N.J. Gov. Christie Freezes Spending

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Mufasa,

The main problem with California is that Schwarzen-failure increased government by 40% during his term, yet the state is nowhere near 40% better. With new government, it simply won’t die. When either the governor or mayor proposes cutting gov’t programs, it turns into strike heaven, and bad PR seems to be the Achilles Heel for our politicians. Unions start crying, why the governor can’t simply say “fuck you, cry all you want” is beyond me. Let this be a lesson for others, this (Cali) is what happens when gov’t gets too big for its own good. [/quote]

So California really IS sort of a “microcosm” of the Federal Government and the way its run?

Mufasa

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Mufasa,

The main problem with California is that Schwarzen-failure increased government by 40% during his term, yet the state is nowhere near 40% better. With new government, it simply won’t die. When either the governor or mayor proposes cutting gov’t programs, it turns into strike heaven, and bad PR seems to be the Achilles Heel for our politicians. Unions start crying, why the governor can’t simply say “fuck you, cry all you want” is beyond me. Let this be a lesson for others, this (Cali) is what happens when gov’t gets too big for its own good. [/quote]

I’ve never fathomed why someone can’t just put up some charts and say, "Folks, we are just plain broke. We owe billions and have to increase the debt even more just to keep funding all these things. I’m happy that old people and kids get to eat and have a roof over their heads. But…we just CAN’T do it anymore. We are literally and completely bankrupt.

You wouldn’t expect your bankrupt neighbor to feed, educate and house you. Yet you expect state government to do all those things and WE ARE BANKRUPT."

Watch for the day when the above happens. Its a mathematical certainty.

[/quote]

Agree.

Some of Christie’s moves have been good- he’s going after the NJEA, which needs to be done, because they have become a mafia in themselves. He’s also going after the heads of various useless municipal authorities, some of whom make way more the he himself does as governor. He is also going to guy COAH, he says, which is a massive burden on municipalities by providing an unrealistic fair housing obligation.

The cut in state aid to school districts could be disastrous though, and if he’s going to make a plan around that, he’s going to find himself out on the street real quick. Cutting state aid and “making them accountable” sounds nice- but the school boards will raise property taxes accordingly, or shit is going to get cut big time. Either one infuriates voters. He should be going after the NJEA more, because 4 percent across the board raises even though the schools are NOT ALLOWED to carry a surplus of more than 2 percent is what’s really killing school district budgets.

This measure also punishes those districts that have budgeted effectively- why cut their aid? They know what they’re doing. Nothing will change as money from teh state continues to dump into the districts that know how to manage it THE LEAST.

And as far as NJT, massive fare hikes will again send this state to a riot. Corzine wanted to raise the tolls on the parkway and they almost lynched him- this guy is raising fares on everything else indirectly.

He’d really better be careful. He has some good ideas, but when people see money coming out of their pockets more and more when 1 in 10 in this state don’t have jobs, he’s going to get in trouble.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Mufasa,

The main problem with California is that Schwarzen-failure increased government by 40% during his term, yet the state is nowhere near 40% better. With new government, it simply won’t die. When either the governor or mayor proposes cutting gov’t programs, it turns into strike heaven, and bad PR seems to be the Achilles Heel for our politicians. Unions start crying, why the governor can’t simply say “fuck you, cry all you want” is beyond me. Let this be a lesson for others, this (Cali) is what happens when gov’t gets too big for its own good. [/quote]

I’ve never fathomed why someone can’t just put up some charts and say, "Folks, we are just plain broke. We owe billions and have to increase the debt even more just to keep funding all these things. I’m happy that old people and kids get to eat and have a roof over their heads. But…we just CAN’T do it anymore. We are literally and completely bankrupt.

You wouldn’t expect your bankrupt neighbor to feed, educate and house you. Yet you expect state government to do all those things and WE ARE BANKRUPT."

Watch for the day when the above happens. Its a mathematical certainty.

[/quote]

No one wants to take the hit, that’s why. No one wants to be the one to take the loss. So here in Cali, they raised taxes, but it wasnt enough. The mayor tried to layoff government workers, they striked and won a reprieve, but still don’t want to take the hit. They want to raise taxes yet again, but voters voted that down. Because of that, the state adjusted the tax brackets, putting those who made over 42k/yr into the highest tax bracket. They also lowered the tax credit given to families with children. They released prisoners, and a woman was raped within 12 hrs of his release, having been arrested for felony assault, yet still categorized as a low level offender. They have tried all these scams, but it’s still not enough. They are in denial.

