IF WE CONTINUE THIS PATH, NEW JERSEY WILL BE SMELLING LIKE A ROSE.

Wake up to the fact that we cannot afford business as usual. Taxpayers cannot afford grandious pensiopn plans. Taxpayers cannot afford health care for free. Taxpayers cannot afford government employee raises. The private section pays for itself if it can. The public sector must do likewise. And they cannot. There are too many perks that the public employees get that must stop. Payment for unused vacation days, sick days & personal days are ridiculous. Use them or lose them like everyone else. The Governor is being generous, there should ber further reforms.

The economic crisis We are all in was created by the deregulations of the markets that allowed the mortage crisis to exist. Who deregulated the markets? Who caused the problem? Christie is right, we need reform in many areas. However, placing the burden on public employees is just not right. Tony

James Savage: The private sector pays foritself? What do you call the bank bailouts? What do you call massive tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs? While you are letting Gov. Christie and others distract you by casting your attention towards union workers/minorities/immigrants/pick your demon of the day, more and more of this nation's wealth is being given to those who already have more than they can spend in 100 lifetimes. And when we are a complete oligarchy, with a few preposterously wealthy robber barons, and the rest of us scrambling for scraps, you'll wonder how this could have happened. Well, you're watching it -- and participating in it.

I am not a public employee. Read 'The Records' Editorials and Opinions articles today and you will understand. Three out of four are for Fiscal Reform.

I have family members who are New Jersey state employees, so I definitely stand to lose financially from the changes. But state worker pensions and other benefits have been so obviously above and beyond what is available in the private sector (not to mention the almost ironclad job security that comes with much government employment) that I can't disagree with what the governor is trying to do. B@B's railing against robber barons sounds like some 1950's socialist rant. The facts are easy to find by anyone. Just Google "who pays the most income tax" and you see that the top 1% of earners pay 33% of all income tax, while the bottom 50% of earners pay less than 5%. It's called a progressive tax system and it means the wealthy pay more as a percentage of their income than the less wealthy. So in fact, the government takes from the "wealthy (mostof whom work for their money like we all do) and redistributes to those with less. On the federal level, President Obama is pushing for even greater redistribution of wealth with his focus on people earning more than $200,000.

The fact is that unions in the private sector had their comeuppance a while ago, and union membership has been shrinking. The public sector unions have been sheltered from economic realities for a long time, and Gov. Christie is shining a light on the excesses.

Here, Here! @ JS and ZD, glad to see people know and articulate economics ! Things need to change, we were not prudent when we should have been, resulting in current day problems.

We can argue statistics all day, but the National Taxpayers Union website, which is nonpartisan, has a very clear table that identifies the percent of taxes paid by different income levels. In 2008, according to the IRS, those with adjusted gross incomes of $159,000 or more represented the top 5% of earners, and they paid 58% of all income taxes. Those are facts, not opinions, and I don't consider that level of income "filthy rich" by any measure. Increasing marginal tax rates on the truly wealthy (those with millions in income) would not make a dent in the deficit in NJ or the country. Economic prosperity is not going to flow from increasing taxes on the wealthy (however you choose to define that). And we can see that in NJ, ignoring economic realities and maintaining spending that we simply can't afford only kicks the can down the road for future generations to deal with.

"Nonpartisan" does not mean "doesn't have an axe to grind." The NTU is largely funded by the tobacco industry and has a decided libertarian/corporate interest. I would ask this: The tax cuts that were enacted in 2003 and were recently extended have been in place for nearly a decade. If these tax cuts spur job creation, where are the jobs? Income inequality is more pronounced today than it has been at any time since the Gilded Age, which DID see a few preposterously wealthy people and everyone else scrambling for scraps -- and sweatshop workers being locked into buildings and dying in events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911.

If economic prosperity is not going to flow from increasing taxes on the wealthy, whose taxes have been cut in more than half since the 1950's, where is it going to come from? "Trickle down"?

Ok, you win. Let's keep spending money we don't have and let someone else pay for it. Strangely though, NJ voters did not buy into that argument when they elected Christie, and neither did New Yorkers when they voted for Cuomo. Cuomo has vowed not to raise taxes and he is going to push hard for reductions in spending. No one likes to see less spending, but times change and we have to adjust to new realities. Blaming corporations and looking to those on the top of the income chain to pay the freight for our current fiscal issues will get us nowhere. Politics not withstanding, balancing a budget and living within your means is a good thing, whether you are an individual or a government entity.

