Ask Revel, Prudential ,J&J, and the other companies Christie provided give-aways to.

Because they're "job creators", and you and I are just some saps that pay property taxes. At least that's how I read the administration's attitude on that topic.

I think they tried that...and it is the very reason we're in the mess we're in.

Didn't various Governors, going back to the 90's, make a conscious effort to under-fund the pensions? That they were contractually obligated to pay? In order to balance the books?

If so, when that decision was made - with the overwhelming support of taxpayers and voters I'd imagine - that's precisely what they did. They used money that should have gone to pensions for tax relief. Well, the bill would seem to be due now.

I think the answer is for you to join your irresponsible brethren who ran up huge debt and then scurried to Florida or Arizona. Because that's so "conservative"...running out on the check.

There is no bill to be stuck with. The fact remains the state did not fund up to it's contractually obligated amount for 17 of 20 years. CC's budgets still don't fund it fully. The "underfunded" amount is equal to the undefended amount from the state plus the growth that would've occurred had that money been put in during those years. You can blame unions all you want, the fact is they've been putting in money all of the years with nothing from the state.

Joe, your anger is meaningless, this is all simple math.

"They" is every politician who the voters of this state elected over the past several decades. The one who promised unicorns and rainbows, and ponies for all. And "they" were eagerly elected by voters who clamored for tax relief 24/7. I'm not saying voters were wrong to want that, what I am saying is that the solutions they came to is what's screwing us now. And the consequences are unavoidable.

You (presumably a long-term resident) didn't pay for it then, so the bill grew...it didn't go away. It was never going to go away. That's the point.

I ask long-time residents this same question over and over...how else was it supposed to end? You ignored huge payments you couldn't get out of. You took the money and spent it. What was supposed to happen?

You can't vote to void payments that you committed yourself to in the past, all that gets you is a bigger legal bill and the problem still hasn't been dealt with.

And if you are a newer resident, you had to know this day was coming when you moved here. We did.

Funnier than I expected. And the language is not at all leading in nature.

Let me ask you another question - did you have a problem with these benefits when you were in school? When your kids were in school? When you had to hire an educated person for your company so that it would be profitable?

Because I know you didn't. I'm reminded of it every time I pay an activity fee or a usage fee or have to donate to a fundraiser to get something the school can't afford.

As usual, I have to pay out-of-pocket to cover the liability that you and your generation ran up. In addition to the expenses that being incurred now. So thanks for that!

Joe, if you had the courage to post under something aside from a generic name, maybe one can find out something about you too.

Oh, property taxes? That problem? Did you guys not take homestead rebates as well for years and years?

Again, kicking the can down the road. Something else that newer residents have to retroactively fund. I hope you appreciate all we do for you.

But seriously, property taxes are what they are because no one in this state will relinquish ANY control over anything. Every street has to have its own fire department, police department, superintendent, etc.

Ultimately, NJ is the way it is because the residents wouldn't have it any other way.

Again, how was it supposed to end any way but this - big bill comes due. Please, I'd genuinely like the insight.

No idea, would never cherry pick one year's worth of data and make a sweeping statement. Were we at 33% every year? Is that even accurate? Were we at 0% every other?

That's why I go back to the Whitman administration to show how you (and those like you) actually caused the financial problems we face. How you've pretty much been complicit for 3 decades in taking money you had no right to, and then leaving the bill for others.

You want to know what we're up against it? Look in the mirror.

Joe, assuming we kill future pensions (which is different than stopping payment on pat commitments)...would you then be prepared to lower the standards for teachers? Because no one would argue that the benefits package is the real incentive to be a teacher.

And if those standards are lower, and the product becomes worse, would you accept declining home values?

Because that needs to be part of the equation. Confusing short-term and long-term benefits is the biggest problem we have as a country.

Dunno, how about some comps from the area?

Joe, you couldn't defend your point on the pension fund so you switched to another, entirely different, argument.

So courageous. You must be either 8 or 80.

Joe, first off - you are totally engaging in a straw-man argument. Second, you can't ignore of do away with the past payment on pensions. You can't. Your call for a vote to void those commitments is pointless.

