If Corzine were serious about bringing the state in order he would have phased out the pension system, raised the retirement age for state employees to the same as those in the private sector (no retiring before the age of 62), stop the borrowing without voter approval, and eliminate the corporate business tax, allowing industry to grow in New Jersey.
Instead he has raised taxes over 55% on just about everything imaginable since taking office. The 1% sales tax increase did nothing to aid the taxpayers of this state, and now the rebates are being taken away. He tried getting the taxpayers to vote for ½% dedicated strictly to property tax on the ballot, thereby ending any chance of property tax reform in the future. We already know his history on dedicated funds, such as taking the $4 million from the EMT fund to balance the deficit, as one example. Corzine had proposed the closure of 9 state parks to save $4.5 million, changed his mind and decided to build an $87 million park by using money from the Corporate Fund Tax.
The legislature is now considering if municipalities will be allowed to charge a local sales tax on real estate transfers when you sell your home.
With over 630,000 people out of work, business moving out of state taking workers and much needed revenue with them, more foreclosures predicted on the horizon, can we afford four more years of tax increases? Even should there be a slight climb in the economy, how long will it be before we get
Any state spending should be put on the shelf, maintaining necessary current projects on the books without further increases.
Taking more money out of the very pockets from those who are needed to nourish the economy, keeping business from growing, taking money from dedicated funds, and placing increased taxes on all to replace the states wasted spending and mismanagement is just plain irresponsible.
According to a Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey poll, Governor Corzine has failed to get a grip on government finances.
It’s time to draw a line through the bureaucratic waste; it’s time to redline Corzine.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
One last kick in the butt before you leave
Another form of taxation to the homeowners of New Jersey is the Realty Transfer Fee (RTF), pursued aggressively under Jim McGreevey and continued by Jon Corzine as an additional source of revenue.
Many of you, who count on the profit of their home to move into another or out of state, are hit with this regressive tax. Also known as New Jersey’s exit tax, one last kick in the butt before you leave.
The homeowner is penalized on all their years of hard work and investment that was put into that home, money taken from the equity that was built into the sale of that home.
You as a homeowner have to pay a tax for the privilege of selling your home.
Also, on a foreclosure a realty transfer fee must be paid on the remaining balance of the mortgage, by the purchaser.
The Home Sales Tax due on a home that sells for $356,700 is $2,800; a $600,000 home would have to pay $5,185. The New Jersey State Legislature is considering further increases to the Home Sales Tax by permitting individual municipalities to establish their own fees in addition to those charged by the state. With the extra tax, the Home Sales Tax bill would increase 13%. Many who sell their home are not informed of this tax, and are surprised when hit with the additional fees taken from the profit at the time of closing.
Since 2003 this tax has increased over 80%, and with the added municipal Home Sales Tax would make it 103% since 2003.
With the higher Realty transfer fee increase imposed in 2004 there was an 81% increase, with the state general fund receiving 57% of the total realty transfer fee, 19% for the state’s Extraordinary Aid Account (EEA), 18% to the Neighborhood PNRF, 18% to the counties for general use, and 7% for the counties Public Health Priority Fund, with a portion dedicated to affordable housing.
The 1968 fee in the beginning was revenue collected to cover the costs of recording real estate transactions. Having risen four times since then, increasing substantially each time it is now used to fund general state expenditures, neighborhood preservation, public health, and shore protection.
Is Governor Corzine telling us that state government will now keep all of what they receive from the realty transfer tax, with the municipalities now able to charge a tax to make up for what they won’t be getting back from the state. Would this be considered double taxation?
This is a huge sum of revenue to the state, was anyone keeping tabs on how it was spent? Or were the funds escalating year after year, just because there was an eternal never ending flow of tax revenue?
Has the state has decided to keep all of the money as another alternative to be used towards balancing the budget?
This is one more tax burden that needs to be brought under control, and the monies collected must be accounted for.
Joe Sinagra
NJ 18th District State Assembly Candidate
Many of you, who count on the profit of their home to move into another or out of state, are hit with this regressive tax. Also known as New Jersey’s exit tax, one last kick in the butt before you leave.