This is why people are hoping Meg Whitman (former CEO of Ebay) who is the Republican candidate for governor. Having helped turn Ebay into a huge success, people think (or should I say hope) that she will be able to turn things around. She is anti-union, against Global Warming and willing to suspend the statewide bill already passed, reduce gov’t spending, and do the things other politicians won’t do.

Irish,

When they go for increasing property taxes, you need to vote that shit down, the same way we did in Cali. Cali and NJ are in very much the same boat, and we implemented this move and it worked. They will bluff about teachers getting fired, too many kids in classrooms, and all the other “the sky is falling” tactics but you must stay strong. The unions have to be put in check with their insane pensions, and we accomplished this in Cali. Learn from us, people here are screaming, but there is no longer a choice. Every scam has been used here, and none has worked. It is time to stop feeding the spending beast. We are trying to get a part-time legislature on our ballot, putting our gov’t in session for only 2 months, giving them less time to fuck things up.

re: Schools and Unions

Hopefully, this Superintendent will prevail and set a trend:

RI school district to fire high school teachers

CENTRAL FALLS, R.I. â?? The superintendent of the Central Falls schools says she will fire every teacher at the high school after they refused to accept a reform plan.

The plan was offered under a state mandate to fix the school, which has among Rhode Islandâ??s worst test scores and graduation rates.

The plan included six conditions such as adding 25 minutes to the day and providing tutoring outside school hours.

The added work didnâ??t come with much extra pay and the teachers union refused to accept it.

Full Story:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20100213ri_school_district_to_fire_high_school_teachers/srvc=home&position=recent

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Irish,

When they go for increasing property taxes, you need to vote that shit down, the same way we did in Cali. Cali and NJ are in very much the same boat, and we implemented this move and it worked. They will bluff about teachers getting fired, too many kids in classrooms, and all the other “the sky is falling” tactics but you must stay strong. The unions have to be put in check with their insane pensions, and we accomplished this in Cali. Learn from us, people here are screaming, but there is no longer a choice. Every scam has been used here, and none has worked. It is time to stop feeding the spending beast. We are trying to get a part-time legislature on our ballot, putting our gov’t in session for only 2 months, giving them less time to fuck things up.

[/quote]

As of right now, if the tax levy is voted down in NJ, it goes to the local town council. They then chop off however much they want, then pass it. So really, it gets passed, plus or minus a half million or so, every year regardless. They’re fuckers.

I just read SteelyD’s post about RI teachers, and I got like a nine mile long hardon over it. I want them to just that here- if any fucking teacher’s union strikes, fire every cocksucker there and hire all new ones. There’s plenty of people who want to be teachers.

I’ve had it with them bleeding everyone dry.

Balancing budgets on the backs of teachers seems quite unfair. Cut EVERYONE, not someone who starts out at $35,000 and is making a whopping $70,000 per year 30 years later.

How about cutting engineers, CPAs, lawyers, judges, cops, firefighters, and all those myriad of clerks in the DMV?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Balancing budgets on the backs of teachers seems quite unfair. Cut EVERYONE, not someone who starts out at $35,000 and is making a whopping $70,000 per year 30 years later.

How about cutting engineers, CPAs, lawyers, judges, cops, firefighters, and all those myriad of clerks in the DMV?

[/quote]

This is a good point. Much of ‘educational costs’ are administrative. Just about every public school is way top heavy with administration. Too many chiefs, not enough scouts. The Union and their demands are a whole 'nother bucket of lard.

Right now in our budget crisis up here, in order for the state to ‘save’ money the governor mandated ‘furlough’ days (ie. unpaid days of leave) where they shut down all state offices. He also wanted to ‘turn the heat down’. You know, to save a few thousand dollars a year to take a big chunk out of the 500 million dollar deficit. Fidiots.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Some of Christie’s moves have been good- he’s going after the NJEA, which needs to be done, because they have become a mafia in themselves. He’s also going after the heads of various useless municipal authorities, some of whom make way more the he himself does as governor. He is also going to guy COAH, he says, which is a massive burden on municipalities by providing an unrealistic fair housing obligation.

The cut in state aid to school districts could be disastrous though, and if he’s going to make a plan around that, he’s going to find himself out on the street real quick. Cutting state aid and “making them accountable” sounds nice- but the school boards will raise property taxes accordingly, or shit is going to get cut big time. Either one infuriates voters. He should be going after the NJEA more, because 4 percent across the board raises even though the schools are NOT ALLOWED to carry a surplus of more than 2 percent is what’s really killing school district budgets.

This measure also punishes those districts that have budgeted effectively- why cut their aid? They know what they’re doing. Nothing will change as money from teh state continues to dump into the districts that know how to manage it THE LEAST.

