unemployment 
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:46:00 PM EST
|
|
"As Senator McConnell's statement today makes clear, the only thing standing between 160 million Americans and a tax increase is House Republicans' refusal to act." – Nancy Pelosi Well, if you want to ask our “moderate” GOP delegation to the United States Congress why they are standing in the way of bipartisan agreements on taxes, unemployment and energy exploration legislation passed with 90 percent support in the Senate, here’s their addresses and phone numbers. Frank Lobiondo (R-2)
5914 Main Street
Mays Landing, New Jersey
Phone: (609) 625-5008 Jon Runyan (R-3) 4167 Church Road
Mount Laurel, New Jersey 08054
Phone: (856) 780-6436 Scott Garrett (R-5)
266 Harristown Rd, Suite 104
Glen Rock, New Jersey 07452
Phone: (201) 444-5454 Leonard Lance (R-7)
425 North Avenue East
Westfield, New Jersey 07090
Phone: (908) 518-7733 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11)
30 Schuyler Place, 2nd Floor
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Phone: (973) 984-0711 Side thought. Why can members of Congress send us pretty, printed mail at taxpayers’ expense but their offices don’t have 800 numbers?
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:05:55 AM EST
|
promoted by Rosi
Cross-posted at NJPP.org
Like other groups that focus on the economy, we at NJPP closely follow the ups and downs in the labor markets and use the data to paint broader pictures of New Jersey's well-being. Now, thanks to a new report by national nonprofit USAction, we can also share the human face of the state's ongoing employment problem.
Four months ago, USAction asked its members to share their stories of un- and underemployment. More than 1,000 responded, including a handful from New Jersey.
We take a look at a few after the jump:
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 402 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 12:19:56 AM EST
|
Lets just get this out there First: I am a privileged Baby boomer. College was relatively cheap. I missed Vietnam. I got a State job that is fulfilling. A pension. Expensive, but still good healthcare. And I even get collective bargaining when its convenient for the politicians. Despite that, I AM grateful. And honestly, I feel guilty.
Why? Because I know that the generation out in the street right now don't have it as good as I did AND they are doing way more to effect change than I ever did at any Anti-nuke rally in the 80s.
I feel guilty because I had an easy job market in the mid 80s. They face "the new normal" - which might be 7-8% unemployment whenever we get back down to that level (and yes, Higher for minorities). To them, my defined benefit pension is like the phone land lines I own ... a dinosaur. In short, these young people face an economic disaster that only avoids revolution because of our tattered remnant of a social safety net. They dont deserve this and I feel guilty that I have done nothing to help them.
So yes, with my guilt in tow, I accompanied my Gen X friend today to deliver the soup he made to the Trenton Occupy. Not much of a help, but a start. I spoke to a 20 something there who said our government is irrelevant. He said the only worthwhile effort is to continue the protest and hope for change outside of government.
Is he right? After all, did government cause Bank of America to retract its new $5 transaction fee? The most arrogant, aggressive bank of all, BOA, backed down. Holy shit. Did Obama finally wake up and bring such change? The audacity of Hope? Nope. In the face of a OWS movement to move our bank accounts to smaller banks, BOA backed down.
But, I still doubt that OWS on its own will bring on the big reforms outside of the machinery of the existing political system. Yes that system is corrupted by money. Yes it works in the interests of its corporate masters. But the fact of the matter is... it collects the taxes and controls billions in resources. Its has an army, a police force, a court system and a bureaucracy that still can (if allowed to) enforce laws for the greater good.
In short, if government suddenly dissolved leaving OWS in its place... OWS would quickly have to rebuild something like what already exists to stave off a collapse of society. Yes they would build it with representatives who actually represent the people. And, OWS already has a government... its called the General Assembly.
So OWS is going to have to face it. Government isnt irrelevant. Their disgust with the corrupted system is right, but their conclusion that the system is useless is wrong. Its the people running the system that are the problem.
