New Jersey's 'Failed Experiment'

[rrc06]

Maybe NY and CA can elect governors like this next time....

New Jersey's 'Failed Experiment' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303348504575184120546772244.html)

The new governor is on a mission to make his state competitive again in attracting people and capital.

"I said all during the campaign last year that I was going to govern as if I was a one-termer," explains New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on a visit this week to the Journal's editorial board. "And everybody felt that it was just stuff you say during a campaign to sound good. I think after the first 12 weeks, given the stuff I've done, they figure: 'He's just crazy enough to do it.'"

Call it crazy, or just call it sensible: Mr. Christie is on a mission to make New Jersey competitive once again in the contest to attract people and capital. During last fall's campaign, while his opponent obliquely criticized Mr. Christie's size, some Republicans worried that their candidate was squishy—that he wasn't serious about cutting spending and reining in taxes. Turns out they were wrong.

Listen to Mr. Christie's take on the state of his state: "We are, I think, the failed experiment in America—the best example of a failed experiment in America—on taxes and bigger government. Over the last eight years, New Jersey increased taxes and fees 115 times." New Jersey's residents now suffer under the nation's highest tax burden. Yet the tax hikes haven't come close to matching increases in spending. Mr. Christie recently introduced a $29.3 billion state budget to eliminate a projected $11 billion deficit for fiscal year 2011.

California and New York have attracted headlines for their budget woes. Yet, as Mr. Christie points out, "Their problems are much smaller than ours as a percentage. [Gov.] David Paterson's talking about an $8.2 billion deficit in New York—I only wish."

After taking office in January, Mr. Christie declared an official state of emergency. This allowed him to freeze $2.2 billion in spending that had already been authorized. Now he needs a Democratic legislature to turn his freeze into an actual cut and to enact the deeper reductions contained in his 2011 budget.

It might well happen. Many Democrats recognize the state's deep-seated fiscal woes. Mr. Christie has already signed into law a bipartisan plan that begins to reform the state's generous benefit system for government workers. Facing unfunded liabilities of $90 billion in pension and medical plans, Mr. Christie worked with lawmakers to change retirement benefits for new workers and to require all new state employees to pay 1.5% of their medical insurance costs. Until now they were paying nothing.

He wants to go further. "We need to move forward to try to make some changes in the pension system for current employees," he says. "There's all kinds of problems in doing that, some legal. . . . You can't take away vested benefits, but the argument of whether increases going forward are actually vested or not is an interesting legal issue that we're going to attempt to challenge. . . ." He adds that the current retirement age for state employees, 62, "needs to be moved up further."

As you can imagine, the Christie agenda is not wildly popular among presidents of government-employee unions. To put it more precisely, Mr. Christie is now in a political street fight with the head of the New Jersey Education Association, the teachers union that spent millions last year to defeat him.

NJEA President Barbara Keshishian visited his office this week to apologize for a recent email sent to thousands of teachers by a union official that included a mock prayer for the governor's death. According to Mr. Christie, the conversation went something like this: He accepted her apology immediately but asked if the email sender would be fired for "doing something that monumentally stupid." When the union chief questioned why the man should be fired, Mr. Christie promptly ended the meeting.

"I'm a product of public schools in New Jersey," Mr. Christie explains, "and I have great admiration for people who commit their lives to teaching, but this isn't about them. This is about a union president who makes $265,000 a year, and her executive director who makes $550,000 a year. This is about a union that has been used to getting its way every time. And they have intimidated governors for the last 30 years."

While the state lost 121,000 jobs last year, education jobs in local school districts soared by more than 11,000. Over the past eight years, according to Mr. Christie, K-12 student enrollment has increased 3% while education jobs have risen by more than 16%. The governor believes cuts in aid to local schools in his budget could be entirely offset if existing teachers would forgo scheduled raises and agree to pay 1.5% of their medical insurance bill for one year, just as new state employees will be required to do every year.

A new Rasmussen poll found that 65% of New Jersey voters agree with him about a one-year pay freeze for teachers. But the teachers union wants to close the budget gap by raising the income tax rate on individuals and small businesses making over $400,000 per year to 10.75% from its current 8.97%.

Mr. Christie doesn't think that state and local budget problems can be fixed without tackling education spending. That's because the state has a hybrid system in which local property taxes fund schools and some of the money is redistributed by the state from affluent areas to poorer communities. According to Mr. Christie, New Jersey taxpayers are spending $22,000 per student in the Newark school system, yet less than a third of these students graduate, proving that more money isn't the answer to better performance. He favors more student choice, which is why he's ramping up approvals for charter schools.

On another front, Mr. Christie is seeking a ballot measure this fall that would amend the state's constitution to limit increases in local property taxes to 2.5% annually. To put this question before voters he needs to win over three-fifths of the state legislature and expects legislators to vote in May or June.

Will New Jersey send a message across the country that state government can be turned around without federal bailouts? "We're such a long way away from a message," Mr. Christie says, "because, you know, the message might be, 'Look at that poor SOB. There he is lying dead on State Street in Trenton. It's over. OK, everybody back to our corners and let's go back to the normal game.' . . . I hope, that if we're successful, [the message] can be . . . that you can do this."

Meanwhile, Mr. Christie has started spreading the news that the Garden State aims to compete once again for businesses, jobs and residents. He notes that for years the state offered a better tax environment than New York, which encouraged city dwellers to discover New Jersey's beautiful suburbs. Mr. Christie says that he recently bumped into former New York Gov. George Pataki, who noted that he'd been shocked to learn that New Jersey now has an even higher burden than its tax-crazy neighbor. "See what happens when you're not looking?" he said to Mr. Pataki. "Snuck right up on ya."

The governor aims to move tax rates back to the glory days before 2004, when politicians lifted the top income tax rate to its current level of almost 9% from roughly 6%. Piled on top of the country's highest property taxes, as well as sales and business income taxes, the increase brought the state to a tipping point where the affluent started to flee in droves. A Boston College study recently noted the outflow of wealthy people from the state in the period 2004-2008. The state has lately been in a vicious spiral of new taxes and fees to make up for the lost revenue, which in turn causes more high-income residents to leave, further reducing tax revenues.

With a 9.8% unemployment rate (significantly above neighboring New York), Mr. Christie has plenty of data to make his case that the state's government has put too much of a burden on the private economy. He also is heartened by polls showing public frustration with the cost of the state's lavish programs. "The ones who pay are going to stand up and say, 'Enough already, I can't do it!'"

He needs them to stand up now and support him. While voters seem ready for a new approach to governance, the new governor's personal popularity has suffered a bit amid the acrimony. Mr. Christie says that the teachers union has spent $1.8 million in the last month on media advertising to defeat his budget plan. "That's just the beginning. We're in April. This budget isn't going to pass until June 30."

Still, allowing himself a bit of optimism, he envisions the impact if he succeeds. "What I hope it will do in the end is first and foremost fix New Jersey, and end this myth that you can't take these people on," he says. "I just hope it shows people who have similar ideas to mine that they can do it. You just have to stand up and grit your teeth and know your poll numbers are going to go down—and mine have—but you gotta grit it out because the alternative is unacceptable." He also strongly believes that voters elected him specifically to fight this fight. "They're fed up. They've had enough. In normal circumstances I wouldn't win," he says.

While debates over taxes and spending remain bitter, Mr. Christie has been pleased with an emerging consensus to address the state's regulatory morass. He is now working on a bipartisan bill with Democrats in the state Senate to reduce red tape in Trenton. "We have Democrats who are very interested in wanting to lower regulation because they know . . . it's a no-cost way of trying to spur business growth," he says.

He's tasked his lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, with reviewing 800 pages of regulations from the outgoing administration of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, regulations Mr. Christie froze upon taking office. On Monday, Ms. Guadagno will issue a report with recommendations on whether to let them go forward. She has already held 31 public meetings with business and government officials to discuss how to improve the state's regulatory climate. "You're not going to have to spend nearly as much money to start your business in New Jersey," says the governor.

And if he is successful in the budget battle of Trenton, the state's residents won't have to spend nearly as much to live there.

Good to see that there are politicians that have a set in this day and age

[SigX]

this is my favorite part:

"I'm a product of public schools in New Jersey," Mr. Christie explains, "and I have great admiration for people who commit their lives to teaching, but this isn't about them. This is about a union president who makes $265,000 a year, and her executive director who makes $550,000 a year. This is about a union that has been used to getting its way every time. And they have intimidated governors for the last 30 years."


the "for the little guy" union leader! lol, what a joke.

[Krazen1211]

Maybe NY and CA can elect governors like this next time....

New Jersey's 'Failed Experiment' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303348504575184120546772244.html)



Good to see that there are politicians that have a set in this day and age

Chris Christie is simply a great man.

[124nic8]

Chris Christie is simply a great man.

Apparently his opponent agreed:

while his opponent obliquely criticized Mr. Christie's size :P

[Krazen1211]

Apparently his opponent agreed:

:P

Yep. You know your tenure as governor sucked when in a deep blue state, your best campaign ad is calling the guy a fattie.

[erdong]

Sure he is. He is the one that actually walks the walk. Really hope he will be the president of the united states.
Chris Christie is simply a great man.

[MrsIke]

Good to see that there are politicians that have a set in this day and age

And, what a set they seem to be! I hope more politicians follow his lead.

This gave me a giggle. I'd had loved to have seen his face during this exchange.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian visited his office this week to apologize for a recent email sent to thousands of teachers by a union official that included a mock prayer for the governor's death. According to Mr. Christie, the conversation went something like this: He accepted her apology immediately but asked if the email sender would be fired for "doing something that monumentally stupid." When the union chief questioned why the man should be fired, Mr. Christie promptly ended the meeting.

[HondaEnthus]

It's really pathetic how often liberals resort to petty insults against political enemies. They've been calling Christie fat the same way they call people opposed to gay marriage closet homosexuals. Obviously, homosexuality isn't as great as they say it is if they are happy to use it as an insult.

[rrc06]

This gave me a giggle. I'd had loved to have seen his face during this exchange.

Typical public union dogma ---- you literally have to murder someone to get fired, and even then, you're probably on leave with pay during the investigation.

[124nic8]

Typical public union dogma ---- you literally have to murder someone to get fired, and even then, you're probably on leave with pay during the investigation.

Cause you wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a rush to judgement?

[HondaEnthus]

Cause you wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a rush to judgement?

In the private sector, if you screw up, you're out. You don't get the benefit of a hearing. The problem is the law used to be that you didn't have a right to have a government job. Then some idiot judges decided that once you have a government job, it's a property right that can't be denied without due process of law.

[blockygraphics]

Sure he is. He is the one that actually walks the walk. Really hope he will be the president of the united states.

He probably won't live that long. People his size usually die below the median average of human life expectancy. It is just a fact.

Anyway, public unions are going to be the #1 problem when confronting budget shortfalls.

How arrogant is it of these guys to demand tax hike after tax hike to pay for their constant raises while unemployment in New Jersey damn close to 10% (official) and probably closer to 20% actual.

Christie is going to walk the walk and props to him but TRIPLE PROPS to the democrats who have realized that he's right and cuts will have to be made. That's real bi-partisanship when people can work together to fix a problem.

Public sector unions...blah. Worthless and pointless organizations.

[HondaEnthus]

He probably won't live that long. People his size usually die below the median average of human life expectancy. It is just a fact.

Anyway, public unions are going to be the #1 problem when confronting budget shortfalls.

How arrogant is it of these guys to demand tax hike after tax hike to pay for their constant raises while unemployment in New Jersey damn close to 10% (official) and probably closer to 20% actual.

Christie is going to walk the walk and props to him but TRIPLE PROPS to the democrats who have realized that he's right and cuts will have to be made. That's real bi-partisanship when people can work together to fix a problem.

Public sector unions...blah. Worthless and pointless organizations.

Their leaders are worse than the mafia ever was. Randi Weingarten is no better than Idi Amin in terms of what she's done to society.

[blockygraphics]

Typical public union dogma ---- you literally have to murder someone to get fired, and even then, you're probably on leave with pay during the investigation.

So true. I worked a union job in the auto industry. A girlfriend STABBED her boyfriend while he worked on the line!!!! She is still working there. He is too...with a knife scar. She didn't even go to jail.

I also worked with a woman as fat as Christie (probably moreso) but was incapable of even standing for longer than 10 minutes. We actually worked faster without her there. Even the pro-union guys had few excuses as to why she was still employed there.

Unions served their purpose very well in the early part of the century and a role still exists for them if the government just doesn't take over EVERYTHING for them leaving them to just demand undue extras and make products uncompetitive in the global markets.

Something has got to give. At this point, I say unions but I'd rather the government get out of people's business and give that power back to the unions.

[rrc06]

Cause you wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of a rush to judgement?

do you work in a public union?

[blockygraphics]

Then some idiot judges decided that once you have a government job, it's a property right that can't be denied without due process of law.

Yep. While your real property rights are taken away by liberal Supreme Court judges so your local town board can give your property over to a company who will add more to the tax rolls.

[blockygraphics]

do you work in a public union?

I know someone very well that does. They can't strike. They can't stage walkouts. They can have their contract ended at any given point.

And this is in a strong union town/state! They do have health care benefits that people would kill for....paid for by taxpayers! Woo hoo!

[HondaEnthus]

Yep. While your real property rights are taken away by liberal Supreme Court judges so your local town board can give your property over to a company who will add more to the tax rolls.

You got it! Only in the perverted world of leftism does this make sense.

[JimOfTroy]

So true. I worked a union job in the auto industry. A girlfriend STABBED her boyfriend while he worked on the line!!!! She is still working there. He is too...with a knife scar. She didn't even go to jail.

A buddy of mine was a plant manager for a concrete company whose drivers are unionized. A few years ago he told me one of the drivers was in the yard at the end of the day and thought it would be funny to throw a short piece of rebar against a wall to scare another driver. Well, his aim wasn't very good and the rebar busted the other driver's knee. The guy was disabled for months. He got a 1 week suspension.

[blockygraphics]

A buddy of mine was a plant manager for a concrete company whose drivers are unionized. A few years ago he told me one of the drivers was in the yard at the end of the day and thought it would be funny to throw a short piece of rebar against a wall to scare another driver. Well, his aim wasn't very good and the rebar busted the other driver's knee. The guy was disabled for months. He got a 1 week suspension.

It reminds me of a joke I read. Here it is!

*****

Two guys and a union worker were fishing on a lake one day, when Jesus walked across the water and joined them in the boat. When the three astonished men had settled down enough to speak, the first guy asked humbly, "Jesus, I've suffered from back pain ever since I took shrapnel in the Vietnam war...could you help me?"

"Of course, my son", Jesus said, and when he touched the man's back, he felt relief for the first time in years. The second man, who wore very thick glasses and had a hard time reading and driving, asked if Jesus could do anything about his eyesight. Jesus smiled, removed the man's glasses and tossed them in the lake. When they hit the water, the man's eyes cleared and he could see everything distinctly.

When Jesus turned to heal the union worker, the guy put his hands up and cried defensively, "Don't touch me! I'm on long term disability."

[smegalicious]

It's really pathetic how often liberals resort to petty insults against political enemies. They've been calling Christie fat the same way they call people opposed to gay marriage closet homosexuals. Obviously, homosexuality isn't as great as they say it is if they are happy to use it as an insult.
Says a poster who, just a few posts later, tries to equate a union leader to a mass murdering despot. :rolleyes: :vomit:

[Arglebargle2]

The thing I noted from this story was 'Bi-partisan support'. This guys seems to be trying to fix problems, not just making things nice for his particular political gang. Compare this to the antics at the federal level. We haven't seen much besides toxic partisanship for over a decade there. Despite the rhetoric, it is all too often about whose friends get to snarf at the trough. And that's a sword that cuts both ways.

[Krazen1211]

The thing I noted from this story was 'Bi-partisan support'. This guys seems to be trying to fix problems, not just making things nice for his particular political gang. Compare this to the antics at the federal level. We haven't seen much besides toxic partisanship for over a decade there. Despite the rhetoric, it is all too often about whose friends get to snarf at the trough. And that's a sword that cuts both ways.

That's what makes Chris Christie so terrific. He doesn't have a political gang, other than the taxpayers of whatever remains of our state's economy.

[zzyzzx]

A buddy of mine was a plant manager for a concrete company whose drivers are unionized. A few years ago he told me one of the drivers was in the yard at the end of the day and thought it would be funny to throw a short piece of rebar against a wall to scare another driver. Well, his aim wasn't very good and the rebar busted the other driver's knee. The guy was disabled for months. He got a 1 week suspension.

The guy who was disabled should have filed charges for assault.

[ASG]

I'm from NJ and Christie's just finding a new way to kill us instead of the old ways. Instead of your state taxes being high, the price of all state products is going up (NJ Transit is increasing their prices 25% because the state funding of public transit when down so much) and your property taxes will be going up (Education funding for each town has been slashed so much the town I used to live in is getting zero funding from the state). And somehow he thinks cutting all this spending is going to lead to more good jobs? I'll believe it when I see it.

I want Codey back.

[Krazen1211]

I'm from NJ and Christie's just finding a new way to kill us instead of the old ways. Instead of your state taxes being high, the price of all state products is going up (NJ Transit is increasing their prices 25% because the state funding of public transit when down so much) and your property taxes will be going up (Education funding for each town has been slashed so much the town I used to live in is getting zero funding from the state). And somehow he thinks cutting all this spending is going to lead to more good jobs? I'll believe it when I see it.

I want Codey back.

Sounds good to me. The guys who ride a train should pay over the guys who don't ride a train.

Codey is the guy who helped create our $10b deficit in the first place.

All local towns have to do is reduce education spending by cutting back the massive extras that put us over 48 other states in per student spending.

The real problem, of course, is the Abbott districts. It's time to cut Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Ashbury park off from state funds until they perform.

[Krazen1211]

If anyone wants the history on how the unions and the union sympathizers wrecked the state:

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional-local/14142789-1.html

New Jersey taxpayers face a decades-long continuation of six-figure annual pension payouts and other costly retirement benefits promised to public employees.

The reason: State law guarantees that pensions for existing workers can't be altered. Even a package of pending legislation ? hailed as the remedy for


a system that's short $45.8 billion ? would apply only to new employees and not to the current workforce of some 450,000.

The guarantee, in a 1997 law signed by Republican Gov. Christie Whitman, has served to insulate public workers from wrenching economic realities that prevail in the private sector. Amid the national recession, for instance, 21 percent of Garden State companies suspended payments to 401(k)s, according to a September survey by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. Those companies are not obliged to resume the contributions or make up the difference.

"In private industry, for those not in a union environment, employers are free to make changes as they see fit," said Jim O'Connor, managing director of Cbiz EAO benefits, a Manasquan consulting firm. "It's all business-driven."

New Jersey's government workers have no such retirement uncertainty. The trend in their pension system is ever-growing salaries and a surge in retirees. It's all underwritten by the country's highest-taxed property owners ? whose elected officials accommodated labor unions, incorrectly counted on eternal pie-in-the-sky investment returns and took little action when a financial crisis was clear.

A multiyear pension-data analysis by The Record shows that:

* Annual payments to retirees reached $5.50 billion in 2008, from $3.53 billion in 2002 ? a 56 percent increase and more than triple the national inflation rate. The number of retirees, meanwhile, increased 21.4 percent, to 226,000.

* "Pensionable" salaries of existing public workers jumped 23.8 percent, to $23.98 billion in 2008 from $19.37 billion in 2002.

* In 2003, roughly one in eight public employees earned at least $75,000. That number more than doubled ? to 98,300, from 49,800 ? and now about one in five workers is paid at least $75,000.

Public employers are subject to union pressures and legislative restrictions," said O'Connor, the benefits consultant. "In New Jersey, you have very strong unions and you also require an act of the state Legislature to make changes to pension rules."

Supporters of the reforms working through the Legislature say that eventually those changes would help shore up the system.

But they would have no impact, by way of example, on a 21-year-old office worker hired before any of the proposed reforms are signed, and who could retire in 2049 and enjoy today's generous retirement benefits.

"For the current employees, we are bound, absolutely," said state Senate President Steve Sweeney, D-Gloucester. "But we're not bound for life. It's just a matter of us drawing the line. Current employees obviously keep what they have because they have it. But for future employees, no."

Employment experts say, however, that in the private sector, retirement rules can be changed in the middle of employees' careers. For example, pension plans are routinely "frozen" when business pressures demand ? meaning that workers stop accumulating pension credits. Accrued benefits are sacrosanct, as are payments to those who have retired.