I agree totally that there is a huge opportunity to streamline munipal budgets by consolidating services. County wide police forces are an excellent example. Schools are another, but that's a really complex issue because of the deeply held conviction that local towns should control their own budgets, and the impact that can have on real estate taxes and values. It does seem that having almost 600 school districts in NJ is a huge opportunity for consolidation though.

Unfortunately I have to work to pay taxes which pay THOSE teachers who have a lots of excuses for the poor education given our children. These teachers (WHO USE OUR TAX FUNDS TO PAY THEIR UNION) as usual, have a great myopic answer to carry on their inept education curriculum: HIT THE TAXPAYER FOR MORE TAXES. SUPPORT STUPIDITY. $17,000.00/student isn’t enough.
Thanks Patch for letting me get that off my chest. I now have to get back to work so I can, enthusiastically, pay more taxes for the teacher union’s survival. But first, let me envision being amongst them at a rally, crying and whining, yelling at the top of our lungs:

"We want non-union chartered schools. We want non-union chartered schools. We want non-union chartered schools. We want non-union chartered schools. We want non-union chartered schools. We want non-union chartered schools . . . "

We can all dream.
(Incidentally, I just performed a spell check on my above “comment”. it’s rated at grade level 7.4. Hope that’s not too high for our (ahem! college educated) teachers to which I refer.)

Peter: What do YOU think is the problem with the education system? Do you think it's just teachers? Could it perhaps be that we live in a society in which educated people are called "elites" by ignorant politicians, where youth sports always take priority over academics, where being smart is looked down upon and the only thing that matters is who's strong and can run fast? I'm serious: What do YOU think is the main problem?

@ Bruce-- call me a republican any day, I love it! And I am interested in what you have to say, your opinions about economics.
All of the posts are very closely linked in evidence, (people who earn more, pay more in taxes) the tone is only changed by a personal belief, perception or experience. What we all seem to believe is that things need to change, and we are all going to hurt a little while it goes on.
@ Peter, I don't want charter schools, I don't want charter schools, how about a non-union public school! Charter Schools have a history of failing in NJ, already! I will give you an A+ for creativity and passion! My belief is that parents are responsible for educating their children and a school is merely a partner.

B@B, Not sure if my initial response to your questions got to you. In any event, please read my comments above.

Tracy, let’s enumerate how our teacher’s hands are tied in public schools: There’s the ‘liberal’ element of political correctness, student discipline, babysitting, etc. all imposed for the sake of votes. Then there’s the financial disconnect between what it costs the NJ taxpayers per student-per school year versus the national average. Then there's the gross contradiction of how teachers are paid: taxpayers pay teachers; who, in turn, use the taxpayers’ money to pay unions, who, in turn, donate to the politician of choice. In the mean time, the unions (teachers) hold the taxpayer hostage: ‘Pay or we strike, damn the students, damn the taxpayer ’.
You mentioned private schools have a history of failing in NJ, but you do not say why. Private schools (enmasse) would be directly accountable to the taxpayers, with no government involvement. Each school will be run by a board of directors, managers, supervisors, and teachers accountable for their performance. Unlike public schools, private schools will have checks and balances, watching the store for the sake of our children and taxpayer. And hopefully the private schools will also turn a profit and thus return funds back to the taxpayer in the form of monetary dividends, not to mention educated students.
If this seems like an impossible dream, then let’s dream for the sake of our children and our country. It’s time to rid ourselves of a well-meaning, but failed, antiquated public school system.

Peter, I enjoy reading your posts. I do agree with your opinion, we need to keep that impossible dream afloat for the sake of our nations future! It is charter schools that fail; private schools are private business and would fail for obvious reasons. The charter school failure is a little more complicated and most due to ineffective management, ultimately resulting in poor test scores. They are still publicly funded and I am concerned that they are looked upon as the answer to a very broken system. Right now, the public school system has entirely too many checks and balances, it is a cluster of unbelievable laws and regulations that actually prevents modern management and policy. It almost prevents common sense decision making. The BOE and upper level administrators have to painstakingly adhere to the regulations for simple decisions. Those decisions, in any other industry, are not time consuming or arduous. I hear time and time again, 'why can't they just do what is...( necessary, quick or obviously the right decision)' and it is because of policy and procedure, written and local unwritten expectations....... Streamline the process of managing a school system and you will see more $ loosened up for the children.
Looking forward to hear other ideas and opinions!