What I am suggesting is that OWS needs to contemplate a new phase. An occupation of the electoral system. Occupy the Voting Booth. Occupy the Parties. Take the apparatus of Government back for the people. Start with the party Committees, the local government, the school boards, the planning boards. Occupy THAT. they wont know what hit them.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 12:51:56 PM EDT
|
|
Jon Whiten is with New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). - promoted by Rosi
Do you feel better off today than you did in 2000? Your job, your home, your retirement - do you feel more secure about all that? If you answered no, you are certainly not alone in the Garden State.
New Jersey's economy in the 2000s did very little to improve the lives of working families across the state, despite income growth during the early part of the decade. As a result, many people are worse off today than they were as we entered the new century.
That's the top-level message in the newest report by New Jersey Policy Perspective, which we released this morning.
More on New Jersey's 'lost decade' after the fold.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 410 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 04, 2011 at 04:30:00 PM EDT
|
|
In the previous diary on NJ JOBS we examined the wrong track approach which emphasizes reducing government, budgets, and debt. By putting people back to work, however, the state can regain tax revenues needed to reduce indebtedness and replenish our unemployment, transportation, and pension/health funds. More important, it brings a measure of relief, security and optimism, sorely lacking now, to people who want to hold on to their home, put food on their table, pay bills, and reduce their reliance on government support. The argument should not be, as Christie says, over jobs for the private sector vs. the public sector because both are essential to our economy and our well-being.
Our state government, famous for imposing objectives on organizations it funds, could set its own objective for lowering unemployment. A decrease of just 1%, from 9.5% to 8.5%, in the unemployment rate would add about 45,000 new jobs for those who are now struggling. At an average salary of $25,000 it would add over $1 billion to our economy, part of which would go to taxes, strengthening the state's revenues. A substantial reduction in unemployment to 5% or 6% is a longer term objective which entails retooling education, innovation and automation for new jobs replacing those which are no longer needed and in which we are no longer competitive. A state goal of 1% or 2% is not an impossible dream.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 536 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 09:52:02 PM EDT
|
|
The letter below was written by the Teaneck Democratic Municipal Committee to President Obama. It was cc'd to our respective U. S. Senators and Congressman, as well as the BCDC and municipal chairs of Bergen County. We are strongly urging the President and his congressional supporters to actively address the issues of unemployment and foreclosures that Americans are confronting on a day to day basis not only in New Jersey, but national as well.
We are requesting that the President, along with Congress, take a Keynesian style approach to the aforementioned problems and come up with sound programs to address these issues.
It is time for the President and our democratic elected officials to stand up to the hardline republicans at both the state and federal levels and to fight for the democratic principles upon which our political party was founded and come up with bold initiatives to stimulate the economy regardless of the republicans refusal to solve these problems.
Take them to task loudly and clearly during the campaign so that Americans understand and recognize that it is the Republicans and not the Democrats who are holding America back.
It is time for our President and the Democratic Congressional members to take a stand!
**********************************
August 5, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The most important factor in the 2012 election, more important than door-to-door organizing or clever campaign ads, will be unemployment and foreclosures. So we call upon the Obama administration and its congressional supporters to take a much more active approach to address these two areas.
Just resting on current policies and hoping for significant progress by November 2012 is insufficient. Current policies are moving the economy too slowly for 2012. But there is still over a year for a bolder approach to take effect--if implemented right away.
(A bolder approach is even more urgent to correct the setbacks imposed by the debt deal just negotiated with hardline Republicans.)
Bolder approaches mean a large Keynesian-style economic stimulus. The economic stimulus so far tried has been barely more than the continuation of normal amounts of spending. (Paul Krugman, "No We Can't? Or Won't," NYTimes, July 11, 2011) (*1)
The stimulus would include infrastructure renewal (roads, bridges, high speed rail, school buildings), support for starving state and local governments to retain and hire back severely needed teachers, librarians, police, and other public servants, keeping social security at least on a par with the cost of living, market-rate reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid, and support for industrial research and development to make our economy more competitive worldwide.
And if unemployment still lags, a WPA-style direct hiring program should follow. (It's just hard to believe that it is better for the economy to have large numbers of people collecting unemployment insurance or to have given up on the job market, instead of building infrastructure, teaching, doing scientific research, or otherwise serving the economy.)
Objection: We don't have the money. We'd go into even a bigger deficit to do this.
