Our guest blogger is David Sanchez, a Special Assistant with the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Economic and Housing Policy Teams.

New Jersey is facing a twin crisis of foreclosures and lack of affordable housing, but Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently vetoed two bills that would have brightened the outlook for New Jersey residents struggling to afford homes.

The first bill would have empowered New Jersey’s Housing Mortgage and Finance Agency to purchase foreclosed homes and transform them into affordable housing. In doing so, New Jersey would combat the crime and blight brought about by vacant homes, while also increasing housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

The bill had support not only from housing advocates, but from a broad swatch of businesses. What’s more, it would have been implemented without requiring state appropriations.

The second bill would have improved New Jersey’s program to help unemployed or underemployed homeowners make their mortgage payments. This program, funded by a $300 million grant from the federal government’s Hardest Hit Fund program, has badly underperformed for years: according to the most recent statistics, the program has denied assistance to more than double the number of applicants it has helped, and it has spent less than one twentieth of the funds available (although changes have recently been announced that may improve the program). The bill would have mandated that the program respond to applicants and issue aid more quickly.

Christie’s decision to veto these bills is puzzling, to say the least, given the challenges facing New Jersey’s housing market and families. While the housing market is improving in most of the country, it’s getting worse in New Jersey. New Jersey’s percentage of homeowners who are not current on their mortgages increased the most of any state in 2012, and delinquencies remain especially elevated in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Read more

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) today vetoed an increase in the minimum wage that was passed by the state’s Democratic senate. Using what’s known as a “conditional veto,” Christie sent the bill back saying he would sign it if certain changes were made, including: shrinking the increase from $8.50 to $8.25 per hour, phasing it in over three years, and eliminating a provision tying the wage to inflation.

New Jersey’s current minimum wage stands at $7.25, so Christie’s veto, in essence, is saying that he believes a $1 increase in the wage over three years is sufficient. As the New Jersey Policy Perspective noted, “the first year increase proposed by the governor of 25 cents will be erased by inflation by the time the third year kicks in its 25 cents.” Here are more benefits that Christie denied to working New Jerseyans:

– Wages would have increased by $439 million in the first year;

– Overall economic activity would increase by $278 million in the first year;

– The equivalent of 2,420 new full time jobs would be created;

– 537,000 people would have received an increase in wages: 307,000 New Jerseyans making between $7.25 and $8.50 per hour would’ve seen an immediate raise, and 230,000 New Jerseyans making between $8.50 and $9.75 per hour would’ve seen a raise as pay scales were adjusted upwards.

Christie vetoed the wage increase, even though the cost of living in the Garden State is about 30 percent higher than the national average, according to a study by the New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory Commission.

Christie claimed that the minimum wage bill would threaten the slow economic recovery in New Jersey. “The sudden, significant minimum-wage increase in this bill, coupled with automatic raises each year tied to the Unites States consumer price index, will jeopardize the economic recovery we all seek,” Christie said. But as the Center for American Progress’ T. William Lester, David Madland, and Nick Bunker wrote, “We reviewed academic research that examines the effects of minimum wage increases during a recession or stretch of time with high unemployment and found significant evidence that even during hard economic times, raising the minimum wage is likely to have no adverse effect on employment.”

In California, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and the state’s Democratically controlled legislature are anticipating a budget surplus for 2014 after finally receiving voter approval for a series of tax increases. But on the other side of the country, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) wants to forge ahead with his plan to cut the Garden State’s income tax, despite a large and seemingly ever-growing deficit, as NJ101.5 reported:

For the better part of 2012, Governor Chris Christie demanded that Democrats approve a tax cut and he criticized them at every turn for dragging their feet. Democratic leaders consistently said they wanted to wait until they were sure that revenues matched Christie’s projections. Revenues have not matched estimates, but despite that and the fact that the costs of recovering from super-storm Sandy will be astronomical, the Governor isn’t ready to give up.

Asked if his demands for a tax cut will continue in 2013, Christie said, “I think they have to because we have to get more competitive. You look at the region and we have the highest tax rates in the region.”

The Governor said you can expect to become an economic job creator when you have the highest rate of taxes in the region.

“Yeah, I’m still going to continue to call for cuts in taxes,” pledged Christie. “I think that in the end, I’m hopeful that the Democrats, if not now certainly after this election, will see the wisdom for that.”

For months, Christie has been asserting that revenue in the state would come in higher than projected. He even blasted one revenue analyst — who turned out to be nearly spot-on — as the “Dr. Kevorkian of the numbers.” Now, Christie is hoping for a burst in revenue that has not been seen in New Jersey for nearly a decade in order to balance the state’s books.

The tax cut plan that Christie unveiled in 2012 would have given 40 percent of its benefit to the richest 1 percent of New Jerseyans, while cutting taxes for middle-class families by just $80.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) — a rising star within the GOP — tore into the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for failing to vote on a Hurricane Sandy aid package before the end of the 112th Congress on Tuesday night. “Our people were played last night as a pawn,” Christie said, adding that residents of New Jersey and New York have been treated as second-class citizens.

