|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 23, 2011 21:05:39 GMT -5
Not NY State, but will affect things here.Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thursday, June 23, 2011 -- 9:13 PM EDT
-----
New Jersey Legislature Approves Deep Cuts in Benefits to Public Workers
New Jersey lawmakers on Thursday approved a broad rollback in benefits for three-quarters of a million government workers and retirees, the deepest cut in state and local costs in memory, in a major victory for Gov. Chris Christie and a once-unthinkable setback for the powerful public employee unions.
The Assembly passed the bill as Republicans and a few Democrats defied raucous protests by thousands of people whose chants, vowing electoral revenge, shook the State House. Leaders in the State Senate said their chamber, which had already passed a slightly different version of the bill, would approve the Assembly version on Monday, and Mr. Christie, a Republican, was expected to quickly sign the measure into law.
Read More:
www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
NYTimes.com
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 24, 2011 10:32:57 GMT -5
Besides that, Christie is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 10:43:36 GMT -5
Yea, but Christie made sure those tax breaks for multi millionaires went untouched.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 25, 2011 10:18:35 GMT -5
Connecticut Budget Is Upended as State Workers Reject DealHARTFORD — Connecticut’s state workers, in voting results announced on Friday, rejected a deal meant to produce $1.6 billion in labor savings over two years, blowing a gaping hole in the state budget, raising the likelihood of thousands of layoffs and threatening chaos in a state that has largely avoided the rancorous labor issues seen elsewhere.
The rejection was an emphatic slap to both the union leadership and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a Democrat who was elected in November with enthusiastic support from labor.
The governor has called the legislature into special session next week to balance the budget, which had been passed under the assumption that union members would approve the deal. Mr. Malloy said Friday that the state would start sending layoff notices almost immediately and that 7,500 or more workers could lose their jobs. ... The agreement called for wage freezes for two years, followed by 3 percent annual raises for three years and a guarantee of no layoffs for four years, as well as concessions on pensions and health care.
It had been hailed as a harmonious resolution, in contrast with the strife in states like New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin, where legislatures have reduced benefits or curbed bargaining rights in the face of vehement labor protests. ... Among those with much to lose are Mr. Malloy, who had taken the politically risky step of enacting the largest tax increase in state history as part of what he called a balanced approach, including the concessions, to the state’s short-term and long-term budget needs.
Largely because of the tax increases, a Quinnipiac University poll last week showed his approval rating at just 38 percent. The governor has ruled out any further tax increases to balance the state’s two-year, $40.1 billion budget. www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/connecticuts-budget-plans-are-upended-by-state-workers-vote.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2011 10:30:35 GMT -5
Sounds like Greece. The cuts have to take place. Public workers don't need all that money or benifits.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 25, 2011 10:35:19 GMT -5
Yea, but Christie made sure those tax breaks for multi millionaires went untouched. Kracker may be referring to the tax breaks for businesses. They are controversial, since one can calculate how much is spent to save each job ($1000 last year, over $7,000 this year), but one doesn't know how much each job is worth or whether it would have really left the state. BTW, most business owners are not multi-millionaires. www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/nj_firms_snap_up_revamped_tax.html |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 25, 2011 10:55:07 GMT -5
Sounds like Greece. The cuts have to take place. Public workers don't need all that money or benifits.It is not the salaries or benefits that are increasing beyond inflation for public employees (and private, for that matter), it is the cost of their pension and benefit packages, or in other words the money set aside for future payout. The bull market of '80s and '90's and their high returns allowed the state and school districts to ignore the huge balloon of payments promised to retirees. As a result, public workers were asked to pay less and less of the costs.  www.empirecenter.org/Special-Reports/2010/12/pensionexplosion120710.cfmWhat the public sector in NY State has to get a handle on is the coming explosion of payouts. Suggestions have included wage freezes as well as asking employees pay a higher share of their monthly pension and medical costs. That seems reasonable to me since public employee pension and medical costs are in some cases far beyond what is available in the private sector. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 25, 2011 13:31:11 GMT -5
Besides that, Christie is insane.  |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 25, 2011 15:34:06 GMT -5
Look for the Christie video about schools and teachers. There was a woman who was asking him why he doesn't send his kids to public schools and he pratically tore her head off on TV. He's nuts. Here: www.businessinsider.com/chris-christie-pbs-business-education-2011-6(how the hell do embed the video here?) As far as public employees go and the concessions that have been asked of them, KEEPING a job is better than NO job at all. If foregoing raises for a few years ensures many will not lose their jobs, I don't see the issue in that. |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 25, 2011 15:48:01 GMT -5
apparently I must be doing something wrong trying to tag a video to embed it here. I hit the tube button and put the url in between the tags but it does not show up.
Ahh, I got it!
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimer on Jun 25, 2011 15:52:44 GMT -5
This is not the first time this guy has behaved like this. Even though I may agree with what he is trying to do I actually I think he is nothing more than a rude man who actually enjoys intimidating and bullying other people. If he ever ran for President I would find it very hard to vote for anyone with his temperament. He would likely have a stroke early on anyway, He fits the mold to a T.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jun 25, 2011 15:59:24 GMT -5
Yes, he's quite a character. Either he is clueless about how to treat people "from the podium" or he's crazy like a fox. As the male reporter in the above tape pointed out, some people love his gruff manner. And you never know, he may have paid a lot of money for audience research that shows he gains 3 votes for every one he loses when he tells a voter, "That's none of your business." And frankly, the press asks some pretty dumb questions, so I'll bet sometimes we would agree with hm.
But in this case, I think Gail had a legitimate question, which Christie warped to his advantage. She didn't ask him where his kids went to school or what kind of school they attended. She asked how he could justify cutting school budgets when his kids would be seemingly unaffected in a parochial school.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jun 25, 2011 16:45:21 GMT -5
I also agree in theory with what he is trying to do, get costs under control. But its all in the way he presents it that leaves a bit to be desired. I did feel the same way, that Gail had a legitimate question since he insulated his family from the very cuts he proposed. She did not come off aggressive or waving a finger in his face. Her question seemed to presented with no apprehension so I was pretty astonished with the way he replied. Matter of fact, you might even see the same taken aback reaction to the host sitting next to him in the video. I don't think anybody expected that kind of bullish response.
The other night I actually saw the video clip in its entirety beyond where it cuts off with the MSNBC people above. The rest of it was not as bad but I think he overreacted toward that woman's honest question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2011 4:48:00 GMT -5
Yea, but Christie made sure those tax breaks for multi millionaires went untouched. Kracker may be referring to the tax breaks for businesses. They are controversial, since one can calculate how much is spent to save each job ($1000 last year, over $7,000 this year), but one doesn't know how much each job is worth or whether it would have really left the state. BTW, most business owners are not multi-millionaires. www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/nj_firms_snap_up_revamped_tax.htmlNo, actually I was refering to the $1 billion in tax cuts that his lordship handed down to people making more that $400,000 per year. |
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jun 26, 2011 5:53:18 GMT -5
Dave and kracker are referring to different things. Early last year Gov. Christie allowed a temporary tax surcharge enacted by his predecessor to expire.
Early this year New Jersey passed a tax law reducing some corporate taxes. Gov Christie & NJ Senate Democrats had introduced similar but slightly different proposals. The final law was probably closer to the Governors's proposal. Now both sides are claiming, "I thought of it first."
|
|
