tax proposal would re-open loopholes in the tax code that state lawmakers wisely closed years ago, allowing multinational corporations to avoid paying what they owe to the state. The legislation, A5323/S3737, is nothing less than an open invitation for wealthy multinational corporations to shift profits they earn in New Jersey to subsidiaries in foreign tax havens.

NJPP recommends that two provisions be removed, and the entire bill closely studied, to preserve tax fairness and revenue stability for the state:

  1. The bill must preserve existing protections from deducting interest and royalty payments to related subsidiary corporations.
  2. The bill must preserve New Jersey’s existing conformity with federal rules on the treatment of global intangible low-tax income (GILTI).

 

Major Changes Deserve Major Debate and Rigorous Analysis

The proposed legislation, which was negotiated behind closed doors by lawmakers and representatives of big multistate and multinational corporations over many months, contains more than a dozen separate provisions modifying New Jersey’s Corporation Business Tax (CBT).

When dealing with any legislation of this scope, extensive analysis is needed to evaluate the effects of these changes on the state budget in the short- and long term. Despite this complexity, the business lobby is urging swift passage of the bill.

Unfortunately, the proposal creates two enormous loopholes that could strip the state of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. This is on top of the revenue that the state will lose if lawmakers move forward with a plan to cut the corporate tax rate for businesses with more than $1 million in annual profit.

Loophole 1: Phantom Interest and Royalty Payments That Reduce Tax Liabilities

First, the bill repeals longstanding provisions in the tax code that prevent corporations from artificially reducing their tax liability by making phantom royalty and interest payments to shell companies based in foreign tax havens.[i]

This is a bit abstract, so an example is helpful here. Say Megacorp earns $1 million in net New Jersey income. Megacorp creates a foreign subsidiary, Mascot LLC, which owns the rights to Megacorp’s mascot. Megacorp pays its subsidiary $900,000 a year for the rights to use its own mascot. They then get to reduce their taxable income (to $100,000) and their corporate tax bill as a result. (A similar scheme actually happened with Toys ‘R’ Us using a Delaware subsidiary for Geoffrey the Giraffe.)

State lawmakers largely closed this loophole for U.S.-based subsidiaries through mandatory “combined reporting,” which treats all parent and subsidiary income as a single corporation for tax purposes, so the hypothetical $900,000 would still count as taxable income.

But for foreign subsidiaries, combined reporting does not apply (i.e., it stops at the “water’s edge”), meaning that the current law prohibiting the deduction of interest and royalty payments is still necessary to prevent the scheme described above and other variants.

Despite this provision’s potentially significant impact on tax avoidance, there is no indication of any revenue loss from the Treasury Department in their analysis of the bill. But it gets worse.

Loophole 2: GILTI Repeal That Allows More Foreign Profit-Shifting

Given the proliferation of corporations shifting their profits into foreign tax havens — a practice made much easier thanks to the 2017 Trump tax cuts — New Jersey wisely linked its corporate tax code to a federal anti-abuse provision that created a new category of taxable income called GILTI: global intangible low-taxed income.

The GILTI provision effectively creates a minimum tax for income from foreign subsidiaries, limiting corporate tax avoidance schemes by including 50 percent of this foreign GILTI income as taxable income.

Many states have followed suit by adopting similar GILTI provisions, and New Jersey is one of roughly a dozen other states that fully conform with the federal government by counting 50 percent of GILTI as taxable income. But A5323/S3737 would repeal this inclusion, guaranteeing that once New Jersey profits are shifted abroad, they’re gone from New Jersey’s tax base for good.

Corporate lobbyists claim that repealing GILTI is needed to make New Jersey more competitive, but there is no evidence that corporations have chosen to move business in or out of states due to their inclusion or exclusion of GILTI. And as a matter of sound tax policy and fairness, the state tax code should discourage corporations from shifting their profits abroad.

