Category: Testimony

Prescription Drug Affordability Board Would Help Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Senator Vitale and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed establishment of a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. 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 supports S329, as it looks to provide evidence-based answers to a long-standing health care issue: high prescription drug costs that make even available medicine unaffordable for many New Jerseyans. The bill establishes an independent Prescription Drug Affordability Board, supported by sufficient funding, that will provide insight into the root causes of these high prices, and propose recommendations to address them.

I wanted to highlight two important aspects of the bill today which are often misread:

First, this bill as written fully incorporates the involvement of the Legislature in any further actions. The Board would provide their recommendations for policy changes (covering a variety of policy options) after a series of reports, but the step of approval of the recommendations would be left to the Legislature (this can be seen in subsection c of section 9, on page 12, line 33). The Legislature would then have the data to better evaluate the proposed policies in debate, and legislation would be required to move those proposals forward. We know that data helps inform those debates, particularly on health care costs, so setting this aside would simply prolong an issue. Additionally, we believe that the reports and data collected and shared by the Board would be helpful for the work of the Office of Health Care Affordability and Transparency, which has a much broader agenda in addressing health care costs and will benefit from focused studies.

Second, not only will the Board be able to provide guidance on savings and a variety of policy options, but it will do so with data from all stakeholders. Relevant actors, from pharmaceutical companies to consumers, will have the opportunity to provide their perspective and data on their role and the impact of drug pricing, including spending on research and innovation. The Board will take this information into account as they consider the recommended policies and plans.

As the country grapples with drug prices that are, on average, over 2.5 times those in other countries, several other states — including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, and Oregon — have already passed legislation on similar drug affordability boards. With 88 percent of New Jerseyans across party lines supporting this valuable work (see survey sources below for further details), there is no reason to let New Jersey fall behind these states in seeking solutions for its residents. Now is the time to make this investment in New Jerseyans’ health. We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill today.

Thank you for your time.

Survey Sources:
Altarum Healthcare Value Hub New Jersey survey, August 2020
https://www.healthcarevaluehub.org/application/files/9815/9716/3875/Hub-Altarum_Data_Brief_No._69_-_New_Jersey_High_Drug_Prices.pdf

AARP 2020 NJ Residents 18-Plus Prescription Drug Study
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/health/2020/new-jersey-prescription-drug-prices-survey-fact-sheet.10.26419-2Fres.00424.001.pdf

 

Using American Rescue Plan Funds for Corporate Tax Cuts Undermines an Equitable Recovery

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

Good morning, Chairman Madden and members of the Senate Labor Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony. I’m Sheila Reynertson from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on providing state residents with economic security.

New Jersey’s economy works best when it works for all of us. An inclusive recovery is one where those hit hardest by the pandemic — workers of color, and Black and brown women in particular — reach full employment and are the priority they deserve to be in state policymaking. That’s why it’s so important for New Jersey to its spend Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) in ways that reflect the principles President Biden set down: to directly address the public health crisis, help the people who need it most, and reduce racial and economic inequities exposed and worsened by the ongoing pandemic.

S733, by using FRF dollars to protect businesses from taxation, is inconsistent with the American Rescue Plan’s spirit. It undermines a just and equitable labor market recovery.

The sharp rise in joblessness early in the pandemic depleted New Jersey’s unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund, but the finances of the trust fund are not in crisis. Yet, a year ago lawmakers unnecessarily intervened on behalf of business to reduce or delay increases in employer unemployment taxes related to benefits paid during the state of emergency.[i] It’s also worth noting business recipients of assistance through the Paycheck Protection Program got a tax cut on both sides of the ledger – one for receiving the money, and another for spending it – costing New Jersey $1.2 billion needed to fund public support and services that help communities and families thrive.[ii]

Another corporate tax cut – offering to wipe out a federal low-interest loan to the UI trust fund – is shortsighted. Paying back the $580 million loan[iii] with federal emergency aid meant for the more immediate needs of workers who experienced a substantially more severe impact from the pandemic is worse than shortsighted. It is inequitable and insulting to the essential workforce  – workers who put their lives at risk when COVID swept through the state, health care workers who now suffer from PTSD, and child care workers who are indispensable to the workforce yet are still severely underpaid.

In light of the moral obligation to fund an equitable pandemic recovery, lawmakers giving the green light to yet another business tax cut raises serious concerns about the state’s commitment to support other, arguably more urgent, needs of households facing immediate hardships and neglects the opportunity these dollars present to address structural inequities.