The homeowner is penalized on all their years of hard work and investment that was put into that home, money taken from the equity that was built into the sale of that home.
You as a homeowner have to pay a tax for the privilege of selling your home.
Also, on a foreclosure a realty transfer fee must be paid on the remaining balance of the mortgage, by the purchaser.
The Home Sales Tax due on a home that sells for $356,700 is $2,800; a $600,000 home would have to pay $5,185. The New Jersey State Legislature is considering further increases to the Home Sales Tax by permitting individual municipalities to establish their own fees in addition to those charged by the state. With the extra tax, the Home Sales Tax bill would increase 13%. Many who sell their home are not informed of this tax, and are surprised when hit with the additional fees taken from the profit at the time of closing.
Since 2003 this tax has increased over 80%, and with the added municipal Home Sales Tax would make it 103% since 2003.
With the higher Realty transfer fee increase imposed in 2004 there was an 81% increase, with the state general fund receiving 57% of the total realty transfer fee, 19% for the state’s Extraordinary Aid Account (EEA), 18% to the Neighborhood PNRF, 18% to the counties for general use, and 7% for the counties Public Health Priority Fund, with a portion dedicated to affordable housing.
The 1968 fee in the beginning was revenue collected to cover the costs of recording real estate transactions. Having risen four times since then, increasing substantially each time it is now used to fund general state expenditures, neighborhood preservation, public health, and shore protection.
Is Governor Corzine telling us that state government will now keep all of what they receive from the realty transfer tax, with the municipalities now able to charge a tax to make up for what they won’t be getting back from the state. Would this be considered double taxation?
This is a huge sum of revenue to the state, was anyone keeping tabs on how it was spent? Or were the funds escalating year after year, just because there was an eternal never ending flow of tax revenue?
Has the state has decided to keep all of the money as another alternative to be used towards balancing the budget?
This is one more tax burden that needs to be brought under control, and the monies collected must be accounted for.
Joe Sinagra
NJ 18th District State Assembly Candidate
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Corzine Park
At the end of 2008, 196,000 families packed their bags, shut off the light switch, and left New Jersey.
The state lost nearly 100,000 jobs during the past year alone and, as of February, its unemployment rate stands at 8.2 percent, and increasing. Add in those who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, and aren’t even bothering to look for work, it is closer to 15.7% mark.
Over the past seven years State spending has increased 46 percent under Democrat control, State debt stands at $44.5 billion, with the average property tax averaging around $7,000. At $7,045, it remains the highest in the nation, up nearly 20 percent under the Corzine Administration and 55 percent since 2002.
Several months’ back Corzine was talking about closing State Parks then rescinded his thoughts on that. Instead of closing parks he now wants to build one.
Even though the state is saddled with a $7 billion deficit, with many families losing their jobs and homes, left with no medical benefits, the Governor intends to close the $7 billion gap by saddling middle class families with $1 billion in new or increased taxes for 2010.
Is all this new revenue going towards paying down the debt, or to leave us with his future ego legacy of Corzine Park to the tune of $87 million? Not including overrun costs, which could peak at $500 million? If this is not enough to rile up the ire of state taxpayers, I don’t know what will.
Corzine has not followed through on any of his campaign promises, continuing to spend taxpayer money, knowing full well we were heading into a recession. His taxpayer be damned attitude continues, knowing the financial hardships being placed on New Jersey families. $87 million can go a long way in helping ease the pain of the state taxpayers who Corzine proclaims that he knows what they are going through.
If he can take $4 million from the EMT funds to balance the budget, he can divert the Corporation Business Tax towards that entity also. He isn’t using it for its intended purpose anyhow, which was to fund the development and maintenance of parks throughout the state.
Corporate Wall Street fiscal management, I think not. New Jersey burns, while fiddles are being played in the Statehouse.
Taking dedicated funds to pay off another debt is the easy way out, you don't have to work to hard to solve the problem at hand. Taking those funds to finance another project is ludicrous. It just creates another one down the road, which is how we got into this mess.
~ Joe Sinagra
NJ 18th District
State Assembly Candidate
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sea Turtles, Red Snappers & Loons . . . Oh my!