Oh, as far as unions go, I don't believe in them, there is enough labor and case law that makes unions obsolete. I will NEVER blame a teacher or hold them accountable for what a union does; the union stifles the teacher as much as it helps. Nobody goes into teaching for the money or tenure or even the pension, if they do, they wash out in the first few years. It is one of the most difficult jobs (with its reward in educating the children), and worst salary, I have ever had.

Tracy, you just hit a raw nerve. You wrote: “I will NEVER blame a teacher or hold them accountable for what a union does . . .” Tracy, I can deal with just about anything except political snow jobs. A professional politician could not have come up with a better bullet dodging - displacement of culpability - snow job line. Teachers ARE the union.
Are they so weak minded (or dollar valued) and without self-determination that they leave all decisions to the union? If any part of my question is answered with a YES, then we taxpayers best rid our school system of such inept teachers (and administrators). Hell, how many parents do you really think want their children exposed to such soft brained robots?
On the other hand, if my question is answered with a NO, then why are teachers still supporting unions with our taxpayer donated salaries? The teachers are the body and soul of an organization working contrary to the needs of our students. There’s nothing altruistic with these union members. Follow the money trail.
Most of us believe in taking responsibility for what we say, do or contribute too. No excuses, no passing the buck. This is a character trait which apparently some are willing to suppress for the sake of the almighty dollar and to the detriment of our children. Tracy, take the teachers to task for their individual and collective greed and the resulting damages caused our children.
Thanks for letting me blow-off some steam.

Oh Peter, I love a good debate! We do differ greatly on the teacher issue. The union brass is the problem. There are deadwood teachers, tenure has created that; but the mass majority are people who love to teach. Your statements are very multi-layered and many off the issues you have brought up are valid, but misdirected at teachers.
First, the salaries of teachers are not big, you cannot live on the salary in this area if you are starting out.
I have to go right now, but I will post more later! Keep it comin' Peter!

Let's add some more facts to this debate. Public employees who hold college or higher degrees make less than their private sector counterparts. The more years experience the bigger that difference becomes leaning towards the private sector employees (facts coming from the US census bureau and posted in the NY Times in the most current week in review). Next the public sector employees of NJ signed a contract (same type of contract that the bankers who were given their bonsuses at tax payer expense remember they had a contract tooooooooo that couldn't be broken so the Fed TARP program paid them hmmmmmmmmmmm) that took 8.5% of their money and put it into a public pension system. The state of NJ was suposed to match that. As of Christine Todd Whitman's term there was a $100 billion in that fund and fully funded in to the future at 104%. Mrs. Whitman raided that fund drawing it donw indiscriminately to pay for tax cuts and to balance that state budget. Then Whitman passed a law that allowed municipalities to side step their matching contributions so it went from fully funded to debt in 8 years.... while public employees CONTINUED to pay in their 8.5% share.

Tracy, I will not give any union member (teacher) an iota of a pass. Their collusion with the union has taken our education system to the brink of utter catastrophe. Like it or not, they are part (not all) of what is wrong; their deafening, hypocritical silence makes that evident. Redirect the blame, if you so please. But, if teachers are, as you say: “. . . people who love to teach . . .” (for the sake of the children), let’s hear them speak out against what is wrong - the unions and ‘deadwood’. I think not.

I just can't believe that someone would target teachers so viciously. Education is a partnership between teachers, parents and community. If kids in our community are getting such a bad education (which I don't believe), then we are all too blame. In more cases then not, the parents are the biggest problem.....

unions in general are the problem. its a racket. its organized extortion, and how they get away with it is beyond me.

if i tried to do the same thing they do, id get straight up fired. and thats how it should be.

Well, I think that is an over generalization. If not for unions, we would still be working twelve hour days, six or seven days a week.

My question is while a lot of people like Christie's message of cutting spending now, what are they going to say when they start seeing services get cut. In our town, garbage collection went from twice a week to once a week. Before you know it, 4th of July celebrations (even without fireworks) will disappear, concerts in the parks and all those things which contribute to quality of a community will go away and then how happy will people feel.

