Juan Williams wakes up Oct 10

Ok, so-some beans spilled in the last blog? Check

Phillies win and take it back home for Saturday night, so my tickets are good? Check



Time for something completely different.

You may have heard about the kerfluffle over NPR "news analyst" (their words, not mine) Juan Williams-what he said on the O'Reilly Factor (yes, an NPRer also appears on Fox, whoda thunk it?), and what happened as a result of that opinion.

THEY FIRED HIM!

This is what he said- "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written
about the civil rights movement in this country," said Williams. "But
when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in
Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first
and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

If you want to see the video, here is the link.
http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hdSU4zSU8z

But that is not the video I want to bring to your attention tonight.

But first I have to tell you that I have seen Mr. Williams on the Factor, and he has always annoyed me, but then he normally goes through all the talking points, so of course I'm annoyed. The opinion he expressed that got him fired by the dhimmis at NPR really turned my head though; he may be a liberal, but he believes what he says, and was not going to make any bones about being worried when he sees Muslims on his plane. hello-aren't we all? if you aren't you are sleepwalking-time to wake up.

Here's the video-I love it!!!







When Bill told Juan that this was a good thing for him, I smiled big! At first Juan didn't believe it, but as usual O'Reilly went through his reasons, and they are all spot on! Williams is MUCH better off away from NPR, and even better for him (and for us)-this may be the start of his own awakening-the first step towards a gradual realization of just what NPR and their ilk are all about.

The best thing that EVER happened to him!

EYES WIDE OPEN

Here is the link to Juan Williams' column at Fox laying it out, and more-boy does he have some dirt on NPR!! Do I see a book deal in his future? Still a liberal, but he may see the light yet

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

Great article by Caroline Baum Aug 10

My emphasis added red and bold-good stuff

Squeezing the Rich Is Poor Way to Spur Growth: Commentary by Caroline Baum

By Caroline Baum - Aug 4, 2010 9:00 PM EDT ..>..>

Caroline Baum

Thirty-six years after an academic economist named Arthur Laffer drew a curved line on a cocktail napkin, the debate over supply-side tax cuts paying for themselves is still going strong.

Why, after all this time and an extensive body of data, are we still questioning whether reductions in marginal and capital- gains tax rates increase economic activity enough to generate more revenue for the federal government?

“Because they don’t like the answer,” Laffer says of the doubters. “It’s not tax cuts that pay for themselves. Tax cuts on the poor cost you lots of money. Tax cuts on the rich pay for themselves. Rich people can afford lawyers, accountants, and can defer income.”

That’s one answer. Another may be that, unlike the hard sciences, there is no conclusive test. In a dynamic economy, it’s impossible to hold everything else constant except tax rates. Monetary policy, government regulation, trade policy, and the stage of the business cycle all affect economic growth. Absent a controlled experiment -- giving one group a placebo and the other a (tax-cut) drug -- a conclusive answer is out of reach.

What we do know, empirically, is this: Over time, federal revenue as a share of gross domestic product has stayed fairly constant at 17.9 percent. That’s true if the top marginal tax rate is 91 percent (1950s), 50 percent (early 1980s) or 35 percent (2000s). Recessions are the one exception.

The Flat Fix

So, if the government’s tax take varies little, why create uncertainty over how much of our income we’ll have to fork over to Uncle Sam three, five, 10 years down the road? Why not flatten the rate, fix it and forget about it?

Fairness, for one. The government wants to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

“They are wrong,” Laffer says. “It doesn’t work that way. The rich can change the volume, timing, composition and location of their income. Poor people can’t.”

Congress is the second. The tax code is the means through which lawmakers dole out tax breaks, credits and exemptions in return for campaign contributions. Which is why tax simplification in 1986 was such a short-lived phenomenon, says Jim Glassman, senior economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

While scientific proof for the supply-side credo remains elusive, we have lots of statistics from the Internal Revenue Service that demonstrate the effect tax changes have on the rich, or top 1 percent of income earners. Laffer described them in an Aug. 2 Wall Street Journal op-ed. Since 1978, a series of reductions in the top marginal tax rate served to increase the share of taxes paid by the rich.

Rich Are Different

This should come as no surprise. The rich have the luxury to respond to incentives, to opt for more work and less leisure when the return on work is greater. They are motivated to take risks, maybe start a business, invent something, and get even richer while giving others the opportunity, through hiring, to do the same.

The opposite is true for low-income workers. When the government raises taxes, someone struggling to put food on the table for his family may have to go out and get a second job to maintain his level of take-home pay. For this socio-economic group, higher taxes translate to more work.

To ignore evidence that the rich behave differently is silly. The government can’t get more blood from a stone, yet it keeps trying. Instead of demagoguing tax cuts for the rich, Democrats should try embracing them for a change.

Congress’s Play Thing

“It’s in everyone’s interest that the economy do as well as it can so that the government can fulfill the promises it’s made,” Glassman says.

If the trade-off is between fairness and dynamism, dynamism should win every time.

No economist will quarrel with the idea that taxes affect incentives, Glassman says. “When I have a choice between work and leisure, the tax decision makes a difference.”

That hasn’t changed the arguments for allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans to expire at year-end. Academics are busy churning out articles claiming tax cuts for the rich deliver less bang for the buck because the rich save more of the money than the poor.

That’s true. It also misses the point. The goal isn’t spending, or distributing other people’s money to create “aggregate demand.” That’s a wealth transfer, not a net stimulus. (Fiscal policy gets its punch from monetary policy, from the increase in the money supply to pay for the spending.)

The goal should be to incentivize individuals to work hard, save and invest in the future. It’s about growing the pie.