Drastic measures need to be taken in drastic times. What part do our legislatures not understand?
Don’t get me wrong, some earmarks are good and needed; others in this economy should be shelved. Such as $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa, Alabama receives $800,000 for genetic research on catfish, and Hawaii gets $2 million for the "promotion of astronomy”, $300,000 for migrating loons in Nevada, $3,000,000 for a footbridge in St. Louis, $1,000,000 for red snappers in Florida, $380,000 for a Lighthouse in Maine, and $7,000,000 for sea turtles in Hawaii. There are thousands of more earmarks like this.
People are losing their homes, jobs, and watching their pensions dwindle. Unemployment is the highest we have seen since the Depression, many are watching their benefits run out, who aren’t even considered a statistic once their off the unemployment roles.
This is money that could be used to offset or lower property taxes, create jobs, and extend benefits.
Explain to someone their job couldn’t be saved even though we had $1.7,000,000 for pig odor research, a person who can’t find work why we spent $7,000,000 on sea turtles, or to someone who is living in the street that we had $800,000 for the genetic study of catfish but there wasn’t enough left to lower your property taxes, tell a family who can’t afford to buy medicine for their child but there was enough for a $3,000,000 footbridge.
We can as a country can afford to reduce medical costs, we have the money to lower property taxes, but when funds are spent on unneeded or wasteful projects just so a congressman can say they brought money into the state or their district is ludicrous.
I believe our representatives have it backwards, perhaps if Federal and State funds were to go towards medical, housing, creating jobs, and building the infrastructure of our cities, whatever was left would then be earmarked for pet projects .
In New Jersey $451, 000 for cranberry and blueberry research will not help a large portion of its citizens out of the morass government got us into.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s just the ear or the whole hog, what’s significant is that it’s still pork in spite of what the terminology is.
~ Joe Sinagra
Don’t get me wrong, some earmarks are good and needed; others in this economy should be shelved. Such as $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa, Alabama receives $800,000 for genetic research on catfish, and Hawaii gets $2 million for the "promotion of astronomy”, $300,000 for migrating loons in Nevada, $3,000,000 for a footbridge in St. Louis, $1,000,000 for red snappers in Florida, $380,000 for a Lighthouse in Maine, and $7,000,000 for sea turtles in Hawaii. There are thousands of more earmarks like this.
People are losing their homes, jobs, and watching their pensions dwindle. Unemployment is the highest we have seen since the Depression, many are watching their benefits run out, who aren’t even considered a statistic once their off the unemployment roles.
This is money that could be used to offset or lower property taxes, create jobs, and extend benefits.
Explain to someone their job couldn’t be saved even though we had $1.7,000,000 for pig odor research, a person who can’t find work why we spent $7,000,000 on sea turtles, or to someone who is living in the street that we had $800,000 for the genetic study of catfish but there wasn’t enough left to lower your property taxes, tell a family who can’t afford to buy medicine for their child but there was enough for a $3,000,000 footbridge.
We can as a country can afford to reduce medical costs, we have the money to lower property taxes, but when funds are spent on unneeded or wasteful projects just so a congressman can say they brought money into the state or their district is ludicrous.
I believe our representatives have it backwards, perhaps if Federal and State funds were to go towards medical, housing, creating jobs, and building the infrastructure of our cities, whatever was left would then be earmarked for pet projects .
In New Jersey $451, 000 for cranberry and blueberry research will not help a large portion of its citizens out of the morass government got us into.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s just the ear or the whole hog, what’s significant is that it’s still pork in spite of what the terminology is.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Liberals Bleeding Us Dry One Step at a Time
Here we go again with the politically correct “High Risk” (poorer), “Low Risk” (wealthier) areas; we wouldn’t want to offend anyone. Currently, there is talk that we may have to pay an additional $20 per vehicle to subsidize the auto insurance for the people who live in “High Risk” areas. Keeping premiums down for motorists living in Newark, Paterson, Jersey City, Camden, Elizabeth, Irvington, Perth Amboy and other “high-risk” insurance towns.
