Press Release: NJ Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan holds multiple public jobs

For Immediate Release:                                            Contact: Lily Cortese

June   2,   2010                                              silvaforassembly@gmail.com

Joe Sinagra and Marcia Silva Vow to End Practice of Taxpayer Subsidized Pay Days for Politicians

GOP Candidates question how Deputy Speaker of the Assembly Patrick Diegnan - who has amassed multiple public jobs - can claim that he represents the working class residents who subsidize his paychecks

Edison, NJ- Responding to a Star-Ledger article outlining that Trenton Democrat Patrick Diegnan makes a yearly income of at least $99,800[1] from his three taxpayer funded jobs, former Helmetta Council President Joe Sinagra and former prosecutor and successful small business owner Marcia Silva, the GOP candidates for State Assembly in the 18^th Legislative District, are calling for an outright ban on politicians receiving multiple public paychecks and pensions.

According to the article, Patrick Diegnan is among 11 members of the Assembly that receive over $50,000 a year in taxpayer funded salaries on top of their annual legislative salaries of $49,000.

 “Too many families in the 18^th district have seen a loved one lose their job and are making difficult decisions regarding their personal finances while Assemblyman Diegnan collects three public salaries”, stated Sinagra. “There is a dangerous disconnect between Diegnan whose part time public jobs alone account for a better pay day than many of the taxpayers who subsidize it.”

Holding multiple positions as a public employee or an elected official leaves room for “Conflict of Interests”, “Conflict of Obligations” and public mistrust.

Marcia Silva added, “Diegnan has not opposed one of the 115 new or increased taxes that have come before him in the Legislature. He has no problem voting to make taxpayers that face an affordability crisis in New Jersey while he collects paychecks from three taxpayer funded jobs. His yearly public payout is yet another insult to the working class families he has taken an oath to represent. The hard working taxpayers of the 18^th district can no longer afford people like Patrick Diegnan in the legislature.”

“Voters will be given the opportunity to cut Diegnan’s taxpayer salary in half on November 8^th by voting him out of office”, concluded Silva.

###

---

[1] Patrick Diegnan receives a $49,000 annual salary as Assemblyman, at least $40,800 annually as the attorney for the Middlesex County Joint Insurance Fund, and at least $10,000 annually as the municipal attorney for Spotswood.

Is America in Decline?

The official unemployment rate went up to 9.1 percent, as millions of Americans are unable to provide for their families, 45.1 percent of all unemployed Americans have been out of work for at least six months. Two years ago, the number of "long-term unemployed" in the United States was only 2.6 million, now up to 6.2 million.

The United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the (WTO) World Trade Organization in 2001. The U.S. trade deficit with China is now 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

The number of "middle class jobs" is about 10 percent lower than a decade ago. The number of "low income jobs" in the U.S. has risen steadily over the past 30 years, accounting for 41 percent of all jobs in the United States. Only 66.8% of American men had a job last year, the lowest level ever been recorded in all of U.S. history.

College tuition in the United States has gone up by over 900 percent since 1978.

U.S. home prices have fallen 33 percent since the peak of the housing bubble, with 28 percent in negative equity. Over one million U.S. families lost their homes to foreclosure in a single year during 2010. New home sales in the United States are down 80% from the peak in July 2005.

The cost of food and the cost of energy have risen at a rate of 17 percent over the past six months. The majority of wages for those working haven’t gone up 17%, and certainly not for new job hires making less than previous earnings.

Over the past 12 months the average price of gasoline in the United States has gone up averaging about 30%. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $1.83 in 2009, today it is $3.77. Oil companies will bring in about $200 billion in pre-tax profits this year, while receiving about $4.4 billion in specialized tax breaks from the U.S. government

Because of the economy, 32 percent of Americans have put off doctor visits, delayed preventive care, or have stopped taking medication to save money. But in the long term will only place a burden on health care as it only creates long-term health consequences.

Once Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014, 30 percent of all U.S. employers will "definitely or probably" quit offering employer-sponsored health coverage.

Americans now enrolled in at least one anti-poverty program run by the federal government are one out of six.

In 2007, there were about 26 million Americans on food stamps. Today, there are over 44 million on food stamps, with one out of every four American children on food stamps.

The U.S. federal government incurred $5.3 trillion in new debt during 2010, on top of the $61.6 trillion financial obligations not been paid for yet.