Sound familiar? We’re right back to square one. I, for one, would like to see the debate shift from class warfare over tax rates and targeted tax relief to tax reform. Either scrap the tax code and introduce a simple flat tax with no deductions, or scrap the IRS and move to a consumption tax.

If you want to get money out of politics, there’s only one way to do it. Take the tax code out of Congress’s hands.

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net

Everyone loves my governor-from Brietbart Aug 10

From Breitbart-everyone loves my governor!!!

Can We Clone NJ Gov. Chris Christie?
by

Kyle Olson

“Governor Wrecking Ball” is showing it is possible to stand up to
special interests and do what is best for taxpayers and schoolchildren.
When human cloning begins, can Michigan have a copy of Chris Christie?

Christie is cleaning up the mess of previous politicians who bought
off special interest groups, such as the New Jersey Education
Association, with lavish benefits, unsustainable pay increases and a
retirement system that, like many other states is becoming a major black
hole.

Unlike other American politicians, Christie doesn’t appear to care
much about what people think of him. He’s there to do a job and fix the
problems, even if it means his elected life is short lived.

Others should follow Christie’s lead because taxpayers and voters will have their backs.

On a recent Today Show appearance, Christie responded to an exchange
with a school employee. What’s interesting from the clip is that most
politicians would be tepid for fear of having the crowd turn on them.
Instead, Christie’s crowd, which was not hand-picked, went wild – for
Christie’s answer.

Taxpayers are beginning to realize that it’s the politicians that
have created this budgetary mess and it’s going to require leaders like
Christie to stand up to the powerful special interests to fix it.

As Christie said in the Today interview, “we’re treating the people
of New Jersey like adults and telling them the truth.” Here’s hoping
America will soon have more leaders like Christie.

Isn't Matt Lauer a twit?

Why she's a liberal and I'm not July 10

I've been thinking a lot about some conversations I've had lately with a colleague of mine. She and I have some of the same gripes with our work situation, and we're discussing them a lot lately. Even though I still don't mention my political beliefs (but if pushed I will not lie), and she is an unabashed liberal, we have a lot of the same problems with the internal politics of the job. For some reason, maybe because of my mid-life crisis or maybe because I've had about enough, I am much more vocal about my concerns lately.

So even though we have a lot in common, we also disagree about many things. I am getting better at making my point without blowing my top when she goes into her talking points; I guess several years of holding my tongue is helping me ease out of the closet.

It's funny-I grew up in the suburbs of Philly and always considered myself a city girl, but in the last ten years I've spent a lot of time in what some arrogant folks call fly-over country, in small towns in central and northeastern PA. I'm starting to think these interactions helped me along my way to the beliefs I hold now; seeing how local businesses and residents approached life and work opened my eyes a bit. My colleague, however, is very stuck in her liberalism and really believes some of the nonsense and talking points, in fact she spews them all the time. LOL

Ironic how many things about the job oppress me while others enlighten me!

So-here's a couple points on which we disagree-I reserve the right to come back and add more. (Keep in mind there are many points outside politics on which we do agree, but then I am ok with liberals as long as we don't talk politics)

My colleague believes that average people will never be able to understand loan documents-the products are too complicated-and will always have to be "protected" from the big bad banks. I believe that except for outright fraud, which of course should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, borrowers have an obligation to understand all the aspects and intricacies of any and all loan documents they sign, and if they don't understand the paperwork, they shouldn't sign it. To me this is a no-brainer! Caveat emptor!

Second point-my colleague believes that everyone has the right to a high-paying job, and that no one should have to work two jobs to support a family. Well HELLO, this is so ridiculous from an economic standpoint; the only way to ensure this is communism-bring everyone down to the same substandard way of living. I myself believe that we all have to make our way in the world, and if some skills are in greater demand than others, people should be paid accordingly. You may ask, "What about the overpaid "stars" and athletes?" Well, someone thinks they are worth the money, and if you don't like it, don't contribute to it. Life is a series of choices, and we are free to choose how we spend our money and our time.

As I said, I reserve the right to come back and add to this when and if other things come up.

What do you think about these questions? Thanks for reading and commenting.

Declaration of Independence July 4, 2010

IN CONGRESS, JULY
4, 1776

The
unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united
States of America

hen in the Course of human
events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of
Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train
of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a
design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it
is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of
these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to
alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present
King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,
all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny
over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid
world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records,
for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for
that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and
raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his
Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign
to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent
to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument
for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized
nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured
to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction
of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only
by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every
act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We
have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to
extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of
the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured
them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations,
which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We
must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our
Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in
War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America,
in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by
Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free
and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to
the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and
the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and
that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,
conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And
for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John
Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah
Bartlett, William
Whipple, Matthew
Thornton

Massachusetts:
John
Hancock, Samuel
Adams, John
Adams, Robert
Treat Paine, Elbridge
Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen
Hopkins, William
Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger
Sherman, Samuel
Huntington, William
Williams, Oliver
Wolcott

New York:
William
Floyd, Philip
Livingston, Francis
Lewis, Lewis
Morris

New Jersey:
Richard
Stockton, John
Witherspoon, Francis
Hopkinson, John Hart,
Abraham
Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert
Morris, Benjamin
Rush, Benjamin
Franklin, John
Morton, George
Clymer, James
Smith, George
Taylor, James
Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar
Rodney, George Read,
Thomas
McKean

Maryland:
Samuel
Chase, William
Paca, Thomas
Stone, Charles
Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George
Wythe, Richard
Henry Lee, Thomas
Jefferson, Benjamin
Harrison, Thomas
Nelson, Jr., Francis
Lightfoot Lee, Carter
Braxton

North Carolina:
William
Hooper, Joseph
Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward
Rutledge, Thomas
Heyward, Jr., Thomas
Lynch, Jr., Arthur
Middleton

Georgia:
Button
Gwinnett, Lyman Hall,
George
Walton

Brazilians and the nanny state June 10

Caution-if you unaware, either of the rise of the nanny state or the
reality of hair removal, and prefer to remain that way, please stop
right here.