I am incensed, for lack of a better word to use in print. If you live in a “High Risk” area it is either because you can’t afford to live in a “Low Risk” area, don’t have the education to get a better job, or live in a “High Risk” area by choice.
Because you are fortunate enough to own two or more vehicles, you are now going to be penalized. Let’s suppose you are penalized to the point you now have to sell one vehicle to be able to afford the other. If your county owns a fleet of vehicles, will the taxpayers foot the bill to cover the additional $20 on each vehicle?
If you’re living in an area where the vandalism is high, cars are stolen, cars are sprayed with graffiti, and tires are stolen, windshields are smashed; I am not obligated to pay for that problem, which is why I choose not to live in those areas. How many that live in “High Risk” areas even carry insurance? Why and how, are these people driving if they can’t afford the insurance? Maybe we are being asked to subsidize the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist clause. Perhaps another back door approach to fund insurance for the illegals, once they receive their “driver privilege card”. Now that “State Insurance” is being phased out, could this be a way to get us to pick up the tab and carry those who can’t afford it, thereby eliminating the state from dealing with it?
I have a news flash for Insurance Commissioner Stephen Goldman; if you are in the insurance business, it is considered a “risk business”. Like any other business, if you can’t afford to stay in business, close your doors. The state mandates we must carry insurance, but in many incidences, we wind up paying back our own costs for damages. I work to pay for my insurance, I don’t work so I can pay for someone who earns less or works less.
The “share the wealth” is getting a little out of hand, and this is only the start. How much more is the average taxpayer required to give before they are tapped out?
In part of a speech on February 19, 2008 in Wisconsin, Obama said “In the end, this economic agenda won't just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to *learn more, and study more, and work harder. We will be called upon to take part in a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
What this means in a nutshell is that in addition to the additional taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, and eliminating the $102,000 wage cap on Social Security taxes, Obama is also proposing that Americans pay additional taxes on oil, coal and natural gas in order to redistribute their wealth to the rest of the world.
Obama's Global Poverty Plan to reduce poverty around the world would include a tax of 0.7% of U.S. gross national product as part of his shared prosperity plan.
This Act would commit the United States to the U.N. that industrialized countries should spend 0.7 percent a year of their gross domestic product on foreign aid. Over the next decade or so, that would work out to $850 billion dollars for American taxpayers.
*Learn more and Study More?
Most of us are living in “Low Risk” areas because that’s why we learned and studied to get ahead so we could move up that rung on the ladder.
*Work Harder?
As far as myself, I held two full time jobs for almost three years; averaging 8 hours sleep for a five day week, and held a part-time job on Saturday, to get what I wanted or needed. How much harder should we now work to “share the wealth” of our hard work to those who would rather receive a handout?
Many of us work hard until we can have somewhat of a comfortable life, but now we are going to be supplementing those who have nothing. What’s next, will we be asked to subsidize “High Risk” heat bills, rent, education, etc, until the pockets of those barely squeaking by in the “Low Risk” areas are empty. How long before “Low Risk” areas have to pay $20 out of their Health Care to subsidize Hospitals in “High Risk” areas? People living in “Low Risk” areas will be taxed until they are forced to move to “High Risk” (poorer) areas. You will work more and more to keep what you have, as more and more is being taken from your pay, to subsidize those who have less. How long before the “liberals’ determine you have more than enough in your savings, that you can share some of it with the less unfortunate?
I’d like to ask Commissioner Goldman what his income is; perhaps he won’t miss the $20. Tell those who have lost jobs, lost their homes, and are barely paying their car insurance as it is, that they may have to fork over an additional $20 because they are fortunate enough to live in a "Low Risk" area. They would love to give up some more of what little they have left.
“The industry challengers say the power to establish rates is up to the Legislature, not the insurance department bureaucrats”, I’m sure the insurance lobbyists will stand back and won’t bother the Legislature while they mull it over.
I don’t mind helping those down on their luck, but I don’t need government telling me where my money is going to be spent.
Is this the next wave of liberalism?
Could it be we are being forced to take the path to socialism, whether we like it or not?