Sure there is excessive waste, but we are going from one extreme to another.

Allan: Perhaps the real-world consequences of an economic policy that calls for "shared sacrifice" for everyone EXCEPT the wealthy (who have not had to sacrifice one single penny) is what is required for people to wake up. The spectacle of this jihad against teachers, the demonization of fellow members of the middle class by other members of the working class while corporate executives and bankers rake in tens of millions of dollars a year as they laugh at us, is disgusting. I realize this is because people think that if they Just Work Hard Enough, they'll be able to get into the Rich Guys Club -- but they don't realize that the club is not open to everyone, and is becoming less open by the minute as we squabble amongst each other for the scraps they deign to leave us.

B&B : please define for us who you consider wealthy. How much income and/or assets do you think qualifies you for the "Rich Guys Club?"

How about annual compensation of $10 million and up. Or do you regard them as "struggling middle class" too? They won't let you in their club either.

B@B: OK; I agree that those with $10 million or more are rich. What are you suggesting? How much do you think someone with $10 million in income should pay in income tax? Would that be enough to solve the state's financial woes? I think not, because there simply aren't enough people who would be in that category to raise enough money in additional taxes. If you were that guy, how much tax do you think you would pay before you thought about your options to leave? Would you continue to work as hard? And would that tax rate apply to someone who won the lottery? Or would you be comfortable deciding who gets to keep their income and who gets taxed? What about inherited wealth? Should someone who inherited a lot of money be required to pay it back through the tax code? These are big questions that defy easy solutions.

Peter, nobody's saying that we should confiscate the entire net worth of the wealthy. But when we hear about "shared sacrifice", that sacrifice is ONLY about programs that benefit the middle class and the poor. Do the rich use roads? Do they expect police protection when they are mugged? Do they expect the fire department to come when their houses catch fire? Do they take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction when they buy their houses? If so, then they utilize government services. More in next post.

As for this false meme or "Rich People Create Jobs", I don't see how you can look at the piles of cash corporations are sitting on after the tax cuts that were enacted in the early 2000's under the previous president and believe that. These tax cuts have been in place since then -- where are the jobs? Rich people don't create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts or to be nice. Jobs are created when employers think that the person they are about to pay can make them money. Jobs come from DEMAND for products and services, not from the top down. If I am a multimillionaire with a business, I'm not going to hire someone just to be nice (well, maybe I will, but most won't). I'm going to hire people because the product I made or service I offer is being bought faster than I can produce them with existing resources. Companies will not invest in equipment, buildings, or human resources if the demand isn't there. And our system is set up that without a thriving middle class (which Republicans are trying to destroy in their quest for oligarchy and a return to the economics of 1905), rich people alone can't consume enough STUFF to keep an economy this size going.

B&B: I'm not rich by any definition. But I'm puzzled by your comments. The rich use roads, and they pay tolls and pay gas taxes just like everyone else. It seems like your argument is that since the rich have more disposable income, that they should pay more for their gas or higher tolls? The piles of cash that corporations are sitting on is based on many factors, not solely the tax cuts you referred to. And if you have a pension or a 401k, you are the part owner of that corporation. Certainly the senior leadership of a corporation controls more of the spending than the average stockholder, but senior executives have a lot more responsibility and work a lot harder with more pressure and demands on their time than the average person in the middle class. Like it or not, we live in a capitalist system, and those with more intelligence, drive, education, ambition, and work ethic tend to earn more than those with less of those things. I agree that a thriving middle class is essential, but let's not demonize the wealthy. We live in a global economy, with a lot of competition. If you buy electronics, or a car, or any one of thousand other things made in Asia, you are encouraging the growth of a middle class - in Asia, not in the US. And there's no getting past that. So let's not blame corporations or bankers, or executives with big bonuses. That's a simplistic view that gets us nowwhere.

