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.
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.
"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?
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.
Thanks for coming here to post your opinion, Senator. Let's see if we can't continue this dialogue that Thurman, firstamend & rachael'sdad have started, Blue Jersey. - - Promoted by Rosi
When Governor Chris Christie recently proposed cutting unemployment benefits by up to $50 per week and delaying an increase in the amount businesses contribute to the system, it would be easy to think yet another issue would break down simply along the lines of Democrat versus Republican.
Frankly, as a Democrat, my first instinct was to oppose the Governor's plan. The jobless and their families need every penny to stay above water - and as one of only three states where employees pay into the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund, workers who lose their jobs deserve every cent they put into the system while they were working. And preventing money from flowing into the UI fund is every bit as dangerous to its long-term health as the past raids that left it on life support.
Yet simply opposing the Governor's proposal would be counter-productive. The UI Fund would still be woefully unprepared to cover the needs of the unemployed, and New Jersey's economic recovery would be threatened by a business tax increase. What is clearly needed is a compromise to protect both the jobless from a benefits cut and businesses from a potentially destructive tax increase.
The proposed cut in benefits is simply unworkable - and not just for the reason that the jobless need this money to survive. Follow me below the fold for why.
The new $15 billion jobs bill needs to be just a one step of many aiming to improve employment. Democrats recognize that it is true, but it is a positive step. Seventy Senators supported the new jobs bill, because it mainly consists of tax cuts, but that does make it a broadly bipartisan bill.
House Republicans, though, went strongly against it, including every single Republican from New Jersey. Extremist Scott Garrett voted no. Self-styles moderates like Frank LoBiondo voted no. The whole bill is "fully paid for" so it does not increase the deficit (by cracking down on overseas tax havens and by stopping a tax break that would help multinational corporations send jobs overseas go into effect.) This is what they voted against:
A payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers, to create some 300,000 jobs and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain these employees
Tax cuts to spur new investment by small businesses to help them expand and hire more workers
Extension of the Highway Trust Fund allowing for tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment
Provisions -- modeled after the Build America Bonds program - to make it easier for states to borrow for infrastructure projects, such as school construction and energy projects
Frankly, I think it is disgrace that our Republicans have not supported one idea for fighting the recession. You can't even get them to vote for a tax cut to businesses. It's truly the "Party of No" and damn the consequences.
The United States economy is the worst that many have seen in their lifetime. In recessions like this one, with a (roughly) 10% (official) unemployment rate, finding work is much easier said than done. As people are losing their jobs (and income), they are falling behind on their bills. As a result of the unemployed falling behind on their bills, their credit scores are taking a nosedive.
Increasingly, employers are checking an applicant’s credit score before offering him/her a job. If two potential employees with equal qualifications apply for one job, the employer will offer the job to the applicant with a better credit score. The rationale that employers have for checking an employee’s credit score is that if an employee has bad credit, they are more likely to steal from the job. In a few industries, such as the financial industry, where employees have access to the personal information (social security number, date of birth, etc) of customers/clients this makes sense. However, in most other industries it does not. Is it really necessary for an employer looking to hire a truck driver or childcare worker to know the applicant’s credit score, which has nothing to do with the job. More than half of all employers check the credit of a potential employee. Currently federal law requires employers to have the applicant sign a waiver allowing the employer to check the credit score. An employee has the right to refuse to sign the waiver, but many believe that refusing to sign the waiver means no chance of getting the job.
In light of the recession, sixteen states have pending legislation that would ban the use of credit scores as a pre-employment screening. Now is the perfect time to pass such legislation because people long out of work (who just lost their federal unemployment benefits as a result of Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) holding up legislation extending them) can barely afford to eat and keep a roof over their head, let alone making sure that their credit card is paid on time. People want to go back to work in order to have the income to take care of their past debts. However, many are denied a new job opportunity because of bad credit. I am not sure if New Jersey is one of the sixteen states with the pending legislation, but I think that the legislature should introduce such legislation. Personally I think this should be a federal law, but it is something that can be achieved on the state level. I hope that our assembly members and senators in Trenton listen to the voices of the debt-ridden unemployed New Jerseyans and allow them to go back to work without their credit score haunting them.
I thought I would share something with you I posted at Jon Runyan Watch.
