Who are the super rich?

Though the original post has been deleted, I saw a blog entry summarizing a University of Chicago Law School professor's rant that he can't afford potential tax hikes because he only makes $400,000 or so a year. Only $400k? I think somebody needs to get a better handle on his budget. My wife and I make about a third of that combined. We somehow manage to make ends meet paying for cable (no movies), Netflix, childcare (youngest one needs full time daycare), a legal Mexican to cut our lawn, our mortgage, NJ property taxes (among the highest in the nation), a car payment (other car is paid off) and a class or two for our children (just bought the oldest a clarinet).

We don't have a cleaning woman, but that is more because we haven't found one we like. We also don't pay for private school, aside from the private kindergarten our daughter goes to because our town does not have the full day kindergarten working parents need. Granted, we probably have a smaller home, but it is still 4 bedrooms and 2 baths and our retirement and college education funds are a mess, but we somehow manage to make a decent middle class living earning less than one third of the law school professor. Even adding in the additional costs a larger home and private school would cost to our budget, we would probably still have quite a bit left over if our income doubled, much less tripled. But then we have always tried to live a somewhat modest lifestlye that I am sure looks quite affluent to a family making less than half of what we do.

While the law professor does create jobs for the cleaning and garden people, whatever classes he puts his children in and wherever else all his money goes (I imagine he also invests in stocks), it sounds like he is doing quite nicely. Paying taxes is part of the price of living in a civilized society, which includes protection to prevent people making a minimum wage and just getting by from storming the castles of the rich for a more immediate wealth distribution.

The law school professor is obviously highly skilled and no doubt deserves the high salary he earns. I don't begrudge him trying to keep control of as much of his money as he can. But to say he is not rich is a joke, especially in this horrible market for new lawyers coming out with over $160k in law school loans with no job prospects.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it

With eight weeks to Election Day, many polls report that Republican candidates are better liked than Democrats and the GOP is salivating over what this means for their chances in the mid-term elections. Before they get overly excited over their return to power, just remember this. There is a very powerful voting block of people that are remaining very very quiet: the silent majority.

We hear plenty from partisan observers, both on the left and the right, but how much do we really hear from average citizens, aware of what is going on, forming their own conclusions, but just going about their business? This powerful group knows how close the Republicans and President G.W. Bush came to sinking this beautiful, wonderful country straight into the toilet. At the moment, those potential voters are not motivated as President Obama has not wowed them for many different reasons. But they may be motivated when they realize that their inaction will mean handing the keys back to the Republicans who really got us into this mess.

And despite how much the GOP may want the President to stop blaming Bush, the leftovers from the Bush administration like the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the economic mess are the key areas affecting the country today. Criticizing the President for how he is handling those problems is fine, but I haven't heard anything from the GOP aside from the same policies that have stopped working and have left us with a whole pile of bi-partisan debt that is going to have to be paid down no matter how much they want to cut taxes on the rich. I really don't understand how anyone could really believe President Obama could come into office, wave a magic wand and boom, instantly no more war and a robust economy.

PS to all these liberals bashing the President for not doing enough: don't forget the country didn't elect liberal representatives and senators to get the president's back. Maybe you should think about what that means.

Political party poopers

Far fewer 18- to 29-year-olds now identify themselves as Democrats compared with 2008. That would be fine if we weren't stuck with a two party system. Instead we are froced to choose the lesser of two evils because, to be frank, I have no faith that either party wants to do what is best for the average middle class American.

The one thing I learned in college is that the Republicans were not my friends. Even if I agreed with them on some issues, and probably would have been happy in their party in the early 1970s, I discovered they were too two faced to be trusted (not that the Democrats were much better). They preached freedom, yet campaigned on taking away rights as they campaign on a platform of fear and hate. They preached fiscal conservatism, yet borrowed and spent like there was no tomorrow. I've seen them transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, making the reality of our parents' lives the impossible dreams of our children.