~ Joe Sinagra
I am incensed, for lack of a better word to use in print. If you live in a “High Risk” area it is either because you can’t afford to live in a “Low Risk” area, don’t have the education to get a better job, or live in a “High Risk” area by choice.
Because you are fortunate enough to own two or more vehicles, you are now going to be penalized. Let’s suppose you are penalized to the point you now have to sell one vehicle to be able to afford the other. If your county owns a fleet of vehicles, will the taxpayers foot the bill to cover the additional $20 on each vehicle?
If you’re living in an area where the vandalism is high, cars are stolen, cars are sprayed with graffiti, and tires are stolen, windshields are smashed; I am not obligated to pay for that problem, which is why I choose not to live in those areas. How many that live in “High Risk” areas even carry insurance? Why and how, are these people driving if they can’t afford the insurance? Maybe we are being asked to subsidize the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist clause. Perhaps another back door approach to fund insurance for the illegals, once they receive their “driver privilege card”. Now that “State Insurance” is being phased out, could this be a way to get us to pick up the tab and carry those who can’t afford it, thereby eliminating the state from dealing with it?
I have a news flash for Insurance Commissioner Stephen Goldman; if you are in the insurance business, it is considered a “risk business”. Like any other business, if you can’t afford to stay in business, close your doors. The state mandates we must carry insurance, but in many incidences, we wind up paying back our own costs for damages. I work to pay for my insurance, I don’t work so I can pay for someone who earns less or works less.
The “share the wealth” is getting a little out of hand, and this is only the start. How much more is the average taxpayer required to give before they are tapped out?
In part of a speech on February 19, 2008 in Wisconsin, Obama said “In the end, this economic agenda won't just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to *learn more, and study more, and work harder. We will be called upon to take part in a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
What this means in a nutshell is that in addition to the additional taxes on those making over $250,000 a year, and eliminating the $102,000 wage cap on Social Security taxes, Obama is also proposing that Americans pay additional taxes on oil, coal and natural gas in order to redistribute their wealth to the rest of the world.
Obama's Global Poverty Plan to reduce poverty around the world would include a tax of 0.7% of U.S. gross national product as part of his shared prosperity plan.
This Act would commit the United States to the U.N. that industrialized countries should spend 0.7 percent a year of their gross domestic product on foreign aid. Over the next decade or so, that would work out to $850 billion dollars for American taxpayers.
*Learn more and Study More?
Most of us are living in “Low Risk” areas because that’s why we learned and studied to get ahead so we could move up that rung on the ladder.
*Work Harder?
As far as myself, I held two full time jobs for almost three years; averaging 8 hours sleep for a five day week, and held a part-time job on Saturday, to get what I wanted or needed. How much harder should we now work to “share the wealth” of our hard work to those who would rather receive a handout?
Many of us work hard until we can have somewhat of a comfortable life, but now we are going to be supplementing those who have nothing. What’s next, will we be asked to subsidize “High Risk” heat bills, rent, education, etc, until the pockets of those barely squeaking by in the “Low Risk” areas are empty. How long before “Low Risk” areas have to pay $20 out of their Health Care to subsidize Hospitals in “High Risk” areas? People living in “Low Risk” areas will be taxed until they are forced to move to “High Risk” (poorer) areas. You will work more and more to keep what you have, as more and more is being taken from your pay, to subsidize those who have less. How long before the “liberals’ determine you have more than enough in your savings, that you can share some of it with the less unfortunate?
I’d like to ask Commissioner Goldman what his income is; perhaps he won’t miss the $20. Tell those who have lost jobs, lost their homes, and are barely paying their car insurance as it is, that they may have to fork over an additional $20 because they are fortunate enough to live in a "Low Risk" area. They would love to give up some more of what little they have left.
“The industry challengers say the power to establish rates is up to the Legislature, not the insurance department bureaucrats”, I’m sure the insurance lobbyists will stand back and won’t bother the Legislature while they mull it over.
I don’t mind helping those down on their luck, but I don’t need government telling me where my money is going to be spent.
Is this the next wave of liberalism?
Could it be we are being forced to take the path to socialism, whether we like it or not?