Americans think of the federal government when you mention”government debt”, but it is not just the federal government that has an enormous debt problem. State and local government debt has reached an all-time high of 22 percent.

The majority of Americans don't understand that the Federal Reserve and the debt-based monetary system that it runs are the nucleus of our economic problems. All of this debt is will eventually crush and bury us like a ton of bricks. The U.S. government spent over 413 billion dollars on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2010, and it is being projected that the U.S. government will be shelling out 900 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt by the year 2019.

Raising the debt ceiling and going into even more debt we are destroying the economic future of our children and our grandchildren. All it does is buy more time before the unavoidable collision course that is being set.

The stimulus didn’t work, the money has run out, and it only helped foster a temporary fairy tale economy. There is no economic recovery and may have even prolonged it by creatng a false economy, and though many still believe we are in a recession, as a nation we are heading full steam into a depression much worse than ever seen before.

The good jobs continue to decline and the number of Americans losing their homes continues to go up. People are having a much more difficult time paying their bills and our federal government is drowning in debt.

If the hiring to fill 64,000 jobs at McDonald’s is an indication of our new economy, things are about to get a lot worse.

Millions more of American families are about to lose their jobs and their homes as the U.S. economy continues to fall apart.

Government doesn’t ‘need’ to; it ‘must’ operate more efficiently and spend less than it ever has before.

~ Joe Sinagra
    NJ 18th District Assembly Candidate

The Democrat Years - A Record of Tax and Spend

Over eight years of Democrat oversight and New Jersey is no better off now than it was before, and probably even worse off.

The ten-year period between 1992 and 2002 the Republican-controlled Legislature reduced the tax burden of New Jersey residents no less than 62 times by including a 30% reduction in gross income tax rates and a rollback of the sales tax from seven to six percent.

New Jersey’s actual revenue for 1998, $17.2 billion, was greater than spending of $16.4 billion. The reverse was true for 2008, where spending was $33.3 billion, greater than the reoccurring state budget revenue of $32 billion.

Revenue from the state’s 2008 income tax increased 121 percent since 1998, 39 percent of total state revenue. Up considerably from1998 when the income tax paid for about one-third of state spending.

Sales tax revenue increased 84 percent, supporting about 28 percent of the state’s budget, as it did in1998. In the fall of 2006, the state’s sales tax was increased from 6% to 7% and expanded to cover additional goods and services. For 2008, sales tax revenue was projected to generate $1.9 billion more revenue than in 2006 and $4 billion more than 1998.

Taxes, fees and state revenue sources had increased by 58 percent or $4 billion, supporting 34 percent of the state’s budget, as compared to 40 percent in 1998.

Revenue tax had increased by 82 percent on the corporation and bank tax, and the “Realty Transfer Tax” increased 500 percent since 1998. The state received an increase of 82% from all other taxes and fees since 1998, generating a total of $4.3 billion more in revenue in 2008.

With all of this additional revenue, you would think New Jersey would be up to its eyeballs in profits. But through mismanagement the increased revenue has only added to our debt, as unaccounted spending was rampant.

To the Democrats, a tax reduction meant a loss of revenue. In 2004 former Governor McGreevey admitted that “tax cuts enacted during the [10 years of Republican control] lowered state revenues by $1.8 billion for this year alone.”

Governor Corzine and a Democrat-controlled Legislature were unwilling to reduce spending to meet recurring revenue so they did what Democrats in New Jersey always do – they raised taxes.

From 2002 through 2008 Democrats imposed 115 new taxes and tax increases. During this period there were five cigarette tax increases, four increases in realty transfer taxes, four health tax changes, and a new car rental tax with a subsequent increase.

The Democrat-controlled Legislature continued to increase revenue on income, sales and corporation business taxes.

In 2002 the McGreevey Administration and Democrat-controlled Legislature restructured the Corporation Business Tax in its mandate to raise an additional $1 billion from the business community.

In addition to the increased corporation business tax liability imposed in 2002, it now required a business to pay a surcharge equal to 4% of the amount of the corporation’s tax liability.

This legislation increased the corporation business tax minimum payment for taxpayers with New Jersey gross receipts of $100,000 or more. The new minimum tax ranges from $500 to $2,000.

The federal government granted business tax breaks in 2003 as part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and again in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Democrat-controlled Legislature decided that New Jersey businesses should not be given certain of the tax breaks granted by the federal government and disallowed the depreciation deduction and the manufacturer tax deduction, as well as the deferral of the taxable income generated from the repurchase of certain kinds of debt.