Although GILTI is a complex concept, state conformity with the federal rule is easy to implement because corporations already have to abide by federal GILTI rules. And for corporations that think they’re being taxed unfairly due to GILTI, there is already an alternate option: Any multinational corporation can avoid GILTI when filing their taxes by including its foreign subsidiaries in its combined reporting calculation as stateside subsidiaries. This sounds complicated, but the point is that corporations already have options on how they file their state taxes that do require repealing the state’s GILTI provision.

As large multinational corporations continue to become more sophisticated in their tax avoidance and income-shifting schemes, it’s necessary for states like New Jersey to tax them fairly and on a level playing field with corporations and small businesses without a foreign presence.

Corporate Tax Schemes Help Their Shareholders, Not New Jersey 

Allowing corporations to shift their profits to foreign tax havens will only benefit large multinational corporations that can afford to play these games at the expense of everyone else. New Jersey should be strengthening its corporate tax laws to go after deep-pocketed tax dodgers, rather than watering them down. And any argument that strong corporate tax law hurts the business climate must run into the reality that New Jersey corporate profits, employment, and business starts continue to rise.

Repealing the related-party interest deduction rules and GILTI conformity open up the corporate tax system to the abuses of the past, depriving the state of much-needed revenue while opening the door to additional tax avoidance schemes.

End Note

[i] Assembly Bill No. 5323, p. 6, lines 6-48 (Mar. 20, 2023, as introduced). https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2022/A5500/5323_I1.PDF

State of the State 2023: Rapid Reaction

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

Earlier this week, Governor Phil Murphy delivered his annual State of the State address, offering a vision of New Jersey where we can raise the standard of living, strengthen our communities, and build a thriving economy. But in a speech centered on creating opportunity for all, there were few details or new proposals on how we’d get there as a state, with little mention of the lives and experiences of New Jersey families living paycheck-to-paycheck.

To make New Jersey more affordable for working-class and low-income families, the state needs ambitious investments in those who have historically been left behind in the policy-making process — by fully funding our schools, creating more affordable housing, and expanding working family tax credits — and a fair tax code that can sustainably funds such investments. New Jersey’s prosperity must be shared with the many, not hoarded by the few, especially if we want to expand opportunity for all who call the Garden State home.

Below are the rapid reactions of what was in address — and what was missing — from policy analysts Sheila Reynertson, Peter Chen, and Marleina Ubel. 

Sheila Reynertson
Senior Policy Analyst (Tax and Budget)

In his State of the State address, Governor Murphy went out of his way to distinguish New Jersey from other states that favor deep tax cuts over high-quality education and healthy communities. But make no mistake: New Jersey’s current economic success is in spite of a tax code that remains rigged in favor of uber-wealthy families and giant corporations with record-breaking profits, undermining public services that create opportunity and help communities thrive.

Similarly, Governor Murphy conflated New Jersey being a leader in new and emerging industries with his offerings of corporate tax subsidies, as though businesses would have never chosen to expand in the Garden State without them. This is simply not true. Taxes are rarely at the top of the list of reasons why businesses would choose to relocate or expand in a state. And an ever-larger body of evidence clearly demonstrates that tax subsidies have a much lower rate of return on investment than people-centered investments like affordable child care, pre-K education, and college tuition aid — the tried and true building blocks of a strong state economy.

Instead of more corporate tax cuts and credits, lawmakers should demand corporations pay what they truly owe so that New Jersey can fund programs that foster opportunity for all:

  • Stop the $600 million corporate business tax cut for New Jersey’s wealthiest corporations scheduled to take effect Jan 1, 2024.
  • Close the giant tax loopholes that multistate and multinational corporations use to shift taxable income out of state and invest those funds in programs that support working families and strong communities.


Peter Chen
Senior Policy Analyst (Children and Families)

For a speech that focused at the outset on pathways of opportunity in New Jersey, there were few new policies highlighted for kids and families.

