If you dispute Chris Christie's budget estimates, he'll go after you â even if you're right "Governor Christie's predictions for tax collections have missed the mark," the Bergen Record's John Reitmeyer writes today, and the state now has an $800 million budget shortfall. It's only the latest in a series of optimistic budget estimates by Christie that have been disproven by reality. Economic forecasting is hard, and there isn't malfeasance behind every missed projection. But what makes this particularly embarrassing for Christie is that, when the state's top budget wonk criticized his past forecasts, Christie responded by insulting him and suggesting that he be fired. There's a long history of politicians in executive office releasing misleading or overly-optimistic budget numbers. Often, they do so by assuming soaring economic growth and increasing tax revenues â which can help them avoid painful decisions about spending cuts or tax increases. That's why Washington has the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan legislative agency that frequently throws cold water on the White House's hopes. If the president asserts that his policies will lead the deficit to plummet, the CBO will usually offer its own independent and skeptical assessment. New Jersey has a similar nonpartisan agency, the Office of Legislative Services, and for 30 years its chief budget officer has been a man named David Rosen. When Christie issued his budget estimates in 2012, they looked odd to most observers. He predicted that revenue would have a huge yearly increase of 7.4 percent â which the Star-Ledger found was the most optimistic in the nation â due to economic growth. This also allowed him to avoid raising taxes, or making any more particularly painful spending cuts, as his reelection the following year loomed. This was early 2012, before Hurricane Sandy hit and Christie's popularity surged, so his reelection wasn't yet certain. At the time, he planned to make the case that he had led the state to an economic recovery, which he dubbed "the New Jersey comeback" â even though unemployment numbers remained quite bad. AS THE INCONVENIENT NUMBERS ROLLED IN, CHRISTIE KEPT INSULTING ROSEN PUBLICLY, WHILE FESSING UP TO WALL STREET ANALYSTS So it was very inconvenient when David Rosen said Christie's projections would come up $145 million short that year, and $392 million short the following year. Christie criticized Rosen immediately, calling his office partisan and saying "they shouldn't be given any credibility." He added, "They're background noise to the New Jersey comeback." Weeks later, Christie went further, going after Rosen personally in what the Star-Ledger called "a fiery 20-minute tirade." He called Rosen, widely respected among legislators of both parties for years, a "Dr. Kevorkian of the numbers" and asked, "Why would anybody with a functioning brain believe this guy? ⦠How often do you have to be wrong to finally be dismissed?" Christie went on: "It should be humiliating to him. Nobody in this state believes David Rosen, anymore, nobody. And nobody should. He's so wrong, for so long, that his credibility is now gone." Watch some of what he said below: (There's a video). But Rosen's projections turned out to be far more accurate. He had said that revenue for the 2012 fiscal year would fall $145 million short of Christie's estimates, and it actually fell $275 million short. For the two fiscal years ending in June 2013, Rosen predicted a $1.3 billion revenue shortfall, and this also turned out to be right on. WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA MERELY REQUESTED A PRIVATE MEETING WITH THE CBO DIRECTOR, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL CALLED HIM THE "INTIMIDATOR IN CHIEF" As the inconvenient numbers rolled in, Christie kept insulting Rosen publicly, calling his estimates "politically motivated," and saying Rosen wanted to derail his planned tax cut. But only days later, Christie's administration advised potential bond investors on Wall Street that revenue could fall far short of their earlier estimates â as it subsequently did. Finally, after Hurricane Sandy, Christie shelved his tax cut for the time being. He blamed the storm, even though revenue was already $264 million short in the 4 months before it hit. He never apologized to Rosen. Back in 2009, the White House had some disagreements with CBO's projections of how much health reform would cost, and President Obama requested director Doug Elmendorf meet with him and his aides privately. For this, the Wall Street Journal editorial page called him the "Intimidator in Chief" and accused him of "bullying CBO." Christie, though, went far further. He's frequently been accused of using the power of his office to bully and intimidate others â accusations that have loomed over the investigations of the Bridgegate scandal. In his war against his state's top budget wonk, he did just that â and he also turned out to be flatly wrong. ----------------- ----------------- Add: Gov. Christie and the Tunnel Project, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pretends $1.57 billion in corporate tax breaks is a jobs program "Under Gov. Chris Christie, New Jersey supposedly can't afford to pay its public workers the pensions they worked for and contributed to while the state failed to contribute its share. But meanwhile Christie has doled out $1.57 billion in tax cuts to businesses, supposedly to create or preserve jobs, the New York Times' Charles Bagli reports. About those jobs: One program has provided $900 million in tax credits to 15 companies. The result? --The companies have promised to add 2,364 jobs, or $387,537 in tax credits per job, over the next decade." Bridgegate U.S. to investigate Gov. Christie's post-Hurricane Sandy 'Stronger Than the Storm' ad campaign -"Whatâs fishy, Pallone said, is that MMW the firm chosen by the state to put together the marketing campaign submitted a bid that was $2.2 million more expensive than another company that had no plans to put Christie in the ads." Is this NJ's worst governor? Can he blame his behavior on a bad childhood? Is it the fat?
Never liked the guy. You know a pol's a fuckup when he makes his felonious predecessor look good by comparison.
Don't like the guy either. However, it IS funny seeing Covertibility out with her talking points as emailed this morning, making her rounds in characteristic shrill town crier fashion.
Obama will be remembered for (a) saving General Motors, (b) killing Osama bin Laden, (c) giving Americans national health care. Bush will be remembered for (a) letting 9-11 happen on his watch, (b) making people take off their shoes just to board a f'ing plane, (c) not knowing the order of the colors of the rainbow, (d) leaving unfinished the job in Afghanistan in order to (e) start a totally unjustifiable multi-trillion-dollar war in Iraq that cost thousands of American lives, maimed tens of thousands of Americans and just wasted lots of other American resources, all to enrich his veep and his corporate cronies, (f) allowing the banksters to almost bankrupt America then bailing them out at taxpayers' expense. Only a teaasshat tool swimming in ODS koolaid could believe Obama looks bad by comparison to Bush. But then I really couldn't expect better from a mook who's posted here ten or more times a day every single day for over a decade now.
(a) You mean the UAW, at great expense to the tax payer. (b)I credit seal team six, you can credit dear leader if you like (c)Yeah he'll be remembered alright, but not in a good way. (a)"Letting" it happen? I blame Clinton for not killing Bin laden when he had the chance (b) So is Obama, in case you haven't been on a commercial flight in the last FIVE years (c) WTF? (d) We had done all that could be done before Bush even left office. WHY are we STILL there? And how much has the last FIVE years cost? (e) You're conveniently forgetting it was with broad democratic support (f)We're bankrupt? Only a blind Obama worshiper could think Obama looks good, compared to anyone. Would five times a day somehow improve my credibility with the rabid leftists, like you?