And let us not forget their discrimination of anyone educated with their elitism comments, which I find ironic as it was their actions in making it impossible for college graduates to lose their student loan obligations in bankruptcy thus forcing them to remain soulless cubicle drones, assuming they can find a job, to pay back their debts. I'm not a big fan of the Democrats, I think they spend to much on entitlements and not enough on investing in the country's infrastructure, but if my choice is of the two -- it sure won't be the narrow minded, Glen Beck, intolerant, anti-civil rights, freedom hating Republicans. You sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

We need more real leaders

I am disgusted by our so called leaders using the US Constitution as toilet paper. With the exception of a few such as Mayor Bloomberg (R-NY) and President Obama (D) and, to a lesser extent, Governor Christie (R-NJ), many have succumbed to the zealots' dark side. Senator Reid's cowardly statement saying he didn't support the mosque was just the latest sign of the cowardice from those who would prefer to forget some of the basics from the Constitution. There is no exception in the First Amendment for religions we don't like. There is no exception to ban religions from building a house of worship at a certain site because it makes others uncomfortable.

My wife and I used to live in Brooklyn Heights, with a view of the World Trade Center from our apartment window. I can't begin to tell you how many pictures we have with the Trade Center in the background, including pictures we took from the roof of our building. We frequented the mall in the basement frequently with Borders being our main meeting up spot in the days before cell phones. To many of the real Americans opposing the mosque, 9/11 was a TV event. I lived it. Most of America was able to go back to work on Monday with everything back to normal. Not so for those in NYC (and Washington too I imagine).

I watched the buildings burn and fall from my office. And, as we were being evacuated and the phones went dead and I couldn't reach the brother who worked across the street and frequently was in one of the towers, wondered if I was going to have to tell my mother that night she had lost another son (he was running late and was outside when the first plane hit). Later, as I checked email and read of people I knew who lost somebody, I smelled the burning buildings from our home. I saw the smoking ruins when I returned to work on Monday (which was a task in itself). I read with sadness that most of the firefighters from our local firehouse perished that day, though I didn't know them aside from a quick hello if we walked past the firehouse with our dog. It took a long time until I could look at lower Manhattan without feeling grief.

Sometime ago, 4 or 5 years ago, maybe longer, that changed. Maybe it was the PATH station reopening and my starting to think of the site as a construction zone when I came in from NJ where we moved to when our son was born. Maybe it was seeing how much of the area remained the same east of Church Street and thinking this is not the WTC site once I crossed the road. Maybe it was all the other development in lower Manhattan. Maybe it was just time healing all wounds. Whatever. None of this has to do with the mosque and that is my point. My personal thoughts and those of people who do not live or work in the neighborhood should not matter. It is a local issue and the local community board has decided that an abandoned building two blocks away, surrounded by strip clubs and bars in a world different from the financial and professional world that existed just blocks away, was ok for a house of worship (for those who have never been to Manhattan, neighborhoods can change drastically in just a few blocks).

It is the Muslim people looking to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site, not the Taliban or even the Saudi Arabians. Too bad if not restricting the rights of others to make you feel better is unconstitutional. We are not a nation that has religious squads roaming our cities trying to enforce their views on the population. We are a nation of religious freedom and somebody needs to remind Real Americans what their ancestors came to this country for and fought for.

And to those from other parts of the country who feel they have a right to comment on a local zoning issue I ask what would there reaction have been if families of federal workers from around the nation had demanded that no churches be constructed within blocks of the Murrow building site in Oklahoma City because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian? I suspect laughter even though these are the same people who would have probably eagerly placed innocent US Japanese citizens in internment camps after Pearl Harbor because they happened to be the same nationality as those who attacked the US.

It is easy to follow mob rule like Senator Reid has done, it is harder to stand up for what is right, especially if it is going to cost you votes. That doesn't make taking the chicken's way out correct. A real leader, no matter the party, would remind the population about this. Freedom and liberty can be ugly at times. That is the price we pay for being free.

The US Constitution is not pick and choose

There has been a lot of noise about a mosque, approved by local planning boards, being built in lower Manhattan being too close to the World Trade Center site. Many people feel that it is too close to the site and it is disrespectful and wrong to build it so close to where such tragedy took place. Well, while the First Amendment allows those people to speak their minds, that same provision allows the Muslims who want to build a mosque. The constitutional guarantees of freedom, including freedom of worship, were not suspended by 9/11, despite the efforts of certain politicians and partisans. The right and freedom to worship, or not, is a key freedom. Despite what some bigots say (and these people are bigots), 9/11 has not superseded the First Amendment.