Skipped payments

The crisis now is far from what the Whitman administration had pictured in 1997, when the governor successfully lobbied to skip pension payments, bond $2.75 billion and apply that loan plus investment earnings to patch a $4.2 billion hole in the pension funds. The idea, called the Pension Security Plan, was to lower taxes, relieve long-term debt and ensure the long-term health of the pension pool. But a key assumption of the plan ? annual investment returns of 8.75 percent ? faltered when the markets ended their run-up in 2001.

"These are mysterious things to most of the people most of the time," said Gordon MacInnes, a former Democratic state senator from Morristown who had tried to defeat the plan. "[Lawmakers] were just abandoning prudent conservative practices to make good on a political promise to reduce the income tax by 30 percent and at the same time balance the budget. This was the primary vehicle to do that."

James DeEleuterio, one of Whitman's treasurers, defended the governor's Pension Security Plan as fiscally sound. As for the related legislation ? the "non-forfeitable" right to a pension ? it merely formalized what had been practice all along, he said.

Part of that was, frankly, a trade-off," DeEleuterio said. "At the time, the unions made several concessions to the state in terms of employees paying a part of their overall health-benefit costs and changing copays. They said if we're going to make these concessions, we want a guarantee that once an employee becomes vested, the state can't turn around and say, 'OK, we're taking that back.' "

The pension-bond bill won narrow approval. The non-forfeiture measure received overwhelming support in both houses, with five Republicans ? one in the Senate and four in the Assembly ? casting no votes.

"Back in those times the stock market was doing pretty well," said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Sussex, who as an assemblyman had voted against the 1997 pension bills. "But the question was, 'OK, what if that doesn't go on into perpetuity ? will we face a problem in the future knowing that a good thing doesn't last forever?' A handful of us said we have to prepare ourselves for that day."
When Whitman left office in 2000 to head the Environmental Protection Agency, the pension system continued to be flush ? but the administration had warned that if the excess assets vanished, the state would have to resume making payments, DeEleuterio said.

Instead, later administrations continued to withhold payments, even as the markets contracted, tax revenue dried up and New Jersey's unfunded obligation ? what it owed, compared to what was on hand ? reached its current $45.8 billion.

Recognizing mistakes

In 2005, a pension-and-benefits review panel convened by Richard J. Codey, the Democratic acting governor, identified missteps ? including the Pension Security Plan ? and suggested corrections. A year later, a special legislative committee on property-tax reform identified an $18 billion unfunded pension liability and recommended 21 changes to strengthen the retirement system. Few of those recommendations became law.

Sen. Kevin J. O'Toole, R-Cedar Grove, who sat on the committee's benefits-reform panel, asked for legal opinions on non-forfeitable pension rights. Lawyers from the Office of Legislative Services and the Attorney General's Office said the clause from the 1997 law was akin to a contract and altering it would be unconstitutional. O'Toole, an attorney, wasn't satisfied.

"There's still deep exploration on what's a non-forfeitable right and what's not," he said last week. "We're going to get a briefing from the Governor's Office and the treasurer soon. Right now, everyone's holding their breath."

Sweeney, the state Senate president ? and an ironworker with heavy backing from trade unions ? has had one-on-one discussions with members of public-safety and other employee unions. He said he told them that the state will fulfill its promise of a sound pension, but stressed that long-term reform ? however slow ? is necessary.

"Pensions are long term," he said. "Shocking the system would force people to leave, run out the door. By doing it in a very responsible way, which we are, you're gradually correcting the pension system. It's not about fixing it overnight. It didn't break overnight."

One of the reform proposals under consideration would ask voters to approve a constitutional change, ordering the state to make good on the pension contributions it has skipped for years, even as the workforce dutifully paid its share. Supporters say such a clause, with a seven-year payment plan for $17.5 billion in overdue funds, would set up New Jersey for fiscal responsibility.

Critics say it would require up to 10 percent in immediate and disastrous budget cuts to cover what's owed.


http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/private/penfunds.htm


"I believe it was in essence arbitrage, and I don't think the government should engage in arbitrage," said State Senator Leonard Lance, who as a member of the General Assembly was one of the few Republicans to oppose Governor Whitman's proposal. "Unfortunately, I believe I've been proved right on this."

Even before Gov. James E. McGreevey took office in January, he blamed his Republican predecessors for the growing budget gap. But the pension funds were not even a factor for the 2003 fiscal year, because by law no contribution was scheduled until 2004.

While the pension funds have lost value, there was no way to anticipate the market losses of the spring and summer.

When Moody's Investors Service downgraded New Jersey's bonds in March, it predicted that in 2004 the state would have to start making pension payments of "several hundred million dollars per year." Tim Blake, the author of the report, said he had since heard estimates of $1 billion.

Over the last two years, the state's investment portfolio, most of which is pension funds, declined from $94 billion to $72 billion. About 60 percent of the portfolio is invested in stocks.

Ms. Cambria, the fiscal policy specialist, said that while the recent losses were alarming, "It's absolutely essential that we realize we are seeing the consequences of irresponsible action over a long period of years."

In the 1990's, the state's long-term debt rose to $15.7 billion from $4 billion. Of that, $2.75 billion came from the 1997 pension bond sale, the state's largest debt offering ever.

The bond issue allowed Mrs. Whitman to balance her election-year budget by drastically cutting the state's required contribution to the pension funds. The problem was "unfunded liabilities" that is, money that was supposed to be in the pension funds and was not dating to 1994, when the state started deferring its payments.

When the governor proposed borrowing to raise the funds and investing the money, the idea was wildly unpopular. No state had ever issued bonds to cover pension costs, and even the Republican chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Robert E. Littell, pronounced it a "wacko idea."

But Mrs. Whitman prevailed, and critics were shushed when the bonds sold in an eager market at an average interest rate of 7.64 percent, instead of the 7.78 percent that the state had expected.




Sounds amusing. Borrow money at 7.64% and invest in the stock market, mark your books with an 8.75% return, and claim that you're making money.

These clowns are no better than Madoff and the guys at AIG.

[ASG]

I love how you post

If anyone wants the history on how the unions and the union sympathizers wrecked the state:

And then proceed to post an article showing the history of how our last Republican governor wrecked the state.

[Krazen1211]

I love how you post



And then proceed to post an article showing the history of how our last Republican governor wrecked the state.

Yeah, she did. It's well known that Christie Whitman was a RINO union sympathizer.

Governor Christie acknowledged that its a bipartisan problem.

And Codey? In 2002-2005, he put essentially nothing in the pension fund all while piling on obligations.


And the unions? If they budge on the contracts, the unions are dead. According to them, anyway. So they lead the state into ruin. And thanks to Mcgreevey, they can do it.

School boards lost a key negotiating tool in 2003, when the Legislature heeded the NJEA's request and took away the boards' power to impose their "last, best offer" if a union walks away from the table. Now deadlocks end up before mediators.

"Mediators have a set of rules that require them to look at surrounding districts and are using settlements reached a year or two or three ago" to set comparable rates, said Bozza, of the New Jersey Association of School Administrators. "As a result, we have recommendations coming in that are unrealistic given today's economy."

Sen. Richard Codey, D-Essex, who was one of the top beneficiaries of the NJEA over the last five years, with $15,500 in campaign contributions, said the latest challenge to the union's power could "strengthen them because they are energized."

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:ZDOc6NGNyEwJ:m.northjersey.com/nj/db_44944/contentdetail.htm%3Bjsessionid%3D3E3E85082228C521216E9C6A12F5598F%3Fcontentguid%3DWRL2WsZB%26detailindex%3D0%26pn%3D0%26ps%3D10%26full%3Dtrue+jim+mcgreevey+union+bill+negotiate&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/12/news/economy/benner_pension.fortune/index.htm

(Fortune Magazine) -- Even as the nation's economy is showing some tentative signs of bottoming out, another calamity looms: the public pension bomb.

For years, states nationwide have shortchanged the retirement programs that cover teachers, police, and other public employees; now the stock market plunge has wiped out billions of dollars from already underfunded plans. California, New York and Illinois are among the states scrambling to plug multibillion-dollar holes in their pension systems. The growing obligations raise the specter of higher taxes, diminished services, or even another round of costly federal bailouts.


0:00 /04:26Big Apple's bruised finances
"States have long needed to reduce their unfunded liabilities, and widespread investment losses have made it even more necessary to put money in," says Lance Weiss, author of a 2006 Deloitte study of state pensions. "But the market crash also means there's less money available to use for contributions. Everything is coming together to create a crisis."

To better understand this ticking time bomb it helps to focus on a single state, and New Jersey makes a compelling case study. For one thing, its situation is dire. In June 2008 the state estimated that the plan - one of the nation's largest, covering teachers, state employees, firefighters, and police - had $34 billion less than it needed to meet its obligations. Since then the market value of the plan has dropped from $82 billion to $56 billion (a new estimate of underfunding is due in July).

Also, New Jersey is in some ways ahead of the pack in trying to deal with the crisis - Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, made addressing the problem a central theme of his 2005 campaign - and the obstacles it is encountering shed light on the hard choices facing other states.

"The pension obligations could spark a huge problem for New Jersey," says Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor. "They must be paid because they are absolutely an obligation of the state, but as it is, the budget is balanced with chewing gum and sealing wax."

***

To figure out how such a wealthy state (with a median household income of $65,933, New Jersey ranks No. 1) dug itself into this hole, set the clock back almost 20 years.

In 1990 the country was hit by a recession, and the new Democratic governor, James Florio, responded with a wildly unpopular $2.8 billion income and sales tax increase to balance the budget. Two years later, facing another budget shortfall, he turned to the state pension system for help. With almost unanimous support in the legislature, he pushed through the Pension Revaluation Act of 1992.

We'll spare you the minutiae of pension accounting and just say that the law permitted the state to recognize investment gains in the fund more quickly than under previous rules. It also lifted the projected rate of return on the fund's investments to 8.75% from 7% (since lowered to 8.25%). These "adjustments" had a big impact: According to an official Benefits Review Task Force report published in 2005, they allowed the state to cut its pension contributions by more than $1.5 billion in 1992 and 1993.

Republican Christine Todd Whitman, running on a tax-cutting platform, defeated Florio in the 1993 governor's race. To help pay for her promised tax cuts, Whitman, like her predecessor, turned to the pension fund. In 1994, at her urging, the legislature adopted another pension "reform" act that allowed her to reduce state and local contributions to the plan by nearly $1.5 billion in 1994 and 1995, according to the task force report. Florio's and Whitman's accounting changes were "the one-two punch from which the retirement system has never recovered," says Douglas Forrester, who was the assistant state treasurer under Kean.

***

Seeking to make up lost ground without putting up more money, the state's leaders looked to the magic of the stock market. In 1997 New Jersey sold $2.75 billion of bonds paying 7.6% interest, putting the proceeds into the pension fund to be invested for higher returns.

At that time Whitman said the ironically named Pension Security Plan would save taxpayers about $45 billion. It hasn't worked out that way. The fund has earned less than 6% annually since the bonds were issued.
"This is classically referred to as arbitrage," says U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance, a Republican who served in the New Jersey legislature from 1991 through 2008. "It's a questionable strategy in the private sector, and it's certainly not acceptable as a matter of public policy."

That wasn't the state's last venture into high finance. The system, along with almost every other investor, suffered sharp losses after the dotcom bust of 2001. Democrat James McGreevey, who became governor in 2002, hoped that professional money managers would improve the plan's returns. At the time New Jersey was the only state other than Texas to run its pension fund without outside help.

McGreevey appointed Orin Kramer, a money manager who had been finance chair of his unsuccessful 1997 gubernatorial campaign, as head of the State Investment Council, which sets policy for the pension plan. Kramer pushed the council to turn over some of the fund's assets to Wall Street professionals and to diversify into alternative investments such as hedge funds and private equity. But it took time for Kramer to devise a strategy and put it into action, so money didn't flow to alternative investments until 2006, on the eve of the bear market that would crush nearly all asset categories.

"Our asset-allocation model was based on the idea that there was no correlation between our alternatives and bonds and equities," says James Marketti, retired president of Communications Workers of America Local 1032, who has been a member of the state's investment council since September 2008. "It turns out they were perfectly correlated."

For all the miscues, New Jersey's pension woes can't be blamed on particularly poor investment results. An examination of state reports shows that the fund's returns have more or less tracked the broad stock market's. The real problem has been the underfunding.

Meanwhile, the obligations keep mounting: Even while they were neglecting pension contributions, New Jersey politicians were sweetening the pot. In 2001 benefits for the state's two largest groups of workers, government employees and teachers, were increased by 9%, creating an additional $4.2 billion in liabilities. In 1999 the state approved a "20 and out" measure that allowed firefighters and local police to collect pensions equal to 50% of their pay after 20 years of service - a perk previously available only to the state police. Benefits added since 1999 have increased liabilities by more than $6.8 billion, according to official estimates.

Today New Jersey seems locked in a downward spiral. "New Jersey and many other systems have negative cash flows, meaning that contributions are less than the benefits we pay out," says William Clark, director of the New Jersey Division of Investment, which manages the pension fund. "You can't make your money back when it's flowing out of the system."

***

Gov. Corzine's efforts to prop up the plan have had mixed results. After taking office he boosted contributions, injecting about $1 billion in 2007 and a similar amount in 2008. He planned to add another $1 billion in 2009, but in response to budget pressures now wants to spread that money over two years. And the legislature just passed a "pension holiday" bill that allows municipalities to skip their pension contributions for 2009.

Corzine has also imposed reduced benefits on state workers. Since 2007 he has raised the retirement age to 62, increased the salary requirement for pension eligibility, increased employee contributions, and capped pension income. But unions are fighting his request that members take unpaid furloughs and give up some or all of the wage hikes they are due.

"We believe reopening contracts should be a last resort as we seek to find other ways to free up money," says Anthony Miskowski, secretary of CWA Local 1033. "If we budge on the contracts, the unions are dead." But after a pause, he acknowledges that something has to give: "We'll be forced someday to be more flexible."

And those are baby steps compared with the sweeping measures recommended by consultants like Deloitte for all states facing pension crises. They include reducing benefits for current and future employees, pegging cost-of-living increases to actual inflation, cutting early-retirement programs, and forcing the states to stick with adequate funding plans. That's more of a wish list than a practical plan of action. "These are all politically sensitive solutions," says Deloitte's Weiss. "The unions are screaming, but states have to stop the bleeding."

If New Jersey reaches the point where one or more of the funds in its system runs out of money, the state will have to pay retirees out of annual revenue, adding another burden to the budget. That's how the state covers retiree health-care costs, expected to hit $1.1 billion this year. (An attempt to pre-fund those expenses began in the 1980s but was sacrificed to budget pressures in 1994.)

It would then have to slash services or boost taxes to balance the budget, a pair of ugly options. The Tax Foundation says New Jersey charges the highest state and local taxes in the country, the highest residential and commercial property taxes, and some of the highest sin taxes in the nation on cigarettes and alcohol.

If union concessions, cost cutting, and higher taxes are not enough, then what? Inevitably, New Jersey and other states would turn to Uncle Sam for help. The pressure on Congress would be great. "How will they say no to state workers when they've said yes to bankers?" asks Marketti.

Even so, Congress might balk at opening the door to a series of multibillion-dollar state bailouts. In that case, we might well see a wave of municipal or even state bankruptcies as pension obligations overwhelm local budgets. To Leonard Lance, the pension blowup is one more consequence of the financial recklessness that defined an era. "In so many areas there has been inappropriate spending," he says. "Now we all have to pay."

[808Lurker]

Posting in another all unions are evil and the cause of all our problems thread..

[ASG]

And Codey? In 2002-2005, he put essentially nothing in the pension fund all while piling on obligations.

If you're going to blame somebody, at least know when they served.

[Krazen1211]

If you're going to blame somebody, at least know when they served.

Shrug, I didn't feel like looking up the exact date of that disgrace McGreevey's resignation. It's not like that would fix the state budget problems, would it?

It's not like Richard Codey wasn't a leader in the state Senate since the early 80s, or anything like that.

But I guess when the union backers can't actually discuss their polices....

[jamegumb]

But Mrs. Whitman prevailed, and critics were shushed when the bonds sold in an eager market at an average interest rate of 7.64 percent, instead of the 7.78 percent that the state had expected.

Sounds amusing. Borrow money at 7.64% and invest in the stock market, mark your books with an 8.75% return, and claim that you're making money.

These clowns are no better than Madoff and the guys at AIG.

This is the reason that pension fund investments should frighten everyone here. Current unfunded liabilities are given by governmental investment boards while assuming annual returns of 7.5% or 8%.

However, any failure to perform is not taken out of the pensions, but backed by the taxpayer. So this annual return is in effect "guaranteed."

Now, if you actually could guarantee such a return, it would make perfect sense for the government to borrow unlimited money at 5 or 6% and invest it; they'd be making cash hand over fist. But doing something like this (which is occasionally done) is a fool's notion, which everyone can see, right?

Except it's essentially identical to what we're doing by allowing pension investments to be funded commensurate with a 7.5% to 8% discount rate. (So far as I can understand, this type of accounting would not be allowed in the private sector; private sector pension funds have to be based upon more guaranteed rates, generally 5-6%.)

[HondaEnthus]

Why do these clowns keep insisting that pensions for employees already promised can't be touched? They certainly can. States cannot impair contracts, although it's not clear as to whether that clause of the Constitution applies to contracts to which the state is a party, but the states can certainly just default.

[ASG]

Shrug, I didn't feel like looking up the exact date of that disgrace McGreevey's resignation. It's not like that would fix the state budget problems, would it?

It's not like Richard Codey wasn't a leader in the state Senate since the early 80s, or anything like that.

But I guess when the union backers can't actually discuss their polices....
It does when you're blaming him for the problems (see post 26). And you can't even get your fallback stats correct. Codey wasn't even elected to State Senate til '81 and he wasn't President of the State Senate til '02. McGreevey resigned in November of '04 at which point Codey served until January of '06.

Meanwhile you haven't even proven anything on your original statement blaming the unions. Not only that, but you have pointed quite good evidence instead blaming the government thinking they could always get fantastic returns on their investments.

Meanwhile, you're entire retort to the new gov just passing along spending problems down the line to the towns and residents is to basically say that you don't use those services so you don't care. Except you will care when your property taxes go up dramatically to pay for the education cuts and when your property values go down because transportation costs no longer make it cheaper to live in NJ while working in the city.

[jamegumb]

Why do these clowns keep insisting that pensions for employees already promised can't be touched? They certainly can. States cannot impair contracts, although it's not clear as to whether that clause of the Constitution applies to contracts to which the state is a party, but the states can certainly just default.

I think we're all following the logic described here:

Changing the pension benefits of current workers may be difficult, unless they consent. Most pension reforms focus on new hires because the courts have ruled that pensions promised current workers are vested rights, protected by contract law.

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=yo78snyjz6xem8

That's the principle; I couldn't tell you what the precise laws here are; perhaps smeg can. So while I'm miffed about things like California giving away increased pensions that applied to workers retroactively, I don't believe that there's much that can be done about it.

[HondaEnthus]

I think we're all following the logic described here:



http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=yo78snyjz6xem8

That's the principle; I couldn't tell you what the precise laws here are; perhaps smeg can. So while I'm miffed about things like California giving away increased pensions that applied to workers retroactively, I don't believe that there's much that can be done about it.

I am an attorney, so I can tell you what the laws are. It is true that New Jersey courts may have construed them as vested property rights, but what a New Jersey court can giveth, a New Jersey legislature can taketh away. There is an argument that breaking the contracts would violate the federal Constitution's contracts clause, but this is not settled law.

But even if that is the case, the state can just default. States cannot be sued as they're protected by the sovereign immunity doctrine. So while the contracts can't be broken per se, the state can just refuse to perform under them, and the workers would not be able to sue to enforce the contracts in court.

[Krazen1211]

It does when you're blaming him for the problems (see post 26). And you can't even get your fallback stats correct. Codey wasn't even elected to State Senate til '81 and he wasn't President of the State Senate til '02. McGreevey resigned in November of '04 at which point Codey served until January of '06.

Meanwhile you haven't even proven anything on your original statement blaming the unions. Not only that, but you have pointed quite good evidence instead blaming the government thinking they could always get fantastic returns on their investments.