If the goal is to assist businesses harmed most by the pandemic, there are more direct and targeted ways to provide that aid. This overly broad proposal serves as a giveaway to profitable businesses to cover a cost they are tasked with paying already and diverts emergency federal aid that people, including laid-off workers, need right now.

NJPP urges committee members to vote no on S733.

Thank you.

[i] P.L.2020, c.150.

[ii]https://www.njpp.org/publications/blog-category/tax-break-on-ppp-loan-expenses-will-cost-new-jersey-more-than-1-billion/

[iii] US Treasury’s Title XII Advance Activities Schedule as of March 3, 2022. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/tfmp/tfmp_advactivitiessched.htm

Revenue from Cannabis Legalization Should Go Toward Strengthening Communities Harmed by the Drug War

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good evening, Chairwoman Houenou, Vice-Chairman Delgado, and Commissioners of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

I’m Marleina Ubel from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

The coming budget year will be the first year that cannabis revenue is available in the state budget, and the Cannabis Regulatory Commission has the responsibility to make thoughtful recommendations. The money from the Social Equity Excise Fee should be distributed back into communities harmed by the War on Drugs and should not be spent on law enforcement. Most importantly, the communities and the individuals who have been directly impacted by the drug war must have meaningful input on how the money is used.

The language surrounding the use of this revenue is vague, allowing municipalities to exercise tremendous discretion in how it’s spent. Therefore, policymakers should set clear parameters on what is acceptable and what is not, along with the expectation that a participatory budgeting process must be followed.

This should not be a slush fund, nor should it be spent on law enforcement, school resource officers, or otherwise invested in the punitive arm of the criminal legal system, which is the very entity that caused the most harm enforcing cannabis prohibition. Law enforcement already receives the lion’s share of public safety funding, according to NJPP’s 2021 report, To Protect and Serve: Investing in Public Safety Beyond Policing, even though other social services, such as public and mental health, school counselors, and social workers are just as important to public safety.

Revenue from the Social Equity Excise Fee should go directly toward promoting stronger, safer, and more resilient communities, as well as services that recognize substance use as a matter of public health. Examples of such investments include: recreation and community programming, harm reduction services, neighborhood restoration, after-school programming, and vouchers or direct payments for individual needs, such as utilities, rent, or medical costs.

This would follow the example set by other states, like Colorado, where cannabis revenue was used to fund school construction projects, improve youth literacy, expand full-day kindergarten, and invest in mental health initiatives and homelessness prevention. One county also funded scholarships for hundreds of students.

New Jersey’s municipalities have an obligation to equitably invest this revenue, meaning they must center racial justice and reparations for people harmed by the War on Drugs. Anything less would fail the very communities and residents that the Social Equity Excise Fee is intended to support.

Thank you.

Adjusting Work First New Jersey Eligibility Would Help Tackle Child Poverty

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Freiman and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) reform. 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 supports the changes to initial maximum allowable income eligibility levels proposed in A2367. We believe this is a good step toward a WFNJ that more effectively tackles childhood poverty, helps support low-income families, and builds a stronger future for the state. We also strongly support combining this reform with a comprehensive WFNJ package to move the program away from its racist history and toward a future in which it truly works for Garden State families.

As NJPP’s research has shown, WFNJ serves as a critical bridge to stability for parents and children living in poverty.[i] This is particularly true for Black and Hispanic/Latinx families, who are overrepresented amongst low-income communities. Year-over-year changes reported throughout the COVID-19 pandemic have continued to emphasize how essential this lifeline is, especially for single-parent families. The experiences of the past two years have only increased the urgency of improving WFNJ to meet today’s economic and social realities.

WFNJ should not only serve as many families as possible, but also fully support participating families. Yet the racist history of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program means that WFNJ continues to fall short in providing sufficient support to families seeking to escape the cycle of poverty. With this in mind, we hope that Assembly members will consider, in addition to the proposed reform in A2367, other aspects of comprehensive Work First New Jersey reform, including:

  • Increasing the monthly grant (benefit) amount to at least 50% FPL and with automatic cost of living adjustments
  • Eliminating the barriers to participation for individuals taking college classes to receive support through General Assistance
  • Improving the off-ramp for families so that the program does not have such severe cliffs, which immediately put families back in difficult positions
  • Aligning asset rules with other social safety net programs
  • Modifying sanction rules to protect children when parents are struggling
  • Adjusting program language to eliminate bias
  • Adjusting time limits to account for the unprecedented crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Codifying changes introduced through previous budget legislation that allowed for greater support through services such as enhanced case management and greater child support pass-through