And as far as NJT, massive fare hikes will again send this state to a riot. Corzine wanted to raise the tolls on the parkway and they almost lynched him- this guy is raising fares on everything else indirectly.

He’d really better be careful. He has some good ideas, but when people see money coming out of their pockets more and more when 1 in 10 in this state don’t have jobs, he’s going to get in trouble.[/quote]

Uhhh… So he is CUTTING spending and people are going to be somehow paying MORE? this makes no sense? The money only comes from the residents of NJ, Period. Him cutting spending does not make the net burden on NJ taxpayers go up, it makes it go down. No matter what math you use, the only people who are going to get less than they put in, are the people who are getting way above thier fair share to begin with.

Bob lives in an area where they do not get a lot of state money, it’s a rural area, his kids go to a small school. Bob pays 5000 in state taxes per year. Bob recieves an average of 1000 of benefit from his state government. Under the new plan, bob is only going to have to pay 4500 per year in taxes. None of his benefits were cut because they were little to nothing to begin with.

Jim lives in Urban Central in NJ, Jim pays 7,000 in taxes to the state government per year, but Jim gets back 12,000 in average benefits from the government. Under the new plan Jim only has to pay 6300, but his benefits get cut back to 9,000 per year. Jim is still getting more benefit than he deserves, but because he views this as a loss, he is angry. Now if Jims school, where his son is the star QB for the football team, wants to put that new field in, they cannot get any state money to do so. How is his son supposed to have the best time of his life on a modern field with full lighting and attract all those college recruiters. Jims community certainly cannot foot the bill. Were talking millions of dollars here, that needs to be spread out over a larger pool of people.

Also I know this is how it works, My local school just put in a 5.6 million dollar athletic complex. We graduate 100 kids per year. Do you think our community has the money to afford a 5.6 million dollar project like that? Who do you think paid for it then? If my community didn’t pay for it (we did chip in the first 500k) then who paid for it? Did the state just make up new money? Did they “borrow” it? Whos pocket did it come out of?

V

Good post Vegita. That is why Urban people will continue to vote Democrat and the Rural people will vote Republican. Republicans want smaller government because they pay a lot in taxes and see nothing for it, and Democrats want bigger government because they pay little in taxes and expect the government to support them.

I am all for helping people who need help, but that help only needs to last for so long, and not forever.

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Uhhh… So he is CUTTING spending and people are going to be somehow paying MORE? this makes no sense? The money only comes from the residents of NJ, Period. Him cutting spending does not make the net burden on NJ taxpayers go up, it makes it go down. No matter what math you use, the only people who are going to get less than they put in, are the people who are getting way above thier fair share to begin with.
[/quote]

Absolutely not true. What’s so hard to understand about this? You cut state funding to NJT, they’re going to raise their rates in order to pay for their contractual obligations. You cut state aid to schools, and school boards are going to say, “We need to cover our contractual obligations, which make up 75 percent of our budget. If we cut anything, it will be school programs.” Then taxes go up to compensate for the loss in state aid, because people don’t want their kids coming home and crying because the chess club is canceled, or the school can’t afford to buy new football helmets.

This is how it goes. The money comes out from our pockets one way or another- it’s how government works.

What’s $1,000 of benefit? What are you talking about? I just explained that taxes will go up more because of a loss in state aid. It happened last year in most municipalities.

Again, what state benefit are you talking about? Where are you getting this from?

[quote]
Also I know this is how it works, My local school just put in a 5.6 million dollar athletic complex. We graduate 100 kids per year. Do you think our community has the money to afford a 5.6 million dollar project like that? Who do you think paid for it then? If my community didn’t pay for it (we did chip in the first 500k) then who paid for it? Did the state just make up new money? Did they “borrow” it? Whos pocket did it come out of?

V[/quote]

I don’t know how you do it in NY, but in NJ, there is a cap on how much surplus you can pull up. If you can’t pay for it with your capital reserve, you put a referendum question out to the voters and they vote on whether they want the field with such and such a tax raise.