Income tax rates were increased in 2004 in order to provide one year of increased direct property tax relief. After that first year, the increased revenue was diverted for other purposes and was again increased January 2009 through the creation of two new marginal rates and the increase of a third.

In 2009 businesses were hit with another mandate which had the same impact as a tax increase. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal on June 20, 2007, the federal Department of Labor estimates that paid family leave programs cost employers an average of $1.76 per hour per full-time employee, or 6.8% of total compensation. A company with ten full-time employees saw an average increase in costs of approximately $36,608.

Also, the elimination of the property tax deduction in 2009 actually caused certain homeowners to pay income tax on their property taxes.

The sales tax was increased from 6% to 7% on July 1, 2006. Democrats chose to raise this tax only for the reasoning that it had not been increased during the previous five years, and raising taxes is an easier alternative for Democrats than cutting spending.

In October of 2006 the following became subject to the sales tax including dry cleaning of non-clothing items; landscaping; self-storage rental units; tanning and tattoo services; massages; information services; limousine services; flooring and carpet installation; parking, storing and garaging a motor vehicle; non-subscription magazines and periodicals; investigative and security services; and membership fees. Membership fees included charges by health clubs, gyms, golf clubs, and YMCAs.

One-half of the tax increase is constitutionally dedicated to property tax relief. During fiscal years 2007 and 2008 the other half of the tax increase was used to pay for legislative additions (pork) to the budget.

The new increases were estimated to yield the state on New Jersey $1.3 billion in new revenue, meaning that state residents paid out their pockets the same $1.3 billion to purchase necessary goods and services.

Democrats like to talk about the affordability and accessibility of health insurance in New Jersey. They appropriated millions of dollars to provide health insurance to low and moderate income state residents through the Family Care program, while at the same time imposing new taxes on health insurance providers. All this did was to pass the cost on to the policyholders, making insurance even less affordable. As part of the 2006 budget, two tax changes were approved that led to higher premiums.

The Democrats also could have passed the millionaires tax which they choose not to impose during this time, which will not make a dent in paying down the debt. Now during a time of lost jobs, high unemployment, and a market of foreclosed homes they want to raise the gasoline tax by 24 cents, at a time when New Jersey taxpayers can afford it the least.

With 115 tax increase, you would think the state would have brought in enough revenue to bring us financial stability by now. Years of waste and mismanagement are the reasons the state is in the dire financial mess it is today.

A struggling state economy combined with excessive taxes, unchecked regulations, and rampant spending have made New Jersey unaffordable to middle class families and our seniors who live on fixed incomes.

Democrat legislation also eliminated the ability of seniors with an income of $100,000 or more to exclude their pension and retirement income when paying New Jersey income tax. Democrats called seniors impacted by this legislation “high income taxpayers.”

Government doesn’t ‘need’ to; it ‘must’ operate more efficiently and spend less than it ever has before.

Just for the record our opponents voted for 114 of those increases.

Many of our politicians have forgotten why they were elected and are more concerned about holding office, and while successful at winning elections, they have failed New Jersey.

  ~ Joe Sinagra

A Liberal About Face . . . Now that the War on Terror is Popular

The hunt for bin Laden due to the Sept. 11 attacks were a defining moment for then President Bush, spanning the rest of his presidency.


On October 7, 2001 he said, "We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail."

The 9/11 Commission concluded that al-Qaeda was clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, on September 11th, 2001.

In 2006 Pelosi didn’t think that al Qaeda was active in Iraq. When she was asked by a reporter “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with an incoherent answer about how “the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again."

Wow, have times changed! Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi now calls the killing a “significant development in OUR fight against Al Qaeda.” Now it is OUR fight? Is it a significant development because its campaign season?

Attack, after attack, after relentless attack on then President George Bush, the same Democrats and media are now gloating over the death of Osama Bin Laden, under the watch of Commander in Chief Obama.

Despite the well known fact that Iraq was the only central front in the war against international terror, Democrats saw Iraq as completely unrelated to the war on terror. Democrats claimed that Bush failed in the war against international terror as Bin Laden was at large and Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time and it can’t be won. The Democrat plan for the war on terror was retreat.

The Middle East began to fall apart under Jimmy Carter over thirty years ago, left to bloom into an international threat with global ramifications under Bill Clinton. China, North Korea, Iraq and Iran became more dangerous throughout the 1990’s. In January of 2001, eight months into a new administration George W. Bush walked into the lion’s den with the events of 9/11.