Although there was a much-needed victory lap for more funding for schools and a state-level child tax credit, concerns facing families with children such as child care, preschool, and housing costs got little air time, even though Governor Murphy and the Legislature have made progress in those areas. Considering PK-12 schools account for nearly half the state’s annual budget, it was surprising to see education get less attention than liquor licenses and soccer.

But what are the policies that will help make a fair shot at economic success a reality for New Jersey families? A few suggestions:

  • Expand working family tax credits: The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit both put money back in families’ pockets to help them pay for basic costs. Expanding these two programs would give families the cash they need to meet New Jersey’s high cost of living.
  • Reform cash assistance programs: WorkFirst New Jersey needs reform to help people in extreme poverty get back on their feet and stop the cycle of poverty. These reforms almost crossed the finish line once. Without a cash assistance program that focuses on ending poverty instead of punishing it, opportunity will remain an illusion.


Marleina Ubel
Policy Analyst (Criminal and Legal Systems)

The Governor spent a great deal of his speech focused on “justice,” security, and safety. Unfortunately, those words were tied to exaggerated rhetoric around car thefts, which are already declining. The Governor also touted some questionable criminal justice investments and policy priorities, like spending $10 million dollars of American Rescue Plan funds on automated license plate recognition technologies for law enforcement and allowing police to pursue stolen vehicles in high-speed chases — a reckless and, frankly, deadly policy change.

This approach to criminal justice is a theme in Trenton, unfortunately. There is also pending legislation that would ramp up the penalties for stealing a car to a second-degree crime, a change that is most likely to harm young Black and brown residents. Increasing penalties and enforcement does not work. It has never worked. “Tough on crime” approaches do not lead to security and safety, and they certainly do not advance “justice.”

Some ways to make New Jersey a more just state?

  • Eliminate public defender’s fees: Public defenders in the state of New Jersey come with a price tag, and in many municipalities, an application fee. Constitutional rights should not be behind a paywall. Residents in New York and Pennsylvania do not have to pay for public defenders and neither should the people who need them most in New Jersey.
  • Pass legislation to hold police accountable: A variety of bills have been languishing in the legislature. Black and brown New Jerseyans have been asking for policies that will make their communities safer, and these bills are among top priorities. None of them have made it to the Governor’s desk.

 

There was, however, a high point in the speech concerning harm reduction services, which do improve the safety and well-being of communities. New Jersey is going to be the first state in the nation to allow any pharmacy to provide anonymous and free Naloxone to any person, any time. This will undoubtedly save lives and is an important step in undoing the harms caused by the War on Drugs.

Digital Taxation Hits a Roadblock, But Alternative Route to Taxing Big Tech Shows Promise

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

New Jersey’s economy has rapidly changed in the 21st century, but the state’s tax code has not kept up with this progress. After a failed attempt to tax high-speed stock transactions, state lawmakers have gone back to the drawing board on ways to tax staggering profits in the digital economy, starting with a study on how the blockbuster industry is currently untaxed, undertaxed, and ways to address that. While that report has yet to be released, developments in other states are starting to draw a roadmap of how these policies could work in practice.

Last month, a Maryland Circuit Court judge ruled that a first-of-its-kind digital tax law was unconstitutional. The new law, aimed at big tech firms, would have taxed revenues derived from digital advertising services at rates between 2.5 and 10 percent, depending on the annual gross revenues of the business. The tax was estimated to raise up to $250 million per year to fund K-12 education across Maryland before it was challenged in court by Verizon and Comcast.

The presiding judge said the law violates the Constitution’s prohibition on state interference with interstate commerce and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which forbids discrimination against running an online business. The Maryland Comptroller, the suit’s defendant, has since recommended that the state Attorney General drop the appeal and revisit the matter in the next legislative cycle.

Tax experts largely agree — though not entirely — that the law’s fatal flaw was its vulnerability to an ITFA challenge, and that states should pursue other approaches to taxing big tech outside of digital advertising.