Ok-fair warning given. Just a little idea for a blog this morning. I
won't go into the details, but let's just say that I am in need of
certain services right now-a brazilian, actually. (If you don't know
what that is, please google.)








So, even though I adore my friend Trisch at Blue Mercury in Atlantic
City, and would love to drive about a mile to get my business done, I
have to drive up to Philly, to my friend Kelly at Blue Mercury on Walnut
St! Why, you say? Cause brazilian bikini waxes are ILLEGAL in NJ!!!!!
Clearly NJ politicians have nothing else to do-but actually they were
neck deep in doo doo when this story broke, with plenty of other things
to do.



But no-because a couple women got burned by some salon in North Jersey,
the state is now enforcing its existing rule against this type of
waxing!!!


http://www.gossiprocks.com../forum/beauty-skincare/982..99-brazilian-waxing-illega..l-new-jersey.html




WTF-so now I have to go to another state to get business done.



Not only does this inconvenience me in a big way, just think of all the
money that is going out of state to Pennsylvania or New York-all because
one salon couldn't do it right! hello-what about all the competent
estheticians out there with reduced incomes! This type of waxing is very
popular in NJ, and all that money is just flowing out of here (or salon
owners are risking fines or the loss of their license). Never mind all
the taxes that the state is missing out on!



Ok-now take this example of the nanny state and extrapolate-do you see
how your examples are ridiculous, economically imprudent, and just plain
freedom-grabbing?



Tell me about it

so just where did that prayer come from anyway? April 10

Lots of brouhaha on facebook and elsewhere about the "favorite president" prayer. But do you know the backstory? Where did it come from?

Welcome to the real drama-NJ politics. GO CHRISTIE GO

Teachers Union "Prays" For Death Of NJ Gov., Christie Not Amused

BY CHRIS GLORIOSO



PIX NEWS

12:56 PM EDT, April 9, 2010

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (WPIX) -

A memo that jokingly prays for the death of New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie has heightened the acrimony between the state's
Republican administration and its most powerful teachers union.


The Bergen County Education Association sent out the combative memo to
supporters this week. It closes with a mock prayer that reads:



"Dear Lord ... this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick
Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael
Jackson, and my favorite salesman Billy Mays.... I just wanted to let
you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."



Christie responded to the fake prayer at a news conference in New
Brunswick Friday.



"To have the leader of the union send out an email to 17,000 members to
tell them to pray for my death just goes beyond the pale," Christie
said.



When the death wish joke became public, the union backpeddled.



"Obviously, it's inappropriate. I would never wish anybody dead," said
Joe Coppola, who is President of the BCEA. Coppola signed the firey
memo which also encourages union members to "get some dirt" and "go
public" with attacks on Christie and the state's Education Commissioner,
Bret Schundler.

---

---

The BCEA is a branch of the statewide union, known as the New Jersey
Education Association.


Christie has spent much of his first year in office attacking the
teachers unions he says are bankrupting local governments by demanding
overly generous salary and benefits packages.



Union leaders emphasized that the fake prayer was a joke and was never
intended to be made public. Christie wasn't convinced.



"So private prayer for my death would have been okay, but public prayer
for my death would have been wrong," he quipped.



The death wish memo is part of the NJEA campaign against Christie's
demand that teachers accept a wage freeze and contribute 1.5% of their
salaries to healthcare.



The Republican governor has also locked horns with the NJEA over plan to
cut hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid to schools. In
February, school districts were stung by Christie's decision to slash
$475 million in education funding. The Governor is pushing a budget for
next year that would cut an additional $820 million in state aid for
schools.



The cuts would amount to about 5% of the average school district's
budget. New Jersey is facing a mid-year budget gap of more than $2
billion.



Christie said he got death threats from street gangs like the Latin
Kings when he served as US Attorney. He suggested the union memo was
not the sort of speech he views as criminal.



"Let's be serious. I don't think this is a threat. I think it's a
wish, but in some sense a wish may be more perverse than a threat."

Copyright © 2010, WPIX-TV

Educate yourself!!!!!

is there hope for NJ-George Will on Chris Christie April 10

George Will's column on Chris Christie-thank you Mr. Will for articulating the previously unspeakable question/topic-public-sector unions. Go Governor Christie!!!!!

Thursday, April 22, 2010

The Thunder Roars in Trenton

by George Will

MORRISVILLE, Pa. -- The bridge spanning the Delaware River connects New Jersey's capital with this town where the nation's most interesting governor occasionally eats lunch at Cafe Antonio. It also connects New Jersey's government with reality.

The bridge is a tutorial on a subject this government has flunked -- economics, which is mostly about incentives. At the Pennsylvania end of the bridge, cigarette shops cluster: New Jersey's per-pack tax is double Pennsylvania's. In late afternoon, Gov. Chris Christie says, the bridge is congested with New Jersey government employees heading home to Pennsylvania, where the income tax rate is 3 percent, compared to New Jersey's top rate of 9 percent.

There are 700,000 more Democrats than Republicans in New Jersey, but in November Christie flattened the Democratic incumbent, Jon Corzine. Christie is built like a burly baseball catcher, and since his inauguration just 13 weeks ago, he has earned the name of the local minor league team -- the Trenton Thunder.

He inherited a $2.2 billion deficit, and next year's projected deficit of $10.7 billion is, relative to the state's $29.3 billion budget, the nation's worst. Democrats, with the verbal tic -- "Tax the rich!" -- that passes for progressive thinking, demanded that he reinstate the "millionaire's tax," which hit "millionaires" earning $400,000 until it expired Dec. 31. Instead, Christie noted that between 2004 and 2008 there was a net outflow of $70 billion in wealth as "the rich," including small businesses, fled. And he said previous administrations had "raised taxes 115 times in the last eight years alone."

