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.