ELEC Lobbying Report Reveals a Weak, Under-Resourced NJEA Lobbying Effort for Pension Improvement. No Wonder It Failed.
May 7, 2026In 2025, NJ Continued To Be One of the Biggest Losers of People and Wealth to Other States
May 14, 2026Make no mistake about it, New Jersey taxpayers: the NJEA wants higher property taxes. Period. This makes sense, as school budgets typically account for over half of property taxes, but the NJEA has long avoided publicly calling for higher property taxes because of their deep unpopularity and past property-tax revolts. The NJEA has supported raising all other kinds of taxes — especially income taxes because those are specifically designated for property-tax mitigation — but not property taxes. Now former-NJEA President Sean Spiller has finally admitted it — in his characteristically deceptive manner, of course.
Ex-NJEA President Spiller calls for higher property taxes. Former-NJEA President and failed gubernatorial candidate Sean Spiller wrote an op-ed in NJ.com where he revealed how the NJEA really views property taxes. The NJEA has generally supported higher taxes — especially income taxes because they are dedicated to property-tax mitigation — to fund ever-increasing government spending, but the NJEA has long been wary of appearing to support property-tax hikes because of their deep unpopularity and their obvious connection to school budgets, which typically make up over half of property taxes. The NJEA has not forgotten the lesson it learned in the 2010 property-tax revolt, when voters turned out in record numbers to reject 316 out of 541 school district budgets (there was also an early 1990s property-tax revolt). Being an ex-president, Spiller can unequivocally call for ending the 2% property-tax cap, citing budget cuts and lay-offs at many school districts. As a NJEA elected officer for 12 years, we can be sure Spiller reflects the NJEA’s preferred outcome.
But Spiller being Spiller, he just can’t tell it straight.
Spiller ignores district expansion with COVID funds as well as enrollment declines. First, Spiller ignores the fact that school many districts used COVID-related revenue windfalls to hire and expand, but now the COVID money has run out and the reckoning has come. In addition, he ignores the decline in the student population in public schools due to both demographic trends and parents seeking alternatives after many public schools remained closed for in-person instruction during COVID. Under Spiller, the NJEA was all for using the windfalls for the hiring and expanding — and more dues-paying NJEA members — but now that fiscal reality has kicked in, he wants to keep the bloat and pay for it by raising property taxes (surely the NJEA’s preference as well).
And that health-benefit costs are exempted from the 2% cap. Even worse, Spiller misrepresents the proper-tax cap in order to try to discredit it. Everyone knows that rising health benefit costs are an enormous problem for school districts. Spiller describes how health benefit premiums have “seen annual spikes as high as 15% to 30%.” But by law health-benefit costs over 2% are exempted from the property-tax cap. Spiller surely knows this, so he is being deliberately misleading (which is too kind a word).
Same old deceptive Spiller. Just like how he deceived NJEA members about wasting $45 million of their highest-in-the-nation dues on his vanity run for governor. Thank goodness he’s an ex-president and former-candidate.
But make no mistake about it, New Jersey taxpayers: the NJEA wants higher property taxes.