So he closed the $2.2 billion gap by accepting 375 of 378 suggested spending freezes and cuts. In two weeks. By executive actions. In eight weeks he cut $13 billion -- $232 million a day, $9 million an hour. Now comes the hard part.

Government employees' health benefits are, he says, "41 percent more expensive" than those of the average Fortune 500 company. Without changes in current law, "spending will have increased 322 percent in 20 years -- over 16 percent a year." There is, he says, a connection between the state being No. 1 in total tax burden and being No. 1 in the proportion of college students who, after graduating, leave the state.

Partly to pay for teachers' benefits -- most contribute nothing to pay for their health insurance -- property taxes have increased 70 percent in 10 years, to an average annual cost to homeowners of $7,281. Christie proposes a 2.5 percent cap on annual increases.

Challenging teachers unions to live up to their cloying "it's really about the kids" rhetoric, he has told them to choose between a pay freeze and job cuts. Validating his criticism by their response to it, some Bergen County teachers encouraged students to cut classes and go to the football field to protest his policies, and a Bridgewater high school teacher showed students a union-made video critical of him. Christie notes that the $550,000 salary of the executive director of the teachers union is larger than the total cuts proposed for 190 of the state's 605 school districts.

He has received some support from the Democratic president of the state Senate, Stephen Sweeney, a leader of a local ironworkers union. This suggests waning solidarity between unionized private-sector workers who are weary of paying ever-higher taxes to enrich unionized public employees.

New Jersey's governors are the nation's strongest -- American Caesars, really -- who can veto line items and even rewrite legislative language. Christie is using his power to remind New Jersey that wealth goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well-treated. Prosperous states are practicing, at the expense of slow learners like New Jersey, "entrepreneurial federalism" -- competing to have the most enticing business climate.

Christies predecessor addressed a huge unionized rally of public employees, vowing to "fight for a fair contract." Who was he going to fight? The negotiator across the table would be ... himself.

Saying "subtlety is not going to win this fight," Christie notes that New Jersey's police officers, the nation's highest paid, can retire after 25 years at 65 percent of their highest salary. In the state that has the nation's fourth-highest percentage (66) of public employees who are unionized, he has joined the struggle that will dominate the nation's domestic policymaking in this decade -- the struggle to break the ruinous collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers whose affections the officials purchase with taxpayers' money.

Why my avatar is an upside down flag April 10

Anyone who's been around my page for any length of time knows that I (used to) change my profile picture A LOT. I used pictures of myself and others to express my mood, and as you know that mood changes all the time. So-you may wonder about this flag-why I continue to fly it and give up one of my means of expression here, which I take very seriously.

The flag is a symbol of the worry and concern I harbor about the future of the United States of America, my country. The concern is with me all the time, so no matter what I write in my status or my blogs about my work, pictures, travel, the Phillies, whatever, the flag will stay.

The writing reads:

"The United States of America-A Nation in Dire Distress" and quotes from
the US Code

"Title 4 Chapter 1-The Flag

Section 8-Respect for Flag

The Flag shall never be displayed with the Union down, except as a
signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or
property."


You may think that I intend disrespect to our flag-I know it inspired
someone I don't even know to send me an email on facebook to tell me it offended
him. (Yes I use this avatar on facebook too-an exception to one of my rules regarding the difference between the two-yes IT'S THAT IMPORTANT)
I didn't ask him why or get into anything with him; in retrospect maybe I should have done. But I have to tell you that I
mean no disrespect to the flag or any American living or dead; I really
do believe that our country IS in a state of dire distress, and life and
property ARE in extreme danger.



You may disagree, but I implore you to keep an open mind. Don't be
spoonfed anything from anyone-educate yourself! Luckily nowadays we have
voices from all slices of the spectrum speaking out-this is so
different from when I was growing up-when network news and the New York
Times were kings. For a long time I didn't understand why I buried
myself in apathy, but now I know all too well and am not afraid to
express my thoughts out loud.



So-if you wonder why I fly this flag, there you have it. I will continue
to fly it until I feel a little more reassured that our great country
has a future and will not be ripped apart from within. And I hope that
every time you see it, you will remember how damn lucky you are to be a
citizen of our country, and remember your duties as a citizen.
Please feel free to unfriend me if you are offended by this, but dammit, I
grew up listening to people denigrate and apologize for this great
country, and I won't listen to it anymore.


Thanks for reading and remember your duty-many men and women have sacrificed much for our freedom-we owe it to them, and to ourselves as citizens of the greatest nation on earth. And if this blog, or any videos or articles I post here in the future, offends you, please feel free to remove yourself from my list. I don't choose my friends based on their political affiliation, and I don't spend all my time talking about politics, but I will not be silent about our future.

Thank you

the kind of politician we all need March 10

"This aint no party, this aint no disco, this aint no foolin around."

New Jersey-broke, broke, and broke, elected Chris Christie their (our) governor last fall. Some conservatives were unhappy cause they thought he wasn't conservative enough, but I think the man is a brave soul who knows what NJ needs to do. The ride is over, no more borrowing, no more taxing. It's time to pay the piper, and he has the balls to insist. After all, this is what we elected him to do, right?

yes yes yes!!!!!

From a speech he made to 200 NJ mayors on February 24, 2010.

Read it and cheer (emphasis in red is mine)

'We have no choice'

By CHRIS CHRISTIE

Last Updated: 4:35 AM, March 5, 2010

Posted: 12:58 AM, March 5, 2010

Adapted from Gov. Chris Christie's remarks to about 200 mayors at a meeting of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.

