Reminder to VOTE - TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8 - 7AM to 9PM
Information on the bond referendum is available on the Board of Education pages of the Ridgewood Public Schools website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us
The Ridgewood Blog
Monday, December 07, 2009
Board of Education Bond Referendum - Vote December 8th
REMINDER: Board of Education Bond Referendum - Vote December 8th
Reminder to VOTE - TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8 - 7AM to 9PM
Information on the bond referendum is available on the Board of Education pages of the Ridgewood Public Schools website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us
Reminder to VOTE - TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8 - 7AM to 9PM
Information on the bond referendum is available on the Board of Education pages of the Ridgewood Public Schools website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us
TheSantasList.com
TheSantasList.com Aspires to Give on Many Levels This Christmas
Ridgewood, NJ, December 7, 2009 —
Santa Clause is coming to town this year, just like every other year. And he does have a list. That’s right, the one he checks, not just once, but twice. Only this year you can find out if you’ve been naughty or nice online, with a personal video and email letter direct from Santa.
The Santa’s List online list registry service was launched, appropriately enough, on Friday, November 28th, the biggest Christmas shopping day of the year. However, http://www.thesantaslist.com/ isn’t promoting the commercial interests of retailers, nor is it telling people what to buy. Instead, the web site, designed by All Things Media in Ramsey, N.J., is providing two simple services that could make Christmas a little easier on everybody this year, and help some deserving charities in the process.
According to Nand Patel, the Ridgewood, NJ resident who developed the idea and the web site, “TheSantasList.com will help parents like my wife and I in two ways. The web site will encourage our kids to be better behaved and less anxious going down the stretch toward Christmas. And it will narrow the gifts they get from friends and relatives to just those they want, and we endorse.”
The basic service of the web site is to help parents encourage their good little boys and girls to stay on the straight and narrow with a video that shows Santa adding each child’s name to his good list and a personalized e-mail letter from Santa himself. The service costs $1 per child, or $2 for families with two or more children.
The more valuable service provided by www.TheSantasList.com is not the letter from Santa, however. It’s the Christmas gift registry that can be set up for each individual child in a family. “Kids already seem to have everything they need”, says Patel. “Ask anyone who has to pick up after them. But every year we add to the pile. At least now you can go to one place and find out who wants what.”
So how much is it worth to avoid, for the millionth time, the ‘what do they want for Christmas’ question from friends and family? The cost for a gift registry on TheSanta’sList.com is $3.99 per child, with a maximum cost for a family of $7.98. Many would say, a small price to pay to avoid returning all those unwanted, and woefully unappreciated gifts.
What may factor into the decision making process for many more parents is the community spirit that seems to be at the heart of this new online service. Subscribers at the $1 and $3.99 level will see a percentage of their once-a-year fee go to the charity they designate before they leave the site.
“That’s just pennies per subscriber,” admits Patel, “but that’s all we’re working with here. The idea is to get thousands of parents involved and turn pennies into enough dollars for the service to thrive and the charities to benefit more every year.”
Says Patel, “We’re offering parents a painless way to support causes from SIDS and pancreatic cancer research, to funding the urgent needs of military families and Autism research.”
It may be premature, but on principle alone it’s worth supporting the good intentions here. So, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause. And now there’s TheSantasList.com, too.
For additional information contact Joe Grasso at 561-702-6234.
Contact Information
Joe Grasso
Title: Marketing Director
TheSantasList.com
22 Parsons Court
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Phone: 561-702-6234
NJEA: Teachers "Cadillac" health care plans get hit with $8,500 excise tax
December 4, 2009
Health care reform, yes. But at what cost?
Senate’s excise tax proposal is the wrong approach
By Barbara Keshishian, NJEA President
America needs health insurance reform, and we need it now. But we do not need the kind of reform that the Senate is currently debating, which would shift massive costs onto many middle-class workers who have insurance through their employers. The problem is a sneaky excise tax, ostensibly levied on insurance companies, which would be passed directly on to employees and employers in the form of higher premiums.
The excise tax would be levied against insurance companies on premiums exceeding a certain threshold, which begins as low as $8,500 for single coverage and is slated to rise much more slowly than the average increase in the cost of insurance. In effect, it means that while initially it may affect only a small number of middle-income families, within just a year or two, it will begin to capture many more insurance policies.
One projection, based on the average cost of family insurance coverage provided through the School Employees’ Health Benefits Program, shows that the excise tax is likely to kick in by year two. By year ten, based on projected growth in the cost of insurance, the tax could well exceed $10,000 on a family premium. That cost will certainly pass from the insurance company to the employer who pays the premium. Employers will attempt to shift the burden to employees. The end result: higher costs for middle class families.
Even worse, the quality of insurance coverage will almost certainly decline. To minimize or avoid the impact of the excise tax, employers and employees will be forced to consider reduced benefits, again leaving families more vulnerable to unexpected – and potentially uncovered – medical costs. Ultimately, the excise tax would trigger a race to the bottom, raising costs, lowering quality and putting a greater burden on middle-class families who can ill afford it.
There is a better way. The House of Representatives has passed health care reform legislation that accomplishes essentially the same reform objectives as the Senate version without passing the bill on to middle-class workers. Instead, the House bill finances this critical reform with a modest surcharge on individuals whose adjusted gross income is over $500,000, or couples earning over $1 million.
Both bills greatly expand coverage. Both contain provisions to benefit low-income families and senior citizens. Both ultimately reduce the federal deficit. But the House bill is paid for by asking the super-wealthy to step up and contribute their fair share. The Senate bill, as currently written, tries to sneak another tax onto middle-class families.
During his campaign last year, President Obama promised that individual taxpayers earning less than $250,000 per year would not see their taxes increase during his administration. He took the additional bold step of telling wealthy Americans that they might be asked to contribute a little more. The House bill keeps that promise. The Senate bill violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the president’s pledge.
It is time for our senators to decide whose interests they represent: the super-wealthy, who will benefit from the Senate’s taxing scheme, or the middle-class families who are counting on them for real health care reform.
http://www.njea.org/page.aspx?a=4145
Health care reform, yes. But at what cost?
Senate’s excise tax proposal is the wrong approach
By Barbara Keshishian, NJEA President
America needs health insurance reform, and we need it now. But we do not need the kind of reform that the Senate is currently debating, which would shift massive costs onto many middle-class workers who have insurance through their employers. The problem is a sneaky excise tax, ostensibly levied on insurance companies, which would be passed directly on to employees and employers in the form of higher premiums.
The excise tax would be levied against insurance companies on premiums exceeding a certain threshold, which begins as low as $8,500 for single coverage and is slated to rise much more slowly than the average increase in the cost of insurance. In effect, it means that while initially it may affect only a small number of middle-income families, within just a year or two, it will begin to capture many more insurance policies.
One projection, based on the average cost of family insurance coverage provided through the School Employees’ Health Benefits Program, shows that the excise tax is likely to kick in by year two. By year ten, based on projected growth in the cost of insurance, the tax could well exceed $10,000 on a family premium. That cost will certainly pass from the insurance company to the employer who pays the premium. Employers will attempt to shift the burden to employees. The end result: higher costs for middle class families.
Even worse, the quality of insurance coverage will almost certainly decline. To minimize or avoid the impact of the excise tax, employers and employees will be forced to consider reduced benefits, again leaving families more vulnerable to unexpected – and potentially uncovered – medical costs. Ultimately, the excise tax would trigger a race to the bottom, raising costs, lowering quality and putting a greater burden on middle-class families who can ill afford it.
There is a better way. The House of Representatives has passed health care reform legislation that accomplishes essentially the same reform objectives as the Senate version without passing the bill on to middle-class workers. Instead, the House bill finances this critical reform with a modest surcharge on individuals whose adjusted gross income is over $500,000, or couples earning over $1 million.
Both bills greatly expand coverage. Both contain provisions to benefit low-income families and senior citizens. Both ultimately reduce the federal deficit. But the House bill is paid for by asking the super-wealthy to step up and contribute their fair share. The Senate bill, as currently written, tries to sneak another tax onto middle-class families.
During his campaign last year, President Obama promised that individual taxpayers earning less than $250,000 per year would not see their taxes increase during his administration. He took the additional bold step of telling wealthy Americans that they might be asked to contribute a little more. The House bill keeps that promise. The Senate bill violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the president’s pledge.