Meanwhile, you're entire retort to the new gov just passing along spending problems down the line to the towns and residents is to basically say that you don't use those services so you don't care. Except you will care when your property taxes go up dramatically to pay for the education cuts and when your property values go down because transportation costs no longer make it cheaper to live in NJ while working in the city.

The government, ie guys like Richard Codey, who are prime recipients of NJEA donations. Guys like Richard Codey, who was in the Senate in 1985, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001, and 2003, as we passed bill after bill promising more and more to the NJEA and other unions, as we engaged in budgetary gimmicks to hide this cost to the taxpayer.. Thanks for proving my point.

1985: Republican Gov. Thomas H. Kean signs a law setting a minimum $18,500 teacher salary. Kean, who was elected by the smallest margin in state history four years earlier without NJEA support, receives union endorsement for reelection, which is a factor in his landslide win.

1991: NJEA goes all out to defeat Democratic legislators, contributing to Republicans winning veto-proof majorities in the Assembly and Senate. Union outrage was provoked by Democratic Gov. Jim Florio, who had NJEA backing in 1989, signing a law shifting teacher pension costs from the state to local districts.

1992: Republican-led Legislature passes bill putting pension burden back on the state; Florio signs it.

1994: Republican Gov. Christie Whitman cuts funding for teacher pensions and calls for a pilot school voucher program in Jersey City. Some 25,000 people turn out in Trenton to protest the cuts, but most are enacted. Voucher plan dies without ever being considered in the Legislature, however.

1997: Whitman and Republican-led Legislature borrow $2.8 billion to shore up the pension system after years of increased benefits and lower contributions from the state. NJEA supports the bonding, remains neutral in governor’s election and Whitman wins second term.

2001: Republicans and Democrats in Legislature vote overwhelmingly for new pension formula that provides 9 percent increase in retirement payments for employees and retirees. A fiscal analysis says the $5.2 billion cost can be paid from "surplus assets" in pension accounts, but that analysis is based on old stock values that had already declined and would plummet as "dot-com" bubble burst on Wall Street.


New Jerseys current tax structure already makes it cheaper to live in New York. That ship has sailed. And property taxes? They were and are the highest in the nation long before Chris Christie came into office. That ship has sailed, too.

Time to fire some teachers. Lots of teachers.

[jamegumb]

I am an attorney, so I can tell you what the laws are. It is true that New Jersey courts may have construed them as vested property rights, but what a New Jersey court can giveth, a New Jersey legislature can taketh away. There is an argument that breaking the contracts would violate the federal Constitution's contracts clause, but this is not settled law.

I think some of this may vary state to state as well. I read somewhere that California wrote a pension guarantee into their state Constitution.

But even if that is the case, the state can just default. States cannot be sued as they're protected by the sovereign immunity doctrine. So while the contracts can't be broken per se, the state can just refuse to perform under them, and the workers would not be able to sue to enforce the contracts in court.

How about cities/counties/etc.?

And, of course, things would get pretty bad once states started actively refusing to perform under their contracts. Even if this is possible, it's hard to see it flying.

[HondaEnthus]

I think some of this may vary state to state as well. I read somewhere that California wrote a pension guarantee into their state Constitution.

This is true. New York also protects its pensions via its state Constitution, but state Constitutions can be changed by the state's legislatures.


How about cities/counties/etc.?

And, of course, things would get pretty bad once states started actively refusing to perform under their contracts. Even if this is possible, it's hard to see it flying.

Cities and counties do not benefit from sovereign immunity. However, they can file for bankruptcy, which states are not allowed to do. Either way, if there the political will to do so, these contracts could be voided. No one is willing to touch any of this though. They'd prefer to kick it down the road for someone else to deal with.

[ASG]

The government, ie guys like Richard Codey, who are prime recipients of NJEA donations. Guys like Richard Codey, who was in the Senate in 1985, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997, 2001, and 2003, as we passed bill after bill promising more and more to the NJEA and other unions, as we engaged in budgetary gimmicks to hide this cost to the taxpayer.. Thanks for proving my point.
What is your point? I still haven't figured that out yet.
New Jerseys current tax structure already makes it cheaper to live in New York. That ship has sailed.
As somebody who lives in North NJ, it is not cheaper to live in NY. In NY you get a smaller space farther away from the city with a higher cost of living.
And property taxes? They were and are the highest in the nation long before Chris Christie came into office. That ship has sailed, too.
You say that like its impossible for them to get higher.
Time to fire some teachers. Lots of teachers.
What subject teachers would you like to fire? What's going to happen to those classes that they are teaching? How is the state going to fire teachers that teach for town school boards?

[IPT]

as someone from NY i really don't have a dog in this fight so to speak

but ASG, isn't Christie's saying he wants the teachers to accept a pay freeze? Not a job cut.

And Northern NJ living costs aren't at near the levels that NYC is. Or Long Island.

[HondaEnthus]

as someone from NY i really don't have a dog in this fight so to speak

but ASG, isn't Christie's saying he wants the teachers to accept a pay freeze? Not a job cut.

And Northern NJ living costs aren't at near the levels that NYC is. Or Long Island.

NYC, no. Westchester and LI, yes. I don't think the three main suburbs vary in price all that much when you adjust for house size and such.

[jamegumb]

This is true. New York also protects its pensions via its state Constitution, but state Constitutions can be changed by the state's legislatures.



Cities and counties do not benefit from sovereign immunity. However, they can file for bankruptcy, which states are not allowed to do. Either way, if there the political will to do so, these contracts could be voided. No one is willing to touch any of this though. They'd prefer to kick it down the road for someone else to deal with.

Vallejo was close. From my understanding (summarized at http://calpensions.com/2010/02/05/bankrupt-vallejo-cuts-retiree-health-not-pensions/ ), the bankruptcy judge declared that the labor contracts - including pensions - can be overturned in bankruptcy. But then Vallejo backed out before following this all the way through.

I also thought that this wouldn't be the last verdict on the subject (that had this ruling been carried out to its fullest extent, there would have been an appeal or two to higher authorities).

For this reason (among others), there was a bill floating in the CA legislature last year to make it illegal for cities to declare bankruptcy without state oversight. But it got tabled; I just looked and it's back again: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_14900167?source=most_emailed

(From what I know, most states require some form of state oversight for municipalities to declare bankruptcy. I don't know about NJ.)

[HondaEnthus]

Yup, Vallejo did wimp out. Even in bankruptcy, the spineless politicians succumbed to union pressure. The unions "negotiated" the top firefighter salary down from $226,000 or something like that to $178,000. Still outrageous.

[Krazen1211]

What is your point? I still haven't figured that out yet.

As somebody who lives in North NJ, it is not cheaper to live in NY. In NY you get a smaller space farther away from the city with a higher cost of living.

You say that like its impossible for them to get higher.

What subject teachers would you like to fire? What's going to happen to those classes that they are teaching? How is the state going to fire teachers that teach for town school boards?

Quite simple. The mafia unions have bullied and/or bribed men and women like Kean, Whitman, Florio, McGreevey, Codey, and Corzine for my entire life, and have gotten their way every step of the time. Hence, well, our current situation.

I lived in North NJ too. My sister does as well. Most houses in this area have property taxes in the 10k+ range, and some of the larger ones (3500+ sq ft) are in the 20k+ range. You see property tax payments that are higher than mortgage payments for a lot of folks. The status quo hasn't worked. That's why Christie is there.

As rrc has gracefully pointed out, NJs cost of education is about $5000 per pupil per year (http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/2007/PerPupilSpending2006-2007.html) higher than the national average.

I'd prefer to can teachers from failed school district of Ashbury Park (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/03/greeting_from_asbury_park_perh.html), and others like it, and its $35k per student per year of spending for a bunch of kids who can't read. That should help bring that $35k down. But if that doesn't work, do a damn lottery and fire whomever gets picked. All the governor has to do is cut off funding and enact the 2.5% property tax constitutional cap.

[rrc06]

Posting in another all unions are evil and the cause of all our problems thread..

And ignoring the articles presented in the OP once again ;) Do you absolve the union of blame in the NJ fiscal situation?

I'm from NJ and Christie's just finding a new way to kill us instead of the old ways. Instead of your state taxes being high, the price of all state products is going up (NJ Transit is increasing their prices 25% because the state funding of public transit when down so much) and your property taxes will be going up (Education funding for each town has been slashed so much the town I used to live in is getting zero funding from the state). And somehow he thinks cutting all this spending is going to lead to more good jobs? I'll believe it when I see it.

The current climate isn't help NJ attract capital and jobs as it stands. Having one of the the highest tax burdens in the country isn't going to create jobs.

[808Lurker]

And ignoring the articles presented in the OP once again ;) Do you absolve the union of blame in the NJ fiscal situation?

Can I answer a question with a question....

Do you blame the predatory mortgage brokers or the irresponsible McMansion owners for the foreclosure problem...

I ask, because all the people I see blaming the housing bubble on the McMansions people buying homes they couldn't afford, yet the same people blaming the unions for bad contracts the management accepted..

The current climate isn't help NJ attract capital and jobs as it stands. Having one of the the highest tax burdens in the country isn't going to create jobs.

While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.

Christie seems to me like one of those republicans that likes to cut the workers salaries and reward himself and cronies with high salaries and bonuses...

[Krazen1211]

Can I ask a question with a question....

Do you blame the predatory mortgage brokers or the irresponsible McMansion owners for the foreclosure problem...

I ask, because all the people I see blaming the housing bubble on the McMansions people buying homes they couldn't afford, yet the same people blaming the unions for bad contracts the management accepted..



While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.

Christie seems to me like one of those republicans that likes to cut the workers salaries and reward himself and cronies with high salaries and bonuses...

Lawmakers write the rules to favor the unions.

[808Lurker]

TWO red herrings, and 1 lousy argument for the price of one post!

As opposed to the post above; no content, a lousy unfunny insult and dodging the question.

It's posts like these that lessen the collective intelligence of the world.

[rrc06]

While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.


What is the biggest item cost in most state budgets? (In FL and many other places, it is (drum roll please!) EDUCATION!) And what is the biggest cost of that item? That's right, LABOR costs.

Can I answer a question with a question....


only as long as it's not a strawman --- oh wait, too late!

[Demosthenes9]

Can I answer a question with a question....

Do you blame the predatory mortgage brokers or the irresponsible McMansion owners for the foreclosure problem...

I ask, because all the people I see blaming the housing bubble on the McMansions people buying homes they couldn't afford, yet the same people blaming the unions for bad contracts the management accepted..



While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.

Christie seems to me like one of those republicans that likes to cut the workers salaries and reward himself and cronies with high salaries and bonuses...

I can see it now. The "predatory mortgage brokers" used existing law to basically force the McMansion buyers to purchase new homes ?

If you are going to construct an analogy, it helps to be at least someone on point as to the details.

[Demosthenes9]

I'm from NJ and Christie's just finding a new way to kill us instead of the old ways. Instead of your state taxes being high, the price of all state products is going up (NJ Transit is increasing their prices 25% because the state funding of public transit when down so much) and your property taxes will be going up (Education funding for each town has been slashed so much the town I used to live in is getting zero funding from the state). And somehow he thinks cutting all this spending is going to lead to more good jobs? I'll believe it when I see it.

I want Codey back.


Oh snap ! Imagine that ? Actually asking the people that use public transportation to pay for it's cost instead of having all tax payers subsidize it.

Back when I used to have a "normal" job, I had a 30 minute commute of 15 miles each way. My vehicle got 15mpg so it took me a gallon of gas to get to work. Cost was about $2.00 EACH way.

But, others riding a public bus subsidized by all the tax payers and would have only spent $1.00 each way which was the cost to ride the bus at the time.

Add to that the fact that someone riding public transportation DOES NOT have to pay for upkeep on the vehicle, insurance, or property taxes and damned if they aren't getting a sweet freaking deal.

HELL YES they should pay higher fares. If they don't like it, they can buy a car!

Actually it is your post that does exactly that. You offered two red herrings and this argument in response:

While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.

Bad management? Bad management of what? Of union workers? Blaming management like a union guy would? What was managed bad?

Pretty vague/lame argument.

The only bad management I could see is managing the union's influence and numbers.

Is that what you are talking about? I doubt it.

These are public servants which means the bad management came at the hands of elected leaders (democrats for the most part). So are you bashing these democrats?

What exactly is your real argument?



You fell for his red herring. Predatory mortgage brokers have NOTHING to do with the topic of this post. He wants to engage you and distract you from the original argument. That's why people use red herrings...because they can't address the argument at hand.

Staple of the left!


Ummm, duh ? :) (Check your PM's in a minute)

[HondaEnthus]

Exactly demo. The other problem with subsidies is that it shields people from the real costs of union thuggery. People might start voting the Democrats out if they realized that that was why their bus fares kept going up. But if you subsidize it with income taxes on the "rich" then for the most part, people are shielded from the actual results of government being in bed with labor.

[Demosthenes9]

Exactly demo. The other problem with subsidies is that it shields people from the real costs of union thuggery. People might start voting the Democrats out if they realized that that was why their bus fares kept going up. But if you subsidize it with income taxes on the "rich" then for the most part, people are shielded from the actual results of government being in bed with labor.

Yep. Many won't care how much something costs WHEN SOMEONE ELSE is paying for it :)

[HondaEnthus]

Yep. Many won't care how much something costs WHEN SOMEONE ELSE is paying for it :)

Precisely. And NJ has had outrageous taxes on the rich for years (9% for people making over half a million). It was even up to 10.5% last year for a little while. Now that that well has finally run dry, layoffs, service cuts, and fee and fare increases are the only other option. Only now are the majority of people willing to do something about the union's undue influence.

[Demosthenes9]

Precisely. And NJ has had outrageous taxes on the rich for years (9% for people making over half a million). It was even up to 10.5% last year for a little while. Now that that well has finally run dry, layoffs, service cuts, and fee and fare increases are the only other option. Only now are the majority of people willing to do something about the union's undue influence.

Personal taxes are just the tip of the iceberg from what I understand.

One of my Aunt's used to live in NJ and talked about the high tax rates, but also things like insurance rates which were astronomical. She finally took a paycut, moved to Ohio and has a higher standard of living now even after said paycut.

People will figure out that when you tax and regulate the hell out of businesses and force mandates upon them, they will have to raise prices to accomodate said practices.

[HondaEnthus]

Personal taxes are just the tip of the iceberg from what I understand.

One of my Aunt's used to live in NJ and talked about the high tax rates, but also things like insurance rates which were astronomical. She finally took a paycut, moved to Ohio and has a higher standard of living now even after said paycut.

People will figure out that when you tax and regulate the hell out of businesses and force mandates upon them, they will have to raise prices to accomodate said practices.

That bit about insurance rates is definitely true, although much of that is attributable to high accident and theft rates. It's very congested and the roads are poorly designed which of course leads to accidents. Couple that with plaintiff friendly courts and juries, and you can see why rates are so high.

[klozoff]

But even if that is the case, the state can just default. States cannot be sued as they're protected by the sovereign immunity doctrine. So while the contracts can't be broken per se, the state can just refuse to perform under them, and the workers would not be able to sue to enforce the contracts in court.

I am curious, could the state selectively default on something like the pension contracts and not default on all their other obligations like bonds? Because if they default on bonds that would completely destroy the state's ability to borrow money this way for many years. I am wondering if it's really possible for a default on only certain obligations.

[HondaEnthus]

Personal taxes are just the tip of the iceberg from what I understand.

One of my Aunt's used to live in NJ and talked about the high tax rates, but also things like insurance rates which were astronomical. She finally took a paycut, moved to Ohio and has a higher standard of living now even after said paycut.

People will figure out that when you tax and regulate the hell out of businesses and force mandates upon them, they will have to raise prices to accomodate said practices.

Ohio's great. I know a bunch of people who have nice 3 bedroom starter homes that they paid $75k for. $130k gets you a five bedroom in many places.

I am curious, could the state selectively default on something like the pension contracts and not default on all their other obligations like bonds? Because if they default on bonds that would completely destroy the state's ability to borrow money this way for many years. I am wondering if it's really possible for a default on only certain obligations.

Sure, they can default on whatever they want. Since they can't be sued, the only recourse is, as you said, to not contract or lend money to them in the future.

[808Lurker]

Actually it is your post that does exactly that. You offered two red herrings and this argument in response:

While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.

Bad management? Bad management of what? Of union workers? Blaming management like a union guy would? What was managed bad?

Pretty vague/lame argument.

The only bad management I could see is managing the union's influence and numbers.

Is that what you are talking about? I doubt it.

These are public servants which means the bad management came at the hands of elected leaders (democrats for the most part). So are you bashing these democrats?

What exactly is your real argument?

You do realize that 1) it is possible to fire union people, there are proceedure for that, it's just bad managers rarely follow the appropriate steps. 2) all these high paying union contracts have been negotiated and agreed to by the unions and politicians. 3) Agreeing to contracts you can't afford and failing to follow the terms of such contracts to eliminate the waste is bad management, 4) some good politicians in the past have stuck to their guns (or worked with unions) to limit pay and benefits


You fell for his red herring. Predatory mortgage brokers have NOTHING to do with the topic of this post. He wants to engage you and distract you from the original argument. That's why people use red herrings...because they can't address the argument at hand.

I will go slow... this has to do with contracts..

A predatory mortgage lender entered into a legal binding agreement with a McMansion owner tell sell them a loan for a house at with an ARM that they couldn't afford. Most people here will blame the Mcmansion owner for agreeing to terms they couldn't afford and not properly reading the agreement.

The state entered into a legal binding agreement with the unions, yet blame the unions for the high cost. They don't seem to blame to politicians who entered into the agreement for something they couldn't afford.

See the difference....

Of course not...



Staple of the left!

Not answering questions and blaming liberals for your problems... Staple of the Right!

Why does the party of the so called "personal responsibility" always seem to have to blame someone else for their problems....

You don't have to answer it, you will be on ignore...

[HondaEnthus]

"The state entered into a legal binding agreement with the unions, yet blame the unions for the high cost. They don't seem to blame to politicians who entered into the agreement for something they couldn't afford. "

I do blame the politicians. But the politicians would be less likely to do this if the unions wouldn't donate tons of money and campaign tirelessly against anyone they perceive to be a threat to them. This is why unions should not be allowed to campaign and public employees should not be allowed to vote. The incentives are just too perverse.

[808Lurker]

What is the biggest item cost in most state budgets? (In FL and many other places, it is (drum roll please!) EDUCATION!) And what is the biggest cost of that item? That's right, LABOR costs.

Labor is often the highest cost item in most things... what's your point?

Should teachers not get paid for their time?


only as long as it's not a strawman --- oh wait, too late!

I know I should never discuss any topic involving unions with you, you seem to have this irrational hate for them.

However, deflecting and not answering the question is starting to become your method of operation. Sad, really. I might not agree with everything you say, but do enjoy some of the arguments.

[HondaEnthus]

Labor is often the highest cost item in most things... what's your point?

Should teachers not get paid for their time?




I know I should never discuss any topic involving unions with you, you seem to have this irrational hate for them.

However, deflecting and not answering the question is starting to become your method of operation. Sad, really. I might not agree with everything you say, but do enjoy some of the arguments.

Should they get paid? Yes. Should they get paid $125k and be allowed to retire at age 52 with a $100k pension and full health benefits for the rest of their lives? No.

[808Lurker]

"The state entered into a legal binding agreement with the unions, yet blame the unions for the high cost. They don't seem to blame to politicians who entered into the agreement for something they couldn't afford. "

I do blame the politicians. But the politicians would be less likely to do this if the unions wouldn't donate tons of money and campaign tirelessly against anyone they perceive to be a threat to them. This is why unions should not be allowed to campaign and public employees should not be allowed to vote. The incentives are just too perverse.

Then push for that and hold the elected officials responsible for their mistakes..

None of the perceived problems associated with unions - (high pay, difficulty to fire) would never have occurred without some politician agreeing to them and constantly renewing them.

This is why unions should not be allowed to campaign and public employees should not be allowed to vote.

I wouldn't go that far though. Why do I get the impress you would restrict voting to white males who own land or businesses....

[rrc06]

Should teachers not get paid for their time?

absolutely --- just not to the point of bankrupting the government and leaving taxpayers on the hook


I know I should never discuss any topic involving unions with you, you seem to have this irrational hate for them.

Irrational? Are you saying the manner in which many public sector union employees in states like NJ, NY and CA are compensated is rational? Because if you truly feel that's the case, then I think we're going to disagree indefinitely on this one.