As the National Security Agency intercepted intercontinental communications between terror cells which ultimately led to the arrests of a UK terror cell that had planned to blow up a dozen planes in route to the US, Democrats were busy pursuing a partisan court ruling to stop those intelligence operations.

As the Central Intelligence Agency interrogated captured terrorists around the globe seeking information to help prevent the next 9/11, Democrats were too busy attacking the CIA for allegedly torturing known terrorist’s committed to killing more innocent people.

Democrats turned the other cheek when it was popular to bash Bush; now that Osama is gone they want to take credit for the war on terror and finding a known terrorist.There cannot be any closure; it is not the end of terrorism. In fact it may only have made matters worse, and now more than ever we need to heighten National Security and become more diligent than ever in protecting the borders of United States.The war against terror is not over as Al Qaeda will still target Americans. Even with the demise of Osama Bin Laden, let us not forget who attacked our people here at home, causing the deaths of 3,100 innocent civilians.

This isn’t about politics; it’s about national security, and protecting the live of Americans. Terrorists kill Americans; they don't choose Republicans or Democrats.

Psst . . They don't really care who wins the election.

~ Joe Sinagra

I ask Senate President Steve Sweeney . . . Who cared in the ten years the Democrats were in control?

Gov. Christie and Senate President Steve Sweeney have traded barbs as Christie assailed the "do nothing legislature." Sweeney tells Christie save the tough talk for somebody who cares.

OK Steve . . . before Chris Chrisite, who really cared? Was it the State Senate or the State Assembly that stood up for the pockets of the taxpayers? Two administrations of pork spending and raising taxes to the levels it is at today. Actually 3, if you throw in Florio. Whether you like Christie or not, agree with his policies or not, he is doing what he promised when he when he ran for election, he said “I will not raise Taxes.” He didn’t wait a few months like his predecessor and announce, “Oops” I made a mistake.

Neither McGreevy nor Corzine attempted to reign in taxes. A Democrat controlled legislature for over 8 years, had 115 separate tax increases, and now they are indignant over Christie who has been in office for a short time. What did the Democrats do about all the private sector jobs lost during that time?

State spending and tax revenues climbed more than twice the rate of inflation from 1980 to 1990. State-government employment had outpaced population growth. The U.S. population grew in the 1980's by 10 percent, as state employment grew by almost 30 percent.

A study by the American Legislative Exchange Council showed that state-government pay grew at a faster pace than private-sector pay. For every dollar increase in compensation received by private-sector workers, state-government workers received $6.30.

Both 1990 and 1991 were record tax increase years for New Jersey, while expenditures surged, and no reduction in spending. In 1991 state spending rose by 10 percent and in 1992 it grew by 12 percent. In 1992 alone spending rose 26.0 percent in New Jersey.

Bottom line is that Florio, McGreevy, and Corzine were governors who tried to fight budget deficits with major tax increases. All it did was hurt the state’s economy and did little to put on cork on the flowing bottle of red ink.

After pledging no new taxes, (where have I heard that before… was it Corzine?) Florio shoved and ram-rodded through the legislature a "bilk the rich" $2.8-billion tax hike to bestow a massive infusion of funds to the inner-city schools. Immediately sinking the economy into a deeper into recession, while business bankruptcies increased by 150 percent, 300,000 jobs were lost, and the unemployment rate rocketed to 9.1 percent--the highest in the nation. Governor Florio declared that his tax hike was an unavoidable dose of bitter medicine to balance the budget. The truth of the matter is that Florio was among the three biggest spending governors in the nation. In 1991 the budget grew by 8.4 percent; that increase was followed by a 1992 budget expansion of 26.1 percent (the third largest in the nation). In his first two years the budget grew by more than $3,000 per family.

Corzine picked up the baton and continued the tradition, and now the Democrats want to point the finger and switch the woes of the state on a Governor who took office on January 19, 2010. After a year and 4 months, the state’s problems are now the fault of Chris Christie.

Florio lied along with Corzine when they said they wouldn’t raise taxes, and now the Democrat legislature is doing whatever they can to force Christie to renege on his promise of not raising taxes.

I ask Sweeney . . . who cared in the ten years the Democrats were in control?