Answer: This is the textbook Keynesian model. Yes, you do go into deficit to stimulate an economy out of a recession. Otherwise, the economy will never pick up enough strength to reduce even a pre-stimulus deficit. (*2) "A downturn is the one time when red ink is advisable."
Only after the economy regains its strength will there be enough resources to cut deficits--as well as to maintain government services (including health and education), provide employment and keep people in their homes.
And, if the voters see the President and the Democrats in Congress taking these initiatives, they will be given credit, instead of being seen as "me-too, can't do anything but wait, hope and spread suffering" semi-Republicans.
And if the Republicans prevent or damp down these initiatives, the campaign should loudly and persistently point to them as the reason for the lack of progress--and point out that the only way forward is to put more Democrats in Congress. Give Obama a Congress he can work with--to save the economy and the citizens it exists to serve. (*3)
Sincerely,
Laura I. Zucker, Chairperson
for the Teaneck Democratic Municipal Committee
cc: Obama for America (Official 2012 Campaign Committee)
Congressional Democratic Campaign Committee
Senate Democratic Campaign Committee
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Robert Menendez
Congressman Steve Rothman
Bergen County Democratic Committee
Bergen County Municipal Committee Chairs
________________________________________
(*1) See also "The Worst Time to Slow the Economy," NYTimes editorial, July 10, 2011; "Renewed weakness reflects deep, and urgent, problems," and "Republicans continue their tax-cutting fantasia," NYTimes editorials, June 12, 2011. Also, see Paul Krugman's NYTimes blog posts: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
(*2) http://topics.nytimes.com/topi... http://www.brookings.edu/opini... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
(*3)For further reading, Harold Meyerson, "Stumbling our way to a fiscal doomsday," (The Record, July 14, 2011)
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 12:12:29 PM EDT
|
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name...
After two days, in the desert sun, my skin began to turn red.
After three days, in the desert fun, I was looking at a river bed.
And the story it told, of a river that flowed,
made me sad to think it was dead.
- Dewey Bunnell: A Horse With No Name So the Democrats failed to override Governor Christie's veto, and the river that flowed now appears dead. However, all is not lost. The Star Ledger reports, "Negotiations between Gov. Chris Christie and legislators on restoring up to $139 million for New Jersey's neediest cities are likely to begin this week." Also, the Assembly Budget Committee this week will listen as members of the public and representatives of groups detail how the governor's cuts may affect programs that serve children and Senior citizens.
The cuts were excessive and vindictive. As, Mark Magyar points in NJSpotlight, The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) projected that revenues would be $913 million more than originally anticipated, while Christie's treasurer came in with a projected increase of just $511 million. That $402 million difference would have been more than enough to restore funds for important projects. Instead Christie made even more cuts, including further cuts in OLS's budget.
The cuts were mean-spirited and tear at our social fabric. As Raymond J. Castro explains in NJ Policy Perspective, One in six New Jerseyans will be adversely affected by line-item vetoes of two critical programs - the state Earned Income Tax Credit and NJ Family Care. News from our urban cities reflects unmanageable fires in Camden, crime in Newark and financial crisis throughout.
There are many, many more cuts that were excessive, vindictive, mean-spirited and tear at our social fabric. However, does Christie care and will he ameliorate the problem? Possibly yes. Unemployment last month in NJ ticked up to 9.4%, housing is still in the doldrums, real estate taxes have not declined, and public employees are increasingly mad. A large swath of New Jerseyans have reason to be disaffected. A Bloomberg poll released at the end of June said "More people's opinions of Christie have worsened than improved."