However, deflecting and not answering the question is starting to become your method of operation

I'm not deflecting anything. It's sad that states like CA, NY, and NJ, which rely on multiple sources of revenue (high sales, property and income taxes), are bursting at the seams with spending when times are good and having taxpayers take it in the chin when those sources suddenly dry up.

[808Lurker]

Should they get paid? Yes. Should they get paid $125k and be allowed to retire at age 52 with a $100k pension and full health benefits for the rest of their lives? No.

What if I ran a private company, hired you with an agreement that you work for me until you are 52, and I will pay you $100k a year and health benefits thereafter. Do I have the right when you go to collect, that i suddenly decide it's going to cost me too much and I am not going to give you anything?

[rrc06]

None of the perceived problems associated with unions - (high pay, difficulty to fire) would never have occurred without some politician agreeing to them and constantly renewing them.


Once unions become powerful enough, it becomes self-perpetuating. The biggest lobbyists in Albany, NY are public sector unions like NYSUT and CSEA. They've bought every rule they've wanted from the legislature. Everyone is forced to join a union as a condition of employment in the public sector and forfeit 1% of their salary to "union dues" Union pensions are held sacrosanct to the pint where they are exempt from NYS personal income tax.

What if I ran a private company, hired you with an agreement that you work for me until you are 52, and I will pay you $100k a year and health benefits thereafter. Do I have the right when you go to collect, that i suddenly decide it's going to cost me too much and I am not going to give you anything?

Who said life was fair?

[HondaEnthus]

What if I ran a private company, hired you with an agreement that you work for me until you are 52, and I will pay you $100k a year and health benefits thereafter. Do I have the right when you go to collect, that i suddenly decide it's going to cost me too much and I am not going to give you anything?

It's a moot point, because any private company that offered this would go bankrupt. See Chrysler and GM.

And regardless, private companies don't pay their obligations with my money. The government does. This is why I opposed bailouts to the banks and car manufacturers as well.

[Krazen1211]

Then push for that and hold the elected officials responsible for their mistakes..

None of the perceived problems associated with unions - (high pay, difficulty to fire) would never have occurred without some politician agreeing to them and constantly renewing them.



I wouldn't go that far though. Why do I get the impress you would restrict voting to white males who own land or businesses....

We did. Which is why Christie is there.

It's not quite so easy, however, to undo 30 years of bad policy, or to go back in time and fund these pensions.w

[808Lurker]

absolutely --- just not to the point of bankrupting the government and leaving taxpayers on the hook

It's funny but I don't think it's the teachers union is the one bankrupting the government, if anything it would be fire/police/prisons as they seem to get unreasonable high salaries, overtime, generous benefits and early retirement age without the requirements of other professions.

Irrational? Are you saying the manner in which many public sector union employees in states like NJ, NY and CA are compensated is rational?

The biggest problem with compensation that I see is how retirement and health benefits are handled. It is overly generous and does not scale well with age. It is a huge burden, it should have been turned into something like a matching contribution to a 401k or something like that.

The other issue is overtime and the ease of abuse. Most of the insane pay you see is mostly due overtime and this I blame on management. There should be enough coverage so you are not paying 2x overtime and someone to moniter overtime abuse.

Salary-wise (except management), I don't really see to much of an issue. If points 1-2 are addressed then it would be more reasonable. There could be some tweaking of the steps maybe eliminating the last 3-4 so those with 30-40 years of service don't get dis-proportionally higher pay then a new hire.

Another big problem I see is the sheer amount of managers and their compensation. You could honestly eliminate 1/2 of the management positions in government and actually see an improvement and a cost savings.

All it would take would be a politician with enough balls to implement the above and things would be in good shape. Sadly none will, hence the badmanagement remark.


I'm not deflecting anything. It's sad that states like CA, NY, and NJ, which rely on multiple sources of revenue (high sales, property and income taxes), are bursting at the seams with spending when times are good and having taxpayers take it in the chin when those sources suddenly dry up.

Failure to plan ahead and agreeing to things you can't afford would be bad management, wouldn't you agree?

[HondaEnthus]

Even if it is bad management, so what? The taxpayers should be the ones penalized because some mayors and governors screwed up starting in the late 60s? No, abrogate the contracts and start over.

[808Lurker]

Once unions become powerful enough, it becomes self-perpetuating. The biggest lobbyists in Albany, NY are public sector unions like NYSUT and CSEA. They've bought every rule they've wanted from the legislature. Everyone is forced to join a union as a condition of employment in the public sector and forfeit 1% of their salary to "union dues" Union pensions are held sacrosanct to the pint where they are exempt from NYS personal income tax.

Last I checked voting determines elections not lobbists and unions. If enough people were concerned with the issue or held their politicians accountable then things would change.


Who said life was fair?

Exactly..

[808Lurker]

It's a moot point, because any private company that offered this would go bankrupt. See Chrysler and GM.

It's not moot, it is a legal binding agreement.

And regardless, private companies don't pay their obligations with my money. The government does. This is why I opposed bailouts to the banks and car manufacturers as well.

Private companies base their prices based on overhead, so in essense it would still be your money just going to a different company.

[808Lurker]

Even if it is bad management, so what? The taxpayers should be the ones penalized because some mayors and governors screwed up starting in the late 60s? No, abrogate the contracts and start over.

Since we are weasing out of our obligations, can we do the same with the national debt as well..?

Sorry Japan and China, we the tax payers don't want to be penalized because some congress critters screwed up, go pound sand...

[JimOfTroy]

Last I checked voting determines elections not lobbists and unions. If enough people were concerned with the issue or held their politicians accountable then things would change.

Did you even read the OP before your tirade here? You keep repeating this like you're not posting in a thread about a politician who is changing things.

[Arglebargle2]

"The state entered into a legal binding agreement with the unions, yet blame the unions for the high cost. They don't seem to blame to politicians who entered into the agreement for something they couldn't afford. "

I do blame the politicians. But the politicians would be less likely to do this if the unions wouldn't donate tons of money and campaign tirelessly against anyone they perceive to be a threat to them. This is why unions should not be allowed to campaign and public employees should not be allowed to vote. The incentives are just too perverse.

I worked for the legislature of a very red state for a decade: All the legalized bribery that I got to see was for corporate interests, trying (and suceeding, usually) to get their particular self serving plans enacted into law. Politicians certainly weren't looking out for the citizens' interests, and hardly a union in sight.

This seems more an issue of instutionalized graft in the political system. You just have some different players up there.

At some point though, the bullet is going to have to be bitten. I hope the NJ Governor is legit, and not just a politco. 'Cause then, he might have a chance.

[808Lurker]

Did you even read the OP before your tirade here? You keep repeating this like you're not posting in a thread about a politician who is changing things.

I was responding to particular posts and not the OP (origional post), so what's your point..

If you don't have anything to constructive to say, rebute or add, just move along....

[Epiphyte]

Oh snap ! Imagine that ? Actually asking the people that use public transportation to pay for it's cost instead of having all tax payers subsidize it.

Back when I used to have a "normal" job, I had a 30 minute commute of 15 miles each way. My vehicle got 15mpg so it took me a gallon of gas to get to work. Cost was about $2.00 EACH way.

But, others riding a public bus subsidized by all the tax payers and would have only spent $1.00 each way which was the cost to ride the bus at the time.

Add to that the fact that someone riding public transportation DOES NOT have to pay for upkeep on the vehicle, insurance, or property taxes and damned if they aren't getting a sweet freaking deal.

HELL YES they should pay higher fares. If they don't like it, they can buy a car!

:confused: Public transportation should be subsidized (to a point, of course). As a driver, you benefit by having less traffic to deal with.

Also, there's very little talk in this thread about the performance of NJ's public education system apart from targeted criticism at Abbot districts. AFAIK, NJ has a higher graduation rate and higher standardized test scores than most of the nation.

[rrc06]

Also, there's very little talk in this thread about the performance of NJ's public education system apart from targeted criticism at Abbot districts. AFAIK, NJ has a higher graduation rate and higher standardized test scores than most of the nation.

NY and NJ get very little bang for their buck:

NY and NJ are #1 and #2 for per-pupil spending: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/2007/PerPupilSpending2006-2007.html

Too bad it doesn't amount to much:

Average SAT scores: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/satscoregradrates.htm (#36 and #45 in the country).
Average NAEP scores: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/naepscores.htm

It's typical liberal dogma that spending more = better results.

[Epiphyte]

NY and NJ get very little bang for their buck:

NY and NJ are #1 and #2 for per-pupil spending: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/2007/PerPupilSpending2006-2007.html

Too bad it doesn't amount to much:

Average SAT scores: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/satscoregradrates.htm (#36 and #45 in the country).
Average NAEP scores: http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/naepscores.htm

It's typical liberal dogma that spending more = better results.

Um, the NAEP scores do show NJ to be one of the highest scoring states.

And the SAT scores for the NJ are high as well, but you probably didn't pay attention to the information you linked to and you compared Iowa's 1797 average score to NJ's 1504 average score, despite the fact that only 3% of Iowans took the SATs (Hmm, probably the smart kids who take every available test) compared to 76% of NJ kids.

But hey, thanks for proving that "liberal dogma." :lol:

[JimOfTroy]

I was responding to particular posts and not the OP (origional post), so what's your point..

If you don't have anything to constructive to say, rebute or add, just move along....

So referring you to the OP when that you keep repeating that no politicians do anything about these problems, in a thread where the OP is specifically about a politician who is doing something about these problems is not a rebuttal? I mean, it's practically the basis of your whole argument and the evidence to the contrary is right in the OP.

Maybe you're the one who needs to move along and take your generally false information and poor analogies with you.

[rrc06]

Um, the NAEP scores do show NJ to be one of the highest scoring states.


As good as NH, the place where they have a MUCH lower tax burden, and didn't even offer kindergarten (http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/08/26/new_hampshire_becomes_last_state_to_offer_kindergarten_to_all_students/) to everyone until last year :lmao:

And the SAT scores for the NJ are high as well, but you probably didn't pay attention to the information you linked to and you compared Iowa's 1797 average score to NJ's 1504 average score, despite the fact that only 3% of Iowans took the SATs (Hmm, probably the smart kids who take every available test) compared to 76% of NJ kids.

Uh, there is something called the ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa#Primary_and_secondary_schools), but don't let that get in the way of your misconceptions. The fact remains that IA spends significantly less than NJ and get similar results.

but hey, thanks for proving that "liberal dogma." :lol:

Yeah, that is: Liberals like to spend a lot of $$$ so it's better to be in a state like FL, NH or IA and get more bang for your buck!

[HondaEnthus]

It's not moot, it is a legal binding agreement.



Private companies base their prices based on overhead, so in essense it would still be your money just going to a different company.

Only if I had to purchase from that particular company, which I don't. And it is moot, because that legally binding agreement is tossed by the bankruptcy judge.

[HondaEnthus]

I worked for the legislature of a very red state for a decade: All the legalized bribery that I got to see was for corporate interests, trying (and suceeding, usually) to get their particular self serving plans enacted into law. Politicians certainly weren't looking out for the citizens' interests, and hardly a union in sight.

This seems more an issue of instutionalized graft in the political system. You just have some different players up there.

At some point though, the bullet is going to have to be bitten. I hope the NJ Governor is legit, and not just a politco. 'Cause then, he might have a chance.

I'd much rather politicians pander to corporate interests than union interests. At least the former benefits the economy.

[JimOfTroy]

I was responding to particular posts and not the OP (origional post), so what's your point..

If you don't have anything to constructive to say, rebute or add, just move along....

And to elaborate on my previous post:

Your argument:
While I might say that unions might have a role in it, I would say bad management is probably more of a factor then unions.
None of the perceived problems associated with unions - (high pay, difficulty to fire) would never have occurred without some politician agreeing to them and constantly renewing them.
Meanwhile repeating
Then push for that and hold the elected officials responsible for their mistakes..
Last I checked voting determines elections not lobbists and unions. If enough people were concerned with the issue or held their politicians accountable then things would change.
In a thread about an elected politician who is making these changes.

But then you're saying:
It's not moot, it is a legal binding agreement.
Since we are weasing out of our obligations, can we do the same with the national debt as well..?
It's a nonsensical argument. You say it's the people's fault that it has happened for electing politicians who allowed it, that they if they don't like it they should elect politicians who will do something about it, but then argue that the politicians should not be able to do anything about it.



If you don't have anything to constructive to say, rebute or add, just move along....
That's rich considering your first post in the thread was:
Posting in another all unions are evil and the cause of all our problems thread..

[ASG]

Quite simple. The mafia unions have bullied and/or bribed men and women like Kean, Whitman, Florio, McGreevey, Codey, and Corzine for my entire life, and have gotten their way every step of the time. Hence, well, our current situation.
Do you really think every governor we had prior was bribed?
I lived in North NJ too. My sister does as well. Most houses in this area have property taxes in the 10k+ range, and some of the larger ones (3500+ sq ft) are in the 20k+ range. You see property tax payments that are higher than mortgage payments for a lot of folks. The status quo hasn't worked. That's why Christie is there.
Do you know how state and local government works? I'll give you a hint, the state doesn't set property taxes.
I'd prefer to can teachers from failed school district of Ashbury Park (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/03/greeting_from_asbury_park_perh.html), and others like it, and its $35k per student per year of spending for a bunch of kids who can't read. That should help bring that $35k down. But if that doesn't work, do a damn lottery and fire whomever gets picked. All the governor has to do is cut off funding and enact the 2.5% property tax constitutional cap.
Sounds like a fantastic idea, let's as CA how that works out. Even better, ask Ashbury Park if firing teachers is what would be the first thing they would cut if they have less money.

Meanwhile the cap of 4% before voter approval is already being up for vote for 200 districts this year.
Oh snap ! Imagine that ? Actually asking the people that use public transportation to pay for it's cost instead of having all tax payers subsidize it.

Back when I used to have a "normal" job, I had a 30 minute commute of 15 miles each way. My vehicle got 15mpg so it took me a gallon of gas to get to work. Cost was about $2.00 EACH way.

But, others riding a public bus subsidized by all the tax payers and would have only spent $1.00 each way which was the cost to ride the bus at the time.

Add to that the fact that someone riding public transportation DOES NOT have to pay for upkeep on the vehicle, insurance, or property taxes and damned if they aren't getting a sweet freaking deal.

HELL YES they should pay higher fares. If they don't like it, they can buy a car!
You do know one of the purposes of public transportation is to keep people from buying and using their cars every day, correct?

[Demosthenes9]

You do know one of the purposes of public transportation is to keep people from buying and using their cars every day, correct?

Not here in Louisville. The purpose here is to provide transportation to those that don't have cars and can't afford to take cabs.

[Demosthenes9]

I will go slow... this has to do with contracts..

A predatory mortgage lender entered into a legal binding agreement with a McMansion owner tell sell them a loan for a house at with an ARM that they couldn't afford. Most people here will blame the Mcmansion owner for agreeing to terms they couldn't afford and not properly reading the agreement.

The state entered into a legal binding agreement with the unions, yet blame the unions for the high cost. They don't seem to blame to politicians who entered into the agreement for something they couldn't afford.

See the difference....

Of course not...


And again I will point out the glaring obvious difference which you once again missed.

What LAW FORCES the McMansion buyer to even deal with or negotiate with the predatory lender ?

There ISN'T one. Buyer could tell lender to piss off and the lender couldn't do anything about it.


On the other hand, you have an entrenched Union which has laws to protect them and forces the politicians to negotiate with them.

See the obvious farking difference here ?? It's so completely and fundamentally different that your attempt at an analogy is pathetically laughable.

[Epiphyte]

As good as NH, the place where they have a MUCH lower tax burden, and didn't even offer kindergarten (http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/08/26/new_hampshire_becomes_last_state_to_offer_kindergarten_to_all_students/) to everyone until last year :lmao:

Yeah, but NJ still has some of the best performing students in the entire nation. That's the point I'm making.


Uh, there is something called the ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa#Primary_and_secondary_schools), but don't let that get in the way of your misconceptions. The fact remains that IA spends significantly less than NJ and get similar results.

Yes, I'm aware. But, the statistics for Iowa on SATs are heavily skewed towards smarter kids looking to get into good schools that don't accept the ACTs. You really don't understand that comparing a state where 3% of students take a test to a state where 76% of students take a test is completely unfair? Compare NJ to other states with very high percentages of students taking the test and you'll see that they are one of the best states as far as SAT scores go.


Yeah, that is: Liberals like to spend a lot of $$$ so it's better to be in a state like FL, NH or IA and get more bang for your buck!

I'm not saying NJ spends the right amount on education. There should be cuts. But, what they get out of their spending should play a major role in the discussion and they do have some of the best performing students in the nation. Something that has been ignored in this discussion thus far.

[Krazen1211]

Do you really think every governor we had prior was bribed?

Do you know how state and local government works? I'll give you a hint, the state doesn't set property taxes.

Sounds like a fantastic idea, let's as CA how that works out. Even better, ask Ashbury Park if firing teachers is what would be the first thing they would cut if they have less money.

Meanwhile the cap of 4% before voter approval is already being up for vote for 200 districts this year.

You do know one of the purposes of public transportation is to keep people from buying and using their cars every day, correct?


Bribed and/or bullied? Yeah.

What Ashbury Park does is ultimately up to Ashbury Park. They're failing miserably either way.

And California? Our budget gap is larger, proportional to the size of the state, than theirs. And they have illegals to deal with. And as RRC pointed out, they don't overload on education spending.

[thnkpd9]

Sure he is. He is the one that actually walks the walk. Really hope he will be the president of the united states.

He doesn't walk the walk.

He waddles it, and sometimes he takes his minibike:

http://www.robmacdougall.org/images/96twins.jpg

[ASG]

Not here in Louisville. The purpose here is to provide transportation to those that don't have cars and can't afford to take cabs.
Well here its to lessen traffic, help the environment and make transportation costs competitive. NJ is basically a big suburb of 2 major cities (NYC and Philly) and the shore. Costs and commute time must be competitive to have people live in NJ instead of NY or PA.

Over 1M people take public transportation every day in NJ. Trust me, a large percentage of them have cars.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/new-jersey-transit-to-riders-take-a-hike

[Demosthenes9]

Well here its to lessen traffic, help the environment and make transportation costs competitive. NJ is basically a big suburb of 2 major cities (NYC and Philly) and the shore. Costs and commute time must be competitive to have people live in NJ instead of NY or PA.
Over 1M people take public transportation every day in NJ. Trust me, a large percentage of them have cars.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/new-jersey-transit-to-riders-take-a-hike


Really ? How about providing an environment that would actually induce businesses to open up or relocate in New Jersery ?

How about creating a tax structure that more than makes up for the commuter costs ?

Lastly, the article you linked to was informative but it didn't even come close to making the case that a large number of those using public Transportation in Jersey were actually commuting to NY or PA.

Actually, this sentence from that article would imply that most riders aren't commuting out of state.

Nearly two-thirds of New Jersey Transit users are bus riders, many with incomes below the state median.

[IPT]

btw ASG, MTA's raising rates throughout NY too
so don't think its gonna be any less "competitive"

The LIRR Monthly cost from my station to Penn Station has jumped from $250 - $350 in 2 years, with increase coming more frequently.

The NY Tolls have all jumped by more than 50% in the last year alone.

[Krazen1211]

Really ? How about providing an environment that would actually induce businesses to open up or relocate in New Jersery ?

How about creating a tax structure that more than makes up for the commuter costs ?

Lastly, the article you linked to was informative but it didn't even come close to making the case that a large number of those using public Transportation in Jersey were actually commuting to NY or PA.

Actually, this sentence from that article would imply that most riders aren't commuting out of state.

The guys who work in NYC making 6 figures aren't going to fret about $2 on their train pass (in fact, that train pass tends to be paid for by the employer).

As Governor Christie correctly put it, enormous property tax, income tax, and sales tax burdens are going to cost these folks a lot more money than a NJ transit monthly pass.

[ASG]

btw ASG, MTA's raising rates throughout NY too
so don't think its gonna be any less "competitive"

The LIRR Monthly cost from my station to Penn Station has jumped from $250 - $350 in 2 years, with increase coming more frequently.