Noting that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle provided relief for victims of past national disaster at a greatly expedited pace, Christie charged that Republicans put politics “before our oaths to serve our citizens.” “Last night, the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state,” he said.

“There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority and their Speaker John Boehner (R-OH),” Christie declared. Historically, “disaster relief was something that you didn’t play games with, but now in this current atmosphere everything is a subject of one-upmanship,” he continued. “It is why the American people hate Congress.” Watch a portion of his remarks:

Christie said that he called Boehner four times after 11:20 PM “and he did not take my calls” or explain why he pulled a vote on the measure, which had passed the Senate earlier in a bipartisan vote. 62 Senators supported the $60 billion relief measure and a House Appropriations Committee had approved a $27 billion bill.

“Sixty-six days and counting. Shame on you, shame on Congress,” Christie said. “My hope is that the good people in Congress will prevail upon their colleagues to finally put aside the politics and help our people now.” The New Jersey governor explained that he was given assurances that some version of the relief package would come to the floor as late as 9:00 PM last night and claimed that nobody has given him a “credible reason” as to why the bill wasn’t voted on. GOP House members from New York like Reps. Peter King and Michael Grimm are also publicly questioned the reason behind Boehner’s decision.

Responding to Republican criticism that the relief bill wall full of wasteful projects, Christie explained that he and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) thoroughly substantiated the size of the package. “Those guys should spend a little more time reading the information we sent them and a little less time reading political talking points put together by their staff,” he said. Christie also left the door open to campaigning against certain House Republicans. “We’ll see,” he said. “Primaries are an ugly thing.”

In the last few years, House Republicans have embraced the practice of holding disaster relief hostage in exchange for Democratic concessions on spending cuts, but in each instance they have ultimately backed down and passed relief aid. The federal flood insurance program is expected to run out of money by the end of next week.

A spokesman for Boehner insisted in an email to Reuters that “The Speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month,” but believed that Tuesday night “was not a good time” to vote on relief.

As New Jersey continues to suffer from extensive damage left in the wake of Hurricane Sandy at the end of October, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) is poised to veto $60 million in federal aid meant to help his own constituents recover and rebuild.

Sandy’s devastation of the New Jersey shoreline was estimated to cost the state at least $29.4 billion. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) said the proposed $60.4 million in federal aid would cover the state’s damages. Garrett, however, suggested to CNBC host and fellow New Jersey resident Jim Cramer that he might deny his home state these much-needed funds, claiming he is concerned about “accountability” for “wasteful spending.”

CRAMER: Our state has been hit by a storm that may be worse than Hurricane Andrew. It requires spending. Do you veto that spending on principle?

GARRETT: At this point in time, we just got the president’s proposal as to the 60 some odd billion dollars. The governor said they’re looking for more. [...] I think in those numbers, I think it’s appropriate for Congress to look at them, and to also look for what I was asking for, that we never got with Katrina, and that was some degree of accountability. You remember all the stories about the FEMA trailers, about the credit, debit cards, whatever they were at that time, given out to people across the country, even if they were not in those areas. I think the American public wants to make sure there is a level of accountability going into this sort of thing. But you raise a good point, we’re at $239 billion in deficit, I think in the first couple months of this year and they’re talking about adding $60 billion on top of that.

CRAMER: I’m trying to figure out what kind of spending is good and what kind of spending is bad. [...] But if New Jersey doesn’t get that spending, even if it’s a little bit wasteful for heaven’s sakes, we’re really going to be hurt.

GARRETT: One person’s stimulus is another person’s wasteful spending.

Watch it:

Garrett appears to be siding with his Republican colleagues over his constituents. Republicans, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney and House Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), have expressed reluctance to provide federal assistance to areas hit by deadly natural disasters in the past few years. When faced with tornadoes that ravaged the Midwest, an earthquake in Virginia, and now Hurricane Sandy, Republicans demanded that relief funds be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.

Garrett also claimed that the government takes money from the private sector, saying, “I have a problem” with the idea that “the government is able to spend this money better than the private sector.” Privatizing disaster relief has been proven to be its own disaster; federal agencies like FEMA, despite Garrett’s maligning, are far more efficient and more able to coordinate resources than private efforts. Hurricane Katrina, which Garrett claims had no accountability for wasteful spending, was actually bungled by a delayed response and lack of resources provided by President George W. Bush’s FEMA.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), who was also on the program, blasted Garrett for using accountability as a “dodge” for acting and declared, “I’m going to make sure the people in New Jersey and New York are not left high and dry. Because it’s a national issue. We are a national community. And when there’s a tragedy, when there’s some kind of event in New Jersey, New York, we all have a responsibility.”

Garrett eventually conceded that he may support the Sandy aid if it had accountability measures built into it.