About half of New Jersey residents approve of the job Gov. Phil Murphy is doing, with 49% saying as much to the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.
Meanwhile, 46% disapproved of his job performance, with just 5% unsure in a poll conducted before his recent budget address. These numbers were barely changed from November 2021.
However, Murphy’s favorability took a double-digit drop since his re-election, with just 33% having a favorable impression of the governor. This number reached 50% in November 2021. In contrast, 38% had an unfavorable view of Murphy.
Underwater for First Time
According to Ashley Koning, an assistant research professor and director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (ECPIP) at Rutgers University–New Brunswick, this was the first time that more New Jerseyans were unfavorable to him than favorable.
“His current job approval and favorability numbers are reminiscent of the start of his first term, marking a clear end to his pandemic-induced ratings bump as both the state and politics attempt to return to some sort of normal,” she said.
Strong Grades on Pandemic, Education
The poll found support for Murphy and his actions during the pandemic, with 30% rating him an “A”; 22% rating him a “B”; and 13% rating him a “C”. Overall, he had a “B-” average, according to the poll.
Meanwhile, he scored a “C+” average on education and schools, with 20% giving him an “A” and 30% giving him a “B.”
Additionally, New Jersey residents graded Murphy positively for healthcare; the environment; the economy and jobs; crime and safety’; mental health and addiction; and transportation and infrastructure.
Concern with Budget, Taxes, Affordability
Murphy received much lower grades for his handling of the state budget, with one in five New Jerseyans failing him on this matter, giving him a “C-” rating.
Taxes and the cost of living and affordability was the biggest challenge for the Governor, with New Jerseyans giving him a “D+” on average for taxes
Residents gave him a “D” rating for the cost of living and affordability, with 45% failing him on this issue.
The best way to reduce the tax burden, whereby 2/3 of property taxes go toward funding schools, is to eliminate the regressive property tax formula used to fund these schools. Instead, schools should be fully funded with a progressive state income tax. This would eliminate the problem of having people with high mortgages that leave them with very little by way of discretionary resources and who are being taxed out of their homes because they are forced to pay property taxes on the assessed value, without having the benefit of liquidity. It also helps seniors or others, who may have paid off their mortgages over decades, but whose income is too low to afford their increasingly high property tax bill.
I know the wealthy, and perhaps, the upper middle class, will scream about having their income tax rates increase, but lower and middle income residents would see a huge dip in their overall tax burden, once they no longer have to pay property taxes. And for those who complain that non-property owners, renters, would have to pay an increased income tax without owning property, they would still benefit from the school services that are provided to all, and from being part of a community of well-educated graduates, with high rates of continuing on to good higher education and vocational programs.
Moreover, even those who are currently renting are, in effect, paying property taxes, because their landlords pay them, and pass those costs on to renters. With an income based funding scheme, lower and middle income renters would not pay much if anything by way of increased income taxes, while landlords might, depending on their income, be forced to pay a little more in income taxes, based on the proceeds of their rental properties, but they would, at the same time, be freed of paying the kind of property taxes they currently have to pay to fund schools.
Bottom line, wealthier people will pay more, low and middle income people will pay less. That’s fair!
He’s a mass murderer. And now the citizens of NJ are footing the bill for the deaths Murphy’s solely responsible for.
What’s the difference between NJ Governor Phil Murphy and serial killer Ted Bundy? Ted Bundy only killed 36 people. Murphy killed thousands.
Report: NJ Gov. Murphy Office Warned ‘Patients Will Die’ Before Ordering COVID Patients into Nursing Homes
NJ taxpayers will pay for Murphy’s mass murder spree.
In Major Settlement, N.J. Agrees to Pay $52.9M to Families Over COVID Deaths in State’s Hard-Hit Veterans Homes
Your plan does not cut the taxes. It simply shifts them from one economic group to another. Eliminate our curse of home rule. Gov’t expenses should be centralized on a county or local basis. Look at all the other states which have lower taxes. Their gov’t functions of Supt of Schools, Fire Chief, and Police Chief for example are done on a county/local basis. In our state each town has its own Supt of Schools, Fire Chief and Police Chief. But the Powers that Be Democrats and Republicans will not change this home rule problem because it would eliminate a lot of unnecessary, redundant, and patronage jobs. Every town regardless of size does not need all these high paid public servants.
I don’t think shared services solves the problem, and it creates others. I do agree the balance is skewed in favor of redundancy. Shifting the tax burden is the right thing.
Whatever your politics, I do not find the Governor to be a mass murderer, and I hope we’re not teaching our children that approach to conflict,