It is time for our senators to decide whose interests they represent: the super-wealthy, who will benefit from the Senate’s taxing scheme, or the middle-class families who are counting on them for real health care reform.
http://www.njea.org/page.aspx?a=4145
$48 million dollar Referendum : to Turf or Not to Turf
I prefer natural grass to artificial turf. But, I have to disagree with the posts above. I live near Maple park and read the report and found it to be very objective. I also have to admit that I like what was done at the park.
I just went back and looked at the report. Yes, it provided five (out of 35) links to FieldTurf's site, when discussing specific design or construction features (it is a FieldTurf design). It seemed logical and straightforward that this was done to allow the reader to gain more detail about the specific field design we have in Ridgewood, rather than as an advertisement for FieldTurf. Besides, at the very beginning of the report, it clearly explained that some information was provided by FieldTurf. There were also 2 links to case studies that were relevant to two of the topics in the report (environmental impact and flooding). Both of these were clearly identified at "FieldTurf case study reprints". The report also provided 10 links to government and university studies, and 2 links to groups or studies, who oppose artificial turf.
I am not sure that the poster at 4:18 actually looked at the links. For example, the "Sports Turf Managers Assn" is actually an organization that promotes natural grass turf, not artificial turf.
However, what I found more compelling is that the report relied on the actual heat testing at various facilities, which was documented via video...and presented in great detail. I am not sure how they could have provided any more transparency than that about this testing. The rest of the testing was done by professional testing agencies or by the EPA, DEP or similar organization.
I remember the water on the field during the Nor'easter in 2007. I don't know how "rushing water" is defined. But, think of rushing water as what you find in the brook. In the Nor'easter mentioned, water simply flowed over the banks of the brook and slowly flooded onto the field. Objects like the soccer goals and a utility box simply floated when the water got high enough and were pushed around by wind. Rushing water only flows in one direction. If you look at how Maple Park sits in relation to the brook, you can see that it would be impossible to have rushing water flowing over the field.
I guess the real question is, what statements in the document do you think are not true? And, what is the source of that information?
I just went back and looked at the report. Yes, it provided five (out of 35) links to FieldTurf's site, when discussing specific design or construction features (it is a FieldTurf design). It seemed logical and straightforward that this was done to allow the reader to gain more detail about the specific field design we have in Ridgewood, rather than as an advertisement for FieldTurf. Besides, at the very beginning of the report, it clearly explained that some information was provided by FieldTurf. There were also 2 links to case studies that were relevant to two of the topics in the report (environmental impact and flooding). Both of these were clearly identified at "FieldTurf case study reprints". The report also provided 10 links to government and university studies, and 2 links to groups or studies, who oppose artificial turf.
I am not sure that the poster at 4:18 actually looked at the links. For example, the "Sports Turf Managers Assn" is actually an organization that promotes natural grass turf, not artificial turf.
However, what I found more compelling is that the report relied on the actual heat testing at various facilities, which was documented via video...and presented in great detail. I am not sure how they could have provided any more transparency than that about this testing. The rest of the testing was done by professional testing agencies or by the EPA, DEP or similar organization.
I remember the water on the field during the Nor'easter in 2007. I don't know how "rushing water" is defined. But, think of rushing water as what you find in the brook. In the Nor'easter mentioned, water simply flowed over the banks of the brook and slowly flooded onto the field. Objects like the soccer goals and a utility box simply floated when the water got high enough and were pushed around by wind. Rushing water only flows in one direction. If you look at how Maple Park sits in relation to the brook, you can see that it would be impossible to have rushing water flowing over the field.
I guess the real question is, what statements in the document do you think are not true? And, what is the source of that information?
$48 million dollar Referendum :safety of the turf at Maple Park
PJ,
I noticed that Laurie Goodman's blog and the Ridgewood Patch both featured a report from REAC about the safety of the turf at Maple Park. The Patch even provided the report on its site. Goodman had a the link
(http://ridgewoodreac.com/SustainableFields.html). I spent some time over the weekend going through this report. It is the most informative and objective I have seen on the topic. There were a number of things that I found surprising. It basically shows that the people, who have been critical of artificial turf for environmental or safety reasons have been wrong, at least at Maple Park. I was shocked to learn that the design actually has benefits for the flood plain.
This report is very timely with the referendum vote tomorrow. Why didn't you feature this report on your blog? This is the kind of information I would expect you to bring to our attention. You let us down on this one.
I noticed that Laurie Goodman's blog and the Ridgewood Patch both featured a report from REAC about the safety of the turf at Maple Park. The Patch even provided the report on its site. Goodman had a the link
(http://ridgewoodreac.com/SustainableFields.html). I spent some time over the weekend going through this report. It is the most informative and objective I have seen on the topic. There were a number of things that I found surprising. It basically shows that the people, who have been critical of artificial turf for environmental or safety reasons have been wrong, at least at Maple Park. I was shocked to learn that the design actually has benefits for the flood plain.
This report is very timely with the referendum vote tomorrow. Why didn't you feature this report on your blog? This is the kind of information I would expect you to bring to our attention. You let us down on this one.
Remember Pearl Harbor
At dawn on Sunday, December 7, 1941, naval aviation forces of the Empire of Japan attacked the United States Pacific Fleet center at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and other military targets. The goal of this attack was to sufficiently cripple the US Fleet so that Japan could then attack and capture the Phillipines and Indo-China and so secure access to the raw materials needed to maintain its position as a global military and economic power. This would enable Japan to further extend the empire to include Australia, New Zealand, and India (the ultimate boundaries planned for the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere"). The prevailing belief within the Japanese military and political establishment was that eventually, with the then expected German defeat of Great Britain and Soviet Russia, the United States' non-involvement in the European war, and Japan's control of the Pacific, that the world power structure would stabilize into three major spheres of influence:
1.) The Empire of Japan controlling East, Southeast, and South Asia and the entire Pacific Ocean.
2.) The combined powers of Germany and Italy controlling Great Britain, all of Europe, Western and central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
3.) The United States, controlling North and South America.
http://www.ccdemo.info/PearlHarbor/PearlHarborDayRemembered.html
Back ground:
Eighteen months earlier, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had transferred the United States Fleet to Pearl Harbor as a presumed deterrent to Japanese agression. The Japanese military, deeply engaged in the seemingly endless war it had started against China in mid-1937, badly needed oil and other raw materials. Commercial access to these was gradually curtailed as the conquests continued. In July 1941 the Western powers effectively halted trade with Japan. From then on, as the desperate Japanese schemed to seize the oil and mineral-rich East Indies and Southeast Asia, a Pacific war was virtually inevitable.
By late November 1941, with peace negotiations clearly approaching an end, informed U.S. officials (and they were well-informed, they believed, through an ability to read Japan's diplomatic codes) fully expected a Japanese attack into the Indies, Malaya and probably the Philippines. Completely unanticipated was the prospect that Japan would attack east, as well.
The U.S. Fleet's Pearl Harbor base was reachable by an aircraft carrier force, and the Japanese Navy secretly sent one across the Pacific with greater aerial striking power than had ever been seen on the World's oceans. Its planes hit just before 8AM on 7 December. Within a short time five of eight battleships at Pearl Harbor were sunk or sinking, with the rest damaged. Several other ships and most Hawaii-based combat planes were also knocked out and over 2400 Americans were dead. Soon after, Japanese planes eliminated much of the American air force in the Philippines, and a Japanese Army was ashore in Malaya.
These great Japanese successes, achieved without prior diplomatic formalities, shocked and enraged the previously divided American people into a level of purposeful unity hardly seen before or since. For the next five months, until the Battle of the Coral Sea in early May, Japan's far-reaching offensives proceeded untroubled by fruitful opposition. American and Allied morale suffered accordingly. Under normal political circumstances, an accomodation might have been considered.
However, the memory of the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor fueled a determination to fight on. Once the Battle of Midway in early June 1942 had eliminated much of Japan's striking power, that same memory stoked a relentless war to reverse her conquests and remove her, and her German and Italian allies, as future threats to World peace.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm
Sunday, December 06, 2009
GET A FREE DINNER AT BLEND!