I have the feeling the Republicans may regret forcing Jon Runyan's opponents out of the primary. The GOP has posted the video of his first appearance and here are the highlights:
He "thinks" he is qualified because "he cares."
He tells us how bad the economy was in the late 1980s. Hmmm... first Ronald Reagan and then George H. W. Bush were President then.
He does have a good, moving story about growing up in Flint, Michigan, and how the family had just $100 for Christmas. His father couldn't find a job for three years when the factories closed.
He's not naming any issues, and admits he doesn't know about any issues, except perhaps wanting "change," opposing "big government," and wanting to let "the people" fix the recession with tax cuts.
But what will happen when he has to answer questions? President Barack Obama and Representative John Adler's stimulus package cut taxes for the working middle class. It extended unemployment benefits for those who, like his father, couldn't get a new job. How can Runyan be against this after his story? When he's asked about Chris Christie's plan to take $50 a week from the unemployed, will he answer with a story about how much $100 meant to his unemployed father? How is he going to run on Reagan's greatness when his hometown's economy and his family's prosperity was destroyed under Reagan? I just don't see where this campaign is going.
Senate President Steve Sweeney just came out swinging against Governor Christie's plan to cut unemployment benefits:
"The dead of winter is no time to leave New Jersey's unemployed out in the cold," said Sweeney (D-Gloucester/Cumberland/Salem). "This is not a plan to trim costs, it is a hit on families who right now depend on their unemployment checks to make ends meet. This is money that pays the monthly heating bill, puts food on the table or gets the gas in the car to go job-hunting. This idea is a total nonstarter that will not even find its way through the Senate doors."
Good for him. He also cautioned against the proposal to kill increased business taxes mandated by law due to the poor state of the unemployment fund:
"While I understand the concerns of business, we cannot paper over the fact that this increase is inescapable," said Sweeney. "Whether the pain is felt immediately or takes two years - the fund still must be able to meet the needs of the unemployed. Keeping money from going into the trust fund is every bit as wrong as raiding it."
Chrisite has pushed the envelope too far! This is not his money to play with. Employers and employees pay into this fund.
He has done some needed things to rein in spending but to reduce benefits simply because a fund that was solvent got raided over the years is disgraceful.
Good people are hurting and good people need that help.
Don't tell me that you are going to give the rich a taxbreak and then pay forthat tax break with unemployment benefit reductions to those is desperate times.
Okay, we know Unemployment is overstressed right now, but this seems punitive to the recipient who, from this story, appears not to be at fault. Anybody else have this kind of thing happen to them? -- Promoted by Rosi
I am one in a million. I am unemployed and currently receiving Unemployment Insurance (UI). As many are aware, the state of New Jersey is inundated with new and continuing UI claims. Their offices are understaffed and overworked. Appointments are pushed back for months, and there are delays in getting awards. It took weeks for me to get an appointment with an investigator for a final determination. But that wasn't the end of the story.
Someone recently told me that Scott Garrett spends more on mailers to his district than any other Congressman or Congresswoman. And while I'd love to find out if that is actually true, I tend to ignore (probably foolishly) his 3 or 4 page glossy "newsletter" that I receive a few times each year. My reasoning is that I know his schtick - he routinely votes against bills that 400 other members of the House vote for because of some "technicality" and then tells his constituents that he is really in favor of the bill but couldn't have it 100% his way so he has to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
So when I got his latest mailer, I tossed it in with the rest of my recyclables (of course), but then had the fortune to come across this post by a former Goldwater conservative who hits fat cat CEO's favorite Congressman right between the eyes with a brilliant takedown of the fluff, misdirection and outright twisting of the facts contained in Garrett's latest mailer.
I won't repeat all of Michael Fremer's arguments, especially since we have made them here and at Retire Garrett issue by issue, and there really is nothing new. He rails against the stimulus (which presumably would include the vote he cast against the largest middle class tax cut in history and scary teabagger talk about healthcare. That being said, it is refreshing to see someone say it so plainly when it comes to Garrett's hypocrisy regarding unemployment:
"You offer no job creation plans in your email other than more tax cuts.
"A job creation engine" was the supposed purpose of the Bush tax cuts for the rich back in 2001 that produced the weakest job growth out of a mild recession in recent history. All it produced was a deficit from what had been a projected surplus.
