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.

If done the right way, it could be a good thing

"If done the right way, it could be a good thing," says Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex), co-author of legislation to convert Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey from a non-profit to a for profit company.Have scarier words ever been spoken by a NJ politician (probably, but work with me on this). I'm just curious what the Senator means by "right way." Right way for the citizens or right way for the political friends who will make a bunch of money off this deal while millions are forced to pay even more for health care. Since this is NJ, I think we know the answer.

Of course those in charge of this scheme will deny they, or their friends, are going to profit and will be insulted that we're even suggesting such a thing, changing the focus of the argument onto our accusations while dancing around the question of who, if anyone, they know will profit personally. To this I reply LOL!!! (laughing out loud). This state has a well established history of looking the other way when it comes to ethics, at all levels of government.

"When a company goes public, their obligations shifts from patients and physicians to shareholders," notes Michael Kornett, chief executive of the Medical Society of New Jersey. I think we all knows what this means: shareholders will get more money while the citizens of NJ will get shorter life spans as they are denied treatment that they can no longer afford due to higher rates that could keep them healthy. I'm not just talking about treatment to help them cope with chronic diseases, I'm talking about even preventive treatment. Can I prove it? No, but for profit insurers don't have a good track record and if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a good bet it is a duck.

Isn't the roll of government to help citizens and not leave them holding the bag? Ok, you can stop laughing out loud now. Personally, I would prefer if my doctor decided if some medication was inappropriate and not a health care administrator . I'm sure the non profit Blue Cross probably already does that to an extent, but I'd imagine a for profit company would do that even more as they had to answer to shareholders looking to make a profit. I don't have a problem with that per se, investors won't invest unless they can make a few shekels. However, a health care plan forced to answer to Wall Street and not to patients will undoubtedly place Wall Street's needs ahead of patients and doctors.

I know little is done in this country anymore for the common good, unless someone can profit. That is especially true in NJ. Still, with all the crooked schemes uncovered by U.S. attorney Christopher J. Christie in this state the last few years, I am incredibly alarmed by this latest plan. When it comes to its citizens health, I do not trust that the state will not go out of its way to willingly place money ahead of its citizens.

I should have been a NJ school superintendent

Decades ago, one of my cousins took one of those what career should I go into testsbefore going to college. The aptitude test suggested she become a teacher. Her mother, a by then two decade veteran of the NYC school school system said, in so many words "no" (as I recall she was quite emotional about it) for various reasons such as available career opportunities, but she was most adamant about the pay and suggested my cousin find an alternate, more lucrative career. Today my cousin is a stay at home mom with her own accounting business and is doing quite nicely. However, it appears that if my cousin had only become a NJ school superintendent. Whatever the outcome of the Keansburg debacle turns out to be, we should thank the Keansburg Board of Education for giving us a lesson in NJ corruption 101.

This is the type of corruption that is killing this state. No laws were probably broken and the contract allowing the 36 veteran to retire form a teaching/ supervising career with a severance package of over $500,000 ($740,000 when you add in her unused sick and vacation time) is probably legal. Even if various governments are successful into shaming her into giving up some of what she is contractually obligated to receive, she will still walk away with a nice chunk of change, the same change that could've paid for a teacher for many years in one of her Abbott Schools. Of course, what do you expect when there are over 600 little school fiefdoms?

We the people are the ones who drank the kool-aid and think homerule is best. What a bunch of you know what. Some argue that it is good because you interact with your local government and maybe even know your local representative, allowing you to speak to a friend in lieu of a stranger. Again, a bunch of you know what. This is just a waste of taxpayer money that allows some to live off the public dollar, though not be on welfare, because we refuse to consolidate.

I grew up in Queens. My dad was friends with the local councilman. That didn't make a difference. Later, while in college, I worked at a local deli where the councilman was a regular customer. The deli was near an intersection where two major roads merged into one without a traffic light. It was the scene of many backups as a 3 lane road merged into one. I used to hear the owner and many of the customers beg for a traffic light to alleviate the situation. Nothing happened until the councilman was ling out of office. I was friends with the son of his replacement and friends with the son of his secretary. So later, when my elderly mother, who was disabled at the time, was having troubles getting around due to lack of curb cuts or handicapped accessible buses, she went to to our councilman. She received no special treatment and, frankly, that is the way it should be -- everyone treated fairly (outside of corruption).

Representative government is nice but there is something to be said for less government. It made no difference whether you were a friend or a stranger to our local representative; you were treated the same (though, in fairness there were corruption rumors surrounding the later councilman that some were more equal than others, but at least his alleged corruption didn't require the high taxes we see here in NJ). One mayor for 8M people, one school chief for 1M students and less than 50 council members, plus various aides and commissioners to run the entire city. So much better than the hodgepodge we have here in NJ, where each town has their own government(s) and entities that keep repeating each other's work. And when there was corruption, it was moreefficient thanks to the reduction of overhead -- just one bribe to a borough president accomplished what many payoffs to various low level politicians in NJ do. In the meantime, our local councilman did help take care of local problems, such as adding the occasionla traffic light or getting more police protection from time to time.

Anyone whose job it is to put the public's needs before an individual's should have been screaming over Keansberg school contract. Listening to the school board members defending their actions is pathetic -- well at least it would be if I heard them say something aside from asking the superintendent to sit down with them as if this caught them totally by surprise (most likely, the suprise was that the public found out). Now they have their moment of clarity? Where was it when they were drawing up the superintendent's contract (I can guess but then I might be sued for libel)? What is it with this state that seems to transform those who want to serve the public to those who want to create individual feifdoms to fatten their wallets? Those who argue that it's only fair that school administrators get big pensions by pointing out that corporations give their chiefs big packages fail to distinguish the difference between serving the public and running a business for profit. It's not the employee taking $100,000 out of a town's safe that is making it expensive to live in NJ, it is all the friends of friends who are legally taking the money out of taxpayer pockets through all too friendly contracts. And lawmakers only seem to care when it makes news.

My company is currently undergoing a restructuring. As a result of this restructuring some employees will be laid off. Their severance will be 2 weeks pay capped at 15 years of service (meaning 30 weeks of pay for the more veteran employees), plus whatever vacation time they've so far earned this year. While most of the laid off employees will take packages of $20-40k, I think there is one senior director who is taking advantage of this to retire so he might walk away with $75-100k. Why is he getting so much less then the Keansberg superintendent? Oh of course! He was foolish enough not to go into government service in NJ. Silly man.