It’s the Data, Stupid

Wealthy corporations are getting a windfall through the free extraction and commercial use of the public’s personal data — from the products you buy online, to the emails you write, to where you spend your time, and so much more. Not only do consumers give up valuable information with no knowledge or meaningful ability to prevent it, but they also are being manipulated by the use of their data. That sort of manipulation has huge societal costs, including poor mental health, misinformation and political polarization, not to mention the swift growth of extreme concentration of political and economic power and the hollowing out of local news outlets.

A tax on the collection of big data is really a form of compensation for data mining, and state lawmakers have every right to impose one. But it must withstand legal challenges from the tech industry. While the Maryland digital advertising tax was ruled unconstitutional, New York may have found an alternative pathway: Senator Liz Kreuger has proposed a bill that would levy a tax on the collection of New York consumer data by commercial data brokers.

The new tax would be easy to administer because it would be calculated using an industry figure called “active (or unique) monthly users” as the tax base, according to this tax model. And tax policy experts say it actually addresses the real problem —  the tax-free accumulation and concentration of massive wealth drawn from big data — better than a tax on advertising would. Data collectors amassing consumer data would pay an annual tax based on the number of active monthly users. Revenue estimates of the New York proposal range from $57 million to $150 million a year, depending on the collection size threshold and tax rates.

Taxing Profits Derived From Big Data

Lawmakers should also consider a separate tax on the extreme wealth generated by big data. This additional tax would get to the heart of another major issue — massive profits made by big tech companies with a near monopoly on the digital economy. The recently enacted federal 15 percent minimum tax on “book” profits offers an enforceable measure of excess profit to build upon at the state level. However, more corporate business tax reforms (looking at you, foreign tax haven loophole) would be necessary to get the most out of this capital value tax in New Jersey.

Whether it’s data mining or the profits made from it, the concept is the same: Focus on the collection of data, not the internet. It allows policymakers to take a stand on a unique industry that is building and concentrating extreme wealth while avoiding the scrutiny of an interstate commerce court challenge. It’s time for New Jersey to rightfully tax the collection of residents’ data and for big tech to begin paying what they rightfully owe.

The High Cost of “Free” Representation: Why New Jersey Should Eliminate Public Defender Fees

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

By

Published on Oct 24, 2022 in Public Safety

Every person should have access to a lawyer when accused of a crime. In fact, the phrase “if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you,” is commonly heard on television and in popular culture.[i] However, free legal counsel is a myth in New Jersey. Despite the constitutional right to a lawyer, New Jersey charges fees for clients who are appointed to public defenders — fees that can leave their clients in debt and can influence how they navigate the justice system.

New Jerseyans with low incomes — even those under the federal poverty rate — have to pay for their right to representation with a public defender, even when they demonstrate financial indigence. The costs — or fees — are presented after a client goes through an application process to prove their inability to pay for an attorney,[ii] and the costs can be upwards of $1,000 per client.

At minimum, state law requires that the public defender’s office charge defendants at least $150 and requires payment within six months of the case.[iii] If the defendant cannot pay in full within that timeframe, they will become in debt to the State of New Jersey.[iv] This debt can result in liens on assets, which can damage an individual’s credit and result in garnishing any tax returns or inheritance.[v] Further, the consequences of these fees can be devastating —  roughly one-third of American adults cannot cover a $400 expense without going into debt or selling assets.[vi]

What’s worse, these fees encourage defendants to plead, regardless of the facts of their case. For example, accepting a plea bargain for a lower-degree offense not only reduces potential prison time or other penalties but also can reduce public defender costs by 65 percent (from $750 to $250).[vii]

Public Defender

A lawyer who works for and is appointed by the state for clients that cannot afford representation.

Indigence

When a client has proven that not only do they live below the poverty line, but they have no resources to help pay for an attorney.

Plea

An agreement in which the defendant pleads guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or they may plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a lighter sentence.