When I started in office, I had to close a $2.3 billion shortfall in the $29 bil lion annual budget -- and only $14 billion was left. Of that $14 billion, $8 billion could not be touched -- because of contracts with public-worker unions, bond covenants and commitments the state made in accepting federal stimulus money.

We had to find a way to save $2.3 billion in a $6 billion pool of money. The treasurer's office presented me with 378 possible freezes and lapses to balance the budget; I accepted 375 of them.

There's a great deal of discussion about me doing that by executive action. Every day that went by was a day where money was going out the door such that the $6 billion pool was getting less and less. Something needed to be done -- and the people didn't send me here to talk; they sent me here to do.

As we look ahead three weeks to my fiscal year 2011 budget address, you all need to understand the context from which we operate.

Our citizens are already the most overtaxed in America. You mayors know that the public appetite for ever-increasing taxes has reached an end.

So we're going to reduce spending at the state level -- because we have no choice.

We also have an obligation to work with the Legislature to give mayors the tools to reduce spending at the municipal level. The pension and benefit reform package just passed in the Senate is only a beginning. We need to change the rules of arbitration to level the playing field. The ever-increasing raises being given to public-sector workers as a result of the arbitration system tells us that.

By the same token, I'm tired of hearing superintendents and school-board members complain that there are no other options than raising property taxes. There are other options.

After a two-year negotiation, Marlboro gave teachers a five-year contract with 4.5 percent annual salary increases -- with zero contribution to health-care benefits. Yet I'm sure there are people in Marlboro who've lost their jobs, who've had their homes foreclosed on, who can't keep a roof over their family's head.

There's something wrong.

At some point, there has to be parity between what's happening in the real world, and what's happening in the public-sector world. The money doesn't grow on trees outside government buildings. It comes from the hardworking people of our communities who are hurting right now.

In this instance, the political class (of which all of us here are members) is lagging behind the public. The public is ready to hear that tough choices have to be made.

They're not going to like it. But they're tired of hearing, "Don't worry. I can spare you from the pain." They've been hearing that for a decade, as we have borrowed and spent and taxed our way into oblivion.

State government has done every quick fix in the book. Now we're left holding the bag.

All of you know in your heart that what I am saying is true. You know that we can't afford these raises that are being given to public employees of all stripes. You know the state can't continue to spend money it doesn't have. And you know that the appetite for tax increases among our constituents has come to an end.

So the path to reform and success is clear. We just have to have the courage to go there.

What we're doing is showing people that government can work again for them, not for us. It has worked for the political class for much too long.

There's no time left. We have no room left to borrow. We have no room left to tax.

Forget about the next election, the next newspaper editorial, the next angry letter or phone call from someone who wants something for nothing. It's time for us to show courage and resolve.

We can do it -- because we are from New Jersey. And I have never, in all my travels around the country, met a group of tougher people.

Chris Christie is New Jersey's governor.



Me again-I for one am convinced that the system has to change-and have come around to some pretty radical ideas for someone raised by liberals. Just one-how about our politicians? Why do they get health care and pensions? That is just ridiculous! Time for a real world wake-up call, people-they don't call it public service for nothing!

How is your state holding up? and what do you think?
Thanks for your comments.

Why government spending makes a giant sucking sound Feb 10

Having an argument/discussion with my very liberal Depression baby mother last night that actually stayed very civil. Instead of talking personalities (Nobama,Bush et al) we talked economic theories,and it worked out much better.

Perusing some of the news feed I get at work led me to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, which in turn led me to this article. It explains why the jobs bill (HIRE-how much are we paying for someone in the White House to come up with the pithy (NOT!?) acronyms?) will not stimulate job creation that leads to economic growth, exactly the point I was trying to make at mom's last night.

The article (italic and bold emphasis added by me).
The link to Heritage

February 23, 2010

Senate Jobs Bill: An Ineffective Means of Reducing Unemployment

by James Sherk and J.D. Foster, Ph.D.

