Some of the People Who Work for You in NJ

All his strategy would have come for naught (0.00 / 0)

If he didn't get the votes of faux Democrats like Sweeney, and  boss flunkies like Oliver.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 18:50:06 PM UTC

Sweeney's Reward - NJ 101.5 (0.00 / 0)

And so, in exchange for throwing public workers and the middle class under the bus, NJ 101.5, the Christie Mouth Piece of New Jersey has given him his own call in show.

If there were ever any doubt of who sweeney serves, it should be dispelled now. He is a CHRISTIECRAT through and through.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:15:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha! (4.00 / 1)

I guess that's their idea of being fair and balanced.

Nice of him to have a show on the station that has been nonstop anti-government and anti-union for over 20 years.  Wonder if Christie got him the show in gratitude for his support.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:35:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you for, Rosi (0.00 / 0)

Thank you not only for posting the video but for putting succinctly what is going on in this state and in this country: While those who have plunged our economy into a deep recession continue to collect their millions and/or exercise political power, it is the working class that is being blamed and punished after being portrayed, as you said, as bloodsuckers and rich. These people are our neighbors, they are our friends, they are part of the middle class of our country. They are not the cause for our troubles and they are not the solution to them either.

---

by: Alex @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:21:40 PM UTC

Agree (0.00 / 0)

Most people commenting here seem to miss the point.

Christie has declared war and is using the tools the US, and every other country, uses in a war.

Make the "enemy" non-human (e.g., thugs) so it is easier to eliminate them.

---

by: SmartyJones @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 00:37:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This has been long in coming... (0.00 / 0)

In 2006 the benefits review task force analyzed the benefits offered by the state and provided a laundry list of recommendations to the legislature.

The administration at the time and subsequent administrations were unable to negotiate any of the changes recommended. This was in 2006, when the economy was much stronger.

It's now 5 years later and we've made next to no progress on those recommendations and in addition the economy has suffered.

NJ Voters aren't stupid, Christie isn't some master hypnotist. People just recognize that since before 2006 we've been on an unsustainable course and short of legislative action it seems there is no changing gears. We've had 5 years and haven't accomplished much.


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:37:24 PM UTC

Not true (4.00 / 1)

Since then, all public employees were required to pay 1.5% of their salary for medical benefits.  State workers starting pay more into the pension.  State workers lost two weeks pay one year.  Other, more minor changes were made, and copays were increased.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:44:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Report was issued... (0.00 / 0)

Jan 1 2005. I think last year was the first year everyone paid 1.5% of salary.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:52:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

1.5% (0.00 / 0)

Everyone but teachers began paying that in '06 or '07.  Last year, teachers started.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:58:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

depends on the contract (0.00 / 0)

I forget when the 1.5% law went into effect, but the date different unions started paying that varies on their contract.

My union voted in the middle of last year to do 16 hours of furlough and to start paying the 1.5% for six months so we could save jobs. This year we are paying 1.5% for 9-10 months to prevent layoffs and furloughs.  We agreed to those concessions because our contract doesn't end until the end of this year. Once our contract ends, we have to follow the state-mandate.

Which brings me to my next question: If my county is so bad financially, wouldn't they have asked for more concessions from my union this year? I believe the county decreased the tax rate this year to give the average homeowner a $26 tax cut (read: not tax increase). If my county was that bad off financially, they would have asked us to do furlough days.  Why then, are they begging for this reform on the state level?

I hope the money my county saves through state-level reform goes toward paying down their massive debt.

---

by: southernbluedog @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 19:55:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wall Street, not Main Street broke it (0.00 / 0)

So how come public workers are supposed to pay the penalty for something they had nothing to do with, weren't "consulted on" and actually PAID for already through their pension fund being raided, ignored and mismanaged by THE STATE so "Private Sector" could get rebates, pavered intersections, tree-lined "Downtown" shopping areas, give tax breaks to casinos, pharmaceutical companies, developers using eminent domain to steal homes, etc, etc, etc?

NJ Voters may not be "Stupid" but they are either poorly informed or willfully ignorant in that they are asking that the public workers pay the price for the ocal and state politicians raiding the kitty.

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:57:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read this... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43498037

If that study is accurate, taxes ON EVERY NJ HOUSEHOLD would have to be raised $2500 a year, EVERY year, for 30 years to keep the status quo.