GET A FREE DINNER AT BLEND! FOR THE WHOLE MONTH OF DEC ON SUNDAY, MONDAY AND TUESDAY NIGHTS, BLEND WILL OFFER ANY CUSTOMER A BUY-ONE-GET-ONE-FREE ENTREE IN THE DINING ROOM ONLY (NO TAKE OUT)! ALL YOU NEED IS THE SECRET PASSCODE AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE SECRET CODE IS TO FOLLOW BLENDBAR ON TWITTER AND SEND US A DIRECT MESSAGE REQUESTING THIS PASSCODE.... SEE YOU AT BLEND IN DECEMBER!!!!
photo by www.artchickphotos.com
photo by www.artchickphotos.com
$48 million dollar Referendum : NO Vote must be a Child Hater ...SNORE!
"9:37 either doesn't care about the children in this town or hasn't taken the time to understand the plans behind the referendum."
Ooooh FEAR -- FEAR -- FEAR -- Don't be a Child Hater -- PEER PRESSURE -- Ooooh Bad Person, Bad Person -- Child Hater.
How could ANYONE Vote No?
I mean is there really ANYONE who is really such a hateful, awful person that they would hate those cute, innocent, beautiful, angelic, pure, lovely children - who are our future?
What a horrible, horrible, horrible person you must be to HATE CHILDREN!
Especially now, during the /*generic*/ Holiday Season - how can anyone be such a bad evil person who hates children so much that they would vote NO on spending $48 Million dollars? Only a hateful person - a child hater - would ignore the fact that without spending $48 Million dollars - and not a penny less - would these children’s lives be utterly and irrevocably destroyed.
Then again, maybe you are not an evil NO-VOTING, hateful Child Hater... maybe you just are too stupid to actually understand THE PLANS behind this referendum.
Ooooh FEAR -- FEAR -- FEAR -- Don't be a Child Hater -- PEER PRESSURE -- Ooooh Bad Person, Bad Person -- Child Hater.
How could ANYONE Vote No?
I mean is there really ANYONE who is really such a hateful, awful person that they would hate those cute, innocent, beautiful, angelic, pure, lovely children - who are our future?
What a horrible, horrible, horrible person you must be to HATE CHILDREN!
Especially now, during the /*generic*/ Holiday Season - how can anyone be such a bad evil person who hates children so much that they would vote NO on spending $48 Million dollars? Only a hateful person - a child hater - would ignore the fact that without spending $48 Million dollars - and not a penny less - would these children’s lives be utterly and irrevocably destroyed.
Then again, maybe you are not an evil NO-VOTING, hateful Child Hater... maybe you just are too stupid to actually understand THE PLANS behind this referendum.
$48 million dollar Referendum : it's a GOOD thing the village isn't taking care of the buildings -- we couldn't afford it!
The Village does not own the buildings. The school district owns them. And thus the school district is responsible for managing them.
And BTW last year the school district took the grounds maintenance away from the Village because the Village was screwing them on the price. Way too expensive.
And how about those multi-hundred-thousand $$ bathrooms at Vets...thanks, Village! Haven't you noticed that the village is allowed to just pass an ordinance any time a project is mismanaged and goes over budget? School district can't do that. They have to stay within their budget.
So any way you look at it, it's a GOOD thing the village isn't taking care of the buildings -- we couldn't afford it!
And BTW last year the school district took the grounds maintenance away from the Village because the Village was screwing them on the price. Way too expensive.
And how about those multi-hundred-thousand $$ bathrooms at Vets...thanks, Village! Haven't you noticed that the village is allowed to just pass an ordinance any time a project is mismanaged and goes over budget? School district can't do that. They have to stay within their budget.
So any way you look at it, it's a GOOD thing the village isn't taking care of the buildings -- we couldn't afford it!
Still in Denial: N.J. tax revenue comes up $412M short
N.J. tax revenue comes up $412M short
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
BY LISA FLEISHER
State House Bureau
STATE HOUSE BUREAU
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/112509_NJ_tax_revenue_comes_up_412M_short.html
TRENTON -- New Jersey has taken in more than $400 million less than expected in taxes such as corporate, income and sales taxes, according to the Treasurer's office.
The state said on Oct. 19 it expected to be short $190 million. Now it says revenues are $412.7 million below budget.
Governor Corzine has already asked departments to tell him by Dec. 1 where they can cut spending by $400 million.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/112509_NJ_tax_revenue_comes_up_412M_short.html
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
BY LISA FLEISHER
State House Bureau
STATE HOUSE BUREAU
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/112509_NJ_tax_revenue_comes_up_412M_short.html
TRENTON -- New Jersey has taken in more than $400 million less than expected in taxes such as corporate, income and sales taxes, according to the Treasurer's office.
The state said on Oct. 19 it expected to be short $190 million. Now it says revenues are $412.7 million below budget.
Governor Corzine has already asked departments to tell him by Dec. 1 where they can cut spending by $400 million.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/112509_NJ_tax_revenue_comes_up_412M_short.html
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Senate Health Reform Plan Prescribes Heavy Tax Dose
Senate Health Reform Plan Prescribes Heavy Tax Dose
by Michael F. Cannon
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11025
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-author of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on December 2, 2009
Amid double-digit unemployment, a record $1.6 trillion federal deficit and a national debt projected to double in 10 years, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., voted to bring to the floor of the Senate a health care overhaul with so many job-killing tax increases that it's hard to fit them all into one column. But let's give it a shot.
For starters, consider the $500 billion in explicit tax increases.
One levy would take $15 billion from sick patients with high out-of-pocket medical expenses, including elderly and low-income patients.
The Senate health care bill would impose massive tax increases on Day One and keep increasing your taxes well into the future.
If you have a health savings account or flexible spending arrangement, there are taxes specific to those health plans, plus a third tax that would apply to all "consumer-directed" plans.
Another levy would tax medical devices, and another would tax prescription drugs. Those two taxes would increase health insurance premiums by about 1 percent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. There's another $60 billion tax that would drive health premiums higher still.
If your premiums climb high enough, you'll become subject to a $149 billion tax on those with high health insurance premiums. Yet many face high premiums simply because they have expensive medical needs, making this yet another tax on the sick.
The legislation would increase the Medicare tax on wages above $200,000, yet divert the revenue toward new entitlement spending.
And lest any corner of the health care sector go untaxed, the bill would even impose a 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgeries.
Yet those are just the explicit tax increases. There are trillions of dollars in hidden tax increases, too.
Senate Democrats promise to fund half of their new entitlement with $491 billion of Medicare cuts. Yet those promised cuts are merely a tax increase waiting to happen.
Congress frequently reneges on such promises. Want proof? At the very same time Congress is promising to cut future Medicare spending by $491 billion, it is reneging on a past promise to cut Medicare's physician payments by $210 billion. Even Medicare's chief actuary calls the (new) promised cuts "doubtful" and "unrealistic."
If history is any guide, Congress will scrape up that $491 billion by raising taxes — or by increasing the deficit, which simply raises taxes on future generations.
Another hidden tax comes in the form of price controls that would increase premiums for young adults in order to subsidize their parents, even though the parents typically have higher incomes. The same price controls would increase premiums for people with healthy lifestyles to subsidize those who (for example) overeat or consume alcohol to excess.
Those price controls could even tax farmers to subsidize office workers. The bill would allow populous urban areas like Omaha to make all of Nebraska one single "rating area," which would increase premiums in rural areas to subsidize wealthier urban areas.
The bill's largest hidden tax, however, is a mandate that would force all Americans to purchase health insurance, whether they want it or not.
Here's why that mandate is a tax. When the government forces you to pay $10,000 to the IRS, and then gives that money to a private insurance company — as this legislation would do — we rightly call that a tax.
If instead the government forced you or your employer to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company — as this legislation also would do — the outcome would be the same. That makes the mandate a tax, even though that $10,000 never passes through the federal Treasury.
Including the cost of that "mandate tax" reveals the actual cost of the legislation to be roughly $2.5 trillion — more than double the official estimate.
The Senate health care bill would impose massive tax increases on Day One and keep increasing your taxes well into the future.
Sen. Nelson was one of the key lawmakers who brought this ticking tax bomb one step closer to reality. Let's hope the ensuing Senate debate exposes why job-killing tax increases are the wrong prescription for health care reform — in this or any economy.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11025
by Michael F. Cannon
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11025
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-author of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on December 2, 2009
Amid double-digit unemployment, a record $1.6 trillion federal deficit and a national debt projected to double in 10 years, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., voted to bring to the floor of the Senate a health care overhaul with so many job-killing tax increases that it's hard to fit them all into one column. But let's give it a shot.
For starters, consider the $500 billion in explicit tax increases.