Democratic legislators, having fallen off the horse on their first effort, appear to be getting right back on it. With their perseverance and an unhappy electorate, it may yet rain in the desert and that river show signs of life.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 12:44:53 PM EDT
|
|
Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 2:00pm
near Main & Moore Streets in Hackettstown, NJ
RSVP required:
http://civic.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=117273
Michele Bachmann says we can reduce unemployment by eliminating the minimum wage. Is that the kind of economic "recovery" we want—$4 and $5 and $6 per hour jobs? Van Jones is absolutely right. Too many of us are already sacrificing plenty. Too many of us are already paying for Wall Street’s recklessness with our personal austerities and anxieties. The Tea Party’s solution is to discredit our ideals and dismantle our government. But we can do better. We can build a movement to make OUR democracy work for OUR American Dreams. Let’s take the first step together by meeting on July 16th to get acquainted and share ideas.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 11:00:25 AM EST
|
|
Yesterday, Blue Jersey parodied a statement by Gov. Christie that we thought was an overweening, embarrassing attempt to take credit for job growth figures that were at best inconclusive (and that a former Reagan official called "not even statistically significant".) Both Christie's wild pitch claim and the Reagan official's attempt to define the facts a little more carefully, came in the very same article - "Christie Crows About State Job Growth" (Wall Street Journal 12/16/10).
We were caustic, running a photoshopped image of Christie as George Bush declaring MISSION ACCOMPLISHED as he propagandized the Iraq War on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003. This flipped out Blue Jersey's resident troll who thinks the fact Christie didn't utter the words "mission accomplished" means he wasn't saying just that. And Christie himself just 2 hours later tried to distance himself from the idea that he was declaring MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, by denying it in exactly those words.
But Columbia Journalism Review now adds another dimension to this: "WSJ Parrots Governor Christie on Jobs" (CJR 12/16/10). CJR is a respected publication for professional journalists. They report on professional ethics, trends in publishing, how journalists develop their stories. It's published by Columbia Journalism School, arguably the best academic training for reporters and editors in the country, and the administrators of the Pulitzer Prize.
CJR's "WSJ Parrots Governor Christie on Jobs" is worth your reading in entirety, though I'll pull out some key points from their analysis of how WSJ reported Christie's claims:
If you're going to do a story about a governor trying to take credit for creating jobs, you have to report context, otherwise you might as well reprint the governor's press releases.
CJR to WSJ: Don't fall for the "uncertainty meme".
WSJ lets Christie get away with presenting a "single month snapshot" of the economy and then, miraculously considering WSJ's financial beat, asks no questions and provides no context for those figures.
WSJ fails to mention regional factos in NJ job numbers (CJR points out the regional impact of NYC's job spurt is a major factor in NJ's numbers).
WSJ fails to note national context (which actually helps Christie's case).
Columbia Journalism Review's analysis (read it) is important, because Gov. Christie (and his party) claim to represent the interests of business and seek to appeal to business interests. Right or wrong, this is where Christie wants to stake his claim, and the Wall Street Journal is the most important business publication in the country. How WSJ reports on Gov. Christie's economic claims is critically important. If they simply transcribe his utterings without applying professional journalistic standards well enough, then the nation's business view of NJ has less chance to be grounded in fact, and the account we will read of the Governor's initiatives may be less accurate than it should be. Right or wrong, what the Wall Street Journal says about New Jersey's economic condition matters and CJR is right to call them on it.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 04:01:22 PM EST
|
|
As Rosi just posted, Governor Christie is crowing about job creation despite no evidence that the uptick in new jobs is a result of anything he has done, and that he killed thousands of permanent jobs while costing the state well over $100 million in killing the ARC tunnel project.
This comes on the heels of Alex DeCroce declaring that jobs are "on the back burner" for the Republican agenda (and after Christie's "economic" section of his website was essentially blank) and then making a stunning statement on unemployment benefits, only to turn his comments into a lecture on how other people should act.
So, as eloquently put by Democratic Party Chairman Wisniewski put it, Every Republican legislator should weigh in (no pun intended) on whether they agree with their leaders that jobs are on the back burner, whether "the mission is accomplished" and what their leader says about the unemployed essentially being lazy because of the good life of a few hundred dollars per week in unemployment benefits.
And he is right - these two men - Christie and DeCroce are two of the leaders of the NJ Republican Party. What they say represents their party's views.
Additionally, I'd like to know how the tens (or is it hundreds) of thousands of unemployed New Jerseyans who have been out of work for weeks or months (or years) and have been trying to find work feel about the Republican Party's views of the current economic situation. And more importantly, will they remember this come 2012?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 03:37:28 PM EST
|
|
promoted by Rosi
Everyone here recognizes the importance of the social safety net established by the New Deal and Great Society. Unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have made a huge difference in the lives of all Americans, but especially our most vulnerable. It's amazing, however, that some don't seem to recognize this simple truth.