WebMemo #2814

Reduced investment and a drop in job creation--not increased job losses--have been the primary factors driving unemployment higher over the past two years. The original bi-partisan Senate jobs bill, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, did little to address this underlying problem. Instead the legislation was a vehicle for extending a number of separate taxes and spending policies that would otherwise expire. For reasons unrelated to job creation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) side-tracked the HIRE Act by introducing his own partisan "jobs" bill. The Reid bill stripped the original bill down to two main provisions: Suspending the payroll tax for companies that hire new workers in 2010; and Increasing federal highway construction spending. If enacted, this bill will do little to encourage new investment and hiring. Instead it will increase the debt, placing a further drag on private-sector investment, job creation, and the economy. Ultimately, Reid's bill will fail to achieve results at a lower cost than the original proposal. Hiring Tax Credits Marginally Effective Although the first major provision in Senator Reid's proposal appears to encourage job creation, it will ultimately fail to do so. The bill would suspend the 6.2 percent employer payroll tax on newly hired workers in 2010. Companies that keep these workers on their payrolls for at least one year would receive another $1,000 credit against their 2011 taxes. This proposal, however, would create few new jobs. Jobs come from the creation of valuable goods and services by entrepreneurs. Companies hire when the additional earnings that a new worker creates by producing those goods and services exceed the cost of employing that worker. The payroll tax suspension would slightly lower the cost of hiring workers. As a result, it would probably cause some companies to hire workers they otherwise would not have. However, suspending the payroll tax for one year would not create better opportunities to produce valuable goods and services; nor would it increase the earnings a new worker would create for his or her company. Simply reducing the cost of a potential job will not cause an actual job to emerge if consumers fail to signal that such a job should exist. As a result, most companies would not expand and hire permanent new workers. Instead, most of the tax suspension benefits would be claimed by companies that already planned to hire new workers. Even in this recession firms are hiring new workers: 49.4 million workers were hired for new jobs in 2009. Suspending the payroll tax would cost billions of dollars, most of which was spent rewarding employers that would have hired new workers anyway. Indeed, when Congress passed a similar tax credit in the 1970s, that legislation created relatively few new jobs.[1] Why? Because the employers who hired new employees would have done so with or without a credit. Even if the payroll tax suspension created the jobs, these gains would be offset by a similar number of job losses. The tax revenue foregone due to the payroll tax suspension will require an increase in federal borrowing by the same amount; borrowing that deprives the private sector of capital to use as it sees fit, whether for business investment or personal consumption. Thus, the primary effects of this tax are to reduce labor costs for certain employers and reduce the funds available to others. Government Spending Depresses Job Creation The new highway spending in the bill will also fail to create jobs for two reasons. First, it does little to encourage private investment. The private sector creates net new jobs through the processes of entrepreneurship--investment, expansion, risk-taking, and seeking opportunity. Government spending does not encourage entrepreneurship because it only reallocates resources in the economy; it does not make potential business projects more likely to succeed. While government spending leads to directly observable construction jobs, it does not encourage additional private-sector investment. Second, the increased federal highway construction spending will crowd out private spending, both consumption and investment. Analogous to the payroll tax suspension, the resources the government spends are taken from elsewhere in the economy: Each dollar the government borrows is one dollar entrepreneurs cannot invest and that private individuals cannot consume. Each $1.00 increase in government spending reduces private-sector investment by between $0.46 and $0.97 after two years and $0.74 and $0.95 over five years, with the balance coming out of private consumption.[2] Government spending substitutes for private spending, it does not supplement or encourage it. Such a "crowding out" effect is why countries in which the government spends heavily to create jobs have high unemployment rates. After all, government spending eliminates more jobs than it creates. Low Job Creation Driving Unemployment Higher To reduce unemployment Congress must first understand that the primary factor driving unemployment up has been a sharp drop in job creation--not increased job losses. From the start of the recession to the second quarter of 2009, job losses increased 8.7 percent while job creation fell 16.3 percent. Over that time the number of workers laid off at companies going out of business rose by 3.8 percent (48,000 jobs), and the number of workers hired at newly formed businesses fell by 10.4 percent (235,000 jobs). This drop in hiring is unsurprising: annual private fixed investment has fallen by $313 billion since the recession started; a 20 percent drop. As long as business investment remains low and entrepreneurs hold back from starting new enterprises, job creation will remain low and unemployment will stay high. Research into past economic downturns suggests that low job creation will explain most of the net job losses throughout this recession.[3] Recommendations to Congress Reid's jobs bill would do little to reduce unemployment. Neither suspending the payroll tax for new hires nor increasing highway spending would notably raise the number of jobs in the economy. To lower the unemployment rate, Congress should create a better climate for entrepreneurs and businesses--without adding to the deficit. Congress should seriously examine a no-cost stimulus. First, Congress should recognize that its threatened actions on taxes, health care, and cap and trade are creating an uncertain climate for businesses. In the face of these heightened, Washington-based uncertainties, businesses tend to hold off on expansions until the air clears and a more favorable economic environment begins to emerge. (YES YES YES a thousand times YES-I will continue to say this until I am blue in the face) In addition, there are positive steps that Congress should consider, including: Freeze taxes and costly regulations until unemployment falls below 7 percent; Rescind the unspent stimulus funds; Reduce unnecessary regulatory costs, such as repealing Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; Reform the tort system; Remove barriers to domestic energy production; Suspend the job-killing Davis-Bacon Act; Pass the pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama; and Permit companies to bring foreign earnings to the U.S. without facing punitive taxation. A cessation of threats from Washington combined with these positive measures would create a better business climate for entrepreneurs and encourage them to take risks, such as starting or expanding their firms. These recommendations would spur investment and meaningfully reduce the unemployment rate. James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis and J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. [1]Robert Tannenwald, "Are Wage and Training Subsidies Cost-Effective--Some Evidence from the New Jobs Tax Credit," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Economic Review (September/October 1982). [2]Alberto Alesina, Silvia Ardagna, Roberto Perotti, and Fabio Schiantarelli, "Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment," The American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 3 (June 2002), pp. 571-589, and Olivier Blanchard and Roberto Perotti, "An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117, No. 4 (November 2002), pp. 1329-1368. [3]Robert Hall, "Job Loss, Job Finding, and Unemployment in the U.S. Economy over the Past Fifty Years," National Bureau of Economic Research Macroeconomics Annual 2005 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), at http://www.stanford.edu/~rehall/nberjobloss.pdf (December 16, 2008); Robert Shimer, "Reassessing the Ins and Outs of Unemployment," NBER Working Paper No. W13421, September 2007; and Michael Elsby, Ryan Michaels, and Gary Solon, "The Ins and Outs of Cyclical Unemployment," January 2007, NBER Working Paper No. W12853, at http://ssrn.com/abstract=959129 (February 23, 2010). Again I say this is as plain as it could be-no PhD in economics required to understand. Thanks for reading

it's as plain as the nose on your face feb 10

Reading and hearing some of the many news stories about this bogus "help" for small businesses inspired my latest status and this blog. They just don't understand that many banks aren't lending because

a) they tightened up their lending standards in response to criticism from regulators
b) logically following the above, fewer businesses qualify for loans DUH

and most importantly

c)those small business owners who do qualify for loans are not seeking them.