I'm with you completely B@B. What have the Wall Street bankers and traders, with the $10m salaries, done for us? (Many of them and corporate bosses have salaries closer to $100m!)They got their bailouts, they still get their bonuses, and we have frozen salaries, 9% unemployment, deteriorating public services, layoffs of teachers, etc. They send their kids to private schools. Yes this is a capitalist country, but we don't have to have such an obscene form of capitalism where income inequality is growing and where schools and basic services are being gutted. Balancing a budget and getting the fiscal house in order requires not just cuts but revenue enhancement as well. But in our no-taxes-for-the-rich society, no-cuts-to-the-military mentality, we are just going to continue on a downward spiral economically and socially. The Chinese are certainly laughing...

B&B: my comment about wealth being correlated with intelligence, drive, ambition, and hard work is hard to bicker about. I'm not talking about the Koch brothers or any other individuals. Generally speaking, higher incomes are associated with higher education, and that applies to professionals - working people like you and me who happen to be doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and yes business people who applied their intelligence, worked hard in school and work hard in their careers. These are the vast majority of people who are "rich" and who pay the vast majority of taxes. The people being "pushed downward" are generally those who the 21st century has left behind for a variety of reasons -- maybe technologically have not kept up or whose ndustries have been outsourced or affected by other macroeconomic changes that life brings. I also haven't heard you complain about those who bought houses they couldn't afford, or racked up credit card debt above their ability to repay and walked away, sticking the rest of us with their debt. It's easy to blame the bankers, but I didn't take out a mortgage I couldn't afford, and I'll bet you didn't either. There are always exceptions, people who lost a lot of ground financially and were prudent with their finances , but we've all heard many cases of people who simply want what they can't afford and don't worry about how to pay for it. That's the unfortunate reality.

Zachary, that is a completely different argument. My point is that shared sacrifice means that everyone has to kick in a little more to pay off debt -- including the wealthiest. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and their ilk (but curiously not Jamie Dimon and Dick Fuld and Angelo Mozilio and others) CHOOSE (to their credit) to set up foundations, and those foundations do not interfere with their lifestyle one iota. I don't even have children, but if paying an additional thousand or so in taxes every year would put our country on solid financial footing, I'd be happy to do so. And while I understand that someone who cannot afford that would not be willing to, I do not understand why the wealthiest Americans cannot kick in a bit more. And when you are talking about cuts to public worker pensions (which are actually deferred salary, not some kind of "extra gift"), or "greedy teachers", or women being unable to get health care because their clinics have been closed, or any of a number of cuts that affect the wealthiest NOT ONE IOTA, I don't understand why this is so off-limits. If you're going to talk about "shared sacrifice", then why should the wealthiest be completely, 100% exempt from any of that sacrifice?

B&B.. I don't know how you would measure the amount of sacrifice that would equate to dffferent levels of wealth. What is the equivalent sacrifice for the wealthy for that $1000 or so in extra taxes that you would be willing to kick in? Once you have millions in income, the word sacrifice loses meaning, because no reasonable amount is going to have an impact on that person's lifestyle. I'm curious as to what you would consider the fair equivalent for that $1000 extra in taxes that the middle class earner would pay. Where would the threshold be to define wealthy and how much would represent the sacrifice you refer to? Is it a simple multiplier? It becomes pretty arbitrary. At the end of the day, I think your point is that the income tax rates are not progressive enough, and you want higher marginal tax rates that would tax away enough income from the wealthy to be defined as a sacrifice. The devil is in the details!

Not necessarily. I'm not looking for punitive confiscation of income. However, it's disingenuous for Republican governors to talk about "shared sacrifice" that is only on the demand side, and only for programs and services that benefit the middle class and the poor. I understand that because of the shameless pocketbook pandering of politicians from both parties over the last two decades, our state is in a fiscal mess. But you can't say that EVERYONE is going to have to feel some pain, and then say that the wealthiest residents should not have to sacrifice one single penny.

B&B.. I still struggle to understand your comment that the wealthy won't have to sacrifice one single penny. The word "sacrifice" is the tripping point here. Those with greater financial resources will always pay more taxes (both in absolute dollars and in terms of their marginal tax rate) than the middle class, and they subsidize much of the transfer payments that go to social welfare programs, both on a federal and local level through those taxes. Getting back to education for a minute, for example, they pay more real estate taxes on their expensive homes (and therefore subsidize education spending for the middle and lower classes, even if they don't have children or if they send their kids to private schools) but the issue you seem to raise is that they don't feel the pain because of their wealth, and therefore it is not a comparable "sacrifice". I don't want to be the representative of the wealthy (I'm certainly not in that group), but I don't begrudge them their wealth.