The NY Tolls have all jumped by more than 50% in the last year alone.
I currently live a similar to midtown than an outer borough and paid less rent (now I own). The only people that pay about the same rent live in Hoboken where the price of the PATH is comparable to the subway. You are comparing NJ to LI, I'm comparing it to Brooklyn or Queens. Once you have to start saying its very comparable to Westchestor or LI, you're going to lose completely to the "Eww, Jersey" stigma.

The guys who work in NYC making 6 figures aren't going to fret about $2 on their train pass (in fact, that train pass tends to be paid for by the employer).

As Governor Christie correctly put it, enormous property tax, income tax, and sales tax burdens are going to cost these folks a lot more money than a NJ transit monthly pass.
Where was the increase only $2? And having your train tickets be partially tax-free income doesn't make them "paid for by the employer."

[808Lurker]

So referring you to the OP when that you keep repeating that no politicians do anything about these problems, in a thread where the OP is specifically about a politician who is doing something about these problems is not a rebuttal? I mean, it's practically the basis of your whole argument and the evidence to the contrary is right in the OP.

You do understand the difference between campaign promises and what a politician does when elected?

Maybe you're the one who needs to move along and take your generally false information and poor analogies with you.

Attack the poster not the post... that is low even for a right-winger, i mean seriously. You can't answer a simple question and need to resort to personal attacks and deflection.

I am done with close-minded people, they have teabag rallies for them...

Byebye...

[808Lurker]

And again I will point out the glaring obvious difference which you once again missed.

What LAW FORCES the McMansion buyer to even deal with or negotiate with the predatory lender ?

There ISN'T one. Buyer could tell lender to piss off and the lender couldn't do anything about it.


On the other hand, you have an entrenched Union which has laws to protect them and forces the politicians to negotiate with them.

See the obvious farking difference here ?? It's so completely and fundamentally different that your attempt at an analogy is pathetically laughable.

What farking law forced the governor to sign the freaking contract.... none.

Negotiate yes, sign no, fund no....

If the unions have that much power then why do they even freaking have to lobby, you attribute some godly power to these unions. Newsflash, the only power they do have is to strike.... wow...

What would happen if a governor said no, I will not accept the contract, what would happen. The union would strike (except the non-essential workers) and thats about it. Sooner or later they would be broken, most people can't strike for that long because of obligations and the governor gets their way. You attribute too much power to unions, all it would take would be a little resolve and some common sense.

If you keep attacking my person instead of my posts, then I will be happy to add you to my useless conservative close-minded mouthpiece list.

Again a simple question, i will take out all the exceptions and analogies...

Who is responsible for agreeing to a predatory contract, the person signing it or the person presenting it. There no fine points for you to deflect..

[Krazen1211]

I currently live a similar to midtown than an outer borough and paid less rent (now I own). The only people that pay about the same rent live in Hoboken where the price of the PATH is comparable to the subway. You are comparing NJ to LI, I'm comparing it to Brooklyn or Queens. Once you have to start saying its very comparable to Westchestor or LI, you're going to lose completely to the "Eww, Jersey" stigma.


Where was the increase only $2? And having your train tickets be partially tax-free income doesn't make them "paid for by the employer."

My monthly pass was ~$400 for ~44 trips. About $9 a trip. 25% increase on that, as you put it, is about $2.

Chump change. Most of those folks spend more daily on lattes. And well, lattes arent subsidized.

Somerset, Mercer, Middlesex counties are directly comporable to Westchester, not Brooklyn, based on commuting times and lifestyle.

[ASG]

My monthly pass was ~$400 for ~44 trips. About $9 a trip. 25% increase on that, as you put it, is about $2.

Chump change. Most of those folks spend more daily on lattes. And well, lattes arent subsidized.

Somerset, Mercer, Middlesex counties are directly comporable to Westchester, not Brooklyn, based on commuting times and lifestyle.
That is about $100/month, not $2, all of which is not tax deductible (deduction stops at $230/mo).

But you're right, the guy making 6 figures might not care about another $100/month expense. Unfortunately, most of us working stiffs don't make 6 figures and unlike that 6-figure man's property value, travel expenses aren't proportional to how much money you have.

[HondaEnthus]

I currently live a similar to midtown than an outer borough and paid less rent (now I own). The only people that pay about the same rent live in Hoboken where the price of the PATH is comparable to the subway. You are comparing NJ to LI, I'm comparing it to Brooklyn or Queens. Once you have to start saying its very comparable to Westchestor or LI, you're going to lose completely to the "Eww, Jersey" stigma.

Depends where. Hoboken and Jersey City are more equivalent to Brooklyn or Queens. Upper Saddle River is more equivalent to Westchester or LI.

I make over 6 figures, and $4 a day is not chump change to me.

[IPT]

I myself drive into Queens from LI for work everyday, and i make a modest mid 5 figure salary right now.

Lets go with a monthly Metrocard cost right now $89.00 a month.
You can have 1 transfer from the subway to the bus and vice versa.
20 min wait time between using the card again.

The monthly LIRR from Queens to Manhattan depending on your area in queens is $150-250 a month right now if i recall correctly. My point is you may think its cheaper, but i assure you it costs just as much if not more to live in Brooklyn and Queens to your area in NY.

[HondaEnthus]

I myself drive into Queens from LI for work everyday, and i make a modest mid 5 figure salary right now.

Lets go with a monthly Metrocard cost right now $89.00 a month.
You can have 1 transfer from the subway to the bus and vice versa.
20 min wait time between using the card again.

The monthly LIRR from Queens to Manhattan depending on your area in queens is $150-250 a month right now if i recall correctly. My point is you may think its cheaper, but i assure you it costs just as much if not more to live in Brooklyn and Queens to your area in NY.

The housing difference between Brooklyn/Queens (most neighborhoods anyway) and Manhattan more than makes up for the MTA difference.

[JimOfTroy]

You do understand the difference between campaign promises and what a politician does when elected?
Again, if you went back and read the article you would understand that this isn't about campaign promises, it's about what he is doing now that he is in office. You do understand that he's been in office for 3 months, right? And in that time he's already started by declaring a state of emergency so that he can freeze billions in spending. He's also signed into law a bipartisan bill reforming the benefits system for government workers. And he's talking about more things he is working on. These are the things he is doing, but apparently you are letting your bias cloud you from even reading the article or you would know this stuff. Which leads me me to the generally false information...
Attack the poster not the post... that is low even for a right-winger, i mean seriously. You can't answer a simple question and need to resort to personal attacks and deflection.

I am done with close-minded people, they have teabag rallies for them...

Byebye...

Are you for real? If you think that's a personal attack, you really need to thicken up that skin, particularly if you are going to ignore the facts that are being presented and even ignore the entire topic of the thread so that you can propagate your obviously liberal pro-union bias.

Last I checked voting determines elections not lobbists and unions. If enough people were concerned with the issue or held their politicians accountable then things would change.
Did you even read the OP before your tirade here? You keep repeating this like you're not posting in a thread about a politician who is changing things.
I was responding to particular posts and not the OP (origional post), so what's your point.. If you don't have anything to constructive to say, rebute or add, just move along....
So referring you to the OP when that you keep repeating that no politicians do anything about these problems, in a thread where the OP is specifically about a politician who is doing something about these problems is not a rebuttal? I mean, it's practically the basis of your whole argument and the evidence to the contrary is right in the OP.

Maybe you're the one who needs to move along and take your generally false information and poor analogies with you.
Yeah, super attacking. How did you even survive? And really, what a low blow to call you out for ignoring the facts.

Seriously, you haven't been attacked any more than you have been attacking, which is very little at best. If there's someone close-minded here, it's you chief. You are flat out ignoring facts that don't suit your agenda then you throw a fit when someone points it out. But way to add in yet another deflection, this time with a dash of derision for the tea parties and the breaking out the victim card. Straight out of the liberal handbook. You're really making your case here.

[tunguska]

I would agree with the OP if you add IL to the list!

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-23/news/ct-met-state-budget-mess-20100223_1_state-budget-illinois-spending-cuts

[chazjr]

Listen to Mr. Christie's take on the state of his state: "We are, I think, the failed experiment in America—the best example of a failed experiment in America—on taxes and bigger government. Over the last eight years, New Jersey increased taxes and fees 115 times." New Jersey's residents now suffer under the nation's highest tax burden. Yet the tax hikes haven't come close to matching increases in spending. Mr. Christie recently introduced a $29.3 billion state budget to eliminate a projected $11 billion deficit for fiscal year 2011.

New Jersey is becoming like California.. An Economic Disaster and another Tax hell..

Kiplinger says that California has the highest overall taxes in the country (State Taxes. Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, etc)..and its going higher...
http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/retiree_map/

[Krazen1211]

http://www.examiner.com/x-23544-Bronx-County-Independent-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Students-Strike-at-Montclair-High-School

Hundreds of high school students spilled out onto the streets of Montclair, New Jersey today to protest the proposed cuts to their school’s budget. The spontaneous one-day strike shut down most classes at Montclair High School and was a first response to the package of cuts to education being proposed by conservative New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Students expect the protests to continue until the official closing of the school at 4:00 pm today.

Handmade signs calling for the defense of foreign language programs and to “Cut Class Not Classes,” urged the students on. Christie’s education proposal would reduce tax-payer support to public education in the state by $820 million leading to the closure of schools and sharp reductions in academic and extracurricular programs. At Montclair, the Star-Ledger reports that the girl’s gymnastics program is slated to be closed leaving 15 students without their favored after-school activity. This is part of a $100,000 cut to the athletic budget at the school.

“The cuts are dumb,” said Trevor Pason, a member of the Socialist Party of New Jersey and a student at Montclair.”We walked out to say no to the budget cuts and to demand a stop to the firing of our teachers.”

Opposition to the full package of cuts has grown so rapidly in New Jersey that an umbrella group of community, trade union and political groups has formed to take their fight to the state capital. Take Back Trenton aims to “put New Jersey back into the hands of the people that make up this great state.” The group is calling for a May 1 march on Trenton to begin at 1 p.m. outside of the New Jersey State House.

Today’s action at Montclair High School may the first act in a much larger struggle for residents of New Jersey. As the 15-person gymnastics team at the school has now learned, politics and budgets matter. With budget cuts scheduled for more than 40 states in the country, there are sure to be similar stories of disenfranchisement and, perhaps also of regular people mustering the strength to speak truths to the powers that aim to marginalize them.





The pawns of the teachers union continue to howl and scream. But, at least we know where the opposition is coming from. The socialists.

There's no point in giving money to school districts that have kids cutting classes. We should cut funding by 1/180 for each day these kids skip out.


The pictures here are amusing:

pics (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/west_orange_high_school_studen.html)

We love foreign language, and we don't want it to get cut, but we also don't want to attend.

[ASG]

The pawns of the teachers union continue to howl and scream. But, at least we know where the opposition is coming from. The socialists.
It must be coming from the socialists. They found one to interview and everything. I mean its not like an author for the Socialist WebZine would want to interview somebody who is a member of the Socialist Party. :rolleyes:

We love foreign language, and we don't want it to get cut, but we also don't want to attend.

Did you not read the article or do you know those people had foreign language as their first class of the day?

[Krazen1211]

It must be coming from the socialists. They found one to interview and everything. I mean its not like an author for the Socialist WebZine would want to interview somebody who is a member of the Socialist Party. :rolleyes:



Did you not read the article or do you know those people had foreign language as their first class of the day?

The protests started at 8 AM, so they didn't actually go to their precious foreign language class.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/92182404_MHS_students_stage_walkout_to_protest_cuts.html

More than 100 Montclair High School students left class en masse at 8 a.m. this morning to protest school budget cuts, spurred by a Facebook post that urged student walkouts statewide.

The students congregated on the corner of Chestnut Street and Park Avenue, holding signs, chanting in favor of more education funding, and cheering vehicles that honked as they drove past the demonstration.

Julian Lee, a freshman missing Spanish class, said Gov. Chris Christie’s cuts in state funding to public schools are affecting "all the important things," such as music and the arts. Lee, 14, a baseball player, said he’d heard from news reports that funding for sports activities would also be slashed.

"Cutting education – it seems pointless. It doesn’t make sense," Lee said.

Mollie Cohen, a freshman missing a World Literature class, said cuts will force out younger, more energetic teachers who haven’t earned tenure.

"We don’t really want them to get fired," said Cohen, 15. "We want them to have a chance."

Cohen’s classmate, Emma Frank, 15, held a sign reading, "If students can’t cut class, why can the Board of Education?"

Earlier this month, the Board of School Estimate adopted a $110.5 million budget for the Montclair School District’s 2010-11 school year. The budget contains cuts of nearly 85 jobs from the district’s workforce, in addition to some popular programs.

Local school officials say Christie’s decision to slash $5.4 million in state aid from the district – part of the $819 million cut from schools statewide – left them no option but to cut jobs and programs.

Even with the budget cuts, the 2010-11 budget comes with a 4.8 percent hike in the school-related portion of local property taxes.

MHS Principal James Earle was standing near the entrance with other school employees this morning. Earle told The Times he couldn’t comment until later today.




Clearly, these brats value spanish and world literature.

[Krazen1211]

http://www.baristanet.com/2010/04/mhs_protest_budget_cuts.php

Despite the cold weather this morning, about 60 Montclair High School students gathered on the corner of Park Street and Chestnut at 8 a.m. to protest against New Jersey's education budget cuts as part of a state-wide school walk out.

Students came with signs, a guitar and even a trumpet as they stood on the corner trying to get cars to "honk for education." They also started several chants, "What do we want? Money! When do we want it? Now!" and "No more budget cuts!"



If there's any doubt that these people want to leech off the taxpayers.......

[ASG]

The protests started at 8 AM, so they didn't actually go to their precious foreign language class.

Clearly, these brats value spanish and world literature.

You are combining protests. The pictures are from the West Orange protest that ended at 9:15.

[Krazen1211]

You are combining protests. The pictures are from the West Orange protest that ended at 9:15.

They coordinated a statewide effort over facebook. For all purposes these groups are one and the same.

If you want a Montclair pic, there's a slideshow for that too. "We value our foreign language department". Clearly, they forgot to tell Julian Lee that.

[ASG]

They coordinated a statewide effort over facebook. For all purposes these groups are one and the same.

If you want a Montclair pic, there's a slideshow for that too. "We value our foreign language department". Clearly, they forgot to tell Julian Lee that.
Julian Lee values her music and arts department.

People at the same protest aren't allowed to be more concerned about cuts affecting different areas?

You can't miss one class one day out of the year and value a department?

Anybody who misses a day of work doesn't value their job at all?

[Krazen1211]

Julian Lee values her music and arts department.

People at the same protest aren't allowed to be more concerned about cuts affecting different areas?

You can't miss one class one day out of the year and value a department?

Anybody who misses a day of work doesn't value their job at all?

Depends on why you're missing class. If you're missing it to throw a tantrum (which they could do after school or weekends), yeah, that indicates where your priorities lie.

[ASG]

Depends on why you're missing class. If you're missing it to throw a tantrum (which they could do after school or weekends), yeah, that indicates where your priorities lie.
You think they'd get the same press if they did it after school or on weekends?

[Krazen1211]

You think they'd get the same press if they did it after school or on weekends?

Nope. The point of a tantrum is to be noticed, right?

But it would, you know, allow them to be in class and justify that $16k per year ($88 a day, about $10 per class for a 9 period day.) that we dump into their education.

[ASG]

Nope. The demonstration is to be noticed, right?
Correct.
But it would, you know, allow them to be in class and justify that $16k per year ($88 a day, about $10 per class for a 9 period day.) that we dump into their education.
Quite a catch 22.

[HondaEnthus]

If this doesn't prove beyond any doubt to the left why universal franchise for everyone 18 and up will rot any democracy from within, I don't know what will.

[Krazen1211]

Terrific news. The days of union thuggery are slowly coming to an end.

http://ifawebnews.com/2010/05/21/judge-rules-n-j-police-firefighters-must-help-pay-for-to-health-care/

A New Jersey Superior Court judge has refused to block a plan by Gov. Chris Christie for public employees to start contributing at least 1.5% of their pay toward health insurance.

The plan takes effect today (May 21).

Unions representing police officers and firefighters in the state challenged the new law, arguing that it improperly infringed upon their collective bargaining process, according to The Star-Ledger. The unions also said the contribution requirement was essentially a tax on public employees.

Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg disagreed, according to the report, and said rather than a tax, the contribution is “a medical contribution.”

Union lawyers told the newspaper they will continue to push their suit against the state government to prove the legislation is unconstitutional, a claim the state denies, citing its right to change policies.

Approved unanimously in March by the New Jersey Legislature, the law requires employee contributions once their current contracts expire.

[ASG]

Approved unanimously in March by the New Jersey Legislature, the law requires employee contributions once their current contracts expire.

Quite different from the originally quoted article. Now the unions are free to negotiate this contribution into their salaries.

[Krazen1211]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127069405

LIANE HANSEN, host:

Yesterday in Trenton, New Jersey, thousands of teachers, firefighters and other state workers marched against proposed budget cuts. But the marchers were even more unhappy with the man who's doing the cutting: Republican Governor Chris Christie. Lots of state governors are trimming spending these days, but Christie has shown so much zeal and even pleasure in slashing the size of government that he's become a conservative sensation.

NPR's Robert Smith has more.

ROBERT SMITH: In downtown Newark, even teenagers who can't name a single past governor of the Garden State know the Chris Christie name.

Ms. ALIYA OXHART: That is just so messed up what Christie is doing right now.

Ms. BIANCA LINDER: Christie is talking about cutting budgets. How can we have that kind of future if you keep cutting our funding?

Ms. MIATTA LEWIS: Especially the public schools in the urban areas.

SMITH: Aliya Oxhart(ph), Bianca Linder(ph) and Miatta Lewis(ph) are all students at Arts High School. They expect to lose afterschool programs if Christie's education cuts go through. But other than that, Miatta has more questions than answers.

Ms. LEWIS: I don't know as much about him as I should.

SMITH: Well, don't worry, Miatta. Just about everything you need to know about Governor Chris Christie you can get from watching a little press conference video that went viral this week on the Internet. Christie had just been asked a question about his confrontational tone.

Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE (Republican, New Jersey): You must be the thinnest skinned guy in America 'cause you think that's a confrontational tone, then, you know, you should really see me when I'm pissed.

SMITH: Oh, but Christie was just getting warmed up.

Gov. CHRISTIE: This is who I am. Like it or not, you guys are stuck with me for four years. And I'm going to say things directly, straightly, bluntly and nobody in New Jersey is going to have to wonder where I am on an issue.

SMITH: How could anyone wonder after his dramatic first four months as governor? Christie proposed cut after cut to education, transportation, libraries, you name it. Democrats tried to forestall some of the cuts by passing a tax hike on millionaires - Christie vetoed it. Every week, Christie takes on one state union or another over their salaries or pensions, and the unions have flooded the airwaves with ads attacking Christie.

Miatta Lewis, our high school senior, says she's seen the ads, she just doesn't understand something.

Ms. LEWIS: I read in the newspaper that we were one of the most financially well-off states. So, what happened to New Jersey to make the money run so dry that he had to take such drastic measures?

SMITH: Well, you're right. During the 1980s and '90s, New Jersey did lead the region in job growth. But you can't just blame the recession here. James Hughes, dean of the School of Public Policy at Rutgers, says the economy dried up over the entire last decade.

Professor JAMES HUGHES (Dean, School of Public Policy, Rutgers University): The once-great New Jersey job creation machine fully stalled.

SMITH: Problem was, New Jersey state officials didn't really notice. They spent the last decade growing the size of government, and when the recession hit, the budget deficit as $11 billion. Enter Chris Christie, former federal prosecutor, running for governor on a slash-and-burn platform.

Ms. LEWIS: 'Cause he said when he was running for governor that he was going to be doing budget cuts. So, why didn't people get riled up enough about it to go out and vote against him?

SMITH: Another good question. Ben Dworkin runs the Institute for New Jersey Politics at Ryder University. He says that Christie was never very specific about where those cuts would come from.

Mr. BEN DWORKIN (Institute for New Jersey Politics, Ryder University): You know, it was one of those situations where a politician gets up and says, I'm going to cut waste and fraud and not raise taxes. Well, no one really believes you're going to do that.

SMITH: Well, they believe now. With every specific cut to a school district, a program for seniors or a state park, Governor Christie's approval rating drops - it's now around 33 percent. Which prompts Miatta to ask:

Ms. LEWIS: Will he stay in office? Will he be reelected?