 

We hope that the committee will advance this reform today and move to modernize Work First New Jersey with a comprehensive package of reforms. Now more than ever New Jersey’s parents and children need our state leaders’ solid commitments to their well-being and a brighter future.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] New Jersey Policy Perspective, Promoting Equal Opportunities for Children Living in Poverty, 2020, https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/promoting-equal-opportunities-for-children-living-in-poverty/

Easy Enrollment Would Help Lower Uninsured Rates in New Jersey

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman McKeon and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed Easy Enrollment program. 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 the establishment of an Easy Enrollment program for New Jersey. Research has shown that, in addition to affordability, a significant obstacle to lowering uninsured rates lies in the enrollment process itself. A lack of easily accessible resources for many residents, including people who do not speak English as their first language, who do not have access to a computer or may encounter difficulties using a computer, or who struggle with hourly wages and child care and do not have the time to invest in finding sources, means that there are residents who are eligible for affordable care who struggle to enroll. This program would take a regular event in the calendar — the filing of tax forms — and turn it into an opportunity for people to quickly and easily receive information about coverage for which they are eligible, simply by checking a box.

The idea of easing enrollment is not a new approach: we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic that a pause in disenrollment in Medicaid — resulting in the removal of constant re-enrollment burdens for those who may lose eligibility temporarily or need to switch to new coverage — has helped to lower the number of uninsured New Jerseyans. Additionally, similar, more limited options have existed for decades, including through programs like Express Lane Eligibility for enrolling children in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. These programs, when fully addressing the needs of residents, not only reduce obstacles for those residents, but decrease administrative costs where data sharing can eliminate redundant paperwork.

To ensure the program’s efficacy and that it meets residents’ realities, we should take lessons from successful enrollment experiences in other states — specifically in Maryland, where a similar Easy Enrollment program is already up and running. Waiving the shared responsibility payment is a good step to provide an upfront incentive for people to participate. Pre-populated forms, structured follow-up outreach systems, and auto-enrollment for those who qualify for free coverage would further ease the process and limit excessive time requirements for enrollment and verification.

We hope that the Committee will release this bill today and support the building of this important program.

Thank you for your time.

Link to a brief overview of Maryland’s Easy Enrollment program, mentioned above: https://www.marylandhealthconnection.gov/easyenrollment/

Property Tax Reduction Should Target Renters with Low-Incomes

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

Good morning, Chairman Singleton and members of the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

I’m Sheila Reynertson from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on providing New Jersey residents with economic security.

NJPP is in support of legislation that would reduce taxes owed by renters as long as those with low-paying jobs are specifically targeted as beneficiaries of the change. Based on S343 as currently drafted, it does not include any language to ensure that the renters most in need of help get it.

We recommend adding two amendments to this legislation. First, the property tax deduction should be converted to a tax credit for renters making less than a certain amount taking into account household size as well. And, more importantly, the credit itself must be refundable so that all renters, regardless of taxes owed, can benefit from this income tax reform.

Finally, a fiscal note from OLS would have been helpful before today’s hearing giving the public a clear picture of the percentage of New Jersey renters by income level who take advantage of the current property tax deduction. This data could have provided key insight into which renters benefit the most and which renters get skipped over by this tax break – data that could be used to strengthen S343.

We respectfully request that the proposed bill be amended to ensure equitable distribution of the tax break among all renters.

Thank you.

New Jersey’s Redistricting Efforts Need to Consider Its Diverse Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning. I’m Peter Chen and am a Senior Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP).

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and strategic communication.

As former coordinator of the 2020 Census non-profit outreach campaign for New Jersey, I am keenly aware of the importance of the redistricting process and have contacted a wide range of communities across the state. Each of these communities sought to ensure that their voices are heard by their elected representatives.

I testify today to raise three points for the Commission to consider as you deliberate on how to conduct redistricting in an equitable way. In particular, I’d like to focus on the changes in New Jersey’s ethnic and racial diversity that highlight the need to carefully consider how to ensure all communities get fair representation in the state legislature.