If the Imam of the proposed mosque is political, take way the mosque's 501(c)(3) tax-emptness. But if the property for the mosque is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of zoning that is allowed for that area and the local planning board and community agrees that a religious building being constructed in the area is appropriate then that should be that. No American has a right to tell someone they can't open a church, synagogue or mosque in a certain area for the arbitrary and discriminatory reason that some of the same religion did something wrong and YOU don't want them to worship in a certain place for no other reason. This is NYC 2010, not Berlin 1940. Polls don't matter.

Yes churches are denied permission to build due to zoning reasons all the time, but the zoning for the lower Manhattan area allows for churches and the mosque. Either all are banned or none are banned. You don't get to pick and choose. That is un-American and un-Constitutional. Period. There is no other argument. And the "real Americans" who say otherwise should be sent back to school for a remedial course in American history.

You get what you pay for

NJ Governor Christie has told a teacher, upset at his scapegoating of the teachers, to find another job if she doesn't think she is being paid enough. Yes, because having Joe the plumber teach our children, in lieu of someone qualified, is such a great bargain. You pay for what you get and, having grown up in NYC with teachers and an education inferior to what I saw my cousins in the NJ suburbs get, I know what a difference a good teacher makes. While some students are motivated to succeed on their own, many are not. I know too many bright guys spending their days loading sodas onto trucks (not that there is anything wrong with that) who could have been so much more. I pay high taxes, in part, because I expect good schools and that includes good teachers.

NJ has 21 counties and almost 600 school districts. Each district as their own superintendent, some of whom make more than the Governor, plus assistant superintendents, who also make a pretty penny, and their staffs. In my town we have one school system for grades K-8 and another for high school (though that is regional with 5 other towns). Start consolidating the districts, perhaps to the county level, K-12, and we'll have money to pay a nice chunk of the teachers being laid off (who are probably at the bottom of the pay scale since it will probably be the newbies being laid off). But we, don't hear anything like this from the Governor as he continues to bash individual contributors. Why?

And before anyone thinks I'm letting the union off scott free, calm down. I'm not familiar with the union benefits, but if their contracts are anything like other school systems, which, for example, mandate to the minute how much teachers should spend on X, Y & Z (I know many teachers voluntarily spend more time), then there is plenty of fat to cut out at the next bargaining session. And the unions can really help themselves by not being so tone deaf and falling into the Governor's trap. I imagine the responses would have been less vicious if the unions had responded with a plan where the lower paid teachers still received some raise while those in the upper portions of the pay scale foregoed theirs (and a 1.5% co-pay for health care is nothing).

Republicans to 9/11 first responders: Drop dead

Republicans would greatly appreciate it if the 9/11 first responders would please hurry up and die because they don't want to pay for their health anymore, especially as they consider the costs to be a NYC issue and not a federal issue. This is wrong and disrespects and dishonors people who ran into a burning pit looking for survivors and then spent weeks digging in a toxic mess looking for victims. Getting skimpy on health benefits for the 9/11 first responders that are a drop in the ocean of current federal spending is not going to make or break the federal budget.

The 9/11 attacks were against the US, not NYC. We have the money. We just choose to spend it elsewhere, such as bailing out banks and giving even larger tax cuts to the rich -- the same people all those firefighters and police officers at the WTC died trying to save. But the real irony is that these are the same first responder types who would have run into the Capitol to save everybody they could, Democrats, Republicans, civilians etc if that plane had crashed into the building on 9/11 and will save them if another attack does happen.

The GOP claims they care so much about our troops yet they spent the first decade sending them to get blown up in war and then didn't properly take care of the wounded when they returned home broken. The GOP claimed that we had to take such a hard stand for 9/11...yet they don't want to help those who helped us. What a bunch of ingrates. A country that refuses to take care of their war wounded (and I'd argue these men and women were the first casualties of this war) deserves its fate.