This is a no-brainer (at least to those of us who are thinking)-and consumers are doing the same thing. Hunkering down, paying down existing debt, saving money. Why are businesses and consumers doing this? Because they want to be ready for the next assault on their pocketbooks! There's a new bogeyman every day, it seems, and no one wants to be the one without a seat in musical chairs. Until this administration and congress decide (or get voted OUT) that they are going to leave businesses alone to do what they do best-invest, take prudent risks, make a profit, expand and hire- businesses are going to sit on their hands and wait.

As it goes for businesses, so for consumers. I keep hearing about the increase in savings in the US. Well duh-no one knows how much things will cost or how much their tax bill will be, so a little prudence goes a long way. This is so simple and self-evident that only the most blatant of ideologues will miss it; all the rest don't want to know.

This is why an article like the one below really sticks in my craw-WE DON'T NEED a bogus "program" to encourage small banks to lend-it's counterintuitive!!!!! If businesses and banks feel that the economic environment has stabilized, and they can predict with a modicum of certainty what it will cost them to keep the doors open, they will borrow, invest, and hire. But until then they are still hunkering down, and this "program" is a pile of political dogshit stinking up our computer screens.

I keep thinking back to my econ courses at Stockton in the 90s, when we learned that in order for a developing country to make the leap to a successful economy, they MUST have a stable government and political and economic infrastructure. People and companies, both domestic and foreign, will NOT invest in an unstable country.

Well guess what-we are that unstable country now!!! The ground is constantly moving under our feet, so it's no wonder everyone is hunkered down!

So anyway-here is the article that underscores just how out of it "they" (most of the federal govt as well as the mainstream media) are. Read it and weep. Oh and please leave me a kudo if you read this. You may not want to comment but I really need you to THINK about this. Thank you

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/us_obama_lending


Oh and PS-the TARP money needs to go right back into the Treasury. Just sayin

They just don't get it-a short commentary

From an article in the NY Times I stumbled on today while trolling around on the interwebz.


".....The House voted down several Republican proposals, including a substitute package made up entirely of tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Republicans did not say how much their package would cost, although Mr. Boehner said it would be far less than the Democratic plan. That tax-cut-only approach was defeated on a mostly party-line vote of 266 to 170; two Democrats joined all but nine moderate Republicans in voting for the Republican plan.

By another near-party-line vote, 270 to 159, the House rejected a Republican plan to delete a number of spending programs, including several representing top campaign promises of Mr. Obama, and to add instead $36 billion for highway construction, more than doubling the $30 billion in the bill, and $24 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects.

After the final vote, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican, called the Democratic package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination.”


(The bold here is mine but these short few lines SAY IT ALL!)

Some Democrats seemed surprised that no Republicans voted for the measure.

“Not one person felt his or her district needed to have any of this assistance?” Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, asked of the Republicans. “That can’t be.”

Brad Woodhouse, president of the union-supported, pro-Democratic group Americans United for Change, e-mailed a statement condemning the Republicans’ opposition under the subject line “Political Suicide.”"


Me again-hello? They just don't get it!

Enter at your own risk-a political rant Oct 08

div>Ok-I knew talking about politics would get me in trouble-it always does and that's why I avoid it. Some liberal bitch on someone else's blog got me so worked up that I was a)crying and b) thinking about deleting my page. WTF! So after I got done boo hooing I got mad. The things she said and the assumptions she made about me because of my political beliefs (and yes I did say that I was glad that I wouldn't be the only one suffering-so the fuck what?!!!) really hurt me. You know I was raised by bleeding heart liberals and that shit is difficult to shake off.

I know that the election is over and we're all supposed to unite behind our president-elect and sing fucking kumbyah-but I don't feel like singing kumbyah or holding anybody's fucking hand!!!! I am very worried about the path we are (have already)starting down and I refuse to apologize for thinking that or saying it. I REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE for thinking that those who voted for Obama and the c word are anything but a)stupid (and yes I said stupid-deal with it), b)ignorant, and/or c) ill-informed. I JUST FUCKING REFUSE!!!!!!!!

I REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE for thinking that the country I love is going to disappear bit by bit, like Chinese water torture, and it will be so slow and steady and incremental that most of us will never know, but DAMMMITTTT I'm going to pay attention.

Can you really blame me for revealing the fact that all of us (including the sheep who bought the c and hope line) will be suffering? I feel sorry for the sheep-they don't understand what they did, but I fear they will soon enough, or maybe what I REALLY fear is that they will NOT KNOW and be totally oblivious to what is going on around them.

I REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE for being upset and scared that the sheep are my fellow countrymen; this scares me because I fear that the USA either will not survive due to physical violence from our enemies (who don't know fucking kumbyah, BTW) or from within by the usurpation of our rights as free Americans. Freedom isn't free, but I never thought that we would be fighting our fellow Americans for the continuation of our beloved USA.

Enough for now

Notes from a cold war baby 11/2/08

div>If you read my blogs on a regular basis you know that most of the time I stay away from political topics. Some time back I did post an article by David Mamet that goes a long way to explaining my own political metamorphisis.

I deviated from my usual political reticence this morning when I reposted a couple bulletins that I thought served well to help inform my friends of the charachter of our Democratic presidential nominee. Thinking that my Myspace work was done for the day, I set out to accomplish some cleaning tasks (my favorite thing to do-NOT). As I was scrubbing the bathtub, I realized that my liberal and Democratic-voting friends might not pay any attention to the bulletins or scoff at them as right-wing nut job propaganda. They do focus on the candidate's life, influences, beliefs and obfuscations, so I reasoned that maybe I was shining my light on the wrong aspect of the candidate.

So, you ask, what is a cold war baby and what does any of that ancient news have to do with the presidential election taking place in two days?