Republicans, in fact, have floated a proposal to cut benefits to those out of work in the face of record levels of unemployment. Speaking to the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, Assemblyman Alex DeCroce suggested cutting the $550 per week payment as a way to save money, calling the benefit "too good for these people." He went so far as to insist that unemployed New Jerseyans who receive the assistance have adopted an attitude of "Why go to work?"
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 348 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 03:16:50 PM EST
|
In a race to slap himself on the back, Governor Christie today slapped himself upside the head declaring MISSION ACCOMPLISHED on job creation for a slight reduction in unemployment that a former Reagan official calls "not even statistically significant" in the very same Wall Street Journal article.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 11:11:39 AM EST
|
|
On the heels of Deciminyan's very interesting challenge to Minority Leader Asm Alex DeCroce ...
Assemblyman Alex DeCroce had a talk with business leaders yesterday and all by himself walked us all back 80 years to the rigid 'conservatism' of Herbert Hoover, who refused to provide relief during the Depression when people were living on the knife edge. Pandering to wallet-protective business folk, DeCroce told them New Jerseyans collecting $550 a week in unemployment insurance have little incentive to look for a job.
Bear in mind this is the GOP Minority Leader in New Jersey's Assembly. Message man for his Party. Colleague of a governor who protected tax breaks for millionaires, with DeCroce's help. But I guess I shouldn't say DeCroce walked us all back to Herbert Hoover all by himself, because it seems that crap's all the rage with America's fool right.
Stephen Budiansky does a great job of rounding up this year's de rigueur GOP dismissal of the needs of the unemployed in his Liberal Curmudgeon Blog:
Today's Republicans have done a remarkable job of trying to sound like the heartless Herbert Hoover. It can't be because it's good politics; it must be because they can't help themselves. A whole line of GOP candidates have been insisting this year, for example, that unemployment is the product of lazy workers. Rep. Steve King of Iowa explained that he was against extending unemployment benefits because "we shouldn't turn the 'safety net' into a hammock." Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, said that "continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." And Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota denounced aid to the states to prevent hundreds of thousands of teachers from being laid off as a "bailout," as did the House minority leader and Speaker apparent John Boehner.
If things get bad for any of you unemployed slackers, and you start remembering your history lessons of Hoovervilles, security around Gov. Christie's house in Mendham's pretty tight, but Alex DeCroce lives in Parsippany-Troy Hills, and his front lawn might have room for some tents. End snark.
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:30:00 AM EST
|
|
GOP Assemblyman Alex DeCroce says that unemployment benefits are too generous and they should be reduced. Well, I have a challenge for the Assemblyman.
Mr. DeCroce, before you reduce benefits, why don't you try to live on what you would receive from unemployment for six months? Six months is being generous, since a worker in your age bracket would require a much longer amount of time to find a job, but I'm a generous person.
According to your 2007 financial disclosure statement (the latest I could find on line), your income was at least $140,000 - probably much more because these disclosures give ranges of income, and I chose the lowest. So take your income, and put the excess over $30,000 (about what you would receive in unemployment) in escrow for six months and see what happens. You may need to sell one of your three residences to make ends meet, you may need to dine on macaroni and cheese instead of steak, but if you were really unemployed, you would have to make these difficult and painful decisions.
Mr. DeCroce, your party has spent the first eight years of this decade putting us in the situation we find ourselves in today. You supported tax breaks for millionaires while showing contempt disrespect for thousands of New Jerseyans who are caught in the jobs trap. Show a bit of "compassionate conservatism" and instead of reducing benefits; let's be sure all New Jerseyans, even the wealthy, share in the sacrifices that we all need to make in order to get our people back on their feet. It's time for you to walk the talk.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 08:57:13 PM EST
|
As Chris Christie continues to bulldoze long standing areas of excellence in New Jersey, has he actually done anything to benefit the state?
In a word, No.