One levy would take $15 billion from sick patients with high out-of-pocket medical expenses, including elderly and low-income patients.
The Senate health care bill would impose massive tax increases on Day One and keep increasing your taxes well into the future.
If you have a health savings account or flexible spending arrangement, there are taxes specific to those health plans, plus a third tax that would apply to all "consumer-directed" plans.
Another levy would tax medical devices, and another would tax prescription drugs. Those two taxes would increase health insurance premiums by about 1 percent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. There's another $60 billion tax that would drive health premiums higher still.
If your premiums climb high enough, you'll become subject to a $149 billion tax on those with high health insurance premiums. Yet many face high premiums simply because they have expensive medical needs, making this yet another tax on the sick.
The legislation would increase the Medicare tax on wages above $200,000, yet divert the revenue toward new entitlement spending.
And lest any corner of the health care sector go untaxed, the bill would even impose a 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgeries.
Yet those are just the explicit tax increases. There are trillions of dollars in hidden tax increases, too.
Senate Democrats promise to fund half of their new entitlement with $491 billion of Medicare cuts. Yet those promised cuts are merely a tax increase waiting to happen.
Congress frequently reneges on such promises. Want proof? At the very same time Congress is promising to cut future Medicare spending by $491 billion, it is reneging on a past promise to cut Medicare's physician payments by $210 billion. Even Medicare's chief actuary calls the (new) promised cuts "doubtful" and "unrealistic."
If history is any guide, Congress will scrape up that $491 billion by raising taxes — or by increasing the deficit, which simply raises taxes on future generations.
Another hidden tax comes in the form of price controls that would increase premiums for young adults in order to subsidize their parents, even though the parents typically have higher incomes. The same price controls would increase premiums for people with healthy lifestyles to subsidize those who (for example) overeat or consume alcohol to excess.
Those price controls could even tax farmers to subsidize office workers. The bill would allow populous urban areas like Omaha to make all of Nebraska one single "rating area," which would increase premiums in rural areas to subsidize wealthier urban areas.
The bill's largest hidden tax, however, is a mandate that would force all Americans to purchase health insurance, whether they want it or not.
Here's why that mandate is a tax. When the government forces you to pay $10,000 to the IRS, and then gives that money to a private insurance company — as this legislation would do — we rightly call that a tax.
If instead the government forced you or your employer to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company — as this legislation also would do — the outcome would be the same. That makes the mandate a tax, even though that $10,000 never passes through the federal Treasury.
Including the cost of that "mandate tax" reveals the actual cost of the legislation to be roughly $2.5 trillion — more than double the official estimate.
The Senate health care bill would impose massive tax increases on Day One and keep increasing your taxes well into the future.
Sen. Nelson was one of the key lawmakers who brought this ticking tax bomb one step closer to reality. Let's hope the ensuing Senate debate exposes why job-killing tax increases are the wrong prescription for health care reform — in this or any economy.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11025
Climategate : Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review
Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review
by Patrick J. Michaels
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.
Added to cato.org on December 2, 2009
This article appeared in the DC Examiner on December 2, 2009.
The more we learn about the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit the more it resembles Watergate. As was the case in 1974, there will be no one particular spectacular revelation, but rather an unremitting and unrelenting daily drip-drip that ultimately brings down the house.
The latest gem comes from none other than Rajendra Pauchari, the climatologically untrained head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Without the IPCC there would be no cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate. There would be no meeting in Copenhagen, where, next month, world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax. There would also be no pledge from President Obama to emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.
The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
The e-mails have given Pauchari the onerous task of defending the IPCC from its own "scientific" leadership, now accused (or, perhaps, incriminating itself) of seriously manipulating the scientific literature that goes into the august IPCC scientific reports.
In one of the e-mails, Penn State's Michael Mann, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
This is pretty serious stuff, because it, and many similar e-mails, paint a picture of IPCC boffins committing science's capital crime: Trying to game the peer-reviewed literature, which is akin to editing what goes in the Bible.
In this case, Mann is actually speculating about keeping contrary information out of the IPCC reports by blacklisting certain professional journals.
One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn't support Mann's claim that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. Along with the CRU head Phil Jones and other climate luminaries, they then cooked up the idea of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few notorious "skeptics," myself included.
Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.
More by Patrick J. MichaelsSo what is Pauchari's response to all of this? Denial.
"IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out."
That's just not true. The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.
We have hardly heard the end of Climategate, but don't expect some climactic grand finale. In 1974, errors, boo-boos, and downright duplicities slowly piled up.
The same is happening now. Like Tricky Dick, Pauchari may soon be headed home
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022
by Patrick J. Michaels
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.
Added to cato.org on December 2, 2009
This article appeared in the DC Examiner on December 2, 2009.
The more we learn about the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit the more it resembles Watergate. As was the case in 1974, there will be no one particular spectacular revelation, but rather an unremitting and unrelenting daily drip-drip that ultimately brings down the house.
The latest gem comes from none other than Rajendra Pauchari, the climatologically untrained head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Without the IPCC there would be no cap-and-tax legislation awaiting debate in the Senate. There would be no meeting in Copenhagen, where, next month, world leaders will attempt to globalize cap-and-tax. There would also be no pledge from President Obama to emissions reductions that have never been passed by the Senate.
The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
The e-mails have given Pauchari the onerous task of defending the IPCC from its own "scientific" leadership, now accused (or, perhaps, incriminating itself) of seriously manipulating the scientific literature that goes into the august IPCC scientific reports.
In one of the e-mails, Penn State's Michael Mann, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
This is pretty serious stuff, because it, and many similar e-mails, paint a picture of IPCC boffins committing science's capital crime: Trying to game the peer-reviewed literature, which is akin to editing what goes in the Bible.
In this case, Mann is actually speculating about keeping contrary information out of the IPCC reports by blacklisting certain professional journals.
One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn't support Mann's claim that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. Along with the CRU head Phil Jones and other climate luminaries, they then cooked up the idea of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few notorious "skeptics," myself included.
Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.
More by Patrick J. MichaelsSo what is Pauchari's response to all of this? Denial.
"IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out."
That's just not true. The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.
These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.
We have hardly heard the end of Climategate, but don't expect some climactic grand finale. In 1974, errors, boo-boos, and downright duplicities slowly piled up.
The same is happening now. Like Tricky Dick, Pauchari may soon be headed home
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11022
Friday, December 04, 2009
Still in Denial : New Jersey DEBT MESS
New Jersey DEBT MESS
* New Jersey now owes $33.9 billion – and it's scheduled to borrow $10 billion more in the coming years.
* That makes for a $3,600 bill for every man, woman and child in the state.
* To stay afloat with debt payments, taxpayers fork over at least $2 billion a year – money that could go to public schools, hospitals or other programs.
* The $33.9 billion doesn't include debt incurred by the state authorities, commissions and other agencies. Adding that would bring the total to $51.25 billion.
* In 1991, the debt total was $4.3 billion. Then the borrowing started in earnest. In 1992 alone, debt went up by 40 percent to $6 billion. Former Gov. Jim Florio borrowed for transportation projects and a new Atlantic City Convention Center, and also to stimulate a bad economy.
* In 1997, another big spike — 41 percent — occurred under former Gov. Christie Whitman. The borrowing spree included a controversial $2.8 billion to cover pension payments and $666 million in highway bonds.
* By 2000, state debt stood at $15.2 billion. Borrowing was up to $25 billion by 2005, thanks to a state Supreme Court decision that called for massive public school construction projects in low-income communities.
* In 2004, former Gov. James E. McGreevey borrowed $2.2 billion to cover expenses in that year's budget, a tactic many said was analogous to refinancing a home to pay for groceries. It was later outlawed by the state Supreme Court.
* In 2008, state borrowing rose to $31.9 billion even as Governor Corzine decided the problem was already so bad that he tried to leverage the value of the New Jersey Turnpike and other state-owned highways to reduce the burden.
Governor-elect Chris Christie has promised to review all scheduled borrowing once he takes office in January. More than $7 billion in borrowing is planned for school construction and transportation projects through July 2013.
Previous governors have employed various refinancing methods to cut debt payments, but some bonds cannot be refinanced. Christie is pledging to ensure any new borrowing "is absolutely necessary in light of that burgeoning debt problem."
http://www.northjersey.com/news/politics/120409_NJ_borrowing_grew_by_700_percent_over_past_two_decades.html
$48 million dollar Referendum : The 10% "contingency fee" for public projects is standard practice on any municipal or school bid.