Overall increase in diversity

As the Commissioners are no doubt aware, New Jersey’s Hispanic/Latinx and Asian/Asian-American communities continued to grow dramatically since 2010. The combination of AAPI and Hispanic/Latinx growth of more than 650,000 residents actually exceeds New Jersey’s overall growth (497,000) during the past decade.

This is also reflected in the overall population not identifying as white. Roughly 48 percent of the state now identifies as a race or ethnic category other than white non-Hispanic. (Note that although this has been framed as a “decline” in white population, people may also be identifying their race differently than before.)

Based on current legislative district maps, the median legislative district is 57% non-Hispanic white, while the state as a whole is only 52% white.

The new map should ensure that districts broadly speaking reflect New Jersey’s diversity but also that racial or ethnic communities of interest are not unnecessarily split in ways that dilute their voice.

For example, current maps often carve pockets of minority racial-group populations into multiple districts. For example, the predominantly Asian-American municipalities of Plainsboro, West Windsor and South Brunswick are split among three different districts. Similarly, Edison, Piscataway, and Woodbridge each occupy three different districts.

Need for differentiation within categories

The racial and ethnic categories in the Census continue to be categories of convenience rather than accurate descriptions of community self-identification. For example, the continent of Asia contains more than half of the world’s population, including hundreds of languages and dozens of nations. Yet these groups are lumped together as “Asian or Asian-American.”

Although the decennial Census does not provide a deeper breakdown within these groups, the American Community Survey does. The following are based on the 2015 5-year detailed tables.

The largest national origin groups (alone or in combination) within Asian populations were:

  • Asian Indian (353,215)
  • Chinese (incl. Taiwan) (164,443)
  • Filipino (156,833)
  • Korean (104,696)
  • Pakistani (29,902)
  • Vietnamese (28,671)
  • Japanese (21,065)

One notable feature among Hispanic/Latinx national origins is the diversity of nativity (i.e., whether the person was born in the United States).

Population Groups Total Population in NJ U.S.-born Foreign-born
Puerto Rican 471,035 463,993 7,042
South American 375,657 131,912 243,745
Dominican (Dominican Republic) 243,255 102,382 140,873
Mexican 231,902 108,697 123,205
Central American (excludes Mexican) 203,842 69,545 134,297

Diversity within and among groups of different national origin is extremely important in considering how communities identify. Digging deeper than surface-level racial and ethnic categories is critical to ensuring just representation.

As just one example, the Ecuadorian population of New Jersey made up approximately 123,000 residents in 2015. If this community were its own municipality, it would be the state’s 6th largest, larger than Edison, Woodbridge or Toms River. The state’s Peruvian population (82,000) is greater than the total population of Camden or Cherry Hill. The state’s Salvadoran population (67,000) is as large as Middletown or Old Bridge.

“Some Other Race” and “More than One Race”

New Jerseyans increasingly view their racial identity as more complex than preexisting categories. Yet these categories have historically been the only metrics of diversity: the previous shapefiles for New Jersey’s 2012 apportionment commission only included four demographic categories – white only, Black/African-American only, Asian/Asian-American only, and Hispanic.

In 2020, 11.2% of New Jerseyans identified as “Some Other Race alone”, while 9.7% identified as more than one race.

Hispanic/Latinx identity also intersected heavily with these two groups. Roughly 93% of “Some Other Race alone” respondents also identified as Hispanic/Latinx, while 68% of those identifying as more than one race also identified as Hispanic/Latinx.

I encourage the Commission to look beyond the four historical categories to identify which communities are represented. At the very least, I encourage the Commission to look at individuals identifying as “race in all combinations” rather than one-race alone, particularly for non-White populations.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

Casinos’ Healthy Profit Margins Render Tax Break Unnecessary

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning. I am Peter Chen and am a Senior Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and strategic communication.

NJPP opposes A5587 and encourages the committee to vote against its passage.

Atlantic City casinos have had a banner bounceback year in 2021. Profits for the first three quarters of 2021 of $529 million have topped each of the previous 5 years except 2017. This explosive growth has been buoyed by sports gambling, with a record-setting $557 million in revenue for sports wagering alone, a 150 percent increase from the first nine months of 2020.

TABLE: Atlantic City casino profits well in line with historical data

Source: Division of Gaming Enforcement Statistical Summaries, Third Quarter 2016-2021, available at https://www.njoag.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/division-of-gaming-enforcement-home/financial-and-statistical-information/quarterly-press-releases-and-statistical-summaries/

The closures and subsequent shock to the hotel and entertainment industries were devastating to the balance sheets of casinos in 2020. But it’s notable that even in the depths of the pandemic, the casinos nonetheless maintained a profitable year, followed by the 2021 bounceback.