He campaigned on the high unemployment and celebrated his gubernatorial win by promising layoffs throughout the state. He attacked Corzine for spending and upon election, increased the cost of the Governor's budget for staff and services. He argued in his campaign that Governor Corzine wasn't focused on New Jersey's issues and now he has spent a good portion of his first year in office travelling around the country to campaign for other political figures. During that same campaign junket, he spent a lot of time bragging about things he's done in New Jersey that he hasn't actually done yet.
Mr. Christie has a perception of reality that seems somewhat out of sync with the reality that the rest of the people of New Jersey are living in. We could always assume that his disconnect stems from the disproportionate amount of time he spends shouting, bragging and bellowing compared to how much time he actually spends solving problems and we would likely be right on the money.
Speaking of money, how are we all sitting with the 440 million dollars in "Race To The Top" money he managed to throw out with the "I hate the Unions" bathwater? It is almost laughable to think that he actually stood by his argument that it was all Brett Schundler's fault when everyone in the state was fully aware that he threw out a compromise agreement with the NJEA that would have guaranteed the award, because he couldn't bear the idea of Jim Gearheart slamming him on the radio.
In addition to the 440 million lost in education funding, we might as well add in the 271 million that the federal government is now billing New Jersey for the ARC tunnel project that Mr. Christie has now killed. That brings the total cost of Mr. Savings' tab to a minimum of 711 Million dollars. Compound the lost revenues in taxes and growth that the tunnel would have brought to New Jersey and throw some rough estimates in about how much New Jersey will now be paying in services like food stamps, health insurance assistance, housing assistance to all the people that will now be laid off and hitting the unemployment lines. Or the 40 + million dollars spent by the DOT to buy real-estate around the proposed tunnel station. If not the total, New Jersey is likely near the rough estimate total of over 1 billion dollars squandered in his first year. What will the next three years look like?
So far, the only thing that Mr. Christie has managed to accomplish is to make New Jersey less desirable, educationally weaker, fiscally more unstable and poorer, and more ideologically divided than it has been in decades. And the accolades from the right for him are actually growing. Everyday another news personality reminds us that Mr. Christie is a contender for the Republican nomination for 2012. About the only positive footnote to this spin is that he says he doesn't want to do it... in 2012. 2016 maybe? Who knows, but it could be that he knows he wouldn't fair well against Barack Obama and would rather bide his time for a lesser opponent.
There is a lesson to be learned in all this and which was made even clearer in the national mid-term elections; not voting has consequences. Many of those that didn't turn out to vote will likely be the ones complaining that they aren't being served for the next 3 years, Just as many of those screaming about the horror story that Chris Christie has turned out to be in their lives are the same people that didn't vote in the November 2009.
Mr. Christie didn't win in a landslide; he won in an apathy-slide. Sadly, his lack of humility has him convinced he can walk on water, heal the lame and raise the dead and that if he just yells a little louder, no one will realize how wrong he is.
Why do I feel compelled to rehash what we are already fully aware of?
School officials say Christie's superintendent pay cap will cost N.J. talent
It isn't bad enough he is gutting the system of education in the classrooms and destroying what little hope New Jersey has for a recovery but now he is creating an environment that will dissuade the most talented educational leaders from seeking work in New Jersey as well. After enjoying years of being considered one of the top states for education in the nation, instead of a Race To the Top, it feels like Mr. Christie is engaged in a nosedive to the bottom.
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 10:22:20 AM EDT
|
|
This diary makes an interesting companion to this diary of Thurman's. - promoted by Rosi Efthim
As Democratic legislators search for leadership and solutions, below are key problems areas and possible solutions which have both micro and macro impact on our struggling economy. There ARE things the legislature can do.
According to Realty Trak, NJ new foreclosure filings were a high 7,993 in May and 30,555 YTD. Foreclosure sales were a low 214 in May and only 3,365 YTD. Tax incentives to help people purchase homes and increase the sale of new and foreclosed properties helps individuals, neighborhoods, and the state. The legislature has just passed such a measure, but the governor is considering vetoing it - penny wise but pound foolish. The legislature should pressure the governor. This is a great example of the legislature displaying leadership. Another proposal to reduce foreclosures is needed.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor NJ unemployment has hovered around 448,000 since the beginning of the year (9.8% seasonally adjusted.) Pre-recession in May 2007 unemployment was 186,000 (4.2%.) The legislature should insist on not reducing or delaying unemployment benefits. Given the high cost of unemployment to the state and the resulting pain inflicted on the individuals, the legislature should seek creative ways to keep both government and non-government workers in their jobs, even if its temporarily without a salary increase, includes furloughs or offers reduced benefenits - not a popular move but better than the alternative.