And we rarely get grants around here, as well- if the state gives money, the town pays it back in debt service over a long, long period of time, and pays way more. Sometimes the state will help pay back some of the debt service on Federal money, but that hasn’t happened often in the last few years anyway, and it’s not generally enough to make a huge dent in the tax number.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Uhhh… So he is CUTTING spending and people are going to be somehow paying MORE? this makes no sense? The money only comes from the residents of NJ, Period. Him cutting spending does not make the net burden on NJ taxpayers go up, it makes it go down. No matter what math you use, the only people who are going to get less than they put in, are the people who are getting way above thier fair share to begin with.
[/quote]

Absolutely not true. What’s so hard to understand about this? You cut state funding to NJT, they’re going to raise their rates in order to pay for their contractual obligations. You cut state aid to schools, and school boards are going to say, “We need to cover our contractual obligations, which make up 75 percent of our budget. If we cut anything, it will be school programs.” Then taxes go up to compensate for the loss in state aid, because people don’t want their kids coming home and crying because the chess club is canceled, or the school can’t afford to buy new football helmets.

This is how it goes. The money comes out from our pockets one way or another- it’s how government works.

What’s $1,000 of benefit? What are you talking about? I just explained that taxes will go up more because of a loss in state aid. It happened last year in most municipalities.

Again, what state benefit are you talking about? Where are you getting this from?

I pulled those number out of thin air, but they represent the difference in rural and urban tax benefit.

For instance, a rural person might see some benefit of state tax because he drives once or twice per month on a state road. So his use of the road is measured against what his taxes were because his taxes pay for the road. Someone who uses the road twice per day gets more benefit than a guy who uses the road once or twice per month.

Public transit, sewer, water, Streetlights, Maybe they are owned by the municipality, maybe they are owned by the state. I’m not sure how it works in every instance down there, but in general, an urban citizen will get more use of the tax money they spend than someone in a rural setting.

As an example, Oneida county (my county) needs to replace ALL thier sewer lines, they are 100 years old and leaking everywhere. This is bad and is urgent. Well aside from increasing our rates and whatnot to pay for the upgrades, we are also going to be getting state and federal money. What should happen is that we pay for 100% of it through increased rates. Now I suppose since it is an environmental emergency, I would be OK with taking a loan to pay for it and then have the people who use the service pay it back over time. What would have been even betterm would have been for the assholes that run the system, to have known, Hey this system is not going to last forever, lets increase rates a little (50 years ago) and set it aside so we can have the money to put it into the upgrades when we need them. Also they could have been earning interest on thier money instead of paying interest on a loan.

What you are saying is that the people who need the service, thier cost is going to go up. Everyone else in the state who doesn’t use that service, they are going to see a reduction in thier taxes. This is a good thing. Unless of course you want to accompany me to the grocery store. I have to get some food but would gladly let you pay for it instead of paying for it myself. Also can you fill up my gas tank? How about throwing some money into my retirememnt fund while your at it?

V

It’s not about cutting only teachers, but MANY government jobs. We have the California Dept of Aging…why? This is the type of shit I am talking about, who the fuck needs some shit like that?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
It’s not about cutting only teachers, but MANY government jobs. We have the California Dept of Aging…why? This is the type of shit I am talking about, who the fuck needs some shit like that?[/quote]

Especially when you add in the buerocratic cost of anything government does. If they take in 100,000 of taxes for the Dept of the aging, only 40,000 of those taxes are going to be used for the end purpose. The other 60,000 go to payroll, pensions, benefits, rent, electric, etc…

V

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I pulled those number out of thin air, but they represent the difference in rural and urban tax benefit.

For instance, a rural person might see some benefit of state tax because he drives once or twice per month on a state road. So his use of the road is measured against what his taxes were because his taxes pay for the road. Someone who uses the road twice per day gets more benefit than a guy who uses the road once or twice per month.
[/quote]

Ahh… that’s a shitty example. Many roads out in the boonies have a tendency to be state roads- so your rural person is certainly using them more than somebody who lives in Newark.

So your perceived “benefit” doesn’t really make any sense. And you can’t just guage “benefit” like you’re trying to do- it doesn’t make sense either.

? Streetlights, sewer, water… these are all either the municipality or privately owned. The only thing the state has is NJT, and I think they co-own that with NY, but I’m not sure.

You’re a fool. Do you understand how much your rates would go up if you replaced those pipes with just municipal money? Do you know the massive, massive tax increase you would have? People would be driving out of your podunk town in their Model T’s by the fucking busload.

I agree that your council should have prepared for it- many towns around here are in teh same boat with 100 year old pipes. But without state grants, that would not be possible. Not at all. So what do you do? Raise taxes by 1,000 a year and get lynched? Or let the infrastructure fall apart around you, and wash your child’s face with rust filled water? I’d rather take that state grant.

I’m not quite sure you understand municipal government… you are the same one that told me freezing spending would cost people less.

