The key will be to find a way to get past the redistribution of wealth part, and that will lie entirely in the perception of the solution.

cshort wrote:

pacino wrote:sounds dumb

why?

it's just pitting the public against teachers. it's also taking the onus off him in regards to the budget. teachers don't make the budget, bro, you do.

pacino wrote:

cshort wrote:

pacino wrote:sounds dumb

why?

it's just pitting the public against teachers.

Isn't it great? I mean an utter stroke of genius.

yeah. great. i'm probably next.

No state workers have already been squeezed in Jersey I think. Local employees are the only decent place left where gains can be made.

I know state workers already have to contribute a bit to their own health care, which is part of the concessions they're asking from the teachers.

The NJEA has had both parties by the balls for so long, it's such a breath of fresh air for someone to come into office who's willing to go to war with them. I don't know if he's going to win, but lord I hate the teachers union.

My understanding is (and this is probably from some anti-union thing but nevertheless) that in many districts, the teachers' union are more than willing to see young teachers get laid off in order to protect seniority.

I think there are basically four paths here...

1) Increasing state taxes/cutting more from other state spending - to get more funding from the state for local school districts
2) Increasing property taxes to make up for state funding cuts
3) Concessions from teachers to make up for state funding cuts
4) Firing teachers/cutting sports/arts to make up for state funding cuts

Christie's saying no to 1. 2 is probably politically impossible in most locales.

Basically what Christie's done is put the choice on teachers on how to balance the budgets. Forgo your raises since there wasn't really any inflation anyway last year, and pay basically for the state cuts that way, or see non tenured teachers bite the bullet. The NJEA's line is always about how they want what's best for the children. Well the ball's in their court. Now coming out today with incentivizing districts a bit for teachers to accept the freeze. Good stuff.

Support staff are gonna get creamed worse than teachers. Administrators, of course, will likely see COLA+ raises.

VoxOrion wrote:The key will be to find a way to get past the redistribution of wealth part, and that will lie entirely in the perception of the solution.

As a sci-fi fan, I'm sure you grasp that this needs to be understood in the dimension of time. Whether the class-based redistribution of wealth is marginally upwards or downwards, the real nature of it is that the higher taxes and lower benefits of the future will have to make up for everything current and past generations put on the collective credit card: open-ended entitlements, tax cuts, wars, etc.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think there are basically four paths here...

1) Increasing state taxes/cutting more from other state spending - to get more funding from the state for local school districts
2) Increasing property taxes to make up for state funding cuts
3) Concessions from teachers to make up for state funding cuts
4) Firing teachers/cutting sports/arts to make up for state funding cuts

Christie's saying no to 1. 2 is probably politically impossible in most locales.

Basically what Christie's done is put the choice on teachers on how to balance the budgets. Forgo your raises since there wasn't really any inflation anyway last year, and pay basically for the state cuts that way, or see non tenured teachers bite the bullet. The NJEA's line is always about how they want what's best for the children. Well the ball's in their court. Now coming out today with incentivizing districts a bit for teachers to accept the freeze. Good stuff.

Well, a Hobson's Choice is, of course, no choice at all. If this is a true "economic crisis" the only reasonable course is number one-combine spending cuts (including for education) with revenue increases, which can involve taxation. As you say, Christie has ruled out option one. He's then complained about the "necessity" of his spending cuts. But the necessity stems from him, even if he now attempts to lay it upon the teacher's unions.


Christie can feel free to pursue his own political ideology , and seek to reduce state government spending. But his implementation sacrifices good sense for the sake of this ideology. I would have loved to see some more prominent cuts of programs fully funded by the state before dropping this bomb on the local jurisdictions. And while Christie would like to portray the NJEA as this monolithic entity with members marching in lockstep, the fact is there are currently hundreds of contracts with different affiliates, all in different stages and with different terms. Some contracts might be able to be opened up, most won't, and in any case the terms negotiated will vary widely, with the net effect being that these cuts will end up being even more unfairly distributed. A far more equitable strategy would be to time state cuts with the expiration of contracts, so at least both the unions and the districts would know what the deal was going in. Should I really feel incensed that teachers want to maintain contracts that were bargained for in good faith? It's not how I'd feel about it if I were in that position, no matter how much I cared about the kids or non-tenured teachers. And it's the individual members who are going to make those decisions, not the NJEA.

The job of the the union is to best represent its members and gain the most advantageous deal for them, and it would be an abrogation of their role to do otherwise. The job of Christie is to do what's best for the citizens of New Jersey. I'd like to say that's his aim, but mainly what I see right now is a lot of grandstanding and rash action that will hurt thousands if not millions.

But swish the necessity doesn't stem from him. There was a $10 billion dollar budget deficit. The school cuts merely bridge 1/10 of it. Even if he was willing to go along with the millionaire's tax for another year (and I think that's a likely compromise going forward), only some of that money is going to end up going for local school funding. There are tons of other areas that have been slashed heavily. If you look at this handy chart below, education funding in the budget actually goes up this year. I think a lot of the "cuts" are cuts in scheduled funding that aren't actually large year on year cuts. Maybe some of the local funding is under a different line item? Maybe someone could explain this to me so it makes sense?