NJ's Patsy Generation

Tax dollars for education? Ignorance is bliss.
Tax dollars for NJ Transit? Walk to work.
Tax dollars so school children can have bread? Let them eat cake.
Tax dollars for seniors' prescriptions? No problem.

It's bad enough that the Governor has increased my commuting costs and, ultimately, the costs to educate my children but now he wants to take my hard earned tax dollars to GIVE to the seniors who probably voted down my town's school budget so they can have an extra $310 for senior prescription drug funding to spend on golf fees at their active living neighborhood or on meals out???

How about NO?! When did shared sacrifice come to mean average, middle class parents paying for everything? Seniors got to vote down the school budget. Why can't I vote the prescription plan down? Why can't I vote down the budget for the town's senior center? Oh that's right, the parasites who have spent the last 30 years stealing money from their children are in charge and now are taking the resources from their grandchildren.


If it were realistic I'd sell my house now and move to a state with less parasites and leave this state for those who think younger generations have nothing better to do then move here and pay taxes to support their lifestyles while getting nothing in return simply due to an accident of geography. While my generation, Generation X, could be called the Patsy Generation getting stuck with this nonsense, Generation Y will be wise to look elsewhere when choosing the state to raise their families.

We are our own enemy in NJ

I have met the enemy and he is us. The governor successfully has the population fighting with state workers and teachers, who don’t make much more than the average resident and whose benefits are only slightly better, in lieu of us questioning how much money is being spent on all the duplicate administrative expenses in all levels of government across the state. And that doesn’t even include the additional funds the governor has added to his staff’s payroll. In the governor's world, it is ok for us to hate on the teacher who makes $45,000 for wanting a raise of 4%, which I agree that in this economy where many equally educated persons received a much smaller raise, if any, seems high, but it is ok for a position on his staff, already making twice as much as the teacher, to get a 10-20% raise over last year.

I hate hypocrites but we the People are the ones with the messed up priorities. We care more about lowering investments in our future by reducing education spending then care about extra money wasted on administrative expenses (and for those who say talent to work in the government’s office requires money, well, good news — it is a buyer’s market; there are plenty of very highly educated people under or unemployed right now).

Why not rally against all those wasteful politically connected positions? In this connected world, where we are all wired and, more importantly, dependent on state funding, home rule is less important. I’d rather pay for teachers or police then pay for the friend of a friend’s daughter to have a $60,000 administrative job at the municipal building where she spends the majority of her time talking to co-workers in other offices because she doesn’t have enough work to fill her days.

However, since tearing each other apart seems to be what gets attention, I guess I'll follow the rest of the sheeple. Our great-grandparents made sacrifices for our grandparents and our grandparents made sacrifices for our parents. However when it was our parents generation's turn (roughly the baby boomers) they demanded tax cuts that have destroyed investments in our country's future, leaving roads, schools and our general infrastructure in dire shape as we attempt to compete in the global 21st century knowledge based economy with a 1950s mentality all so they could enjoy a leisurely retirement when they are done raping the economy. In the meantime, I am waiting for the funding for my town's senior citizen center to come up for a vote. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

How was that? Did I sound angry enough? Did I correctly unfairly blame an entire population for the view who drank our Machiavellian governor's kool aide by blaming teachers and not the official corruption we allow? Oh, darn, there I go again -- calling the governor names in lieu of laying out the facts as to why I believe we have erred in taking out our anger over excessive spending on those who actually do the work while those who make the decisions get ever richer on our tax payer money. But I must admit, it is much easier, and more fun, to just throw statements out there.

The "right" activist judge

The computer ink on Supreme Court Justice Steven's retirement letter is barely dry and already Senate Republicans are lecturing President Obama that activist judges are not qualified to serve. To them I reply, my dear Senators -- Why don't you say what you really mean: "an activist judge, who would substitute their own views for what the law requires, unless it is consistent with the conservative view, is not qualified to serve on the federal bench."