[quote]
What you are saying is that the people who need the service, thier cost is going to go up. Everyone else in the state who doesn’t use that service, they are going to see a reduction in thier taxes. This is a good thing. Unless of course you want to accompany me to the grocery store. I have to get some food but would gladly let you pay for it instead of paying for it myself. Also can you fill up my gas tank? How about throwing some money into my retirememnt fund while your at it?

V[/quote]

Hey douche, EVERYONE needs the services. Everyone needs new pipes, everyone needs the roads, everyone needs highways.

You can give your little bullshit socliast jab a rest, because again, it doesn’t fit here because YOU don’t understand what you’re talking about.

There will NOT be a reduction in taxes. Maybe, MAYBE, they will stay steady for a year before resuming their increase. What you WILL see is municipal taxes rise to cover the lost state aid, or you will see massive amounts of services get cut- and crucial ones, like bus lines, cops, firemen, road repaving, etc.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I pulled those number out of thin air, but they represent the difference in rural and urban tax benefit.

For instance, a rural person might see some benefit of state tax because he drives once or twice per month on a state road. So his use of the road is measured against what his taxes were because his taxes pay for the road. Someone who uses the road twice per day gets more benefit than a guy who uses the road once or twice per month.
[/quote]

Ahh… that’s a shitty example. Many roads out in the boonies have a tendency to be state roads- so your rural person is certainly using them more than somebody who lives in Newark.

So your perceived “benefit” doesn’t really make any sense. And you can’t just guage “benefit” like you’re trying to do- it doesn’t make sense either.

? Streetlights, sewer, water… these are all either the municipality or privately owned. The only thing the state has is NJT, and I think they co-own that with NY, but I’m not sure.

You’re a fool. Do you understand how much your rates would go up if you replaced those pipes with just municipal money? Do you know the massive, massive tax increase you would have? People would be driving out of your podunk town in their Model T’s by the fucking busload.

I agree that your council should have prepared for it- many towns around here are in teh same boat with 100 year old pipes. But without state grants, that would not be possible. Not at all. So what do you do? Raise taxes by 1,000 a year and get lynched? Or let the infrastructure fall apart around you, and wash your child’s face with rust filled water? I’d rather take that state grant.

I’m not quite sure you understand municipal government… you are the same one that told me freezing spending would cost people less.

[quote]
What you are saying is that the people who need the service, thier cost is going to go up. Everyone else in the state who doesn’t use that service, they are going to see a reduction in thier taxes. This is a good thing. Unless of course you want to accompany me to the grocery store. I have to get some food but would gladly let you pay for it instead of paying for it myself. Also can you fill up my gas tank? How about throwing some money into my retirememnt fund while your at it?

V[/quote]

Hey douche, EVERYONE needs the services. Everyone needs new pipes, everyone needs the roads, everyone needs highways.

You can give your little bullshit socliast jab a rest, because again, it doesn’t fit here because YOU don’t understand what you’re talking about.

There will NOT be a reduction in taxes. Maybe, MAYBE, they will stay steady for a year before resuming their increase. What you WILL see is municipal taxes rise to cover the lost state aid, or you will see massive amounts of services get cut- and crucial ones, like bus lines, cops, firemen, road repaving, etc.[/quote]

Why you calling me a douche? Fag, way to bolster your (idiotic) argument with name calling. If the governemnt spends less tax money, then people pay less taxes, stop being a fucking retard and pull out a calculator. If the STATE lowers aid to LOCAL governemnts, and the LOCAL people still want the service that the STATE was funding, the LOCAL government now has the ability to offer the service at an increased LOCAL tax rate, or let the service die. IF the SERVICE is extremely important, the LOCAL people who need it will shell out the extra to keep it. Government should be run as much locally as possible, you can go see your municipal supervisor at the diner for breakfast, he doesn’t have a security detail. He is not above the law.

God you are thick.

V

The situation here in Florida is not as bad, but the governor would LIKE to do the exact same wasteful things.

Specifically, there’s a boondoggle plan to build a high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando.

Now the fact is, NEITHER city is one where upon arrival in some city center, anything more than a tiny fraction of people can readily get to where they want to go. Unless the idea is that people will run up $75 or $100 cab fares, they need to have their car at the other end.

When of course, it is parked at THIS end.

People in general consider it ridiculous: there just obviously would be little ridership, while the cost would be billions to build, and a great deal of operating cost in years to come.

Oh, but Obama will pay for some of the construction with stimulus money! We can’t miss this opportunity!

This will be unpopular but was necessary.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There’s a simple answer. My state and others have it. A state constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget.

I can’t imagine a federal constitutional amendment, with a wartime exception possibly built in, being a bad idea either.[/quote]

Don’t a lot of states with those amendments still have unbalanced budgets?..