I was born in 1960, and spent my formative years in the shadow of the OTHER superpower, the Soviet Union. I'm sure it's difficult for anyone who came of age after the fall of the Berlin wall to imagine that even though we lived our lives as carefree kids and teens, the threat of nuclear war always lurked in the shadows.(I must thank RH and his blog for reminding me of this easily overlooked piece of business) So again, what does this have to do with 2008 and the choices we face come November 4th?

The point is this-socialism doesn't work.

All you have to do is read the history of the Soviet Union to understand that millions of ordinary people died because of the "plans"of their leaders, life was so miserable for most of the people that foreign travel was not allowed, and the only information came from the government, so of course the people had no choice about what to believe; it was all or nothing. While the vast majority of the population stood in line for every possible everyday commodity (bread, shoes, etc etc etc) the Party hierarchy and loyals traveled abroad and shopped in special stores stocked with all kinds of ordinary (and not so ordinary) luxuries. The party also fabricated every scrap of economic data that they fed to their people and disseminated abroad, and with no incentive to work hard, many working people became demoralized and very cynical and worked only as much as they had to, further weakening the economy. All of this was going on behind the closed doors presented to the outside world-Sovietologists examined every picture of the leaders at the annual May day parade to see who was really in charge.

I'm not going to continue here because I'm not a Soviet expert, but if you do some reading to inform yourself about how socialism works in the real world then you will understand what I'm talking about. Don't even get me started on China! Different situation though; Mao was just another in a long line of emperors-the Chinese people have been ruled by an iron fist of one sort or another for thousands of years.

So-please go back to what the candidates are saying and the policies they espouse, and you will see that the democratic candidate says a lot about the redistribution of wealth-eg socialism. The reason they put Joe the plumber through the wringer is that he represents millions of Americans working hard for themselves and their families. And please, if you vote democratic on Tuesday, don't EVER complain about higher taxes; whose money do you think the politicians will use to fund all their programs?

I leave you with a cartoon that Mark alerted me to last week; I posted this in a bulletin but it bears repeating because it says it all so well:

Thanks for reading and have a great Sunday-as for me, I have to finish cleaning the bathroom.

NJ nonsense-beach tag edition 7/14/08

Another example of New Jersey politicians being ridiculous. I'm not railing against beach tags in general; most beach towns in New Jersey have them and obviously the price of admission doesn't keep locals and shoobies from the beach. If the money stays local and is used to clean and keep the beaches nice, I really don't have a problem with them; although I must tell you that I took advantage of the one of the only FREE beaches in NJ yesterday and it was beautiful. The problem with the proposal this article details is the idea that New Jersey should have one universal beach tag good for any beach in the state.

You might ask-what's wrong with that?

Well-here's my opinion-take it for what it's worth-

the dollars collected for the universal beach tags will be funneled through New Jersey state government, a culture of corruption and greed, and all the players' palms will be greased yet again. The proposal suggests that the municipalities involved will get funds allocated to them based on numbers of visitors, but let's face facts here-once the money goes to Trenton, municipalities have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any of it.

I won't even go into the comparision with the Soviet Union (OMG WTF!!!!!)

So here's the article from this morning's AC Press;

State assemblyman's impossible dream: Free beach tags for all


(Published: Monday, July 14, 2008

)

"When the Soviet Union wasn't free, at least its beaches were."

Assemblyman Neil Cohen is in his office on a weekend during summer recess, comparing New Jersey's beach admission fees unfavorably with Iron Curtain policies. Pardon the northern New Jersey legislator if he's bitter. His perennial efforts to abolish the fees and institute full state funding of beach maintenance have never gotten as far as a vote in the full Assembly.

"I don't see it happening any time soon," said Cohen, D-Union, who has tried for 11 years.

This year, his friend has taken a softer tack. Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, wants to institute a universal beach tag, valid in any town.

"It doesn't abolish the beach badge, it homogenizes it," said Wisniewski, whose beach of choice is Manasquan in Monmouth County. The state would collect the proceeds and distribute them in proportion to each town's number of visitors.

Wisniewski will push the bill when the Legislature reconvenes in September. But although he said constituents have praised the idea, he won't predict whether his bill will get further than Cohen's, much less whether it could pass.

If the subject is familiar to Cohen after 11 years in the Legislature, it's rote to Bill Dressel, executive director and 34-year employee of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.

"It comes up every year, Memorial Day ... it's like the sparrows back to Capistrano," Dressel said.

The famous flock in California is actually swallows, not sparrows, but the way Dressel talks, maybe penguins will swim there from Antarctica before beach tags bite the dust in New Jersey.

"Maintaining a beach for visitors is a very expensive and risky business. You're subject to conditions that are beyond your control," Dressel said.

Asked why no other state charges for beach access, Dressel said other states devote more budget room to upkeep.

"Other states have other sources of funding. I'm from Virginia, and I know the money they commit to tourism. New Jersey pales in comparison," Dressel said. "If you could rely on a large commercial base, that's great, but a lot of these other towns don't have that." Atlantic City, the Wildwoods and the Strathmere section of Upper Township don't use beach tags.

Any discussion of beach-tag changes hasn't trickled down to municipal governments themselves, as far as Mayor Chuck Chiarello of inland Buena Vista Township knows. He's on the executive board of the League of Municipalities, and he can't recall any recent chatter.

"We get bulletins every single day from the league. I haven't seen too much traffic on that topic," Chiarello said.

"If you talk to mayors from other areas where they don't have beaches, they think it's atrocious," said Stone Harbor Mayor Suzanne Walters, another board member for the league. Nonetheless, she believes the badges are merited as "sort of a user fee."

Cohen believes that charging for beach access is ludicrous, but he has been receptive to Wisniewski's "intermediate step."

By the way, what's Cohen's favorite sand spot?

"I really don't take vacation," the assemblyman said. "That's part of the problem."

E-mail Eric Scott Campbell:

ECampbell@pressofac.com