The 10% "contingency fee" for public projects is standard practice on any municipal or school bid. It may even be mandated by the state (I'm not sure). But, it certainly was not a frivolous "tack on", as suggested.
It is interesting that everyne keeps calling for change. The members on the current BOE are, with 2 exceptions, not the members who supposedly led us to this state of disrepair. You don't seem to understand that the 4% cap in the annual budget increase and annually increasing costs of the salaries and benefits (85% of total budget) don't allow for the funds to operate the schools AND provide for all the major repairs. So, the BOE has tried to address projects that could be tackled with the $2mm that is set aside for these needs every year. Unfortunately, the actual repair expenses exceed the available funds by a factor of 15-20X.
So, while I agree with you sentiment, there is no way to address our needs in the manner you suggest. In the meantime, should we tell this generation of children that they will have to make do for the next ten years because taxpayers are upset with what they believe the BOE failed to do five or ten years ago?
It is interesting that everyne keeps calling for change. The members on the current BOE are, with 2 exceptions, not the members who supposedly led us to this state of disrepair. You don't seem to understand that the 4% cap in the annual budget increase and annually increasing costs of the salaries and benefits (85% of total budget) don't allow for the funds to operate the schools AND provide for all the major repairs. So, the BOE has tried to address projects that could be tackled with the $2mm that is set aside for these needs every year. Unfortunately, the actual repair expenses exceed the available funds by a factor of 15-20X.
So, while I agree with you sentiment, there is no way to address our needs in the manner you suggest. In the meantime, should we tell this generation of children that they will have to make do for the next ten years because taxpayers are upset with what they believe the BOE failed to do five or ten years ago?
$48 million dollar Referendum : HOW CAN YOU LET THE BUILDINGS DETERIORATE TO SUCH AN EXTENT FOR A HALF CENTURY OR MORE??
You should do your homework before making symbolic gestures and jeopardizing the educational resources for other people's children.
Your "symbolic " vote will cost the village $12mm in state grants and debt service. Right now, almost $10mm is guaranteed by a court order and is already set aside. Only the debt service could even potentially be consider to be "at risk" in Trenton. If the referendum fails because of votes like yours, all $12mm goes away and Ridgewood goes to the end of the line when they resubmit the modified plans you want. At that point we are virtually assured to get $0 funding.
As a result, even with a reduced plan, we would have to cut $12mm out of the referendum before we "save" a dime. If you understood the holistic plan that the referendum seeks to execute, you would know that the biggest $$ items cannot be eliminated, without making the entire plan pointless. Perhaps you would like the roof repairs to be eliminated, so our kids can continue to sit in leaky buildings that are deteriorating from the inside out, as a result of the water damage.
As far as tax rates go, most experts expect rates the Fed to start hiking rates by about June of 2010. As it is, we will be lucky if the bonds are issued by then. If the referendum passes, the bonds do not get issued right away. The BOE has estimated a rate of 4.75%. Current rates are well below that. So, by acting now, the actual costs would be lower than what has been projected by the BOE. By delaying the process and reapplying for grants, we will absolutely be facing higher rates (.50% - 1.25% higher by most estimates) and probably higher than 4.75%.
The fields you seem to want to eliminate are projected to cost $3.2mm and will receive $1.6mm in debt service. Yet, these will have the effect of adding 2 new fields that will be used by 1200 RHS students and 6000 youth sports participants, who do not use them today. This is an integral part of the Village's 25 year Master Plan. If we don't build the track and these fields, the main pillars of the Master Plan for all residents can't be addressed.
I don't want to pay higher taxes than I already do, either. I have been vocal about this with the BOE. But, the plan that the BOE has proposed will actually get us to a place where we can begin to stay on top of maintenance, instead of doing $2mm patches every year. We will be able to give Special Ed students permanent schools (instead of moving them from school to school every year). We can stop holding classes in the hallways of some schools. We can solve the overcrowding of some schools. And, the list goes on.
Glen Rock passed a similar $40mm+ referendum recently and their costs have come in $6mm below the projections, and counting. You see, in addition to low rates, there are other advantages to taking on such projects, when contractors need the work. Why do your think most of the country's infrastructure was built in the 1930's?
The bottom line in my case is that this referendum will cost $450 a year in additional taxes. I don't like that fact. But, that is $37 a month. It cost more than that to fill up the gas tank in my little car or feed my family dinner for one night. In my opinion, my kids (and yours) are worth $37 a month for the dramatic differences that this referendum will have in the school system and for the 6000 kids, who play soccer, football, baseball and lacrosse between 3rd and 8th grade in Ridgewood. Your "symbolic" vote provides none of this and would cost us much more for years to come.
answer:
thanks for your extended lecture. Well researched, but after watching this school district for 20 years, this is the worst shape it's ever been in, and the buildings are not the problem. The BoE has overreached.
My personal math "homework" says that we are paying far too much in taxes and receiving far too little in return. The schools are no longer excellent but mediocre. The Board is taking a page from the Obama playbook that if we don't pass it now, civilization will cease. Wrong. You say Glen Rock paid $6 mil less - great for them! We could pay $4 mil less if we didn't include a an extra '10% just in case' money Laurie Goodman said was added.
If you look at today's paper, there is a picture of Jack Lorenz gazing at a bank of lockers that need repair. Why do these things go untouched for years?
I went to a back to school night 9 years ago and saw a rotting wall in a math class in the high school. I asked the teacher 'why isn't this fixed?'. Her reply was that they didn't have time to get to it. I visited the same class for another child last year and the same wall is rotted. I thought I was in a time machine.
Proponents say over and over 'our buildings are 45-100 years old and they need work'. Let me ask one simple question: HOW CAN YOU LET THE BUILDINGS DETERIORATE TO SUCH AN EXTENT FOR A HALF CENTURY OR MORE?? Some say the cap is to blame. The cap wasn't installed until a few years ago.
I know that infrastructure is different from salaries, pension an benefits, but this Board has shown (now and for the past several years) that is has NO intention to make the difficult choices. When you are out of money and your means are diminishing, YOU STOP SPENDING MONEY. Even if that means forfeiting the state's IOU. We are in a near bankrupt state and the last time I checked, businesses (and shoppers) are exiting. Check today's paper and you'll see Happy Tuesday is the latest victim of the economy.
You can try and persuade me and other dissenters that we have no choice but to pass this bond, but the time has come to clean house. Giving $48 to a Board, superintendent and BA who act clueless that not everyone in town is doing as well as you is giving a addict $100 and telling him to only spend it on food.
Your response is well presented, but I believe it is too late. They have been playing this 'urgent' card too many times and I no longer trust tem at their word.
Still in Denial : In wake of financial crisis, N.J. towns, counties brace for losses
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/nj_towns_and_counties_brace_fo.html
In wake of financial crisis, N.J. towns, counties brace for losses
By Carly Rothman/The Star-Ledger
September 30, 2008, 6:07PM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/nj_towns_and_counties_brace_fo.html
Watching and worrying. That's what county and local government officials in New Jersey are doing this week as they monitor the bleak national economic condition, bracing for the worst when it comes to the impact the financial crisis will have on their 2009 budgets.
A host of officials said today they already were anticipating tough times next year, with likely decreases in revenue, and have already enacted plans to cut spending - cuts that could lead to reduced services and employee layoffs.
Officials are also paying close attention to possible cuts in state aid to towns and counties after comments this week by Gov. Jon Corzine who said he is reviewing contingency plans he asked state department heads to craft in August that would trim their costs by 5 percent.
"We have a hiring freeze in effect and we are not filling job vacancies unless they are critical positions, such as staffing our nursing home or having enough officers at the county corrections center or juvenile," Morris County Administrator John Bonanni said. "But what is happening with the economy this week is problematic. It is of great concern."
Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo said his county expects to lose at least $2.5 million in property taxes due to the downturn of the economy. He does not think there will be a significant impact on the current budget but has asked county departments to tighten their belts next year, starting with a 5 percent cut across the board.
"We've been expecting the worst, so we're a little prepared for this, but I didn't expect it would be this bad," DiVincenzo said. "This year, we'll be fine. What we do next year is going to have to be less."
The financial woes prompted Union County to postpone a plan to refinance some of its debt, a move that could have saved the county $2 million.
"Recent situations have made that opportunity deteriorate," said county finance director Larry Caroselli. "Thankfully, we issued (bonds) earlier this year, in February, when market conditions were a lot stronger. If we had to (issue bonds now) because of a need of cash, we'd really be biting our nails."