SMITH: 2013 is a long way off. Christie's political future lives or dies on how New Jersey's economy is doing in three years. Christie would answer another way:

Gov. CHRISTIE: I'm not in this to win a popularity contest and I don't care about polls that go up and down from day to day or week to week.

SMITH: And despite the Democrats' frustration with his policies, there is some respect for his bluntness. Even Miatta Lewis, who walked out of her high school class to protest education budget cuts, feels that Christie is being straight with her.

Ms. LEWIS: Yeah, even if I don't like what he's doing, I feel right the way he goes about doing it. I mean, at least we know.

SMITH: And Christie says if you don't like that, well, vote him out.

Robert Smith, NPR News.





This article from NPR shows how Chris Christie is a hero. It also shows the sheer ignorance of the entitled fools who want their government money and want it now.

[jamegumb]

Quite different from the originally quoted article. Now the unions are free to negotiate this contribution into their salaries.

I'm still failing to find the compelling reason they should have to negotiate with unions at all.

You'd mentioned a while ago that we need public sector unions due to the impossibility of negotiating with every individual employee over salaries. But surely this is done all the time - and among many huge (and profitable) companies - in the private sector.

I see what the union gets out of being entrenched in the public sector - they get a monopoly on labor, and all the benefits of being able to wield that monopoly power. I'm not seeing what good the public has gotten out of this.

[ASG]

You'd mentioned a while ago that we need public sector unions due to the impossibility of negotiating with every individual employee over salaries. But surely this is done all the time - and among many huge (and profitable) companies - in the private sector.

And how does it work with them? Everybody I know who works for a huge company says their pay and bonuses are determined by some formula which may or may not have an boss evaluation factor in it but are mostly determined through experience and education/certifications. None of them are done via asking the boss for a raise and getting one. All unions due is give the employee a say in how the formula is developed.

[Demosthenes9]

And how does it work with them? Everybody I know who works for a huge company says their pay and bonuses are determined by some formula which may or may not have an boss evaluation factor in it but are mostly determined through experience and education/certifications. None of them are done via asking the boss for a raise and getting one. All unions due is give the employee a say in how the formula is developed.

Oh bullshit. If you are in the private sector and don't like the raise that was handed down by HR, your options are to A: decide to limit your own productivity and possibly lose your job, B: quit, or C: take it in stride and continue working.

If the unions don't like the new contracts, they basically shut down the company/government through a strike or a work "slow down".

[ASG]

Oh bullshit. If you are in the private sector and don't like the raise that was handed down by HR, your options are to A: decide to limit your own productivity and possibly lose your job, B: quit, or C: take it in stride and continue working.

If the unions don't like the new contracts, they basically shut down the company/government through a strike or a work "slow down".
You mean B. quit and work for a competing firm.

And if the company/public doesn't like the union new contracts they can shut everything down and not pay anybody anything. Both sides have their weapons. The corporation/government side is normally able to wait out the union side if they wish to do so (notice pretty much all recent strikes as evidence).

[Elmer]

How come some of the same folks that rail about those in the financial sector being overpaid with government money, think it's just fine when it's unions getting overpaid?

[Demosthenes9]

You mean B. quit and work for a competing firm.

And if the company/public doesn't like the union new contracts they can shut everything down and not pay anybody anything. Both sides have their weapons.

Fine. One single person would quit and work for a competing firm. How does that compare to ALL the employees going on strike ?

Last I checked, if one employee decided not to come into work one day, the entire company would come to a screeching halt or be seriously impacted.

Oh, great, the company can go out and hire an entire new work force, bring them all in for training, and try to replace every single employee at the same time. Hopefully, while all this is going on, they won't lose all their orders or customers due to the stop in work flow.

Then of course we could get into the sticky questions of law as to what steps a company can take to remove a union from the work place or even what they can do to replace the union workers on strike.

[jamegumb]

And how does it work with them? Everybody I know who works for a huge company says their pay and bonuses are determined by some formula which may or may not have an boss evaluation factor in it but are mostly determined through experience and education/certifications. None of them are done via asking the boss for a raise and getting one. All unions due is give the employee a say in how the formula is developed.

Odd -- this is precisely how public sector union raises are given. And the "asking the boss" part you're touting in the public sector involves a monopoly going in and demanding concessions from a guy they helped elect. Where's the guy representing the public (read: taxpayers) here - the people who actually keep the government afloat?

While there is certainly some foolish autonomy in big businesses, they have some huge advantages over government in their ability to be flexible and respond to market and technological changes.

Read: they can fire specific people who are problems; they can can entire departments that are no longer useful; they can see revenues coming in at 25% less than normal and make necessary changes in response.

They can adapt. The best the public sector seems to offer is a furlough -- we'll keep paying your same hourly rate, but now you get every other Friday off.

[ASG]

Odd -- this is precisely how public sector union raises are given
My point exactly. Those that have this formula method that are not in unions do so because they hope to be in management down the line. The ones that don't have that expectation are in private sector unions.
And the "asking the boss" part you're touting in the public sector involves a monopoly going in and demanding concessions from a guy they helped elect. Where's the guy representing the public (read: taxpayers) here - the people who actually keep the government afloat?
Those are your elected representatives you are negotiating with the unions. If you don't like their negotiating, elect other people.

While there is certainly some foolish autonomy in big businesses, they have some huge advantages over government in their ability to be flexible and respond to market and technological changes.

Read: they can fire specific people who are problems; they can can entire departments that are no longer useful; they can see revenues coming in at 25% less than normal and make necessary changes in response.

They can adapt. The best the public sector seems to offer is a furlough -- we'll keep paying your same hourly rate, but now you get every other Friday off.
They are doing furloughs because they don't have the money to pay the employees, not because they don't want those employees at all.

Yes the private sector can make changes in response to new conditions faster than the public sector, but this is true because of government bureaucracy, not unions. This is why the price of stamps isn't going up fast enough.

Fine. One single person would quit and work for a competing firm. How does that compare to ALL the employees going on strike ?

Last I checked, if one employee decided not to come into work one day, the entire company would come to a screeching halt or be seriously impacted.

Oh, great, the company can go out and hire an entire new work force, bring them all in for training, and try to replace every single employee at the same time. Hopefully, while all this is going on, they won't lose all their orders or customers due to the stop in work flow.

Then of course we could get into the sticky questions of law as to what steps a company can take to remove a union from the work place or even what they can do to replace the union workers on strike.
You just outlined exactly why employees form unions.

[Demosthenes9]

My point exactly. Those that have this formula method that are not in unions do so because they hope to be in management down the line. The ones that don't have that expectation are in private sector unions.

Those are your elected representatives you are negotiating with the unions. If you don't like their negotiating, elect other people.


They are doing furloughs because they don't have the money to pay the employees, not because they don't want those employees at all.

Yes the private sector can make changes in response to new conditions faster than the public sector, but this is true because of government bureaucracy, not unions. This is why the price of stamps isn't going up fast enough.


You just outlined exactly why employees form unions.


Coincidentally, it also outlines one of the many reasons that Unions SUCK and should be given no special protections. It's a mafia racket pure and simple.

It's "legalized" extortion.

[ASG]

Coincidentally, it also outlines one of the many reasons that Unions SUCK and should be given no special protections. It's a mafia racket pure and simple.

It's "legalized" extortion.
I can just as easily say the company is legally extorting the employee by saying "you're getting this as your salary or you're fired."

[Demosthenes9]

I can just as easily say the company is legally extorting the employee by saying "you're getting this as your salary or you're fired."

The job belongs to the company. They have a right to determine what they want to pay for the services of the employee.

It would be like you trying to sell your car and telling me "$10K, take it or leave it" As it's your car, you of course have the right to demand whatever payment or compensation you want for it. I am free to agree or look elsewhere for a different car.

[appleyum]

http://moremonmouthmusings.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-do-you-like-that-jazz.html#links
When it comes to putting a political agenda ahead of the well-being of our children, some NJEA members here in Monmouth County are leading by their shameful example. The victims this time are the children participating in the annual Basie Awards at the Count Basie Theatre.

The Basie Awards, acknowledging the achievement of local children in the performing arts, has been attacked by a Howell music teacher and her NJEA friends. This year's volunteer host, NJ 101.5 radio personality Big Joe Henry, has stepped down in the wake of a made up controversy masterminded by Regina McAllen and a few bullies from the NJEA. While Big Joe has never offered any comment about the NJEA, school boards or budgets, these folks have decided that fighting the presence of someone whose fellow employees have at times been critical of the NJEA is more important than supporting the kids they are paid to teach.

As a proponent of full disclosure, I must start off by saying that I have never worked with Regina McAllen and the NJEA to create a charity that returns over 97% of its fundraising to the New Jersey charities it supports. I have never spent the day before Christmas with Ms McAllen driving a rented UHaul full of toys to needy families in the heart of one of our poorest cities. I must say that I have never spent an evening with Ms. McAllen or the NJEA in 100 degree heat on the beach giving children a chance to sing their hearts out in a talent show that reaches thousands of people. I have never seen Regina McAllen and her union buddies spend hours in a hot, sweaty Santa suit bringing Christmas gifts to families that lost everything they had in Hurricane Katrina. Although it appears that Regina McAllen is a music teacher, I have not worked with her or the NJEA to found a scholarship to help a kid from New Jersey attend the Berklee College of Music, one of the most prestigious music schools in the country. I have seen Big Joe do all of that and more.

While Ms. McAllen and her NJEA pals were busy lobbying and collecting their paychecks, I watched Big Joe Henry and his radio station, NJ 101.5, stand beside us to help thousands of New Jersey kids as well as children all around the country.

Let me be clear. I admire the dedication and passion of many teachers. I stand in awe of what some of them have accomplished with their students (this is my little shout out to the Red Bank Middle School Band, their teachers, and all the other groups like them).

Politics has no place in academic achievement and recognition. The NJEA and Ms. McAllen have set an appalling example. In her published letters to the Count Basie Theatre, she has talked about the possibility of losing her job, but she never once mentioned her students. Good to know where the NJEA’s priorities stand.

Again, in the effort of full disclosure, I am a founding board member of the Rock and Roll Music Fund, as is Big Joe Henry. I am an avowed Republican – the only one on our board. Big Joe has never, to my knowledge (even though I goad him endlessly) taken a political position. Our membership tends to split firmly at 50% to each side of the aisle. And when it comes to helping kids, NOBODY CARES ABOUT POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

EXCEPT THE NJEA. Apparently, as Ms. McAllen would have you believe, simply knowing someone who disagrees with the NJEA makes you ineligible to help kids.

Forget that you do it for free.

Forget your exemplary record of service to your community.

Forget the hundreds of thousands of dollars you have helped raise.

Forget your hands on dedication to needy families.

Forget your ongoing support of police and firefighters.

You don’t count because you don’t pay dues to the NJEA.

What a disgrace.

The Basie Awards are a wonderful acknowledgement of the talented children in our area. Big Joe could have had a well-deserved night off instead of volunteering to host an event that honored these special kids. Instead, as I have seen him do time and time again, he offered his support.

And Regina McAllen and the NJEA say he’s not good enough. He works for NJ101.5 and some of their personalities (not Big Joe), publicly disagree with their union.

And that’s reason enough to toss the kids aside and take what should be a lovely and memorable event and turn it into a political hatchet job. Their bullying, “me first” tactics have once again put our kids last.

The children being awarded Basie Awards deserve a host as qualified, caring, and distinguished as Big Joe Henry.

The children who are seeking a future in music, theatre, and the performing arts deserve a champion as passionate as Big Joe Henry.

Big Joe Henry has once again put children first by stepping down and trying to remove the controversy. He did it to preserve the integrity of an event that should focus on kids. I know Big Joe well enough to know that he would rather we leave this go and focus on the kids. And when the Basies are awarded, I hope that we will. But in the interim, it is vital that we step back and take a hard look at the NJEA and some of its members and realize who really puts our kids first.
:facepalm2:

http://www.nj1015.com/Big-Joe-Steps-Down-As-Host-Of-Basie-Awards/7113501
For the letters from the union and statement from Big Joe

[rrc06]

I can just as easily say the company is legally extorting the employee by saying "you're getting this as your salary or you're fired."

not really. The employee is free to leave and go work somewhere else.

[ASG]

not really. The employee is free to leave and go work somewhere else.
Yes, I heard the job market is excellent.

[rrc06]

Yes, I heard the job market is excellent.

and this is the employer's fault because? The job market isn't excellent, and that's all the more reasons for unions to put up and shut up while their private sector counterparts (you know, the ones paying their public sector salaries and benefits) are getting laid off and furloughed left and right.

I seriously don't know why anyone in their right mind (who works in the private sector) would want to live and work in a state like NJ, NY or CA where the private sector is subservient to big labor.

[Krazen1211]

Those are your elected representatives you are negotiating with the unions. If you don't like their negotiating, elect other people.




We did. His name is Chris Christie. God bless the man. :bounce:


He is leading the way.

http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/governor-christie-shows-democrats-the-way-on-property-tax-reform-31694.html

Just weeks after Governor Chris Christie announced his Cap 2.5 Reform Agenda to bring real property tax relief to New Jersey, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in New York is embracing Governor Christie’s approach to cap property taxes, control skyrocketing costs, and make services affordable for taxpayers again.

While announcing his candidacy for governor of New York, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo released his plan to cap property tax increases, including key elements of Governor Christie’s well-received plan:

He proposed capping state spending and limiting local property tax increases to no more than 2 percent annually. (Danny Hakim and Nicholas Confessore, “Cuomo Opens Campaign for New York Governor,” New York Times, 5/22/10)
Cuomo supports capping local property taxes at 2 percent a year or the rate of inflation. (Michael Gormley, “Cuomo announces campaign for N.Y. governor,” Associated Press, 5/22/10)
Cuomo said he wants to cap state spending, cap property taxes at 2 percent or the rate of inflation and will proposed a freeze on state worker salaries. “I respect the state workers and I respect their unions, but we simply can’t afford to pay benefits and pensions that are out of line with economic reality.” “Every company and family has gone through it. Government must spend less and operate better,” he said. (Chris White, “Cuomo announces candidacy for governor,” CBS-6 WRGB, 5/23/10)
Andrew Cuomo 2010 Issues and Agenda Website Page

We must get our State’s fiscal house in order by immediately imposing a cap on state spending and freezing salaries of state public employees as part of a one-year emergency financial plan, committing to no increase in personal or corporate income taxes or sales taxes and imposing a local property tax cap.

Impose a Local Property Tax Cap

Spending must also be controlled at the local level. While others have proposed a cap on just school property taxes, the fact is all local property taxes are going up at rate much faster than inflation. For the five years from 2002 to 2007, inflation ran at 2.9 percent annually, whereas property tax revenues increased at higher rates for every major class of local governments.

For counties, the average annual increase in property taxes was 5.7 percent; for cities it was 5.1 percent; for towns 5.6 percent; for villages 6.2 percent; for school districts 7.5 percent; and the highest rate of increase was actually for fire districts, at 7.6 percent.40

The local property tax cap would apply to all school districts and local governments and would be set at the lower of the inflation rate or two percent.

The cap would work as follows:

Any property tax levy increasing above the inflation rate would be prohibited, unless endorsed both by the local governing board and by a 60 percent majority vote. For schools, this would be part of their regular budget voting process. For other municipalities and special districts, a referendum would be required on an exception basis, in circumstances warranting a property tax increase above the cap, preserving local control and an appropriate escape valve. These budget votes by municipalities would be similar to current requirements for voter approval to establish and spend from certain reserve funds.
Only limited exceptions would be allowed for the cap, such as one-time needs for large legal settlements or extraordinary capital expenditures.
Counties would also be covered, but with appropriate exceptions for state mandated social service programs that are not capped (as Medicaid is), and which represent a major share of their budgets. State agencies overseeing such programs would have to annually report on increases in spending in those programs and be charged with finding ways to control costs and local contributions for the programs to ensure that their growth rates are below the cap.
All local governments would be covered, including fire and other special districts. The cap would apply directly to independent special districts and to town or county component special districts as part of their parent municipalities’ tax levy. Thus, towns would be responsible for special service districts that they control, but not for those that can independently set their own levies.
Exceptions or adjustments would apply to consolidations of services (so that the cap would not discourage a county or town from taking on consolidated services from other localities or special districts). In fact, the cap may well encourage cost saving consolidations, where existing arrangements prove to be too expensive for the new discipline.

[Elmer]

not really. The employee is free to leave and go work somewhere else.

That's not fair. The employees should be able to dictate their across the board wages and benefits under threats.

[appleyum]

Coincidentally, it also outlines one of the many reasons that Unions SUCK and should be given no special protections. It's a mafia racket pure and simple.

It's "legalized" extortion.
:lol: I was going to say blackmail.

[ASG]

and this is the employer's fault because? The job market isn't excellent, and that's all the more reasons for unions to put up and shut up while their private sector counterparts (you know, the ones paying their public sector salaries and benefits) are getting laid off and furloughed left and right.

I seriously don't know why anyone in their right mind (who works in the private sector) would want to live and work in a state like NJ, NY or CA where the private sector is subservient to big labor.
I don't know why any employee would not want to work there. the point is labor has their weapons (unions) and corporations have theirs (jobs). Without unions, it is not a fair fight for labor. Corporations can easily wait out labor to make them take lower wages while labor without unions has zero chance of getting the percentage of earnings they deserve rather than the lowest wage possible.

[paperboy05]

Corporations can easily wait out labor to make them take lower wages while labor without unions has zero chance of getting the percentage of earnings they deserve rather than the lowest wage possible.

And who gets to decide what they "deserve"? If I decide I "deserve" a million dollars a year, should I be able to force my workplace to pay that?

[ASG]

And who gets to decide what they "deserve"? If I decide I "deserve" a million dollars a year, should I be able to force my workplace to pay that?
Agreements between the unions and management, either working together or through arbitration, should determine that.

[paperboy05]

Agreements between the unions and management, either working together or through arbitration, should determine that.

And you can do that now without a union. If I feel I "deserve" to make more money, then I'm free to find a business that also feels I "deserve" that amount.

Do you think a business will survive a long time if it can't find people to work for them by not paying a competitive salary?

[rrc06]

I don't know why any employee would not want to work there. the point is labor has their weapons (unions) and corporations have theirs (jobs). Without unions, it is not a fair fight for labor. Corporations can easily wait out labor to make them take lower wages while labor without unions has zero chance of getting the percentage of earnings they deserve rather than the lowest wage possible.

Why is labor entitled to a certain wage? They aren't the ones creating the jobs. Anyone should be able to work for said job, not just those who belong to the union.

Price fixing is a bad idea, whether we are talking about labor or goods.

And you can do that now without a union. If I feel I "deserve" to make more money, then I'm free to find a business that also feels I "deserve" that amount.

Do you think a business will survive a long time if it can't find people to work for them by not paying a competitive salary?

I really do look forward to hearing ASG's response to that.

[ASG]

Why is labor entitled to a certain wage? They aren't the ones creating the jobs.

They just create the product is all.

And you can do that now without a union. If I feel I "deserve" to make more money, then I'm free to find a business that also feels I "deserve" that amount.

Do you think a business will survive a long time if it can't find people to work for them by not paying a competitive salary?
Yes, if everybody pays a crappy wage, labor has to work somewhere.

[paperboy05]

They just create the product is all.

And if they weren't there, there would be no product. Hence labor has more "weapons" then just unionizing.

Yes, if everybody pays a crappy wage, labor has to work somewhere.

And you think everywhere will pay a crappy wage because some other company does? :shake: Might as well have everyone unionize so there are no "crappy" wages anywhere.

[ASG]

And if they weren't there, there would be no product. Hence labor has more "weapons" then just unionizing.
You really think the auto industry would run out of cars before labor would run out of money to feed themselves and their family?
And you think everywhere will pay a crappy wage because some other company does? :shake: Might as well have everyone unionize so there are no "crappy" wages anywhere.
Yes, usually most places where labor is not likely to become management does unionize precisely for that reason.

[paperboy05]

You really think the auto industry would run out of cars before labor would run out of money to feed themselves and their family?
No, but what happens when they do, they continue to sell nothing?

[ASG]

No, but what happens when they do, they continue to sell nothing?
They do the same thing the employees have been doing for months before them, decide what to do with no cash flow.

[Krazen1211]

Yes, if everybody pays a crappy wage, labor has to work somewhere.

Entrepreneurship.

[paperboy05]

They do the same thing the employees have been doing for months before them, decide what to do with no cash flow.