Our highest category of unemployment is in construction, which includes roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, which since the beginning of the year has averaged about 127,000 NJ workers (13% unemployment.) With our transportation fund expected by next year to have only sufficient monies to pay back existing debt, not only can we look forward to infrastructure deterioration but an increase in unemployment. Without waiting for the governor, our legislature should work quickly to propose a reasonable, fair way to raise needed monies for the transportation fund.
Housing and unemployment are the big drivers of our current malaise and have ripple effects throughout our state. It appears we may have another two years of economic doldrums. Our legislature can sit back and let the governor cut, cut, and cut which leads to stagnation (or worse), or the legislature can come up with proposals of its own. They have already done so in one case with their home tax incentive, let's hope they come up with other creative solutions. It's time to lead.
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 11:36:24 PM EDT
|
|
As I was watching Scott Sipprelle giving his victory speech, I could not help but notice how elitist he was when he, in illustrating the economic hardships of the state, stigmatized food service workers.
Now, food service is an unpleasant job, and I wouldn't do it, and the suggestion I would do it would be triggering for reasons I won't disclose here. However, these people show up everyday, work in loud, noisy conditions with sometimes ungrateful customers, and have to deal with low pay and not having healthcare (one of the reasons I am an uncompromising advocate of single payer) and being in an at-will workplace.
More after the jump!
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 287 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 01:24:05 PM EDT
|
With unemployment around 12% in Ocean County, Republican Freeholder Joe Vicari thinks that it's people who need to do more to get work:"What's hurting us, unemployment pays up to two years, $600 per week and what we're concerned with is that, you know, if you're making less than $400, that's one thing. But if you're making around $600 a week, there is no motivation now to go out in the job market," Vicari told his colleagues at an agenda session of the county Board of Freeholders. That's right, $600 per week means no one wants to go out and find a job. Especially if they were making much more before they became unemployed. There are certainly people who take advantage of the system, but the Freeholder is being ridiculous. He said he denied unemployment when he lost his job as a Superintendent (even though he still has his job as Freeholder), because it would have been immoral to take it, but check out how he's being compensated:But according to state records, Vicari retired on July 1. His final base salary was $162,080 for which he receives an annual pension of $97,837. In 2006, he also cashed out his pension as an elected official for which he receives $12,157. In addition to his pensions, he also receives an annual stipend of $30,000 as a freeholder. What's immoral is offering any commentary on someone else's employment situation when you're standing in Vicari's shoes. Many people would love to be in his situation when they lose their job. But unfortunately, they depend on that unemployment to help things from becoming even worse until they can find a job again. I wonder if Congressional Candidate Runyan is from the Bunning wing of the Republican party and feels the same way as Freeholder Vicari?
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 04:59:16 PM EDT
|
|
I see that once again a handful of Republican Senators are holding up extension of unemployment benefits. We all know that this bill will command more than 60 votes, just like last time, once a vote is allowed. Last time the Senate went into recess, Lautenberg and Menendez made statements of outrage, and after the recess Bunning dropped his hold.
I really hope that this time the Democrats don't allow the Senate to go into recess. Don't tell me it's outrageous when you reward your opponents with a vacation. Show how seriously you take this, and keep the Senate working as long as they hold up the bill!
Update (late Thursday night): The bill is still being held up. McJoan of Dailykos says "they've voted to adjourn for the night, 49-39, though not for recess. The adjournment resolution allows them stay in session through Wednesday if needed." There are reports that Reid and McConnell reached a deal to extend benefits for a week, but the House rejected it.
Second Update (Friday morning): Of course, no deal was reached and the Senate will adjourn anyway. Pathetic. The link has a good discussion of the procedures to overcome the hold.
The roll call vote to adjourn is here and I'm pleased Menendez voted no.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