It should not be that hard to understand. All of us are at a certain level right now in terms of income, benefits, housing etc. Call that a baseline, if you will. If your kids will be attending larger classes because of teacher layoffs, that is a "sacrifice" for you and your kids. If you are a police officer or teacher and Chris Christie wants you to pay more of the part of your compensation package that is health insurance into insurance rather than salary, that is a sacrifice for you. If your local sports fields are not seeded because cuts in state aid to your town and a property tax cap means your town can't afford to seed this year, that is a sacrifice for you. If you are, just for argument's sake, a banker living in a mansion in Alpine, the chances are pretty good that your kids are in private school, you are not a public sector worker, and your kids may or may not be in a league to play on those sports fields. But where you COULD sacrifice is pay a few thousand more in state income taxes every year to help the state balance its budget without the entire burden falling on the middle class. This is not class envy, and it is not begrudging the wealthy their wealth. But I simply do not understand this idea that the wealthiest among us cannot possibly kick in a bit more to help get the state in which they live back on an even keel. What is it that makes them so untouchable?

This is a good sample: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-the-dairyland---for-richer-and-poorer---teachers-and-wall-street

Ok; cutting to the chase here.. you want higher marginal tax rates. I'm Ok with that, depending on what level of income you are targeting. If it won't kick in until the earnings are in 7 figures, you won't raise enough in additional taxes to make a difference. Where is your income threshold for those who need to pay more?

As Bill Maher noted the other night, the time period that conservatives really want to go back to is the 1950's. What they don't realize in their nostalgia is that the highest incomes were taxed at 90%. During the Clinton years, taxes on the wealthy were higher than they are now, and there were plenty of jobs and most people did pretty well, at least until the outsourcing binge started. Not even the most confirmed lefty is calling for 90% tax on the wealthiest Americans. But even rolling back the Bush tax cuts on estates & gifts and dividends and capital gains (which affect the top 1% far more than standard income taxes do) would reduce the deficit by almost a trillion dollars, according to a report by Mark Zandi, an economist at Moody's. More in next post.

The problem that people often throw out there against an increase in the income tax on the wealthy is small businesses set up as S corporations who still file their taxes as personal income taxes rather than business taxes. So where a net taxable income of, say, 1/2 million per year means something very different to an individual than it does to a small business that files personal income tax. On the other hand, only 3% of businesses fall into this category, so it seems to me that something could easily be done with the tax code to address the "S Corp. Problem." Continued in next post.

Mark Zandi favors a phased-in rollback of the top tax rate from 35% back to 39.7% beginning in 2012. Of course this won't happen, because it is an election year and people have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to snarl every time the word "tax" is mentioned. On a state level, the situation is similar. In 2010, NJ tax rates were reverted down to 2008 levels after a one-year increase. The mantra of It Will Create Jobs proved false once again. In 2010 the top tax rate was 8.97% on the amount of income over $500,000. and 6.37% on the amount between $150K and $500K. Remember too that this does not mean the entire amount is taxed at that rate; tax rates are graduated. Conclusion in next post.

We all know that $150K in Bergen County does not make you "rich", especially if you have a few kids. In 2009, the rate was cut to 8% for amount of income between $400K and $500K, and two additional brackets added; 10.25% for $500K and $1MM and 10.75% for >$1mmm. Let's go back to that. Again: I'm not asking the wealthiest to foot the ENTIRE bill (though I will point out that stiffing the state pension fund paid for their tax cuts going back to Gov. Whitman). But if we're going to talk shared sacrifice, a 2.25% increment on the amount of income over $500K and 2.75% increment on $1MM seems more than reasonable. If you make $750K after deductions, that's an additional $475/month you'd have to pay. You know what? If someone told me I could have $750K in taxable income tomorrow but I'd have to shell out an additional $475/month in state taxes, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

So how much money is that additional tax on the wealthiest going to raise?

