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

Let Them Eat Cake

After appealing to Americans to sacrifice their holidays President Obama has been accused of having double standards days before his wife and children went on a costly skiing trip being flown there on Air Force Two.While there the family stayed at the upscale Sebastian Hotel on Vail Mountain, where rooms start at $650 a night and range up to more than $2,400 for multi-bedroom suites.

A local newspaper reported that the first lady went to Restaurant Kelly Liken and dined on braised ribs.

Normally to most Americans this would not be a big deal, but the trip came just days after the President tried to sell his cost-cutting budget to the American people by asking them to stay at home.

Right after stating, “Just like every family in America, the federal government has to do two things at once. It has to live within its means while still investing in the future. If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, you might put off a vacation,” Michelle zipped up her bags, was driven to the tarmac with the kids and flew to Vail on Air Force Two. But in actuality it is Air Force One, it is known as Air Force One only when the President is aboard, which costs around $181,757 per hour.

A motorcade of about a dozen vehicles, including at least 15 police officers, travelled from Eagle County Regional Airport to Vail on Friday night when the presidential party arrived.

Even though Mr. Obama stayed at the White House, the rest of his family headed to Colorado –rather than visiting slopes closer to Washington in Virginia or Pennsylvania, despite previous criticisms over the family's extravagant vacations, including a trip last summer to Spain.

Mrs. Obama also raised eyebrows when she left earlier than her husband for their annual Christmas holiday in Hawaii, incurring additional expenses estimated to be more than $97,000.

In August it cost taxpayers an alleged $375,000 for her security detail - and two flights on Air Force One - on a holiday to Spain with her daughter, Sasha, and 40 friends.
Although the Obama’s will pay for a portion of the skiing trip, taxpayers will still shoulder many of the costs.

As the majority of Americans sit by their kitchen table deciding which bill to pay, dining on macaroni while being told do as I say, not as I do, the first lady of the health police dined on ribs.

Michelle had said “Not too many places in this country you can do that and still be at the seat of power”.

Could that also be interpreted as “Let them eat cake?

~ Joe Sinagra

Eminent Domain and Atlantic City Revitalization

In 1976 residents voted for casino gambling in Atlantic City. In doing so the idea was to revitalize a depressed city with substandard housing and double-digit unemployment. Even though current casino profits are down, in 2009 11 casinos brought in over $3.9 billion in revenue.

Double digit unemployment continues, and dilapidated housing is still second-rate for many citizens. The majority of residents and businesses have not seen any change in their communities. Urban decay surrounding the casinos has not improved, and many residents who thought in 1976 they would see neighborhood improvements aren't happy. Taxes are not lower, the streets are not any cleaner, and neighborhood security has not improved much. Many local businesses have closed or been boarded up as casino stores compete against them.

Senate President Sweeney said, “We have to recognize that Atlantic City’s gaming and tourism attractions have a bigger impact than inside the city borders, if we’re serious about turning Atlantic City’s casinos into a resort destination, we have to separate the problems plaguing the casino district from the problems facing the entire city.

So in essence, the revenue of the state comes above the needs of the people, even though very little casino revenue went towards improving the surrounding communities?

In 35 years, many of them pre-recession years, the benefits of that revenue still hasn’t filtered down to the surrounding communities as promised.

In gambling with a bailout of the gaming industry, will those residents be cheated once again with the threat of Eminent Domain under the guise of revitalization that will take away the remainder of little they have left?

~ Joe Sinagra

NJEA should take hit for grant loss

New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant
by 4.8 points.

Gov. Christie took shots at the President and the
federal government, with the Democrat fangs waiting
in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw
blood.

Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied
figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question
specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009.
This was the reason that supposedly cost the state
of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.

The New Jersey Education Association partied in the
streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.

The rationale of why he was fired is another matter.
The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being
held accountable.

A major prerequisite of the program required the
endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of
the unions — and only four out of 591 districts
signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a
chance to review the application over the holiday
weekend and wouldn't sign on to the program
unless it was submitted as they had previously
agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement
clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor
those of the Christie administration, and New Jersey
failed miserably in the first phase of the
competition.

However, four districts of the NJEA had affixed their
signatures to the Christie version of the application,
along with 289 of the 591 school districts.

The application has a section on the endorsement of
parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school
districts, and the state Department of Education.
Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the
reviewers clearly state that only 1 percent of the
unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers
took off 15-20 points.

Then there is another section on implementation
and how they will make it work. Since the union
would not agree to the application, the reviewers
say that this would hinder the implementation of the
plan, deducting an additional 15-20 points.

"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong,
one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one
reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's
LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a
significant number and ... New Jersey will find it
difficult to implement even successful elements of
its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."

The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the
state 14 points on the scale.

The reviewers of the application state on the reviews
that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on
the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat
on a hot tin roof over a missed five-point question.

The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost
the grant, not the less than five points lost by the
incorrect information supplied by Schundler.

NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people
of New Jersey an explanation for why this
application failed, not Christie.

~ Joe Sinagra

NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom

By clicking on the above headline you can view the New Jersey Application #3550NJ-4

NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
by Joe Sinagra on Monday, August 30, 2010
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant by 4.8 points.

Governor Christie took shots at the President and the Federal Government, with the Democrat fangs waiting in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw blood.

Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009. This was the reason that supposedly cost the state of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.

The New Jersey Education Association partied in the streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.

The rationale of why he was fired is another matter. The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being held accountable.

A major perquisite of the program required the endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of the unions, out of which only 4 out of 591 districts, signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a chance to review the application over the holiday weekend and wouldn’t sign on to the program, unless it was submitted as they had previously agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor those of the Christie administration, and NJ failed miserably in the first phase of the competition. However, 4 districts of the NJEA had affixed their signatures to the Christie version of the application, along with 289 of the 591 school districts.

The application has a section on the endorsement of parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school districts, and the NJDOE. Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the reviewers clearly state that only 1% of the unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers took off 15-20 points.

Then there is another section on implementation and how they will make it work. Since the union would not agree to the application, the reviewers say that this would hinder the implementation of the plan, deducting further additional 15-20 points.

The reviewers of the application state on the reviews, that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof over a missed 5-point question.

The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost the grant, not the less than 5 points lost by the incorrect information supplied by Schundler.

"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong, one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a significant number and ... New Jersey will find it difficult to implement even successful elements of its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."

The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the state 14 points on the scale.

NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people of New Jersey an explanation for why this application failed, not Christie.

View Application: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/comments/new-jersey.pdf