As of yet, Ryan McNeely hasn’t responded to Josh Barro’s observations on taxes and spending in New Jersey. He has, however, written a new post on the subject, pivoting off of Gov. Christie’s interview on This Week. He also makes an amusing, but somewhat problematic, comparison, First, he quotes Christie’s remarks:

“That’s what I’ve been doing in New Jersey, Jake. We have a Democratic legislature. I’ve passed a budget…with a Democratic legislature, a property tax cap with a Democratic legislature, pension reforms with a Democratic legislature. If you want to lead and build consensus, you can, and it’s the obligation of those people in charge to build consensus.”

McNeely then suggests that this consensus is illusory, offering a story from NJ.com as evidence:

The Democrat-controlled Legislature passed the Republican governor’s $29.4 billion spending plan early this morning, following a long and arduous night of debate at the Statehouse. Christie has scheduled a signing ceremony in South River for 1 p.m., about 12 hours after the Assembly approved his plan.
…The budget cleared both houses with bare majorities under a deal in which the Democrats provided just enough votes for the Republican-sponsored measure to pass.
Hopefully Gov. Christie will join the supporters of Sen. Udall’s plan for filibuster reform as he clearly knows the benefits of majority-rule in the legislature. If not, he should place the blame for the failure of reforms to get through Congress squarely where it belongs: on members of his own party in the Senate who are insisting on a 60-vote threshold for literally everything.

This is a very shrewd turn. But there is a small problem, as Josh Barro, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, notes:

The budget passed with a bare majority because legislative Democratic leadership agreed to supply enough votes for bare passage– not because Christie succeeded in peeling away a handful of Democrats in each house. So, it’s not really illustrative of the effects of a majority vs. supermajority vote requirement in a legislature, as what Christie did was cut a deal with leadership. (That’s even indicated in the very article McNeely quotes, as it says there was a “deal” for Democrats to “supply” votes.) Also, the comparison is inapt because federal spending bills can also be passed with just a simple majority in the Senate, through reconciliation, as we well know from the health care debate.
The other reforms that Christie cites in touting his ability to build consensus– the property tax cap, and health care and pension reforms– all passed the legislature by actually overwhelming margins with support from most members in both parties.

Specifics are helpful, and Josh has provided them.

The three bills containing the pension and health care reforms all passed the senate 36-0.
They then all passed the assembly by wide margins, taking between 62 and 73 votes (out of 80).
The property tax cap passed the Assembly 73-4.
And the Senate 36-3.

To be sure, the fact that 4 members of the Assembly and 3 members of the Senate voted against the property tax cap means that Christie failed to achieve unanimity. But unanimity and consensus aren’t quite synonymous.