Many officials across the state expect a decline in money collected from taxes, due to foreclosures, a decrease in new development and new ratables, plus what could be a large number of tax appeals.
Marvin Joss, administrator in Clinton Township, Hunterdon County, said a credit crisis inevitably leads to a drop in tax collection due to foreclosure and instability in the personal finances of residents. Tax collection can drop between 2 and 5 percent in a township like Clinton when the economy is ailing, Joss said, and that means the money that wasn't collected has to be raised in additional taxes the next year.
That possibility has sparked interest in shared services between towns and counties, plus a host of cost-saving initiatives.
Madison has begun sharing a municipal court with neighboring Florham Park and is in talks to share senior transport services as well, said Mayor Mary-Anna Holden. In Morristown, town officials approved a plan to install solar panels at the wastewater treatment plant to save between $100,000 to $150,000 annually in energy costs.
Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello said towns and cities are working to cut their budgets and urged Corzine not to balance the state budget by cutting aid to already cash-strapped towns and school districts.
"He needs to look inside first," Cresitello said, suggesting cuts within the state bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, towns and counties are anxiously eyeing the impact of the economic downturn and stock market on employee pension funds, said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the New Jersey Association of Counties.
"There is a lot of concern out there, a lot of people who could be affected," said Mozloom. "It's too early to know right now what the impact of what's happening this week will have on those funds. But we're all watching and worrying."
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/nj_towns_and_counties_brace_fo.html
In wake of financial crisis, N.J. towns, counties brace for losses
By Carly Rothman/The Star-Ledger
September 30, 2008, 6:07PM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/nj_towns_and_counties_brace_fo.html
Watching and worrying. That's what county and local government officials in New Jersey are doing this week as they monitor the bleak national economic condition, bracing for the worst when it comes to the impact the financial crisis will have on their 2009 budgets.
A host of officials said today they already were anticipating tough times next year, with likely decreases in revenue, and have already enacted plans to cut spending - cuts that could lead to reduced services and employee layoffs.
Officials are also paying close attention to possible cuts in state aid to towns and counties after comments this week by Gov. Jon Corzine who said he is reviewing contingency plans he asked state department heads to craft in August that would trim their costs by 5 percent.
"We have a hiring freeze in effect and we are not filling job vacancies unless they are critical positions, such as staffing our nursing home or having enough officers at the county corrections center or juvenile," Morris County Administrator John Bonanni said. "But what is happening with the economy this week is problematic. It is of great concern."
Essex County Executive Joseph DiVincenzo said his county expects to lose at least $2.5 million in property taxes due to the downturn of the economy. He does not think there will be a significant impact on the current budget but has asked county departments to tighten their belts next year, starting with a 5 percent cut across the board.
"We've been expecting the worst, so we're a little prepared for this, but I didn't expect it would be this bad," DiVincenzo said. "This year, we'll be fine. What we do next year is going to have to be less."
The financial woes prompted Union County to postpone a plan to refinance some of its debt, a move that could have saved the county $2 million.
"Recent situations have made that opportunity deteriorate," said county finance director Larry Caroselli. "Thankfully, we issued (bonds) earlier this year, in February, when market conditions were a lot stronger. If we had to (issue bonds now) because of a need of cash, we'd really be biting our nails."
Many officials across the state expect a decline in money collected from taxes, due to foreclosures, a decrease in new development and new ratables, plus what could be a large number of tax appeals.
Marvin Joss, administrator in Clinton Township, Hunterdon County, said a credit crisis inevitably leads to a drop in tax collection due to foreclosure and instability in the personal finances of residents. Tax collection can drop between 2 and 5 percent in a township like Clinton when the economy is ailing, Joss said, and that means the money that wasn't collected has to be raised in additional taxes the next year.
That possibility has sparked interest in shared services between towns and counties, plus a host of cost-saving initiatives.
Madison has begun sharing a municipal court with neighboring Florham Park and is in talks to share senior transport services as well, said Mayor Mary-Anna Holden. In Morristown, town officials approved a plan to install solar panels at the wastewater treatment plant to save between $100,000 to $150,000 annually in energy costs.
Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello said towns and cities are working to cut their budgets and urged Corzine not to balance the state budget by cutting aid to already cash-strapped towns and school districts.
"He needs to look inside first," Cresitello said, suggesting cuts within the state bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, towns and counties are anxiously eyeing the impact of the economic downturn and stock market on employee pension funds, said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the New Jersey Association of Counties.
"There is a lot of concern out there, a lot of people who could be affected," said Mozloom. "It's too early to know right now what the impact of what's happening this week will have on those funds. But we're all watching and worrying."
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/nj_towns_and_counties_brace_fo.html
I don't believe unemployment went down, I think our government is fudging numbers now.
I don't believe unemployment went down, I think our government is fudging numbers now.
The report doesn't match up with other jobs data: Today's report will no doubt be a head scratcher for economists as they try to understand how other labor market data could be so divergent. Earlier in the week, ADP reported private payroll losses of 169,000 for November. The Monster Employment Index, which measures online job demand, actually dipped slightly from October's number. "This was a shocking report because the reported payroll data bear little resemblance to any other evidence concerning the labor market, including the ADP survey, which is based on hard data from a much wider sample of payrolls than is the government's survey," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at research firm MFR.
The report doesn't match up with other jobs data: Today's report will no doubt be a head scratcher for economists as they try to understand how other labor market data could be so divergent. Earlier in the week, ADP reported private payroll losses of 169,000 for November. The Monster Employment Index, which measures online job demand, actually dipped slightly from October's number. "This was a shocking report because the reported payroll data bear little resemblance to any other evidence concerning the labor market, including the ADP survey, which is based on hard data from a much wider sample of payrolls than is the government's survey," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at research firm MFR.
Valley Renewal : Surprise - it’s all about the money!
Surprise - it’s all about the money!
In the summer, the Planning Board hired an expert in hospital design to review their proposed H-Zone amendments to the Master Plan. While the draft wording was prepared by the Village Planner the text was almost entirely a copy of the details in the “Renewal” supplied by Valley.
To many people’s surprise, the independent consultant proposed a much more “community friendly” recommendation that included increasing setbacks to 120 feet and putting all parking underground.
The response from Valley, as reported in today’s Ridgewood News to the consultant’s recommendations, is that the hospital has concerns about the “constructability and financial feasibility” of the proposal. What this means in 2009 is that the hospital is concerned about some additional cost because anything is technically possible.
It is very surprising to hear this when Valley is one of the most profitable hospitals in NJ and has benefited from an additional $25 million windfall profit increase from receiving most of the former patients of PVH over the last 2 years.
These statements also seem to run contrary to Audrey Meyer’s statement in the Record of Dec 3, where she suggests that non-for-profit hospital’s like Valley use their profits to benefit the community.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/Second_expert_is_hired.html
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/duchak_meyers_120309.html
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/duchak_meyers_120309.html
In the summer, the Planning Board hired an expert in hospital design to review their proposed H-Zone amendments to the Master Plan. While the draft wording was prepared by the Village Planner the text was almost entirely a copy of the details in the “Renewal” supplied by Valley.
To many people’s surprise, the independent consultant proposed a much more “community friendly” recommendation that included increasing setbacks to 120 feet and putting all parking underground.
The response from Valley, as reported in today’s Ridgewood News to the consultant’s recommendations, is that the hospital has concerns about the “constructability and financial feasibility” of the proposal. What this means in 2009 is that the hospital is concerned about some additional cost because anything is technically possible.
It is very surprising to hear this when Valley is one of the most profitable hospitals in NJ and has benefited from an additional $25 million windfall profit increase from receiving most of the former patients of PVH over the last 2 years.
These statements also seem to run contrary to Audrey Meyer’s statement in the Record of Dec 3, where she suggests that non-for-profit hospital’s like Valley use their profits to benefit the community.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/Second_expert_is_hired.html
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/duchak_meyers_120309.html
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/duchak_meyers_120309.html
(Not so) Happy Tuesday
Hey PJ,
With great sadness, I read about the closing of Happy Tuesday in TRN today. After seeing the Cheese Shop close in the past few weeks, this type of thing never gets any better. (I closed my own business over a year ago because we couldn’t hang in any longer and employees refused to get paid in condiments)
It’s too bad that the VC doesn’t see what the combination of recession, overregulation, sewer taxes, the parking issue and top dollar rents and CAM charges have done to Ridgewood. The Village will recover, but I remember talking with Bill Gilsenan and he told me about the tumbleweeds rolling down ERA in the 80’s and it wasn’t pretty.