In general I think the NJEA is full of sh!t and makes crap up to scare people. I would love to see them present something numbers wise explaining how the governor could do this better without using overwrought rhetoric. It looks like the state is still funding education, just not up to the level Corzine promised during an election year where he bought union support.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:The key will be to find a way to get past the redistribution of wealth part, and that will lie entirely in the perception of the solution.

As a sci-fi fan, I'm sure you grasp that this needs to be understood in the dimension of time. Whether the class-based redistribution of wealth is marginally upwards or downwards, the real nature of it is that the higher taxes and lower benefits of the future will have to make up for everything current and past generations put on the collective credit card: open-ended entitlements, tax cuts, wars, etc.

I wasn't proposing a solution but commenting on your point that something has to be done to change minds of a sufficient number of voters in order to accomplish any meaningful debt reduction. I think it would be easier to convince Americans of the lower benefits of the future if the government took the lead and, you know, stopped expanding. But this goes to your original point, vicious cycle, etc.

Drill, baby, drill?

The Obama administration will approve significant oil and gas exploration off America's coasts, including a possible sale two years from now of leases off Virginia's coast, administration officials said Wednesday.
The move, which President Obama will announce Wednesday morning with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base, ends a long-standing moratorium on oil and gas drilling along much of the East
Coast, from Delaware to central Florida.
The new strategy, an administration official said, calls for also developing oil and gas exploration in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, more than 125 miles from Florida's coast; and in large areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in the Arctic Ocean, north of Alaska, after the government conducts detailed studies.

Of course, it's not precisely fair to read that and think Obama wants to bring back the Hummer and has no regard for some environmental agenda. Later on the article says limits on vehicle emissions will be finalized. Still, an interesting move that's not entirely out of the blue.

There's a real limit to how high taxes in a state can go, and NJ is close to that limit, particularly if you consider the burden that property taxes pose on many residents.

TenuredVulture wrote:There's a real limit to how high taxes in a state can go, and NJ is close to that limit, particularly if you consider the burden that property taxes pose on many residents.

I just filed an appeal of my property tax assessment. Wish me luck.

swishnicholson wrote:The job of the the union is to best represent its members and gain the most advantageous deal for them

I doubt anybody would disagree that this is the primary purpose of any union, Swish. In the case of the NJEA, however, there is substantial question as to whether "them" refers to teachers or the union itself.

And while I am on the subject I would just like to say that I attended my district's budget presentation last night and the picture was much better than it look just two weeks ago (although we are still looking at cuts/elimination of some programs - including our freshman sports - and staff reductions of approximately 9 FTEs). A major reason for the improvement in the budget picture is that our teachers, administrators and support staff made significant concessions in contract negotiations that allowed our BOE to add programs back into the budget that were originally targeted for elimination. My main point in bringing this up is to make sure that teachers' get no more blame than they might deserve because some of them actually get it.

TenuredVulture wrote:My understanding is (and this is probably from some anti-union thing but nevertheless) that in many districts, the teachers' union are more than willing to see young teachers get laid off in order to protect seniority.

Don't know about NJ, but in PA seniority is not a union contract issue, it is state law. You must lay off in order of reverse seniority. The first to go are the permanent substitutes, then the probationary teachers who have yet to earn tenure, then the tenured teachers in order of reverse seniority. Same is true when you reduce administrators.

In another post you criticize that administrators will get COLA+ raises. Not likely. In my school district, many administrators earned less per hour than if they had stayed as teachers. The premium for being a public employee manager is extremely meager, compared to private sector. A Superintendant running a district with a $100 million plus budget, 1500 professional employees (accredited full-time, teachers, counselors, psychologists, administrators), and perhaps 500 nonprofessional employees might earn $125,000 a year. It also isn't the most secure job in the world.

Bakestar wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's a real limit to how high taxes in a state can go, and NJ is close to that limit, particularly if you consider the burden that property taxes pose on many residents.

I just filed an appeal of my property tax assessment. Wish me luck.

And I do; however, you would probably be surprised how successful some of those appeals are. I would think even moreso with the current real estate environment.

And TV is 100% right, we are close to the limit if not already there. I would guess I'm going to see another $200 - $300 increase this year (I already know school tax increase is gonna be around $115). In all seriousness, I may literally be taxed right out of the state soon. My property taxes are approaching 12% of my gross salary, which, although I have no basis for comparision, seems insanely high. And I don't make $30k a year either, thank God.

allentown wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:My understanding is (and this is probably from some anti-union thing but nevertheless) that in many districts, the teachers' union are more than willing to see young teachers get laid off in order to protect seniority.

Don't know about NJ, but in PA seniority is not a union contract issue, it is state law. You must lay off in order of reverse seniority. The first to go are the permanent substitutes, then the probationary teachers who have yet to earn tenure, then the tenured teachers in order of reverse seniority. Same is true when you reduce administrators.

In another post you criticize that administrators will get COLA+ raises. Not likely. In my school district, many administrators earned less per hour than if they had stayed as teachers. The premium for being a public employee manager is extremely meager, compared to private sector. A Superintendant running a district with a $100 million plus budget, 1500 professional employees (accredited full-time, teachers, counselors, psychologists, administrators), and perhaps 500 nonprofessional employees might earn $125,000 a year. It also isn't the most secure job in the world.

You could safely DOUBLE that figure in some NJ districts. Our super makes $144k and he deserves every single penny of it (IMHO).