Had we allowed G.M. and other businesses to fail, the unemployment rate would now be catastrophic, yet that would have been your "solution."
So I find your carping about unemployment churlish and dishonest.
Lest we forget that Garrett's proposed solutions include his very own stimulus bill that he introducedconsisting entirely of corporate tax breaks. When Wall Street needs more tax breaks, they call on their "Hero" to champion a bill for them. And when AIG executives want to keep the bonuses they paid out from Government money, they call on "Wall Street Hero" Scott Garrett. But when families in his district are struggling, they get smacked in the face by his votes and his disingenuous rhetoric.
"In November, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 19 states and decreased in 31 states and the District of Columbia. The largest over-the-month increase in employment occurred in Texas (+17,300), followed by Ohio (+5,400), Georgia (+4,800), and Arizona and Iowa (+4,300 each). Alaska experienced the largest over-the-month percentage increase in employment (+0.5 percent), followed by Iowa (+0.3 percent). The largest over-the-month decrease in employment occurred in Florida (-16,700), followed by Michigan (-14,000), California and Pennsylvania (-10,200 each), and New Jersey (-9,400). ...
"In November, four states experienced statistically significant over-the-month changes in employment. Statistically significant job losses occurred in Michigan (-14,000), Nevada (-8,800), Mississippi (-6,100), and Hawaii (-6,000)."
In a separate post, he points to the silver lining that October numbers were revised upward by 3000 jobs after initially showing a 1,800 drop. Unfortunately on the glass half empty side, he reminds us that the November numbers leave us with the lowest number of private sector jobs since 1998.
I participated in an on-the-record "Blogger Call" with Austan Goolsbee of the President's Council of Economic Advisers to learn more about Barack Obama's new jobs proposals. You should check the transcript of Obama's speech, the summary at the White House blog, and Chris Bowers' look at all the various job programs. The overall message is that "good management" of the TARP financial rescue money allows additional resources to be put into improving the jobs situation. The President proposed out investments in 1) Small business expansion, 2) Infrastructure, and 3) clean energy retrofits. Goolsbee warned that the programs described in the speech are not the "full enchilada" of what the Administration is doing.
Many questions asked about the details of funding: That is, there is talk of using the extra $200 billion saved in TARP, but the TARP program cannot be used on just anything. Legislation is therefore necessary and Obama is working with Congress. (Again, see Bowers.) Asked about a financial transaction tax, Goolsbee did not reject it, but argued that any such tax would have to come from international action. (Presumably because the financial trading could easily flee to a low-tax country.)
Anyway, I asked about the high unemployment numbers for the high-school (or less) educated which are far worse than the 10% overall unemployment, and even worse for minorities and for the young. I suggested that (other than unemployment benefits being extended) there wasn't much for them directly in this program.
Goolsbee did not agree with my assessment. He first pointed to the proposed construction jobs, in infrastructure and in energy retrofitting, which particularly benefit the young and less well educated. (He had earlier noted that unemployment in construction is around 35%!) He then pointed to the small business provisions, arguing that younger people are more likely to start their own businesses or work for small businesses. He noted a statistic he was told (which, however, he admitted he has not verified) that half of Fortune 500 companies originally started during recessions. Small business creation and growth is very important to how the nation recovers from recessions -- this is the upside of recessions -- but the "credit contraction" is preventing that normal process from working. Hence, the Administration's small business proposals. I think it is fair to say that Goolsbee's answer focuses on unemployment and the young rather than minorities.
In this Assembly Democrats video, Assemblymen John J. Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) and Joseph V. Egan (D-Middlesex) discuss a New Jersey Constitutional Amendment to protect the unemployment fund from being raided.
"Locked into a box" brings back bad memories of the 2000 election though.
After the Senate voted 98-0 to extend unemployment benefits, the House voted yesterday by a margin of 403-12 to extend unemployment benefits to those workers who (1) lost their jobs, (2) still can't find another job and (3) have been out of work for so long that their unemployment benefits have run out.
As usual, Scott Garrett was one of the 12 heartless Reps who would rather see tax cuts to corporations than help keep food on the plates of those who he claims to represent. This is far from the first time Garrett has done this - this year alone, he voted against the largest middle class tax cut in history as well as expanding unemployment benefits to a larger pool of people who are in need.