Obamanomics and the Pea

Obama will push Congress to raise the limit on the national debt, permitting the government to borrow more to meet its financial obligations. Now he wants to raise taxes on top of that, so more can be collected to pay down the previous deficit he created. Obamanomics = Problem solved . . . it’s only a matter of time before we dig ourselves into another hole playing catch-up, and the root of the problems remain.

The raising of taxes will only go towards paying down the old debt, while the new debt climbs to new heights. By Obama saying he will tax the rich is sort of like the game of "thimblerig" keeping your eye on the pea, while the shells are being shuffled around. In Taxing the rich there is no pea under the shell, it only creates the illusion that something is being done.

Failure to raise our debt ceiling only means the Treasury cannot borrow more money; it isn’t the end of the world. By forcing government to limit spending it will increase its proceeds.

Defaulting on our creditors and refusal to pay interest on our debt is not caused by a failure to raise the debt ceiling. The federal government collects over $2 trillion in annual tax revenue, which is much much higher than what we pay in interest.

What politicians are saying is they would rather default on our creditors than cut their precious spending and upset special interest groups. They are saying that votes are more important than the “full faith and credit of the United States”.

It is nothing more than a threat to avoid making the hard decision; the reality is no one wants to do anything about it. To do otherwise, would mean losing those votes.

Like you or I, we must live within our means or suffer the consequences. Government is no different and the $2 trillion it collects in taxes is no small chicken feed.

Even if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were allowed to expire, the federal government would have only raked in an extra $40 billion this year, quite a ways off from eradicating the $1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit the Obama administration will rack up this year.

By Obama extending the Bush tax cuts for two years the federal government will take in roughly $81.5 billion less from those making over $250k, but $463 billion less from those making less than $250k.

Even if Obama not extended the Bush tax cuts and taxed the rich, his deficit for this year would have still been over $1.3 trillion. The taxing the rich cry is a diversion and another intrusion on class warfare.

Bottom line is the federal government has a spending problem . . . not a revenue problem. This year alone spending is over double what was spent in any year prior to 2005 and the national debt has increased 300% since 2007. By not controlling spending taxes will only continue to climb higher. Once all the rich are taxed where do we go to pay down the next deficit?

If we do not face the problem head on, sooner or later the problem will come to us. To paraphrase an old saying . . . “ If we do not change direction, we may end up where we are heading.”

College Education not Always Worth it

In today's economy there is no guarantee college graduates will come close to getting a job in their field. They get the hype if you go to school for a certain field you can make a certain amount of money, but if 15,000 kids take the classes for a certain field, there may only be 1,500 jobs throughout the country that are hiring and not everyone will get the job, leaving them to pursue other fields at lower pay and still have a huge debt to carry.

As of February 2011 those with some college or associate degree were at 7.8 percent unemployed, while those with a bachelor's degree rated somewhat better percentage at 4.3 percent.

More than 17 million Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor's degree giving us a higher educated, lowering paying workforce. In the United States today, there are 317,000 restaurant wait staff, 365,000 cashiers, 18,000 parking lot attendants and 24.5 percent of retail salespersons, all who have college degrees.

Many leave college either for health or financial reasons, but that does not wipe out the debt occurred while they were going.

Thousands go into areas they love but do not consider the possible scarcity of jobs, without calculating whether, if they do get a job, what they will earn will be enough to comfortably pay on what they will owe.

Many unemployed college grads face the additional burden of student loan payments. Thousands upon thousands of others owe more than they earn in a year and have yet to see the value of their education. Those with graduate or professional degrees owe student debt ranging from $30,000 to $120,000.

There are some forgiveness possibilities that include service in volunteer, non-profit organizations, working as a teacher for low-income schools and a wide variety of other put-your-life-on-hold jobs, but may be outside a student's field of study.

Few would argue that college is a bad investment, but the economic downturn could diminish the value of that investment.

Those who graduate during a recession tend to start at smaller and lower-paying companies or firms, which forces them to change jobs more frequently than those who graduated during better times.

College financial aid specialists recommend students should take a long and hard look at the average salaries in their chosen profession before taking out student loans.

Currently, our economy is facing the biggest student loan debt bubble in the history of the world, and when new college graduates enter the "real world" they are finding out that the good jobs they were promised are few and far between.

There was a commercial that showed a man with a great family, a four-bedroom house in a great community, a new car, who belonged to the local golf club, and he says, "How do I do it? I'm in debt up to my eyeballs."

College should be worth the price of an education, but in today's market it should be approached like any other investment - with caution.

~ Joe Sinagra