~ Joe Sinagra
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
We Need Property Tax Relief
If those in the State Government would make it affordable for people to stay in their homes, the need for more affordable housing would be cut considerably, and would allow for more available units to those who need it.
Seniors on fixed incomes, who have paid off their mortgages, cannot afford the increased taxes, and have had to give up their homes. The elderly are more susceptible to losing their homes, more so than any other group. If they were able to stay in their homes we would not have to construct as many senior affordable housing units.
Most people if given the option would like to stay in their homes, neighborhoods, near their families and friends.
With state aid being cut, municipalities are forced to raise local taxes to make up for the shortfall. It may help the municipalities, but it doesn’t help the taxpayers.
We need to cut property taxes substantially, not the meager tax breaks here and there. Many people when they bought their homes could afford it. It isn’t the mortgages that are strangling many of our homeowners, it is the property taxes. Many homeowners can afford their mortgage payments; they just can’t keep pace with every tax increase that comes along, affecting renters as well.
I believe that is the reason many school budgets are voted down, people can no longer afford to stay in their homes as it is without incurring additional burdens.
When NJ raises other taxes, to replace lost property tax revenue, it’s more of a tax shift than a tax cut. Raising the sales tax to 7% from 6% was supposed to give us property tax relief. Roll the sales tax back to 6%; the so called 1% increase that was to help bring the state’s financial mess stability sure didn’t help, other than to take more money out of the taxpayer’s pocket.
Property taxes have risen 27% since 2000, less than the 41% inflation-adjusted increase in home values, but it's twice as fast as the growth in sales or income taxes. Property taxes now consume a greater share of personal income than any other time in New Jersey’s history. How long before the taxes will equal more than the value of your home? Those who bought homes years ago are finding their property taxes are more than their monthly mortgage payments.
How many times are we going to hear from our legislators, “if elected I will cut taxes?” They should have been doing that all along. Cutting taxes and increasing state spending is not what I call fiscal management.
We can’t continue to raise taxes for the working class, at a rate faster than their ability to pay. If we need to restructure how property taxes are collected, stop talking about it, let’s do it.
Raising taxes, forcing people out of their homes and making it unaffordable to purchase a home is not the answer. It's bad for homeowners, renters, and business.
Flat tax, Fair Tax it doesn’t matter, now is the time to do something, anything but the way it is being done currently, the state needs to put disposable funds back into the pockets of the people if they expect to stimulate the economy. Stop taking money out of the pockets of those who need it the most, give them the capitol to spend, donate, contribute and save. Then, and only then will you see the results of a growing economy.
A real collective bipartisan effort is needed from those in the state capitol, to give relief to the people who put them in office.
By limiting the amount government can tax our property; perhaps with a constitutional cap will we be able to have substantial relief.
Whatever the solution is, we need to act now.
~ Joe Sinagra
Seniors on fixed incomes, who have paid off their mortgages, cannot afford the increased taxes, and have had to give up their homes. The elderly are more susceptible to losing their homes, more so than any other group. If they were able to stay in their homes we would not have to construct as many senior affordable housing units.
Most people if given the option would like to stay in their homes, neighborhoods, near their families and friends.
With state aid being cut, municipalities are forced to raise local taxes to make up for the shortfall. It may help the municipalities, but it doesn’t help the taxpayers.
We need to cut property taxes substantially, not the meager tax breaks here and there. Many people when they bought their homes could afford it. It isn’t the mortgages that are strangling many of our homeowners, it is the property taxes. Many homeowners can afford their mortgage payments; they just can’t keep pace with every tax increase that comes along, affecting renters as well.
I believe that is the reason many school budgets are voted down, people can no longer afford to stay in their homes as it is without incurring additional burdens.
When NJ raises other taxes, to replace lost property tax revenue, it’s more of a tax shift than a tax cut. Raising the sales tax to 7% from 6% was supposed to give us property tax relief. Roll the sales tax back to 6%; the so called 1% increase that was to help bring the state’s financial mess stability sure didn’t help, other than to take more money out of the taxpayer’s pocket.