Frank DeRose: your comments about the "selfless" public employee are "self serving". People become teachers, firefighters, policemen, postal workers, librarians, or any one of countless other jobs in government do so for a lot of reasons, just like anyone who works in the private sector. To imply that people seek that employment primarily out of a desire to serve the public is not true. Financial and job security, manageable working hours, and the nature of the work itself (and very early retirement in the case of police and firefighters) are the primary drivers. The idea that public employees don't take their sick days out of some selfless impulse is laughable. Pay for unused sick days (if the company provides defined sick days at all -- mine does not) is obscene. Many companies did not give raises, and the expectation that you 'deserve" a raise each year for doing your job is faulty.
I am confident that there will be no shortage of people looking for public employment after these changes are made. Public sector jobs will always be sought after.

Zachary: I understand that private sector workers don't get paid for unused sick time and don't get defined benefit pensions. But is "I Want You To Get Screwed As Badly As I'm Getting Screwed" really the way we want to go? Is this race-to-the-bottom really something we should be defending? Do you really think we preserve the middle class by lashing out at people in our own socioeconomic level?

B@B. I wouldn't define the issue as getting screwed. Unions have applied their political clout over the past decades to obtain pay and benefits that simply don't make sense in today's world. I realize that this is perceived as a significant take away (I will feel the pain personally). However, public sector employees should not be immune to the economic realities that we all face. They have been immune and it evolved into an entitlement mentality that is indefensible. There are billions of dollars at stake here and the future of the state, and a 'correction" has been long overdue.

Corporations are us. The pain they feel is the pain of their employees and their shareholders, who are mostly middle class. Of course there are senior executives who make obscene amounts of money, and I have no problem with increasing taxes on their salaries and bonuses and stock options and long term incentives. But let's not lose sight of the fact that increasing those taxes is not going to solve the problem. Those increased taxes would be a token to satisfy the masses, and not a solution. Most of the pain felt by the crushing debt of the state is felt by the middle class. The people paying the price for the exorbitant benefits of public employees are the non public employee middle class. Again, let me emphasize that I have family members who will be paying more for their benefits, so I stand to personally lose. But I find it impossible to argue with Christie on this.

@ Brian Browny , am guessing math is not your forte (not to mention logic). The stimulus was 0.8 trillion, but even in your fantasy world if it were 8 trillion it would work out to $22,870 per American........... though in reality since it was a less than $1Trillion Stimulus it was $2,287 per american, and by the way has since been shown to have helped the economic situation substantially avoiding the Depression that we were heading towards.

Just because Mccain got tortured in Vietnam, that doesn't mean he'll make a good president. Brian you are a moron, I've been in Chicago countless times. They have the South Side, which is their verison of Harlem, but that is the only bad neighborhood. Don't bring this Bill Ayers crap up, he wasn't friends with him, he served on a community board with him. If Obama was such a huge liberal, he wouldn't have given the 250k+ crowd including me, tax cuts. The unemployment rate goes up because those great executives you speak of are laying people off because they want all of the money for themselves.

FYI as of 2008 (http://www.irs.gov)
0.2% of all taxpayers make $1m+ in taxable income. They collect 17% of wealth, pay 24% of federal income taxes
3% of all taxpayers make $200K+ in taxable income. They collect 36% of wealth, pay 52% of federal income taxes
12.8% of all taxpayers make $100K+ in taxable income. They collect 60% of wealth, pay 75% of federal income taxes

Brian, you obviously have mental issues if you still believes in that Bill Ayers crap when even the Republicans abandoned it. You sound like that kind of guy that thinks everything is a conspiracy. Also, its not ass hole, its asshole, and its not flash lite, its flashlight. My comments only become angry when people decide that they can't have a normal debate and start name calling and other stupid stuff. Also, you can't watch NPR moron, its a radio station.

Hey BILLY MAYS, Mr. VP "MONEYMAN"....when you got your tax return did you give it back to the government? NOOOOO? Why not? You sound sooooo altruistic when making your socialistic claims. Here's an idea, moron.....donate your money; tell all your "wealthy" friends to do the same. I have a better idea.....move to Europe. You would fit right in. Oh btw, "people who can't come up with anything else to say and name calling and stupid stuff"...Your grammar is a tad off in your posts. Moreover, you sound like you were the fat kid at school and got picked on too much....waaaaahhhhh "and stupid stuff". Who says that "and stupid stuff". You are probably a VP of your own mental delusions. PS: you are an idiot.