Of course then you would have to eliminate the last two Republican appointees, as they overturned decades of law to fit their opinion in Citizens United (the elections and corporate spending case) when the issue at hand could have been decided much more narrowly. Instead the newest justices showed that they are the very definition of activist judges. If the Senators had truly believed that activist judges were wrong they would have blasted the Citizens United decision and complained how they were duped by the two recent judges who misled Congress during their confirmation hearings. Yet, a search of your views on the matter found nothing from you condemning the decision, aside from calling the President rude (which I don't disagree with) for calling out the Supremes during the State of the Union regarding this bit of activist judicial decision making.

I hate hypocrites and you Senators are not doing anything to show me otherwise. Nominating a Supreme Court justice is not just another political fight, it is something that will have unknown repercussions long after most of today's "leaders" are out of power. Fortunately for you and your allies, the mainstream media won't call you on this and, aside from what I am sure will be some responses below in the comments, no one else will either. As to President Obama, I hope he goes out and finds the biggest, qualified, activist liberal to place in Justice Stevens place to battle the conservative activists you have favored in the past.

New Jersey's Machiavellian Governor

He has spent all his time attacking teachers and lower level state workers, many of whom are not that well paid and are our friends, neighbors, family or ourselves. In the meantime he has not done a thing, at least publicly, to tackle the real corruption and waste brought about by patronage jobs nor spoke of eliminating high level, six figure positions in state government. Even the majority of the 1,300 out of 63,500 executive branch level jobs he is cutting appear to be lower level employees directly involved in providing services to citizens. And people wonder why NJ Governor Chris Christie has declining popularity poll numbers? Ha.

This reminds me of upper management in a friend's company. When they announced wage freezes last year for all employees, somebody asked if that included bonuses, which only higher level management received. After some hemming and hawing they admitted the freeze did not include bonuses. As soon as they showed that we were not really all in this financial mess together, people started leaving the meeting (higher ups were in a separate location anyway).

While I agree that state spending needs to be cut, and generally support the cuts, the Governor has not shown we are all in this together. When the Governor stops picking on people who actually work for a living, providing services that citizens actually use, and starts emptying cubes and offices in state and county offices across the state of patronage jobs, he will have my full support. Until then I just see another Machiavellian who is having us, the mice, fight over the crumbs, because some of us have bigger crumbs, while the high level politically appointed fat cats keep their tax payer funded cheese.

The cost of a lawyer

I just read an article in the NY Times concerning revising the pay for associates at law firms. However, it was the comments from the readers that most interested me, particularly one from "Mary" who is suffering severe lawyer envy. First she wondered why a law degree, with just one more year of school then a masters, is worth so more. She ignores that not all graduate programs are equal and I doubt she would have plied the same standards toward a medical degree, for instance. Having both a masters and a JD, both attained while working full time, I can assure you that the JD is not just one more year of education. I practically did my masters in my sleep, maintaining a near perfect average. Law school was a lot more work, requiring many late nights and weekends in the library with a GPA that was nowhere near perfect.

She also whined about lack of intense training or specialization, stating one need to pass a general bar exam. Only pass a general bar exam? Don't even get me started on the Bar exam, which basically required 8 weeks of non-stop study, aside from meals and work (I worked the first several weeks). I dare her to try it.

As to the additional training or specialization, perhaps shecould consider a first year lawyer akin to an intern at a teaching hospital -- learning on the job things you could not learn in class. Specialization usually comes after practicing starts. Some of that is through on the job training as attorneys begin work in their fields, some is done through continuing legal education, which most states, including New York, mandate. Lawyers can get certified in their new, post-law school specialties (which includes taking exams again) though that is not uniform across the country. A simple Google search would have told her that there are specialized bar exams such as the patent one.

I'm not defending the current law school model or the big law model, particularly as one who has never made a fortune in law. I think the law schools do a tremendous disservice by suggesting that students can become rich in law when they should be telling prospective students that if they do not have an interest in law, they should seek their fortune elsewhere.

Fees and salaries are only as high as the market will bear. If you want the best lawyers, you are going to have to pay for them. However, I think most of us would admit we are not the best, at least at the start of our legal careers. And the media could go a long way by not emphasizing what a few people just out of law school will make and concentrate what the majority of newly minted lawyers will make.

When will the real spending cuts in NJ come?