Do you mean fail? If so, it would seem that you agree that if a business doesn't pay it's workers well enough for them to stay, that said business wouldn't exist anymore.

Entrepreneurship.

Ah, but union extortion is so much easier ;)

[ASG]

Do you mean fail? If so, it would seem that you agree that if a business doesn't pay it's workers well enough for them to stay, that said business wouldn't exist anymore.
Correct, and without unions that "well enough" is lower.
Ah, but union extortion is so much easier ;)
If by easier, you mean possible, yes. Its not economically possible for everybody to start their own company. I even had a class in college where we tried to take something that was made with university research and see if there was enough of a market for it for it to be worth pitching it to an venture group. I don't think a single one (may be one) had that potential.

[paperboy05]

Correct, and without unions that "well enough" is lower.
Lower then the artificially high salaries they want? Sure...

[jamegumb]

My point exactly. Those that have this formula method that are not in unions do so because they hope to be in management down the line. The ones that don't have that expectation are in private sector unions.

I'm not seeing what your "point" is accomplishing. Aside from the fact that you're acknowledging people get raises based upon arbitrary things rather than whether or not they can do the job better than they did the year before.

And, of course, this gets exacerbated at the public sector union level; Willie Brown himself complains about the enhanced public sector "(j)ob security, zero requirement on the performance side, longevity or seniority for a promotion..."

http://cbs13.com/local/willie.brown.interview.2.1704657.html

Those are your elected representatives you are negotiating with the unions. If you don't like their negotiating, elect other people.

I've complained many times that there's effective taxation without representation in many districts and states across the country. I can vote for who I want, but the same public-union-employee-supporting hack will get in no matter what I choose.

They are doing furloughs because they don't have the money to pay the employees, not because they don't want those employees at all.

Yes the private sector can make changes in response to new conditions faster than the public sector, but this is true because of government bureaucracy, not unions. This is why the price of stamps isn't going up fast enough.

They're doing these hoops because they can't do what any normal business without a labor monopoly they had to respond to would do: identify the people who are pulling their weight and then send the other people packing.

And it's absurd to think that the lack of response is only due to "government bureaucracy" rather than unions. Have you ever bothered to read work rules, or the lawsuits that come whenever any change tries to get instituted to them?

BTW, the efficiency of how well the post office works should be unrelated to the price of stamps. As noted elsewhere, the post office should have been making money hand-over-fist over the past decades; that they were barely making ends meet showcases just how inefficient the organization was. Now that mail volume is down from record highs, they've got no way to hide their inefficiencies. Again, illustrating the perverse and impossible nature of trying to turn around public sector organizations.

You just outlined exactly why employees form unions.

Again, you're doing a fine job of demonstrating how public sector employees benefit from belonging to a union. You've not demonstrated a single way how the public benefits from the employees being unionized.

We can't even pretend to sing "America works best when we say 'Union Yes!'" here - one look at the DMV makes it a mockery.

[Krazen1211]

Correct, and without unions that "well enough" is lower.

If by easier, you mean possible, yes. Its not economically possible for everybody to start their own company. I even had a class in college where we tried to take something that was made with university research and see if there was enough of a market for it for it to be worth pitching it to an venture group. I don't think a single one (may be one) had that potential.

The fact that you cannot do it doesn't make it impossible.

All it does mean, however, is that successful laborers are not forced to 'work somewhere'.

[ASG]

Lower then the artificially high salaries they want? Sure...
I'd rather labor get "artificially high" salary than an "artificially low" one playing on the desperation of not wanting to be unemployed.

[ASG]

Again, you're doing a fine job of demonstrating how public sector employees benefit from belonging to a union. You've not demonstrated a single way how the public benefits from the employees being unionized.
I'm not trying to. Unions are for the benefit of the employee, not the employer. The public benefits from the employees being unionized if the public is in a union. The same is true in the private sector for who benefits.

[Krazen1211]

I'd rather labor get "artificially high" salary than an "artificially low" one playing on the desperation of not wanting to be unemployed.

Why??

[ASG]

Why??
My morals.

[paperboy05]

Unions are for the benefit of the employee, not the employer. The public benefits from the employees being unionized if the public is in a union.

Those are contradictory statements.

[Krazen1211]

My morals.

Your morals lead you to support confiscatory sales taxes and choking property taxes on the private sector?

Must suck for those folks who work at Mcdonalds.

[jamegumb]

I'm not trying to. Unions are for the benefit of the employee, not the employer. The public benefits from the employees being unionized if the public is in a union. The same is true in the private sector for who benefits.

I think there's a huge difference here. The private sector unions will generally have other forces working to keep labor costs down - stockholders, competition from competing non-union firms, market forces, etc. Unions can be extremely healthy - for both their members and for the customers of these firms - under such conditions.

When there is a monopoly on labor, such as in most public sector unions, these factors to keep the union healthy begin to vanish. As they go away, the salaries, benefits, and work rules for the union members can become absurd.

Many cities in CA have hit the absurd point. I'm not as close to NJ; others can offer their opinions there.

I'll provide a recent quote from (progressive) Gavin Newsom here:

"I don't know about a more important progressive issue than pension reform. There is no discretion left in our budgets to advance our progressive values of investing in people and investing in place if that discretion is taken up to meet our (pension) obligations."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_15136333?nclick_check=1

He's talking only about reducing pensions. But this is just another form of public employee compensation. The underlying notion - which Gavin himself won't admit - is that it costs too much to pay public employees, and the real losers in this (as there is a limited pot of money to draw from) are other public needs.

We're spending more than ever on public servants, and we have increasingly little to show for it.

[ASG]

Those are contradictory statements.
Its contradictory that there are members of the public that are in a union?
I think there's a huge difference here. The private sector unions will generally have other forces working to keep labor costs down - stockholders, competition from competing non-union firms, market forces, etc. Unions can be extremely healthy - for both their members and for the customers of these firms - under such conditions.

When there is a monopoly on labor, such as in most public sector unions, these factors to keep the union healthy begin to vanish. As they go away, the salaries, benefits, and work rules for the union members can become absurd.

Many cities in CA have hit the absurd point. I'm not as close to NJ; others can offer their opinions there.

I'll provide a recent quote from (progressive) Gavin Newsom here:



http://www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_15136333?nclick_check=1

He's talking only about reducing pensions. But this is just another form of public employee compensation. The underlying notion - which Gavin himself won't admit - is that it costs too much to pay public employees, and the real losers in this (as there is a limited pot of money to draw from) are other public needs.

We're spending more than ever on public servants, and we have increasingly little to show for it.
Its the same for public and private, its just that public leadership cares less about the future because the future doesn't happen during their term of office. But it is our own undoing for voting that type of leadership in. Recently the public leadership has fought with the unions but it is difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Yet somehow the blame goes to the unions for getting these pensions plans rather than the people who agreed to them on the other side of the coin.

Your morals lead you to support confiscatory sales taxes and choking property taxes on the private sector?

Must suck for those folks who work at Mcdonalds.
It always does. Hopefully those working at McDonald's are not planning on that being their career.

[Krazen1211]

It always does. Hopefully those working at McDonald's are not planning on that being their career.

Yep. It is still curious, however, how one would choose to support $200k union administrators over $10/hour Mcdonalds employees. Interesting morality.

Or why someone would choose a $60k overpaid union employee rather than 2 $30k nonunion employees, thus creating unemployment.

[ASG]

Yep. It is still curious, however, how one would choose to support $200k union administrators over $10/hour Mcdonalds employees. Interesting morality.

Or why someone would choose a $60k overpaid union employee rather than 2 $30k nonunion employees, thus creating unemployment.
What makes you think they would hire 2 people if one can do the job now?

[Krazen1211]

What makes you think they would hire 2 people if one can do the job now?

To produce more output?

[jamegumb]

Its the same for public and private, its just that public leadership cares less about the future because the future doesn't happen during their term of office. But it is our own undoing for voting that type of leadership in. Recently the public leadership has fought with the unions but it is difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Yet somehow the blame goes to the unions for getting these pensions plans rather than the people who agreed to them on the other side of the coin.

This is a good point. I blame mostly the people in government for not having a backbone, and for being stupid and shortsighted. I blame the unions for not making concessions which I see to be reasonable right now (they're not accepting them because a 25% cut in pay sounds cruel and harsh; there's a lack of acknowledgment that the people being offered 25% cuts might be making 50% more than they should.)

That said, I'm failing to see a reason we need to have public sector unions. Not having them would take away most of the problem. I might actually be able to vote for a Democrat.

[Krazen1211]

Its contradictory that there are members of the public that are in a union?

Its the same for public and private, its just that public leadership cares less about the future because the future doesn't happen during their term of office. But it is our own undoing for voting that type of leadership in. Recently the public leadership has fought with the unions but it is difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Yet somehow the blame goes to the unions for getting these pensions plans rather than the people who agreed to them on the other side of the coin.


False.

[rrc06]

Unions are for the benefit of the employee, not the employer.

Unforunately, the tax payer and private sector get screwed with that mentality. No one is entitled to a job at a certain wage IMO. The market should dictate things.

[808Lurker]

Unforunately, the tax payer and private sector get screwed with that mentality. No one is entitled to a job at a certain wage IMO. The market should dictate things.

The market as it stands now is rigged and only serves to benefit a few select people.

[rrc06]

The market as it stands now is rigged and only serves to benefit a few select people.

If you are NY state taxpayer and don't belong to a public union, then you are getting screwed. The governor took away property tax relief last year from the middle-class, is trying to close state parks, and is increasing a whole host of fees.

The unions OTOH have not lifted a finger to either 1) accept furloughs or 2) give back a 4% COLA this year.

[ASG]

Unforunately, the tax payer and private sector get screwed with that mentality. No one is entitled to a job at a certain wage IMO. The market should dictate things.
And without unions, the market is skewed in the employer's favor. The employee will always need a job more than the employer needs one individual employee.

[rrc06]

And without unions, the market is skewed in the employer's favor.

Not necessarily. If the employer doesn't offer a competitive enough wage, the employee can go work somewhere else.

The employee will always need a job more than the employer needs one individual employee.

Depends on the labor market and location. Employers in North Dakota are fighting over employees sometimes.

[DJPlayer]

The market as it stands now is rigged and only serves to benefit a few select people.

did you just claim the entire global market is rigged? I think you took the liberally selected quotes from the Goldman Sachs inquiry far to literally.

The market took a decent beating the past week. Most people would say this has to do w/ troubles in Europe, poor job numbers in U.S. etc.. but apparently you believe somebody rigged that drop for profit. So who was responsible for that drop? If the market is "rigged" somebody must be responsible, right?

[paperboy05]

Its contradictory that there are members of the public that are in a union?

Is that what you said? :shake:

Unions are for the benefit of the employee, not the employer.
In one instance you say that unions benefit the employee.

The public benefits from the employees being unionized if the public is in a union.
Then in this instance you say the public benefits when public employees are unionized. However, when the employer is the public (as is the case with public employees), the public doesn't both benefit, and not benefit. If unions truly were there to benefit the public, then they would benefit the employer rather then the employees in a public system.

[ASG]

Is that what you said? :shake:


In one instance you say that unions benefit the employee.


Then in this instance you say the public benefits when public employees are unionized. However, when the employer is the public (as is the case with public employees), the public doesn't both benefit, and not benefit. If unions truly were there to benefit the public, then they would benefit the employer rather then the employees in a public system.
I said "The public benefits from the employees being unionized if the public is in a union." That part of the public would benefit because they are the employee.

[paperboy05]

I said "The public benefits from the employees being unionized if the public is in a union." That part of the public would benefit because they are the employee.
:huh: So the public benefits from unions, because those employed as a union are part of the public?

[ASG]

:huh: So the public benefits from unions, because those employed as a union are part of the public?
I should have been more clear but essentially, yes. Also, depending the occupation, an unintended side effect may be that the entire public may benefit because demand for these jobs might increase allowing for better people to be occupying these jobs.

[808Lurker]

If you are NY state taxpayer and don't belong to a public union, then you are getting screwed. The governor took away property tax relief last year from the middle-class, is trying to close state parks, and is increasing a whole host of fees.

The unions OTOH have not lifted a finger to either 1) accept furloughs or 2) give back a 4% COLA this year.

I agree with you, NY unions have shot themselves in the foot and deserve what is going to happen to them. They are digging their own grave..

[jamegumb]

Also, depending the occupation, an unintended side effect may be that the entire public may benefit because demand for these jobs might increase allowing for better people to be occupying these jobs.

I've certainly noticed the quality improving at the DMV. :rolleyes:

The sad truth is, that if the demand is so high for some of these jobs - which it is; there is little trouble staffing them - it basically means that the gov't is paying the people who do them too much. (Aside from requesting more from the people actually in the jobs.)

And paying these people too much means that there's less money to afford other things we'd like to have the gov't do. Like keep parks and libraries open, streets clean, and potholes filled.

[808Lurker]

did you just claim the entire global market is rigged? I think you took the liberally selected quotes from the Goldman Sachs inquiry far to literally.

The market took a decent beating the past week. Most people would say this has to do w/ troubles in Europe, poor job numbers in U.S. etc.. but apparently you believe somebody rigged that drop for profit. So who was responsible for that drop? If the market is "rigged" somebody must be responsible, right?

I am getting sick of responding to strawman arguments. When people refer to the "market" or "free market" it does not collerate to the "stock market" or "wall street".

Heck rrc06 wasn't even refering to the stock market in general...

Unforunately, the tax payer and private sector get screwed with that mentality. No one is entitled to a job at a certain wage IMO. The market should dictate things.

So please enlighten how the STOCK market should dictate private sector wages.. Should ones earnings be tied to the DOW? I am dying to know...

[ASG]

I've certainly noticed the quality improving at the DMV. :rolleyes:

Actually, DMV quality here (at least according to most people) went in the tank once it was privatized and has improved since taken back over by the state.

[jamegumb]

Actually, DMV quality here (at least according to most people) went in the tank once it was privatized and has improved since taken back over by the state.

Assuming this is true (that the new public system is empirically better than the old private system), I'm happy for you. FWIW, I think many government services would improve greatly if entire departments were summarily fired and then hired back a few years later. They'd come back with different people, different attitudes, different work rules, and (perhaps) different salaries.

I'm positive this would be the case with any public transit system in the Bay Area.

[paperboy05]

Assuming this is true...

According to this article (http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m3d15-NJ-privatization-controversy-heats-up), it was some public/private hybrid that was pretty ridiculous. It appears it was the same for vehicle inspections, but they were subsequently able to privatize easier, and now wait times are near nonexistent.


To take the obvious example of the privatization of the old Division of Motor Vehicles: appointing obvious political hacks to form a "public-private partnership" to register people for a government roll is exactly what privatization should not be, and is little better than the Roman system of publicani, or tax-gatherers, that fostered such resentment in Roman-occupied Judea in Jesus' day. (Today, Jesus might say, "If your brother will still not listen, regard him as no better than an unbeliever or a DMV agent.") The privatization of State inspections was not much better: initially, no one held the contractor properly to account, with the result that they made several obvious technical mistakes that created unsustainable waiting lines and almost brought the inspection system to a halt.

The Star-Ledger grudgingly admits that the two situations had different outcomes. The public-private DMV partnership was dissolved, and the new Motor Vehicle Commission now stands as one of those 700 independent boards, commissions, and authorities which drew a collective censure from Christie on account of their free-spending ways. On the other hand, the inspection contractor made the necessary improvements and retained the contract--while more private garages, who previously had quit offering inspections to their customers, reconsidered that decision and offered competition to the State inspections service. That's the real reason why those long lines have vanished: the Official New Jersey Inspection Station program, an example of "privatization" that predated the outsourcing of State-run inspections, continues and remains today the most successful example of real privatization known in this State.

**Note: not sure how much of this is true, but it seemed to be the only article I could find referencing the past NJ DMV and its privatization.

[jamegumb]

According to this article (http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m3d15-NJ-privatization-controversy-heats-up), it was some public/private hybrid that was pretty ridiculous. It appears it was the same for vehicle inspections, but they were subsequently able to privatize easier, and now wait times are near nonexistent.

**Note: not sure how much of this is true, but it seemed to be the only article I could find referencing the past NJ DMV and its privatization.

I don't know anything about the specifics here. But I do know it's extremely easy to screw up a privatization plan.

[ASG]

According to this article (http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m3d15-NJ-privatization-controversy-heats-up), it was some public/private hybrid that was pretty ridiculous. It appears it was the same for vehicle inspections, but they were subsequently able to privatize easier, and now wait times are near nonexistent.




**Note: not sure how much of this is true, but it seemed to be the only article I could find referencing the past NJ DMV and its privatization.
The DMV and the inspections were privatized separately. Inspections were outsourced to private agents(still is) while the DMV itself was actually privatized. Customer service went downhill in a hurry due to crappy customer service. The state took back control in '03.

As for wait times going down, I credit this mostly to now our inspection station allowing you to schedule a time of your inspection on the internet so its no longer "just show up."

I do agree though that privatization can work in many instances as long as somebody is "minding the store" on the public's behalf, so to speak.

[jamegumb]

I do agree though that privatization can work in many instances as long as somebody is "minding the store" on the public's behalf, so to speak.

Yep. Not only does the specification for privatization need to be accurate (what kind of hours are to be worked, what wait times are acceptable, how many complaints are tolerable, etc.), but enforcement of the contract needs to be vigilant.


And, as much as I complain about it, I don't mind the DMV having relatively low paid employees. Not every place can give perfect customer service, and most people only have to go there once or twice a year, anyway. (I only mind if they pay people well to be that surly.) Some magic might be lost if it were actually enjoyable going down there.

[rrc06]

I agree with you, NY unions have shot themselves in the foot and deserve what is going to happen to them. They are digging their own grave..

The sad thing is, I spoke to a lot of the unionized employees where I work, many of them feel the same, but nobody wants to speak up lest you hear the wrath of the union leadership and inner circle.

Heck rrc06 wasn't even refering to the stock market in general...

Nah, I was talking about the market in general (particularly in regards to labor).

[Ryu-bom]

The sad thing is, I spoke to a lot of the unionized employees where I work, many of them feel the same, but nobody wants to speak up lest you hear the wrath of the union leadership and inner circle.


Hearsay

Any whoo.... Most state employees band together to stand up to a gov't who wants to layoff certain amount of people but not others.... Imagine losing hours while some other state workers continue to recieve current pay and not give up anything...

[Demosthenes9]

The DMV and the inspections were privatized separately. Inspections were outsourced to private agents(still is) while the DMV itself was actually privatized. Customer service went downhill in a hurry due to crappy customer service. The state took back control in '03.

As for wait times going down, I credit this mostly to now our inspection station allowing you to schedule a time of your inspection on the internet so its no longer "just show up."

I do agree though that privatization can work in many instances as long as somebody is "minding the store" on the public's behalf, so to speak.

Seems that you missed or ignored one of the main points of the post you responded to. According to it, the DMV wasn't actually "privatized" but rather became a "public private partnership" which of course means that much of the same government bureaucracy crap still remains.

[808Lurker]

Hearsay

Any whoo.... Most state employees band together to stand up to a gov't who wants to layoff certain amount of people but not others.... Imagine losing hours while some other state workers continue to recieve current pay and not give up anything...

He was sharing antidotal experience, not trying to make an argument. If he was going to "generalize an argument based on talking to his unionized co-workers", then you could claim hearsay. He is simply sharing some sentiment from the people where he works.

[rrc06]

Hearsay

Any whoo.... Most state employees band together to stand up to a gov't who wants to layoff certain amount of people but not othenrs.... Imagine losing hours while some other state workers continue to recieve current pay and not give up anythig...

All the more reason for the unions to give back the 4% pay raise and avoid layoffs. Now, Gov Paterson will have to layoff people (which is completely within his power, unlike the furloughs).

You basically made my point for me, ryu-born and you probably didn't realize it ;)

And no it's not hearsay, it's anecdotal experience.

He was sharing antidotal experience, not trying to make an argument. If he was going to "generalize an argument based on talking to his unionized co-workers", then you could claim hearsay. He is simply sharing some sentiment from the people where he works.

exactly

[Ryu-bom]

He was sharing antidotal experience, not trying to make an argument. If he was going to "generalize an argument based on talking to his unionized co-workers", then you could claim hearsay. He is simply sharing some sentiment from the people where he works.