Take care and have a great weekend,
Michael
With great sadness, I read about the closing of Happy Tuesday in TRN today. After seeing the Cheese Shop close in the past few weeks, this type of thing never gets any better. (I closed my own business over a year ago because we couldn’t hang in any longer and employees refused to get paid in condiments)
It’s too bad that the VC doesn’t see what the combination of recession, overregulation, sewer taxes, the parking issue and top dollar rents and CAM charges have done to Ridgewood. The Village will recover, but I remember talking with Bill Gilsenan and he told me about the tumbleweeds rolling down ERA in the 80’s and it wasn’t pretty.
Take care and have a great weekend,
Michael
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Home for the Holidays: The tradition was 'tinkered with'
The tradition was 'tinkered with' by changing the day from Friday to Saturday. Mistake #1. I used to look forward to ditching work early, scoot up to the train station. Sing with a few thousand of my neighbors and have dinner afterwards and stroll the streets. Saturday was hum-drum because you had to give up a weekend day to have all the pomp & such.
Mistake #2: groupthink about the global warming hoax following the Anne Zusy types down to the Square instead of the focal point of the town. And to make matters worse, let's hang recycling on the tree. I may be alone on this, but my tree may have home-made ornaments by the kids, but there are no used pork n beans cans.
Mistake #3: VOR compounds last year's error by doing it AGAIN, sans garbage ornaments. Big deal. You know what used to work and brought people in? The traditional tree, singers, bands and such on a Friday night at the station. I remember the throngs of people stretching a block north n south and several blocks down East Ridgewood Ave.
Notice that NYC doesn't drop the New Years ball over the Smithsonian. And why? Because Times Square is the place. Same reason the celebration belongs back at the station.
Mistake #2: groupthink about the global warming hoax following the Anne Zusy types down to the Square instead of the focal point of the town. And to make matters worse, let's hang recycling on the tree. I may be alone on this, but my tree may have home-made ornaments by the kids, but there are no used pork n beans cans.
Mistake #3: VOR compounds last year's error by doing it AGAIN, sans garbage ornaments. Big deal. You know what used to work and brought people in? The traditional tree, singers, bands and such on a Friday night at the station. I remember the throngs of people stretching a block north n south and several blocks down East Ridgewood Ave.
Notice that NYC doesn't drop the New Years ball over the Smithsonian. And why? Because Times Square is the place. Same reason the celebration belongs back at the station.
Ridgewood Blog Poll : Readers overwhelmingly find "garbage tree" offensive !
Do you find hanging "recyclables" ie garbage from a Christmas Tree to be offensive?
72% of readers say YES
27% of readers say NO
72% of readers say YES
27% of readers say NO
NJ Tea Party Coalition : Announcement of 12/15 Rally to DC
New Jersey Patriots Are Taking their Voices to DC Again!
We are taking it to the “buses” on December 15th once again to provide our Senators the visual aid they need to understand clearly that we do not want this Healthcare bill on our backs or the backs of our children or grandchildren. We cannot afford, nor will we tolerate, another power grab by Congress to rule over our very own bodies and force upon us unconstitutional actions to compel us to buy or subsidize government healthcare in any shape or form.
We plan to have a minimum of three buses and we need you all to fill those buses.
Americans for Prosperity and Tea Party Patriots are also going to DC that day so we will be joined by patriots on all sides and we will support their efforts as well! The Agenda at the Capitol is still being formulated.
We cannot make this event successful without you and we need each and every one of you to come and bring another person with you.
Yes, it is the holiday season, but George Washington didn't let Christmas Eve get in his way and we will not let anything get in our way now when we are so close to forcing this bill down to the grave where it belongs! We are committed and we will not be stopped!
In order to keep the costs down due to the holidays, we are only asking for $35 per person and if you find that you cannot afford to come with us, let us know and we’ll see if another patriot will “sponsor” you by buying another seat and donating it to the cause.
You have made the effort to Rally in Washington on September 12 & November 5 ...we cannot leave this fight now…..we must continue in our mission to push and demonstrate to our senators that we will not sit by idly and let them thrust this upon us.
The buses will leave from Graydon Parking lot in Ridgewood NJ at the cross of Linwood Avenue and Northern Parkway. This is the same parking lot we used on November 5 and there is plenty of parking and it is without cost.
Sign up for your seat(s) by emailing: Michele at Michele@njteapartycoalition.org
Give your name, address, email address and cell number and the number of people in your group. Mail your check for $35 per seat to Michele at PO Box 45, Cliffside Park, NJ 07010 right away.
Preserve Graydon will be Downtown for the Holidays Friday Dec. 4
We’re going Downtown for the Holidays tomorrow night, Friday, Dec. 4, from 5:30-9 PM. It’s Ridgewood’s annual December celebration. Stores will be open late and East Ridgewood Ave. will become a pedestrian mall. The Chamber of Commerce will provide free entertainment and hot cider. We’ll have a table at the intersection of Oak St. and East Ridgewood Ave. (northeast corner), across the street from Van Neste Square, near the big clock.
Come say hello and see the new Graydon fundraising items that were a big hit at our Holiday Bazaar:
Car/refrigerator magnets
Yard signs (take with you or request free delivery)
Note cards with Dorothy Warren scene of ice skating at Graydon (blank inside)
Special offer: the same cards with your message and name inside—order now for speedy delivery as Christmas/New Year cards (minimum of 100 for custom orders)
Last day of our Cheesecake Aly fundraiser: festive cheesecakes, down-home chocolate chip cookies, and cheesecake gift certificates for home delivery in mid-December. Free samples of raspberry cheesecake while they last.
Coming soon: our online store! Till then, grab a warm coat and meet us Downtown for the Holidays: tomorrow (Friday), 5:30-9 PM.
Swimmingly,
Marcia Ringel and Suzanne Kelly, Co-Chairs
The Preserve Graydon Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
“It’s clear—we love Graydon!”
info@PreserveGraydon.org www.PreserveGraydon.org
Come say hello and see the new Graydon fundraising items that were a big hit at our Holiday Bazaar:
Car/refrigerator magnets
Yard signs (take with you or request free delivery)
Note cards with Dorothy Warren scene of ice skating at Graydon (blank inside)
Special offer: the same cards with your message and name inside—order now for speedy delivery as Christmas/New Year cards (minimum of 100 for custom orders)
Last day of our Cheesecake Aly fundraiser: festive cheesecakes, down-home chocolate chip cookies, and cheesecake gift certificates for home delivery in mid-December. Free samples of raspberry cheesecake while they last.
Coming soon: our online store! Till then, grab a warm coat and meet us Downtown for the Holidays: tomorrow (Friday), 5:30-9 PM.
Swimmingly,
Marcia Ringel and Suzanne Kelly, Co-Chairs
The Preserve Graydon Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
“It’s clear—we love Graydon!”
info@PreserveGraydon.org www.PreserveGraydon.org
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'
Wednesday December 2,2009
By John Ingham
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years.
"If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid. "
Professor Pilmer
Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place
The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.
read more...
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
By John Ingham
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.
In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years.
"If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid. "
Professor Pilmer
Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place
The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.
read more...
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
Ridgewood needs to be promoted as a town that is good for business,
Paying cops to replace to crossing guards??? I never said that as that would be a stupid comment because the cops are already being paid by the town – the point was let’s get rid of the crossing guards and have the cops whom we, as tax payers already pay, do this service for the two hours a day. There is a cost savings initiative already.
7:53 – you must be married to a cop or have one in your family. I never said that I hated cops, I was pointing out the waste of having a larger than required force. I was also pointing out the need for cops to do more than just nothing – how do you know that I was not there when the good Lt. smacked into the civilian car on Linwood Avenue? You seem to know a lot about me. Also, if there are crimes been committed in this town, it is duty of the police via the press to inform us, the taxpayers. I actually witnessed two blue hairs going at it one day in the Daily Treat – it was over moving too slowly. Bar brawls in Ridgewood – that is funny – I might go out this weekend to witnessed one myself.