Property taxes have risen 27% since 2000, less than the 41% inflation-adjusted increase in home values, but it's twice as fast as the growth in sales or income taxes. Property taxes now consume a greater share of personal income than any other time in New Jersey’s history. How long before the taxes will equal more than the value of your home? Those who bought homes years ago are finding their property taxes are more than their monthly mortgage payments.
How many times are we going to hear from our legislators, “if elected I will cut taxes?” They should have been doing that all along. Cutting taxes and increasing state spending is not what I call fiscal management.
We can’t continue to raise taxes for the working class, at a rate faster than their ability to pay. If we need to restructure how property taxes are collected, stop talking about it, let’s do it.
Raising taxes, forcing people out of their homes and making it unaffordable to purchase a home is not the answer. It's bad for homeowners, renters, and business.
Flat tax, Fair Tax it doesn’t matter, now is the time to do something, anything but the way it is being done currently, the state needs to put disposable funds back into the pockets of the people if they expect to stimulate the economy. Stop taking money out of the pockets of those who need it the most, give them the capitol to spend, donate, contribute and save. Then, and only then will you see the results of a growing economy.
A real collective bipartisan effort is needed from those in the state capitol, to give relief to the people who put them in office.
By limiting the amount government can tax our property; perhaps with a constitutional cap will we be able to have substantial relief.
Whatever the solution is, we need to act now.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Illegal aliens mustn't get this state's welcome mat
To the Editor:
I agree with your editorial assessment "Don't reward New Jersey illegal aliens".
During my congressional and senate campaigns, my views were pretty close to what was printed in the Home News Editorial on January 07.
What I find ironic is at the time; the press portrayed my position as being too strong against illegal immigration, “over the top” as one put it. At one editorial review, an editor stood up, pointed his finger at me and said “What, are you prejudiced!” It is a matter of what it is costing the citizens of our state and our country, not prejudice. With an economy that is souring, we can no longer afford to picked up added costs and pass them onto the taxpayers.
During my campaigns I spoke of exactly this very thing. I talked about the migration of illegal’s, and the drain on our country’s natural resources, the costs of education, health care, incarceration, schools, etc. Is the “driver privilege card” another back door attempt at amnesty? The card wouldn’t be considered and official ID, but would ensure that illegal immigrants go through the same testing as any other motorist.
Why as a citizen do we need 6 forms of identification to obtain a license, especially when you already have a legal driver license? Many more ramifications are ahead if this is allowed to pass.
As the Home News touched on in their editorial, there was already talk in 2006 about reduced college tuition's for “undocumented Immigrants”. In 2007 higher education costs for our state residents had gone up 35% since 2002. I was critical of the cuts on our universities and colleges, incurring increased costs for in-state students, while giving illegal's low cost or free education.
I had talked about the costs of health care, we as citizens must pay ludicrous amounts to stay healthy? If illegals can't qualify for Medicare coverage, partially paid through our payroll taxes, their costs are then covered through state Charity Care. A mere fraction of hospital care costs, is it a wonder hospitals are closing? Medical offices are throwing away millions upon millions of dollars each year in uncollected billing statements.
Illegal immigration burdens our society with added education costs, the overcrowding of our schools, taxpayer-funded unreimbursed medical outlays for health care, also adding to the shortage of low income housing, and added increase in crime.
There was talk of “undocumented” immigrants paying a fee so they can buy their way to citizenship. Is that a way of supposedly easing the pain of those who stayed in line, applied for citizenship and worked their butts off to be here?
I spoke of the “Dream Act”, which if passed it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and dramatically increase the importation of foreign workers at a time 10 million Americans are looking for jobs and cannot find employment.
In one of my articles I stated, “Until we bring our own house in order, until we decide how we are to continue funding Social Security, fund education, lower taxes; provide affordable health care and housing, for the legal citizens of this country, my stance is no to amnesty. We cannot afford to continue to raise taxes, provide programs and services with the sweat off the backs of legal citizens, to provide care for those who shouldn’t be here.”
To promote the availability of the Driver Privilege program, in 2006 would have cost the taxpayers another $90,000.