No... he is trying to post sediments of so and so ( with no prove that these people actually exist or/and not made up ) in order to sway the arguement in his favor...

Sorry but to post sediments of possibly fictional accounts to boster one's arguement is called hearsay not to mention lies... How do we even know these people are in a union? or not posers and instigators sent by opposing parties...

I say hearsay unless the poster like to post some name and record of proof of the existence of such opinions

[rrc06]

I say hearsay unless the poster like to post some name and record of proof of the existence of such opinions

you're not getting that on an anonymous forum on SD, so fark off.

[808Lurker]

No... he is trying to post sediments of so and so ( with no prove that these people actually exist or/and not made up ) in order to sway the arguement in his favor...

Sorry but to post sediments of possibly fictional accounts to boster one's arguement is called hearsay not to mention lies... How do we even know these people are in a union? or not posers and instigators sent by opposing parties...

I say hearsay unless the poster like to post some name and record of proof of the existence of such opinions

Would you agree that in most issues there is a wide variety of thought? How some union workers would be happy to accept furloughs and paycuts, while others would oppose and fight them? I am pretty sure there is a wide variety of opinions about the subject.

It does not bolster his argument, because it is not an accepted generalization (those would require studies/polls/actions). I could say "a couple of people in my office think Bush was behind 9/11", it does not make it true, or doesn't reflect upon people in my line of work, it is just the opinion of a couple of individuals.

It could be the office he works with would be first in line for lay-offs, so many would rather see furloughs and pay reductions instead of being out of work. It could mean rrc06 works with like minded people who feel the same way. Since he is not generalizing the argument, it is nothing more then antidotal experience, not a compelling argument.

[rrc06]

At least everyone can agree that NJ is in terrible shape....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/nyregion/09njbudget.html?ref=nyregion

TRENTON — As lawmakers here try to hammer out the toughest state budget in decades, it has seemed a clash between political visions, pitting an unfeeling, program-slashing Republican governor against unthinking, tax-and-spend Democratic legislators.

At least, that is how it can sound among the combatants, those in government and the interest groups trying to sway them with the June 30 budget deadline nearing. But much of the noise is about things that are not, strictly speaking, part of the state budget — like Gov. Christopher J. Christie’s urging voters to reject local school budgets in elections in April and his proposed constitutional amendment to cap property tax increases.

Listen closely to the actual budget debate, and there is widespread agreement that New Jersey’s finances are in stunningly bad shape — even by current woeful national standards — making the deepest cuts in memory inevitable no matter who is in charge.

In his first months in office, Mr. Christie has proposed a $29.3 billion budget, the smallest in five years, closing a projected $11 billion deficit with hits to municipalities, schools, mass transit, property tax rebates, tax credits for the poor, tuition aid to students and many other areas. The Democrats who control both houses of the Legislature have cried foul about some specifics but have been fairly quiet about the broad contours.

“A lot of what he’s cutting, it had to happen,” acknowledged Stephen M. Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat who is president of the State Senate. “The state’s out of whack. Everyone can see that.”

Despite talk early this year of a showdown, Mr. Christie and legislative leaders now call it unlikely that a stalemate will leave the state without a budget at the deadline and force a government shutdown.

Sheila Y. Oliver, the Assembly speaker, said that another governor might have chosen different cuts and some tax increases, but that “even a Democratic governor would have had to make major cuts, one way or another.”

In fact, a Democratic governor did: Jon S. Corzine, who lost his re-election fight last year to Mr. Christie, made the state budget smaller each of the last two years, cutting billions in spending as the recession took hold. Yet the state’s fiscal condition kept deteriorating, battered by a steep downturn, a heavy reliance on the financial sector and decades of unsound policy choices.

After Mr. Christie took office, he and the Legislature had to close a gap of more than $2 billion just to make it through the rest of the fiscal year. And state officials recently said that revenues were coming in lower than anticipated, worsening the problem.

At a time when many, if not most, states face their gravest budget crises since the Depression, New Jersey has the third-biggest deficit, as a percentage of revenue, trailing Illinois and Nevada, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In raw dollars, the $11 billion deficit in New Jersey for the next fiscal year is the second largest, behind California — and larger than the $9 billion gap facing New York, a much bigger state that is rarely held up as a paragon of sound budgeting.

New Jersey is also among the heaviest borrowers, and one of the worst performers in setting aside money to meet pension and retiree health obligations — failings that could make budgeting more painful for decades.

“New Jersey has, unfortunately, a long history of pretty bad decisions by people in both parties, so even without this recession, there would be no easy, painless way of addressing it, no matter who the governor was,” said David L. Crawford, an economist and a consultant.

The primary budget clash has been over whether to resurrect the so-called millionaire’s tax on the highest incomes, enacted under Mr. Corzine, which expired last year.

The Legislature recently passed the tax, but even many Democrats were not enthusiastic about it, watching the governor brand them as people who “believe in bigger government, higher taxes and more spending.” Some lawmakers said that by making the tax a standalone bill that the governor could veto, which he did, they were tacitly conceding that it was more of a statement than something they intended to fight for.

Mr. Christie has proposed cutting state aid to school districts, which his critics said would force districts to raise property taxes and lay off teachers. The governor got into a heated exchange with the teachers’ unions that went far beyond the state budget, accusing teachers of politicizing classrooms, demanding that they accept a pay freeze and contribute part of their salaries to cover health benefits, and urging voters to reject local school budgets.

Ben Dworkin, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, predicted that the enacted state budget would contain nearly everything Mr. Christie sought, with legislators of both parties voting for it and letting the governor take the heat if the cuts proved unpopular.

“He’s made it into a fight with public employee unions rather than a fight about how to fund the schools, and a fight over restraining wasteful local government rather than the state budget,” Mr. Dworkin said. “It’s been smart politics.”

Mr. Christie, for his part, was optimistic during a recent radio call-in show. “I think we’re in a very good position to get it done by June 30, if not earlier,” he said. “We’re going to have a budget that’s very close to the one I submitted.”

[Demosthenes9]

Christie has been taking it to the them and he has been masterful at it. :)

[appleyum]

http://www.nj1015.com/Court-Upholds-Christie-s-2010-School-Cuts/7461270
Court Upholds Christie's 2010 School Cuts
Gov. Chris Christie acted within his constitutional authority in ordering school districts to use surplus money to make up for cuts in state aid during the school year ending this month, an appeals court panel ruled Monday.

In February, the Republican governor ordered the freeze of $475 million in school aid payments in 2010 by requiring districts to use their excess surplus instead of state aid. The cuts were made at the time to help plug a deficit in this year's budget. Christie has had to cut more than $2 billion from this year's budget to keep it balanced.

In addition to the $475 million in cuts this year, Christie slashed education money for the next budget year, which starts on July 1, by more than $1 billion -- $820 million for K-12 schools and $175 million for higher education.

A large part of this year's cuts involved withholding money from schools that have budget surpluses. All but 17 of the state's 581 districts have surplus money.

According to an AP analysis, on average, schools lost 13 percent of their total 2010 annual state aid. More than 100 districts lost all state aid for the remainder of the year, and more than 100, mostly suburban, lost 30 percent or more of their state aid.

The Perth Amboy school district, which lost $15 million in state aid, or 12 percent of the $126 million in state aid that it received in 2010, filed the lawsuit. Only one other district, Union City in Hudson County, lost more in state dollars: $29 million. Perth Amboy superintendent John M. Rodecker said he was still reviewing the decision, but was disappointed with the court's finding.

The surplus money was going to be used for the 2010-2011 school year, he said. As a result of the surplus cuts and the additional cuts in next year's budget, he said the district has cut $8 million from next year's school budget and put a freeze on all spending. Items such as computer equipment that the district planned to purchase will be put on hold, he said, and 85 positions -- 30 of them teachers, the rest support staff -- have been cut from the
district's 11 schools for the coming school year, he said.

Former Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine had proposed cutting $300 million in school aid before he left office in January. Corzine's formula would have affected the same districts, only to a lesser degree, because Corzine wanted them to use 75 percent of their surplus.

The court said Christie's order "does not require that the excess surplus be used.

"A school district may have sufficient resources without transferring excess surplus to support its current operating budget," the court said. "If not, other reserve funds may be considered, and the district may review its budget for potential efficiencies."
back to the drawing board

[JimOfTroy]

Can't say enough good things about this guy.

Governor Christie: Day of Reckoning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evtt-R7Rmdw)

[appleyum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEenHDGGN0Q
Hopefully he will be able to get rid of Abbot district...

And number of school district
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/gov_chris_christies_25_percent.html
The Garden State now has 566 towns and 588 school districts.
More districts than towns :facepalm2:

[chazjr]

This sounds like California..

New Jersey battles over tax on millionaires

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – New Jersey politicians are due to battle on Monday over whether to slap a tax on millionaires or cut services for low-income senior citizens and the disabled.

The clash in the state legislature is part of a wider battle over how to erase a $10.7 billion budget deficit and is emblematic of the decisions facing states across America whose budget deficits have soared during the recession.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100620/ts_nm/us_newjersey_millionaires

[rrc06]

This sounds like California..

Except that Christie has a pair, while schwarzenegger does not.

Seriously, i hope they clone this guy and send him to NY:

The governor vetoed the tax because it would deter hiring, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said.

"These are the people who invest in New Jersey," Drewniak said. "That's where a lot of the hiring and the business expansion would come from."

Cryan appealed to the minority Republicans to join Democrats in Monday's vote after the original legislation passed by 46 to 32, along party lines. Democrats need 54 votes to override a veto.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney said he would immediately hold a vote in the Senate if the override is passed in the Assembly. If it succeeds, the override would be the first since 1997.

Two months after taking office in January, Christie announced cuts to hundreds of state programs and spending reductions in every department, calling New Jersey's budget hole a "grand canyon."

In his May 20 veto of the tax, Christie said the bill would have represented the 116th increase in taxes in the last eight years.

[chazjr]

Except that Christie has a pair, while schwarzenegger does not.:

:lmao: Thats true..

"I don't tell political Jokes. They always seem to get elected." - Bob Hope

[appleyum]

Not related to Christie

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Failing-to-Graduate-2200-NJ-HS-Seniors-in-Limbo-96946814.html
When New Jersey's education commissioner made a little noticed change last fall in the way a minimum standards test would be graded, few noticed. "I just thought it would be smooth like it was for last year's seniors," said Jasmine Tadros, a member of the class of 2010 at Irvington High School. It isn't.

Days before the final graduation days of the season, a final requirement's proved elusive for Jasmine, 18, and hundreds of other seniors statewide. It's called the Alternative High School Assessment, or AHSA. The test is designed to demonstrate at least minimal proficiency in language arts and math and is taken only by students who failed in three tries to pass a similar exam during the previous year.
"It's not like 20 plus 20, said Jasmine, "it's like a big word problem with like probably 'A,B and C.' And you get like five of 'em and you have to pass all of 'em."

"Because I failed this one part of the test, I feel like I'm taking 20 steps back," said an emotional Aretha Rodney, 17, who is also in Irvington's senior class. Both Jasmine and Aretha have been told they cannot attend graduation Friday and will not receive diplomas until they attend summer school and take the AHSA yet again--and pass it--in August.

The crisis was triggered by the State's decision to move grading of the AHSA from local districts to independent outsiders. The failure rate rocketed from about 400 last year to 10,000 out of 100,000 students who took the test this year.

That shocked Education Commissioner Bret Schundler into declaring that the AHSA requirement could be waived for students who scored above 400 on the SAT or had equivalent results on other national standardized exams. With waivers applied and appeals continuing, the number of students in limbo has dropped to 2200.

"Let's admit it, some kids should fail. If you're having 100% passing rate, something's wrong with the test, said Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan, (D- South Plainfield), chair of the education committee.
But James E. Harris, president of the NJ conference of the NAACP sees unfairness. "These are students who have done everything that's asked of them for years. They simply cannot pass one test that the State misapplied and mishandled," he said.

Aretha Rodney says she's got a 2.3 GPA, has never had to attend summer school before and has been accepted to college. But pending resolution of an appeal, the failed AHSA threatens her immediate future because she can't move on from high school without passing it.

There's also the matter of the ceremony that's tantalyzingly close at hand. "I want to walk across that stage. I want to have that moment like 'yeah mom, I have my diploma in my hands!'--because I've earned it," she said.
Man they need investigate all the teachers who graded the test past few years. How the hell do you jump from 400 to 10,000. How many students who were't qualify pass through the system.

[ASG]

How can you have a 2.3 GPA, get into college and not have above 400 on your SATs? Did they change the SAT scoring system?

[Krazen1211]

How can you have a 2.3 GPA, get into college and not have above 400 on your SATs? Did they change the SAT scoring system?

Nope, 400 is the default score. :shake:

Clearly, we need to spend more and more money educating these people so they can score better than a newborn child. :bounce:

[idkMyBFFist]

Good first step, hope he goes further... same thing needs to happen here in NY

[appleyum]

How can you have a 2.3 GPA, get into college and not have above 400 on your SATs? Did they change the SAT scoring system?
I believe it's 400 on individual section not the combine score. If it's combine score they shouldn't even graduate

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100604/NEWS01/6040337/1006/news01
For example, if a student has earned at least 400 points on the pertinent sections of the SAT -- or 16 out of 32 points on the ACT section -- the student won't need to pass the AHSA.

And from Wiki
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SAT
SAT SAT(2005+) ACT
840–870 1260–1310 17
800–830 1200–1250 16
760–790 1140–1190 15

But 400 still seem kind of low. It's below average for a 2.3GPA C+ student.
Year Verbal Math
2007 502 515
2008 502 515
Obviously they are just trying to reduce the 10,000 number greatly. Can you imagine 10,000 reenter into the school next year?

[appleyum]

http://www.app.com/article/20100627/OPINION05/6270321/1093/Pension-collapse-closer-than-you-think
Pension collapse closer than you think

Did you think the potential collapse of the public employee pension system is so far in the future you don't need to be concerned? Or, if you're not in the system that it doesn't affect you? A new report from George Mason University says it's closer than you think.

The university's Mercatus Center studied public employee systems across the country and chose to use New Jersey's as an example of how bad things can be.

"New Jersey's defined pension systems are underfunded by more than $170 billion, an amount equivalent to 44 percent of gross state product and 328 percent of the state's explicit government debt," said authors Eileen Norcross and Andrew Biggs.

The reports says the state has five defined benefit pension plans that cover 770,000 public workers and more than a quarter million retirees depend on $6 billion per year in benefits.

Officials maintain pension plans are underfunded by $44.7 billion when the return on investment is 8.25 percent. The study used calculations consistent with private sector accounting methods and, when they are applied, the state's underfunded benefit obligations go from $44.7 billion to $173.9 billion.

"It is estimated if state pension assets average a return of 8 percent, New Jersey will run out of funds to meet its pension obligations in 2019. If asset returns are lower than 8 percent, they will run out of funds sooner," the report says.

How much sooner? Under certain assumptions the well could go dry as early as 2013, the report says.

It comes as no surprise we got into this pickle because legislators overpromised benefits to state workers while shirking responsibility on the state's contribution to the pension plans. Gov. Jon Corzine was fond of saying he had put more money in the pension plans than was contributed in the prior 15 years combined. Even so, it wasn't enough.

Some states have moved their employees to a defined contribution plan, like a 401(k). Michigan put new hires in them starting in 1997. Alaska moved to such a plan in 2003. Florida, Nebraska and Ohio offer hybrid plans. New Jersey has two such plans, one for the state's universities and colleges and another for elected and appointed officials and current participants in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and Teachers' Pension Annity Fund (TPAF).

Since states are obligated by law or their constitutions to pay out benefits, critical underfunding means "that either benefit amounts and salaries must be reduced, taxation must be significantly increased or states may be faced with a default-scenario," the report said.

Significant taxation increases would force everyone out of New Jersey who could leave, which would add to the problem. A default would leave retirees high and dry with nowhere to turn. We need a plan to avoid more taxes and default pronto.

In March, Gov. Christie signed legislation to cap payments for unused sick days, ban part-time workers from receiving pensions and require workers to contribute 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health care. The calculation for determining pensions will return to the pre-2001 formula. These changes apply only to new hires. Current employees continue under the same system. Christie's changes aren't enough to avoid disaster unless we see a Wall Street miracle — and nobody expects that.

"These measures will help at the margins, but do little to address the size of the liability that has already been accrued," the report concludes. What else can be done? The paper recommends:

— Extending the defined contribution plan to all state employees.

— Reducing or freezing cost of living adjustments.

— Transitioning the 274,380 non-vested workers to defined contribution plans.

Christie was asked recently whether he planned to pursue more pension and health benefit reforms. He indicated that could be his fall agenda. When asked if that meant changes for current workers or retirees he quipped there had already been changes for new workers so the others would logically come next.

Public employee unions won't like that. But it's a minor irritation compared to a collapsed pension fund in three to nine years.

Here's the paper
http://mercatus.org/pensions

[Krazen1211]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2010-08-18-new-jersey-sec-fraud_N.htm


New Jersey settles SEC fraud charges over its muni bonds

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government says the state of New Jersey has settled civil fraud charges for failing to inform municipal bond investors that it was underfunding its largest pension plans.
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement Wednesday, saying New Jersey is the first state ever charged for violations of securities laws. New Jersey neither admitted nor denied the allegations.

The agency says New Jersey agreed to be bound by a cease-and-desist order against future violations. No financial penalty was levied against the state.



Kind of curious how Goldman gets fined $550 million while New Jersey gets off for free.

Looks like governments aren't bound by securities rules.

[808Lurker]

http://www.app.com/article/20100627/OPINION05/6270321/1093/Pension-collapse-closer-than-you-think


Here's the paper
http://mercatus.org/pensions


Very reasonable requests and a welcome change from the doom and gloom we usually get. Defined problem, suggested reasonable non-talking point solutions without a morality lecture. Hope to see more of these...

[Krazen1211]

Here's some interesting info that a friend sent me.


http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/98budget/pdf/bib.pdf
http://www.nj.gov/treasury/omb/publications/08bib/pdf/bib.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/11bib/BIB.pdf



Between 1998 and 2008, New Jersey doubled its spending on higher education from $1.1 billion to $2.2 billion. And yet, the growth rates of Rutgers tuition was well over 8% for most of that period.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/rutgers_university_board_appro.html

Over the next 3 years, state spending on higher education actually declines. So does the growth rate of tuition.

How exactly are we 'underfunding' the government education industry complex, if a doubling over 10 years isn't enough and doesn't work anyway?

[rrc06]

Another way NJ is trying to usurp citizens' $$$$

New Jersey Wants To Balance Budget With Your Gift Cards (http://consumerist.com/2011/01/new-jersey-wants-to-balance-budget-with-your-gift-cards.html)

What would be even worse than losing the entire stored value of your gift cards after a few years? Having the state seize it as unclaimed property and use your money to pay its bills.

Yet a law was enacted back in July in New Jersey that would have done just that. Changes to the state's Uniform Unclaimed Property Act meant that the state could seize the value of gift cards and traveler's checks after they were dormant for two years. Worse still: the law is retroactive.

One key problem for retailers is that not all systems track purchasers' ZIP codes, which is key information when determining which gift card balances the state is allowed to take.

Prominent gift card and traveler's check purveyors (that is, the New Jersey Retail Merchants Association, New Jersey Food Council, and American Express) filed suit to block the law in federal court. They won. The state plans to appeal, which shows that there must be a lot of money at stake here to risk annoying voters that much.

[Krazen1211]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/christie_sweeney_strike_deal_t.html

Public workers would pay more for their pension and health benefits under a deal struck between Gov. Chris Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney, two sources with knowledge of the plan said today.

Under the deal, most public workers would immediately pay an additional 1 percent of their salaries for their pensions, while police and firefighters would pay an additional 1.5 percent. The state would pledge to increase its pension contributions to legally required levels.



In response, the unions are issuing their threats.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/Labor_warns_NJ_Dems_over_benefits_changes.html?showall



In this era of cynicism and declining trust across the board, working people are looking to stand with leaders who stand with them. We expect you, as a Democrat, to stand with working families and to defend collective bargaining rights. This is a vote we take very seriously.




Amazing, paying a mere 30% of the total cost of your healthcare benefits, and 1-1.5% of salary on your pension! UNFAIR!

[ASG]

Do you read your own posts? Do you know what the word "additional" means?

[zzyzzx]

calling New Jersey's budget hole a "grand canyon."

Gotta love that!