Yet, time and time again, he talks nonsense about "letting people keep more of their hard earned money" as he votes against pretty much every single bill that is supposed to help families in his district actually earn money or just get by. What Garrett fails to realize, or even worse - he does realize but just doesn't care - is that when people have no job and no unemployment benefits, there is no money for them to keep more of.
It is votes like this that make me outraged and ashamed that someone this heartless or clueless is "representing" me.
After Senators Kyl and Hatch held up an extension of unemployment benefits, today the Senate finally voted on the bill. It passed 98-0. I think everyone knows that it's extremely difficult to find a job right now so this is some of the most moral and most effective government aid there is. In any case, here is Senator Frank Lautenberg's release:
Following weeks of Republican obstruction, U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today voted to approve legislation that would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 14 weeks in every state and an additional 20 weeks in New Jersey and other states where unemployment exceeds 8.5 percent. The legislation will also extend and expand the first-time homebuyers tax credit.
"It is shameful that weeks of senseless Republican obstruction has stood in the way of families receiving unemployment benefits," stated Lautenberg. "Extending unemployment benefits will boost the economy, benefit thousands of out-of-work New Jersey residents and millions of families across the country. This legislation also takes important steps to further promote home ownership and boost the housing economy. I applaud passage of this legislation and urge my colleagues in the House to approve it as quickly as possible."
This year's drop in public sector employment will be the first since 1996, ending 12 years of increases.
Hmm, 12 years. That would go back to when the Republicans were in control of New Jersey, even though they only like to count the last 8 years when the Democrats were running things as the history of our state when pointing to our problems. The thing is, that when they were in control, they didn't do any of the things they complain about now. Maybe they feel bad because they didn't do anything when they were in power, or maybe they just want the power back and don't really care which issue it takes to get it.
On Tuesday, Governor Jon Corzine unveiled the nation's first statewide job creation program for workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Under the provisions of RETURN-to-Work, New Jersey businesses will receive $2,400 for each worker they hire and train from the ranks of the jobless.
An editorial in today's Bergen Record praised the decision:
An estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people will benefit.
This is a creative and worthwhile course of action. It lets people in desperate circumstances know that state government is aware of their predicament, and is trying to help. It offers hope during an especially bleak period. And it allows companies a cushion with which to take a risk.
Republican Chris Christie predictably called the program a "campaign photo-op." The Record called the former U.S. Attorney on his own lack of a plan to recover any jobs in the midst of this daunting recession:
He may be right that Corzine's effort will not provide jobs to everyone in the same boat, but that is almost beside the point ... If Christie has a better idea, if he has a way to scoop up even half the workers in New Jersey who have exhausted unemployment benefits and plunk them into new jobs, we are eager to hear it.
Chris Christie is great when it comes to criticizing and making broad promises. However, like every other issue of substance in this campaign he has yet to offer one iota of specifics. From conservative Lonegan supporters to the readers of Blue Jersey, many have known this all along. Let's hope that the folks at The Record, not to mention the rest of New Jersey, are beginning to catch on.
The thing about the Governor's race is that one side is actually talking about issues and accomplishments (other than prosecuting Democrats um, "corruption wherever it is" unless they can make me and my friends profit or unless they are my friends or family), and the other side is only talking about not talking about issues.
And the more that Chris Christie talks about not talking enough about issues, Governor Corzine has been talking about issues and accomplishments. It would be nice if anyone actually listened.
But that isn't all. Corzine not only reversed the policy of raiding the unemployment reserve fund (something going on since the Whitman administration), but actually beefed up the fund - which would save ALL employers hundreds of millions of dollars collectively.
What has Christie offered up over this time to help employers, workers and the unemployed?
Nothing.
Actually, that isn't true.
While Corzine was creating his own stimulus plan, helping reduce the pain to NJ's economy, and working with President Obama on the federal stimulus bill to expand unemployment benefits in families' time of need, pushing green jobs and calling for extension of unemployment benefits, Christie was doing the following:
Costing NJ employers hundreds of millions in increased state unemployment tax costs with no plan to beef up the unemployment reserve fund while talking about policies that would increase unemployment around the state; and
Once again, the contrast is clear. Corzine is trying to help working and struggling families. Christie talks about how nobody is talking about helping working and struggling families while he quietly lets leak how he would crush them, all while hurting businesses and the state deficit in the process.
.gif)