Another day, another demand from Trenton that spending at the local level be frozen or cut? When are we going to hear about salary cuts in Trenton? When are we going to hear about the elimination of patronage jobs? When are we going to hear about the Governor's plans to eliminate the silent tax burden corruption and duplication of administration services causes us?

Right now I am paying the same taxes, but will have reduced, and more expensive, NJ Transit service soon and will see my children's education suffer. And don't even get me started on roads on a morning I hear a bridge over the Garden State Parkway is closed because part of it fell on the road. I don't deny that there is wasteful spending, but right now it seems the burden is on the taxpayer with none being felt by those who actually caused the mess -- our political leaders and their connected friends.

When will the pain be shared with the bureaucrats who don't actually affect day to day living for most of us in the state? At the moment all the changes are leading to a shifting of costs to the average NJ citizen in the form of higher fares and higher property taxes. Soon I'm sure other services will be cut, perhaps to motor vehicles, the state highways or the court system. All cuts affecting the average person but not those who have jobs that could be cut will little affect on services to the common man. When will the real cuts to the state government come Governor?

Bread and circuses in NJ continues

The government, especially the Republicans, have done a wonderful job over the last decade of championing the uneducated and uninterested over the highly qualified. Questioning is bad, following what the conservatives want is good. Al Gore is a boring policy wonk who should not be President because he is too dull and knowledgeable. Sarah Palin is qualified as President because she knows the common person. What a bunch of horse hockey! I don't want my equal to run the country. The world is a dangerous place. I want someone better then me.

The other thing to congratulate NJ government on is the shifting of the public's ire from their own corrupt friends to people who actually do work. Granted the teachers' unions haven't helped themselves by rejecting 4% raises out of hand as too little when professionals, as equally qualified and educated in their own fields as teachers, are happy to get a 2.5% raise in this economy. Still, I want teachers to be adequately compensated. The world and the economy are more knowledge intensive. Our survival as a nation will depend on our children being able to compete and surpass our competitors.

So, going back to my previous point, congratulations to the government for changing the public's ire. Now those friends of friends at all levels can continue to hide their high school graduate children in $75,000 patronage jobs at town halls that would pay, maybe $25,000 on the open market. All those 6 figure patronage jobs in Trenton will also be safe. But woe be the one who actually does something useful and tries to do the same.

Yes NJ is in a bad financial situation as we reap the "rewards" of past choices. Yes change needs to be done. And I generally support the governor for tackling the state's long term financial problems. However, until I hear the governor announce he is cutting state patronage jobs by 20%, which should include getting local party bosses to reduce their patronage levels (which probably won't happen as that would reduce their influence), all I hear from him is that he is shifting tax burdens to the local levels, as towns scramble to cover lost aid, while doing nothing to get rid of the silent state corruption our taxes pay for.

So don't worry high school secretary whose father knows the right person to let you make more money then many more qualified persons in various fields, you're safe. But if you fill our potholes, check out our library books, process my lawsuit against the contractor who took my money and ran or, worst of all, teach our children to be productive citizens -- look out! You're in the crosshairs.

Massachusetts Senate race

So Mr. Brown won "Ted Kennedy's" Massachusetts Senate seat and the Republicans are crowing how much this means voters are tired of President Obama. I wonder, however, how much of this victory is people being pro-Republican and how much is it being anti-Coakley?

From what I read (and I didn't follow the campaign too closely), Ms. Coakley never really connected with the voters, taking victory for granted and mocking Mr. Brown for shaking voters' hands outside Fenway, much like Ted Kennedy, who never took winning for granted, would have done. She under-estimated the retail politicking Senator Kennedy succeeded at, appearing disengaged, and paid the price.

In my mind this is similar to what happened in NJ last fall. Governor Corzine wasn't voted out of office because the state suddenly turned conservative. He was voted out because the people didn't like him and wanted a change. Former Governor Corzine was not a good public speaker and never really connected with the voters. Mr. Corzine actually had smaller budgets the last year or two but nobody noticed. Instead of talking to the people, he talked to the union heads. If Governor Christie does what he did while he was federal prosecutor and weeds out corruption, he will be considered a success.

So before the Republicans make the same mistake and take voter anger at Democrats for granted, they really need to look at the individuals involved. All politics is local.