Does that sound feasible?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:07:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's to fully fund the pension (0.00 / 0)

Not to fund it at its present level.  The pension doesn't have to be fully funded every year in order to pay benefits.

Workers are willing to pay more into the fund, and the amount taken out of their paychecks will go from 5.5% to 7.5% in the next four years  It could even go a percent higher in my view.  Raising the sales tax one-half of one percent and dedicating that revenue to the pension will nearly be the $700 million a year the state is supposed to pay for the next seven years.

That's how you solve the pension shortfall.  Shared sacrifice, not cutting pensions and COLAs.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:25:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd agree there... (0.00 / 0)

I think a 1/2 percentage on sales tax is reasonable dedicated to pensions.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:55:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no employer $ into pension (3.00 / 1)

for decades ... yep, that's unsustainable ... now I'm going to be punished.

---

by: sayitaintso @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 19:58:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Show me... (0.00 / 0)

what you think the state pays towards your pension?

Yes, the state skipped payments. But no one yet has demonstrated that even if the state had made all the payments that the system would sustainable.

To this day, I've not seen one actuary come out and show what they expect the state contribution to be after 25 years of service and then another 20 years of retirement. How much of your retirement do you believe you're funding?

Finally, again, where were the protests since 2006 when you knew the system was on the path to unsustainability and the full state contributions weren't made. This issue isn't new, quite frankly, only Mr. Sweeney seemed concerned at the time and he was excoriated for it.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 00:56:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Show you (0.00 / 0)

The pension was fully funded at the time Whitman started playing games with it.

Sweeney wasn't concerned primarily about the state not funding the pension, but rather wanted to cut pension, benefits and salary.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:05:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For taxpayers it a good thing (1.00 / 1)

Of course there is a good reason to end collective bargaining. Cities /towns should strive to provide the most services for the least cost, not the least services for the most cost The goal of public unions is to provide the fewest services for the most amount. Thus public unions are incompatible with public service.Collective bargaining jacks ups costs and that means higher taxes for absolutely no possible added benefit, and most likely negative benefit. Thus, regardless of where you live, you should vow to remove from office any politician that votes to continue this destructive practice .  

---

by: speedkillsu @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 20:23:41 PM UTC

It isn't that simple (0.00 / 0)

This will hurt ALL taxpayers.
The "Most Services for the least cost" is what you get with unionized public workers.
Private sector has always been more expensive.

Now, you take an average of 5,000 dollars (Additional costs on public workers) a family out of the spending habits of tens of thousands of public workers and that money doesn't magically end up in tax-payers pockets or reduce their taxes. Quite the opposite, that money will end up in the pockets o INSURANCE and not in the cash registers of local business, local service providers and may actually result in a bigger hemmorage of tax-paying home owners (public workers) seeking greener fields in other states,

If we don't stand together, we fall alone
That didn't last long.

---

by: Couch Potato Politics @ Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 20:36:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What a bunch of crap (4.00 / 2)

Public unions are incompatible with public service?  Tell that to the cops and fireman who put their lives on the line.

Higher costs for no possible benefit?  You want people to put their lives on the line but you don't want to pay for it?  You want quality professional people to handle social services, staff the court system, etc.?  You won't have them unless you pay a decent salary.  As it is, most of those professionals make less than they could in the private sector.  

Collective bargaining is destructive?  Yeah, fascists and communists thought the same thing.  You, and your fellow social darwinist Randians, are in good company.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:16:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Police & fireman (0.00 / 0)

Were not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in america ...since when does that equate into higher pay ? ...I guess commercial fisherman should be paid the most they were rated the most dangerous ....your a fool to think someone should be paid by risk ...you should be paid by what the market says you should otherwise you price yourself out of a job ...

---

by: speedkillsu @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 13:36:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Commercial fisherman (0.00 / 0)

Next time you're robbed or your house is on fire, call a commercial fisherman.

The "market" is not God, despite what right-wingers like you believe.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 17:41:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"What have you done for your country Mr. [Frank] Costello? (0.00 / 0)

The gangster's reply:  "I paid my tax."  
(scornful laughter from crowd)

Kefauver Hearings 1951

Some do a bit more . . .

---

by: Nowlan @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 03:58:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

Public sector incompatible w/unions? Hogwash. Assumes the state cannot be an abusive employer, and more. Total hogwash.

"We do not consider patriotism desirable if it contradicts civilized behavior." - Friedrich Durrenmatt

---

by: KendalJames @ Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 14:03:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]