The money is owed. So if you have to make up that money by changing /reducing the seemingly arbitrary %'s that local areas get, of course that needs to be on the table. How couldn't it? I wouldn't expect the same level of state support. I'd fully expect my income tax to increase.

And you can pretend that I'm a union teacher who hates Christie, but I am not. I'm a business owner who will be voting for him in the next election. I just ask that we face the tough challenges and solve them and be done with it. And stop with these fake quick-fix schemes that get us nowhere but more trouble in 10 years.

Actually, the reality is the people pulling pensions in now never made it to 6 figure salaries, many college and advanced degree educated (at least form the teacher side). They started at below food stamp wage, which was the emphasis for accelerating teacher salaries, btw. With their salaries so low, the benefits were always to be on the back-end. I'd argue their overall salaries for 25-30 years of work will still be low so their benefits will be on the back-end again. Remember, they also had no say in where the money went or how it was invested, just that it came out of their paycheck at 5% or 7% or 8% rate, with a match of roughly 2% from the state. A lot of newer teachers, say 15 years of service or fewer, would rather their mandatory contribution be put into 403(b) accounts where they can manage the growth with a matching contribution from the state at, say, 0.5% up to 2% matching (so they put in 8%, they get a match of 2%, about industry average).

Joe, I agree with that - it's really just your idea of not paying past commitments I see as a non-starter.

Reforms are inevitable when it comes to future benefits and state support of local areas, and that's a preferable option to me than just coming up with a gimmick or band-aid that doesn't address the issue. So no, I won't be complaining because a sacrifice is needed.

At the same time, I don't want to see the schools fall off a cliff because we can't offer a competitive compensation package relative to other states in the area. So going to zero may be self-defeating if that happens and property values fall.

What I don't get about NJ - in addition to the local services that have to cost each small town a fortune - is property taxes in general. An income tax would surely be fairer, with a smaller property tax. Tax people on what they earn instead of what they own. Because I do feel for seniors and people who have been impacted by the recession. But I imagine there's a reason for that.

Despite calling each other schnorrers for a few hours, everyone sees the same problems. It's just the lack of an easy solution that's frustrating.

Phil, I'd also add that as a state NJ requires some expensive degrees. Advanced degrees in some cases. So how low can the compensation package go?

You all know that the root of the current problems is the rising cost of tuition and the rising cost of healthcare. Sadly, a 15% increase in the budget shouldn't be expected to raise test scores. Because it isn't going to books, computers, or college prep...it's going to medical insurance for workers.

So your response was to continue a personal attack. That's too bad.

No one would suggest that NJ be forces to raise it all at once, that would be impossible. Just like the USPS, revenues can't support that.

I think the Gov's plan through 2018 is at least a start, it begins to try and address the crisis. But knowing you can't deal with it today, right now, in no way means we're downplaying the magnitude of the commitment. The hole is so deep it will require a combination of actions, most of which will be unfair - tax increases, reduction of services, decreased benefits, and borrowing. You're out of good options, that ship sailed a long time ago.

But let's say that there is an argument or a re-writing of the state Constitution that allows for the kind of action you propose. Would that not result in some form of federal bailout? At least in part? And then aren't we just passing our liability on to the rest of the country?

And if schools get so bad that private schools become the norm, didnt we just pass along our tax liability parents with school-age kids?

Didn't the budget for last year not contribute the amount in that plan? I thought I read somewhere that the amount last year was supposed to be double what it was the year before but instead was the same.

And who doesn't love sports gambling and legalized marijuana?

Does Christie's refusal to allow internet gambling mean he still hold out hope for the sports books in state?

A quick explanation Porter on the USPS issue. Congress in 2007 passed a law that said the USPS had to pay forward for 75 years worth or retiree benefits with COLA and had 10 years to do it. They were operating in the black prior to this law and have been neck deep in the red ever since. Instead of cutting service, all Congress had to do was repeal that law.

And that's still 50% less then what the state is obligated to pay. meaning for 18 of the last 21 years the state will not make it's full, obligated payment into the Pension fund while all state employees contributed more this year then they have in the past.

And the solution is really to do what the governor laid out. Slowly ramp up the payments back to where they are obligated to be while hoping the economy grows back to replace some of the lost revenue. Remember, we're down $5B from Corzine's last year in office from a revenue standpoint ($33B versus $28B).