You know the deal: As head of the N.J. State Chamber, Tom Bracken is generally against anything that raises the cost of doing business in the state.
And while he certainly opposed recent initiatives — starting with, but not limited to, the Corporate Transit Fee — he at least understood the rationale and the purpose behind the potential $1 billion it was expected to generate to keep NJ Transit operating.
He can’t say the same thing this budget cycle.
The Sherrill administration has proposed three revenue‑raisers (the polite term for tax increases):
- A Net Operating Loss (NOL) cap modification
- An Employer Health Assistance contribution
- An Alternative Business Calculation adjustment
Together, the three measures could raise up to $750 million — money that will be used for … well, that part isn’t clear.
Bracken, along with others in the business community, sees the proposal as little more than a way to extract more money from employers (cue the nebulous “fair share” justification).
And he argues the impact goes far beyond the dollar figure. The state’s business reputation is at stake; he told a Senate budget hearing.
“Rather than improving our competitiveness, they will further reinforce our reputation as one of the least business‑friendly states in the nation,” he said. “At a time when we need to become more competitive, these proposals would move us in the opposite direction.”
Bracken noted that many of the items being targeted now were passed by the Legislature to make the state more competitive.
“It is also important to remember that several of the provisions now being targeted — such as the NOL and business alternative provisions adopted in 2011 — were enacted specifically to make New Jersey more competitive and less of an outlier,” he said.
He also pushed back against claims that these revenue‑raisers close “loopholes,” as if companies had taken advantage of something unintended.
“These are not ‘loopholes,’” he said. “They were deliberate policy decisions made by a previous Legislature to improve our economic standing. Reversing them now would once again make New Jersey an outlier — in a negative way — at a time when our need for growth is far more urgent than it was in 2011.”
Bracken noted that the $750 million represents just over 1% of the total state budget. He put the question directly to the Senate committee: Is it worth it?
“Is it worth further damaging our already fragile business reputation?
“Is it worth imposing financial strain on thousands of companies?
“Is it worth undermining our ability to generate the organic revenue growth that is absolutely essential to long‑term fiscal stability?
“From our perspective, the answer is a resounding no.”
To be clear, Bracken said he supports what he has been hearing from the new administration — applauding its aggressive outreach to the business community and interest in pro‑growth efforts.
“That outreach is a positive and necessary step toward building a stronger partnership between government and the private sector,” he testified. “Removing these business revenue enhancers from the proposed budget would significantly strengthen that effort. It would send a clear and powerful signal that New Jersey is serious about improving its business climate and committed to fostering economic growth.
“That is the foundation we need to achieve long‑term fiscal stability.”
