New Jersey’s Acting Gov.Richard Codey just sent me the strangest letter.

Indeed, as a Jersey resident, I can say that I’ve never received official state correspondence so lacking in fact and logic. From the very first sentence, it aroused befuddlement: “I am pleased to report to you that the legislature has passed an increase to the New Jersey minimum wage and I am happy to sign the legislation.”

Why in the name of Adam Smith would anyone be “pleased” to report such horrific news – particularly someone charged with safeguarding the state’s economy and helping to keep folks from being thrown out of work (or not being hired in the first place)?

The note continues: “More than 200,000 New Jersey workers, most of whom are women and minorities, will benefit from this increase.” Again, economists – for obvious reasons – agree that higher wages make workers less attractive (though they may differ as to the extent).

Surely Codey does not think it fortunate that 200,000 mostly female and minority workers will now become less employable. On the other hand, if he believes (against all sense) that these 200,000 will see their wages go up without jobs being lost, his focus on “women and minorities” nonetheless remains a mystery. Are these exalted groups on whom New Jerseyans ought to bestow economic favors?

The letter goes on to say that “a minimum wage worker putting in 40 hours a week earns only $10,172 a year – well below federal poverty level.” On its face, that may seem true.

But Codey is aware, no doubt, that minimum-wage workers often do not work 40 yours a week, every week of the year. Rather, they are part-time workers or temps – college or high-school kids, mothers or the elderly. Nor might their annual pay fall below the poverty level if income from other household members were added in.

He also talks about bringing New Jersey “in line with our neighboring states, most of which already have a minimum wage set higher than the federal requirement.” But Pennsylvania’s rate isn’t higher.

And though New York raised its minimum this year, the only reason I can think of to match such a hike is out of some weird sense of fair play: It seems Codey doesn’t want New Jersey to enjoy a more favorable labor market (one that can attract more businesses by boasting lower wages) at New York’s expense.

Isn’t this is a bit much?

Or perhaps he is “happy” because he feels his role as governor is to represent – no matter the cost to everyone else – those few thousand, ever-shifting temps and part-timers who may very well, in fact, take home a few more dollars a week. Or those in the labor movement who believe that a boost at the bottom level will push up salaries at higher levels as well.

But as a Jersey shopper, I (and millions of other residents) will be paying the cost of these higher wages when shopping at Home Depot or Pathmark or eating Happy Meals at McDonald’s (the higher prices for which no doubt will make me less happy).

At the same time, the state’s economy will be taking a hit, with jobs being lost. That brings me to my final points.

Codey noted, admirably, in his budget speech last month that New Jersey is “not bankrupt” but “close” to it. Again, he must be aware that larger economies generate more tax revenue, which can be used to stave off insolvency. So why would he rejoice in – indeed, facilitate – steps that will shrink the economy and hold down receipts?

But this is the oddest of all: That, despite his recognition of the state’s fiscal woes, he would waste his time – and my tax dollars – bragging about a harmful wage-hike in an official letter . . . to me. Codey’s predecessor, Jim McGreevey, left a bizarre legacy. Codey shouldn’t try to top him.

E-mail: abrodsky@nypost.com