Bill A2607 was introduced in 2006, sponsored by Assemblyman Joe Vas -District 19 (Middlesex), Assemblyman Reed Gusciora - District 15 (Mercer), Assemblyman Upendra J. Chivukula - District 17 (Middlesex and Somerset), and Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson - District 37 (Bergen).
As long as our elected politicians are more concerned about how many votes they can cultivate, more than the rights and interests of legal citizens, nothing will change.
Immigration itself is not the problem, illegal or “undocumented” immigration is.
My personal view is, that once your attain citizen status; you are no longer an immigrant. You are an American.
On my website I surmised, “Any further attempt at Immigration reform won't happen until after the 2008 elections.”
Well . . . Happy New Year!
- Joe Sinagra
I agree with your editorial assessment "Don't reward New Jersey illegal aliens".
During my congressional and senate campaigns, my views were pretty close to what was printed in the Home News Editorial on January 07.
What I find ironic is at the time; the press portrayed my position as being too strong against illegal immigration, “over the top” as one put it. At one editorial review, an editor stood up, pointed his finger at me and said “What, are you prejudiced!” It is a matter of what it is costing the citizens of our state and our country, not prejudice. With an economy that is souring, we can no longer afford to picked up added costs and pass them onto the taxpayers.
During my campaigns I spoke of exactly this very thing. I talked about the migration of illegal’s, and the drain on our country’s natural resources, the costs of education, health care, incarceration, schools, etc. Is the “driver privilege card” another back door attempt at amnesty? The card wouldn’t be considered and official ID, but would ensure that illegal immigrants go through the same testing as any other motorist.
Why as a citizen do we need 6 forms of identification to obtain a license, especially when you already have a legal driver license? Many more ramifications are ahead if this is allowed to pass.
As the Home News touched on in their editorial, there was already talk in 2006 about reduced college tuition's for “undocumented Immigrants”. In 2007 higher education costs for our state residents had gone up 35% since 2002. I was critical of the cuts on our universities and colleges, incurring increased costs for in-state students, while giving illegal's low cost or free education.
I had talked about the costs of health care, we as citizens must pay ludicrous amounts to stay healthy? If illegals can't qualify for Medicare coverage, partially paid through our payroll taxes, their costs are then covered through state Charity Care. A mere fraction of hospital care costs, is it a wonder hospitals are closing? Medical offices are throwing away millions upon millions of dollars each year in uncollected billing statements.
Illegal immigration burdens our society with added education costs, the overcrowding of our schools, taxpayer-funded unreimbursed medical outlays for health care, also adding to the shortage of low income housing, and added increase in crime.
There was talk of “undocumented” immigrants paying a fee so they can buy their way to citizenship. Is that a way of supposedly easing the pain of those who stayed in line, applied for citizenship and worked their butts off to be here?
I spoke of the “Dream Act”, which if passed it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and dramatically increase the importation of foreign workers at a time 10 million Americans are looking for jobs and cannot find employment.
In one of my articles I stated, “Until we bring our own house in order, until we decide how we are to continue funding Social Security, fund education, lower taxes; provide affordable health care and housing, for the legal citizens of this country, my stance is no to amnesty. We cannot afford to continue to raise taxes, provide programs and services with the sweat off the backs of legal citizens, to provide care for those who shouldn’t be here.”
To promote the availability of the Driver Privilege program, in 2006 would have cost the taxpayers another $90,000.
Bill A2607 was introduced in 2006, sponsored by Assemblyman Joe Vas -District 19 (Middlesex), Assemblyman Reed Gusciora - District 15 (Mercer), Assemblyman Upendra J. Chivukula - District 17 (Middlesex and Somerset), and Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson - District 37 (Bergen).
As long as our elected politicians are more concerned about how many votes they can cultivate, more than the rights and interests of legal citizens, nothing will change.
Immigration itself is not the problem, illegal or “undocumented” immigration is.
My personal view is, that once your attain citizen status; you are no longer an immigrant. You are an American.
On my website I surmised, “Any further attempt at Immigration reform won't happen until after the 2008 elections.”
Well . . . Happy New Year!
- Joe Sinagra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)