You guys can't even call yourselves Republicans, all you do is try to demonize and discredit people that disagree with you, you can't hold a debate. I only start calling you guys names when you start it first, if you haven't noticed. I haven't seen one Republican besides Jon Huntsman yet say that they disagree with Obama, but that he is just as American as they are.

It is nice to see an apology from Billy. I would just like to comment on the 250k plus crowd and the word socialism, as presented by Billy. First, the 250k plus people are not just the "wealthy" person or people in America. Many are the local business people who employ many individuals, allowing them to provide for their families every day. That being said, if you cut taxes for these business owners then you allow for them to expand and hire more people. Your premise that 250k plus people just pocket their money for their own gain is flawed. You argue your points through opinion, rather than researching who is the 250k plus crowd because you as an "individual" make 250k. My second point pertaining to the word socialism is as follows: It's not a crime, but a failed economic system and/or political philosophy. Simply put, study your history my friend, so you will be able to understand the ramifications of such a regressive system. You wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms, which you are today if we go down the path of socialism. As I said before, move to Europe, Liberal.

Nanny State? We pay lower taxes and spend less on social programs than almost any other wealthy nation (OECD.org). We also have more people per capita in prisons than China! We need more social spending to raise the education levels of our poor. They aren't getting poorer because Obama sucks. They poverty levels are rising because we are living in a global society where low skilled jobs are being outsourced. Don't blame Democrats for this. The new mega-corporatations like Walmart want it this way. It has nothing to do with high tax levels, it has to do with slave wages in third world countries and cheap goods. Even their employees here in the US are living in poverty so that American's can buy 3.99 polo shirts. It's bigger than politics folks. While we all fight over theory, the corporations pay off both sides and get what they want. Watch the middle class disappear as the CEO's and major shareholders get richer and the poverty level rises. We now have the largest disparity between rich and poor in the world!

Beth: It isn't just low-skilled jobs that are being outsourced. IT jobs are scarce in the US because of overseas outsourcing. Back-office jobs in finance are being outsourced. Even X-rays may now be read overseas. The American middle class is being decimated by both political parties and is now in a race to the bottom. That is why we see so much finger-pointing at immigrants. No one wants to admit that they will never be allowed into the rich guys club. We are on the way to a feudal society of Lords, serfs, and rabble -- and Americans are too full of this idea of "exceptionalism" to know what is happening to them.

I work at Goldman Sachs and just last month 1000 analysts were laid off, their jobs being outsourced to India. These aren't dumb people, some of these people went to Harvard, so its not only customer support that is being outsourced.

goooooooooooooooood luck with that, If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. and that's exactly what GS will get with that move

Folks Just read the comment about 1000 Goldman Sachs jobs being outsourced to India. Same think has happened and continues to happen at Sony Corporation of America. Jobs that were in Park Ridge Nj and Sand Diego Calif are being outsourced to India also! This is the travesty! Jobs are not being lost--they are being outsourced to other countries. Let our political parties address this issue instead of acting like 5 year old children trying to get their own way.

There also seems to be a lot of work visas granted to people from India in the financial industry. In this economy, shouldn't we be hiring from within?

Maybe I should move to India so when my job is outsourced I can get it back. Maybe the master plan is for the US to be for the wealthy and the rest of us need to live somewhere else. All joking aside, years ago India subsidized education in the tech fields so they could be competitive in the future global market. So guess what? It's now the future and it's paying off for them now. I have many Indian engineers in my work place because my company has a hard time finding qualified US citizens to fill these positions. If we keep going down the road of making it harder to afford an extended education and if our colleges and universities keep running education like a business then I think we can continue to expect the outsourcing of jobs well into the future.

Ken, how hard is your employer looking for qualified US citizens? Are they posting jobs with laundry lists of 30 different skill sets that are completely unrelated to each other for the sole purpose of ruling out any one US employee? Companies routinely do this. For example, there isn't a person in the world who is a graphic designer, a network administrator, a COBOL programmer and a C#.Net programmer. And yet I routinely see ads for people who are good writers, have experience with 6-8 programming languages, some of which are almost no longer used like FORTRAN and also the latest languages like C#.Net, have experience administering a large network, and are also crackerjack graphic designers. People like this do not exist, but if you run an ad like this, you can then tell the government that you "tried" to get a qualified US employee. It's all a ruse to bring in the H-1Bs you wanted to bring in in the first place.