In reference to Graydon – we all know that those people looking to preserve Graydon pool are fighting a losing battle. When the town’s pediatric physicians stop telling parents that their kids are suffering from the Graydon Syndrome, when they get sick in the summer from swimming in the dump and when this same group of preservationists come up with a rejuvenation plan of their own, then and only then might we see a change in the direction the battle is heading.
My whole point is this – we need cuts and proper investments for the stability and growth of this great town. Like any business, cuts will hurt but not only do we need cuts in wasteful spending, we need investment in cash generating ventures. Ridgewood needs to be promoted as a town that is good for business, good for families in that it not only offers a respectable environment, but it offers an exceptional educational experience for all children up through the completion of secondary school, with qualified teachers that are the best at what they do and it offers the best in the region round-year activities for the town’s families to enjoy. If we don’t make the necessary cuts and investments, if we don’t make the necessary changes to Graydon pool and if we don’t clean up our act in our schools, our town will continue to lose revenues to other towns.
Get the point?
7:53 – you must be married to a cop or have one in your family. I never said that I hated cops, I was pointing out the waste of having a larger than required force. I was also pointing out the need for cops to do more than just nothing – how do you know that I was not there when the good Lt. smacked into the civilian car on Linwood Avenue? You seem to know a lot about me. Also, if there are crimes been committed in this town, it is duty of the police via the press to inform us, the taxpayers. I actually witnessed two blue hairs going at it one day in the Daily Treat – it was over moving too slowly. Bar brawls in Ridgewood – that is funny – I might go out this weekend to witnessed one myself.
In reference to Graydon – we all know that those people looking to preserve Graydon pool are fighting a losing battle. When the town’s pediatric physicians stop telling parents that their kids are suffering from the Graydon Syndrome, when they get sick in the summer from swimming in the dump and when this same group of preservationists come up with a rejuvenation plan of their own, then and only then might we see a change in the direction the battle is heading.
My whole point is this – we need cuts and proper investments for the stability and growth of this great town. Like any business, cuts will hurt but not only do we need cuts in wasteful spending, we need investment in cash generating ventures. Ridgewood needs to be promoted as a town that is good for business, good for families in that it not only offers a respectable environment, but it offers an exceptional educational experience for all children up through the completion of secondary school, with qualified teachers that are the best at what they do and it offers the best in the region round-year activities for the town’s families to enjoy. If we don’t make the necessary cuts and investments, if we don’t make the necessary changes to Graydon pool and if we don’t clean up our act in our schools, our town will continue to lose revenues to other towns.
Get the point?
“ACORN makes money off the poor ”
ACORN Dispersing Resources to SEIU, other Liberal Groups, House Probe Finds
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Steve Kest, executive director of ACORN, right, and ACORN member Hugh Alleyne. (AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, is in the process of changing its name and has already transferred many of its resources to several other left-wing advocacy and political groups, according to a report released Tuesday by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
While the Justice Department has said that federal housing funds should continue to flow to ACORN, several congressmen, in a joint hearing of the House Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee, said they want a special prosecutor to investigate the group's use of taxpayer dollars.
Several weeks back, Congress included in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2010 a provision that bars federal funds to ACORN and its “affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57886
Former ACORN employee-turned-whistleblower Anita Moncrief told the House panel of eight Republicans and no Democrats that the organization continually got federal block grants but did not use the grants for helping the poor as promised. Rather, ACORN “used the money to fund the political machine,” Moncrief said.
“ACORN makes money off the poor,” Moncrief said. “Poverty is big business for ACORN.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57886
However, the House Oversight report claimed otherwise, saying, “ACORN’s own training manual reflects a business model in which money is taken from poor people and then funneled into partisan political efforts.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57886
The president’s close ties with ACORN, which date back over 15 years, are of additional concern,” Smith said. “President Obama previously served as ACORN’s lawyer, participated in ACORN training programs in Chicago, and sat on the boards of two organizations that provided funding to ACORN’s Chicago chapter.”
“The president’s ties to ACORN taint any conclusion that the Justice Department may reach with regard to whether or not to investigate and prosecute ACORN employees,” Smith said. “That’s why I request that the attorney general appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into ACORN.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57886
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
the Beat Goes On
Waste and Abuse in
Local Government Employee
Compensation and Benefits
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/The%20Beat%20Goes%20On.pdf
These are just some of the findings of the State Commission of Investigation’s latest
probe of waste, excess and abuse in public employee benefit programs. At a time of economic distress unprecedented since the Great Depression – with government budgets depleted and austerity the theme of the day even in the private sector – the gravy train continues to roll without impediment for select groups of employees on the public payroll. The Commission examined a statewide cross-section of local government employment policies, contracts and agreements involving a comprehensive mix of police, fire and civilian personnel and, in addition to extraordinary specialty perks like those described above, found a lucrative array of
questionable benefit practices that collectively cost New Jersey taxpayers millions of dollars every year, including:
• Inconsistent, non-existent and/or inadequate restrictions or caps on the
accrual and cashing-in of unused accumulated sick, vacation and other leave
at retirement, a phenomenon that enables select local government
employees to collect, in addition to generous pensions, lump-sum payouts
sometimes ranging well into six figures and in amounts larger than the
equivalent of a full year’s salary.
• Provisions that enable local public employees to collect cash for unused leave
annually while employed, thus effectively circumventing any caps that may
exist locally on the redemption of accrued leave at retirement.
• Costly allocation of various forms of so-called “terminal leave,” including
arrangements that allow local public employees to stay on the public payroll,
using up accrued sick time and other leave at full salary and benefits,
occupying a position without showing up for work – in some cases for up to a
year – prior to retirement.
• On top of pensions and leave redemptions, payments of thousands of dollars
in cash bonuses, sometimes couched improperly and inaccurately as
“severance,” to employees who retire.
• Inordinate amounts of vacation, compensatory time and/or personal days off
at full pay.
• Generous health insurance benefits with no requirement that local
government employees – unlike their colleagues at the State level –
contribute toward the cost of the coverage premium.
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/The%20Beat%20Goes%20On.pdf
Local Government Employee
Compensation and Benefits
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/The%20Beat%20Goes%20On.pdf
These are just some of the findings of the State Commission of Investigation’s latest
probe of waste, excess and abuse in public employee benefit programs. At a time of economic distress unprecedented since the Great Depression – with government budgets depleted and austerity the theme of the day even in the private sector – the gravy train continues to roll without impediment for select groups of employees on the public payroll. The Commission examined a statewide cross-section of local government employment policies, contracts and agreements involving a comprehensive mix of police, fire and civilian personnel and, in addition to extraordinary specialty perks like those described above, found a lucrative array of
questionable benefit practices that collectively cost New Jersey taxpayers millions of dollars every year, including:
• Inconsistent, non-existent and/or inadequate restrictions or caps on the
accrual and cashing-in of unused accumulated sick, vacation and other leave
at retirement, a phenomenon that enables select local government
employees to collect, in addition to generous pensions, lump-sum payouts
sometimes ranging well into six figures and in amounts larger than the
equivalent of a full year’s salary.
• Provisions that enable local public employees to collect cash for unused leave
annually while employed, thus effectively circumventing any caps that may
exist locally on the redemption of accrued leave at retirement.
• Costly allocation of various forms of so-called “terminal leave,” including
arrangements that allow local public employees to stay on the public payroll,
using up accrued sick time and other leave at full salary and benefits,
occupying a position without showing up for work – in some cases for up to a
year – prior to retirement.
• On top of pensions and leave redemptions, payments of thousands of dollars
in cash bonuses, sometimes couched improperly and inaccurately as
“severance,” to employees who retire.
• Inordinate amounts of vacation, compensatory time and/or personal days off
at full pay.
• Generous health insurance benefits with no requirement that local
government employees – unlike their colleagues at the State level –
contribute toward the cost of the coverage premium.
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/The%20Beat%20Goes%20On.pdf
Ridgewood Board of Education Bond Referendum '09
1. Bond Referendum '09 Community Presentations will be held on October 27 and November 30 at George Washington Middle School Auditorium, 155 Washington Place at 7:30PM.
2. Full information on the bond referendum is available on the Board of Education pages of the Ridgewood Public Schools website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us. Email questions on the bond referendum to referendum09@ridgewood.k12.nj.us
3. The Bond Referendum vote will be TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8.
2. Full information on the bond referendum is available on the Board of Education pages of the Ridgewood Public Schools website at www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us. Email questions on the bond referendum to referendum09@ridgewood.k12.nj.us
3. The Bond Referendum vote will be TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)