Given the successful rebound of Atlantic City casinos, it is unnecessary to adjust the payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) payments to further reduce their financial liabilities. Wealthy corporations need to pay their fair share. PILOT payments for 2021 were already reduced due to the financial conditions of casinos in 2020. The formula adopted by lawmakers in 2016 takes into account the possibility of adverse financial conditions. It’s unclear why new changes are needed to reduce the amount casinos pay, beyond what current law provides.

And with the expansion of sports betting as a larger fraction of casino revenue, there’s no justification for removing these revenues from PILOT calculations. The casinos’ healthy profit margins suggest that whatever extra third-party expenses these betting operations require are more than offset by the revenues generated by them.

Again, NJPP urges the committee to vote No on moving the bill out of committee today. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

Prescription Drug Affordability Board Would Help Lower Prescription Drug Prices

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Chairman Burzichelli and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed investment in a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. 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 supports A2418, as it looks to address a long-standing issue in the health care sector: the problem of information asymmetry. As a researcher and advocate for better data collection methods and greater transparency, I can confirm that the black box — the paucity of publicly available, independently-analyzed information — on pharmaceuticals stands as the biggest obstacle to taking action when it comes to prescription drug costs. Without knowledge of the problem, there can be no solution. A lack of data provides a path for excuses and continuous passing of the buck amongst actors in the fragmented health system.

An independent Prescription Drug Affordability Board as proposed will take up the task of this information issue, provide insight into the root causes of high prescription drug prices, and propose recommendations to address them. This valuable work, which is supported by 88 percent of New Jerseyans across party lines, will help to lower the cost of living in the Garden State and cut the number of taxpayer dollars in the state budget having to go toward prescription drugs through state health plans. It will make each dollar spent count for more. For this reason, it is crucial to release this bill and ensure that it includes the $1 million investment in the Board’s work originally allocated through the Senate bill (S1066).

As the country grapples with drug prices that are, on average, over 2.5 times those in other countries, six other states — Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, and Oregon — have already passed legislation on similar drug affordability boards. There is no reason to let New Jersey fall behind these states in seeking solutions for its residents. There is no reason to continue to walk blindly, hoping that the issue will fix itself. There is every reason to make this investment in New Jerseyans’ health. We hope that the Committee will agree and release this bill today.

Thank you for your time.

When is Enough Enough for Corporate Tax Subsidies?

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

Good morning. I am Sheila Reynertson and am a Senior Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, and analysis.

NJPP opposes A6070 and encourages the committee to vote against its passage.

It’s shocking that the film and digital media tax credit program is back again for another round of corporate tax subsidies. When exactly is enough enough?

Here is a recap of how this program has ballooned in the past year:

Right out of the gate, the film and digital media tax subsidy program was given special privileges in the first draft of the Economic Recovery Act passed a year ago. While all other programs in the ERA were to expire in four years, the film and digital program was first revised to a 10-year program to expire in 2028. At the last minute, the program became a 16-year program, expiring in 2034 – 4 times as long as originally proposed.

Tax subsidies in this program were originally proposed to equal at most 25 percent of production costs. This clean up bill increases that to 35 percent. It also increases the annual tax credit limit for digital productions from $10 million to $30 million. Payments above $500,000 to a “highly compensated individual” screenwriter, director, music director or actor currently cannot count toward a tax credit. That reasonable threshold would now be increased to $15 million.

The annual program cap is currently set at $100 million. But that turns out to be negotiable, too. If there are unused tax credits at the end of the year, this legislation allows the Economic Development Authority to wave them around and say, “Anyone want the leftovers?” These aren’t drink tickets. These are tax dollars that New Jersey will have to forgo for decades.

Now, we learn there is an even more egregious amendment. Beginning in 2025, when all this will be in the distant past, the annual program cap may be lifted to $200 million for digital productions and $450 for film productions, at the discretion of the EDA. What’s going on here? Why have a $100 million annual cap at all if it’s going to be tinkered with until it’s meaningless?

This is just another example of New Jersey’s unhealthy relationship with corporate tax subsidies. And it’s the responsibility of this committee to be skeptical stewards of taxpayers money. It’s the responsibility of this committee to ask “When is enough enough?”

We respectfully ask the committee to vote no on A6070. Thank you.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»