Fee Schedule For New Jersey Office of the Public Defender[viii]

Table outlining the different fees for each Public Defender Services. Costs range from $150 to $750.While the costs for indigent New Jerseyans can be insurmountable, the cash returns for the state are small. Anticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2022 from clients of the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) is about $4 million,[ix] a mere 0.008 percent of the state budget.[x] There are also unaccounted-for administrative costs associated with debt collection.[xi]

The High Cost of Public Representation[xii]

Table outlining total revenue collection from 2018 to 2021. Receipts range from $3,860,232 to $4,290,688.The state Legislature, Judiciary, and Attorney General have taken some steps to reduce the negative impact of fines and fees, such as halting arrest warrants for debt from unpaid fines and fees.[xiii] However, even cursory interaction with criminal courts can result in long term financial disaster for individuals and families across New Jersey.[xiv]

Due to inequitable outcomes for individuals in the criminal justice system, neighboring states, like New York and Pennsylvania, do not charge for legal representation, and neither should New Jersey.[xv] To have a more equitable justice system, the state should eliminate all public defender fees and fund residents’ constitutional right to an attorney through sustainable public funding. Access to a constitutional right should not come with a price tag.

End Notes

[i] Ronald Steiner, Rebecca Bauer & Rohit Talwar, The Rise and Fall of the Miranda Warnings in Popular Culture, 59 Cleveland St. L. Rev. 219 (2011).

[ii] In municipal courts, application fees for representation by a public defender can be as high as $200. N.J. Stat. Sec. 2B:24-17. However, the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender has eliminated application fees.

[iii] N.J. Admin. Code Sec. 17:39-3.1

[iv] N.J. Stat. Sec. 2A:158A-17

[v] N.J. Stat. Sec. 2A:158A-17

[vi] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2021 (May 2022),  p. 35-36.

[vii] According to the fee schedule, pre-trial costs for 3rd and 4th degree offenses are $250, but can jump to $750 as soon as one decides to go to court.

[viii] N.J. Admin. Code Sec. 17:39-3.1

[ix] https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/2022/S2500/2023_I1.PDF#page=6

[x] New Jersey State Budget for Fiscal Year 2023 is $50.6 billion.

[xi] Marea Beeman et al., National Legal Aid and Defender Association, At What Cost? Findings from an Examination into the Imposition of Public Defense System Fees (July 2022), tbl. 2 at p. 15, https://www.nlada.org/sites/default/files/NLADA_At_What_Cost.pdf?v=2.0

[xii] NJPP analysis of state budget documents, all dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation.

[xiii] New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Acting AG Platkin Issues Policy to Address Negative Consequences of Large Number of Outstanding Bench Warrants for Low-Level Offenses (May 2022). https://www.njoag.gov/acting-ag-platkin-issues-policy-to-address-negative-consequences-of-large-number-of-outstanding-bench-warrants-for-low-level-offenses/

[xiv] Joni Hirsch & Priya Sarathy Jones, Driver’s License Suspension for Unpaid Fines and Fees: The Movement for Reform, 54 U. Mich. J. Law Reform 875 (2021) (outlining how relatively minor driver’s license suspensions harm earnings ability without improving public safety).  https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2535&context=mjlr

[xv] Marea Beeman et al., National Legal Aid and Defender Association, At What Cost? Findings from an Examination into the Imposition of Public Defense System Fees (July 2022), pgs. 98-99, https://www.nlada.org/sites/default/files/NLADA_At_What_Cost.pdf?v=2.0

Lessons Learned from New Census Data on Health Insurance

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

The Census Bureau released new data this month that gave us more insight on the health and wellbeing of our residents. Below, Senior Policy Analyst Brittany Holom-Trundy, Ph.D. breaks down the new data and what it means for New Jersey.

NJPP Senior Policy Analyst Brittany Holom-Trundy, Ph.D. (@bholom):

 

 

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»