It should follow that NJ's public educational system presents a model to be emulated. But Christie really doesn't care if NJ's current educational system is good. He wouldn't care if it were the best to be found anywhere.

The term "education reform," heard so often these days and preached by the governer, is laissez-faire jingoism crafted for the very purpose of gutting public education. It is a small part of a bigger package aimed at cutting essential public services everywhere possible in order to put more money into the hands of very wealthy individuals.

This is Christie's program.

He's not the only one saying ours schools suck! Emulated?? Who in god's name would want to emulate NJ's drowning cesspool of entitlement hoarding education system??
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/nj_receives_low_mark_from_grou.html
People need to start looking at the bigger failing picture we have in this state and get with the program! We need to flush out the system and make it "all about the kids" for a change!

Our schools are drowning in mandates and curriculum changes every year by the state and the failed No Child Left Behind. Our teachers do not set the curriculum, most teachers are amazing and would do more for the children if they were allowed to by their Union, the best teachers do it quietly despite their union! Some take advantage of the system, just like some workers take advantage of their employers. No profession is without its share of bad apples. The broad brush strokes against teachers isn't fair. Who in their right mind would go to their employer and say "hey, don't bother paying for all my benefits, I'll pick up more." The change in pay structure has to come from the "employer" not the "employee". If you want a change in their pay structure, fine, don't ridicule the profession!

When the standards for college students looking to become teachers is a 2.75 GPA (which is below a B average) that is not very promising.

@Leta: The unions have nothing to do with curriculum. That's the State and local Boards of Education.
@Karin: All teachers do not have a 2.75 GPA (it's the minimum for certification). I imagine with 50, 100, or more applicants for every open position, those with sub-3.0 GPAs aren't landing many jobs.
@All: Hate the game, not they player.

So we should tax even more? Seriously, Catholic schools spend a fraction per child compared to public schools and they provide a better education. Maybe the teachers' unions should give up tenure, get rid of the bloat and enlarge the charter school system.

Hey Hoboken Townie,
Next time you are in a Catholic School ask them how many certified teachers or teachers with advance degrees they have. You may be very surprised by what you learn. The Catholic school in my neighborhood had no gymnasium until last year. what did kids do for gym? Oh, I forgot, they don't need to follow the state cirriculum so i guess they just didn't have it.

My kids have all attended Catholic schools (K-12), all had gym/art/music/ on top of all the "normal" classes (reading/math/science/history etc). All the teachers are certified and many have advance degrees. The kids have always taken the Terranova exams each year (tests: reading/math and science) and have always scored high average to above average. If your big issue is that some schools do not have gym class, well the public schools have gym class and look at all the obese kids, what is your point?

Lisa my local public schools have gym and good golly look at all those obese kids in the schools.

You are right, we are failing the education system. We have created a system w/ no accountability, where mediocrity and failure are tolerated and where it is near impossible to reward success. We have created a system where the local schools have a monopoly on providing educational services to local children and a parent's only choice if they are dissatisfied w/ the services they get is to move to another community or pay out of pocket for private school. Time to end that monopoly and let the parents decide where to send their kids to school. Let the parents decide which schools, which staffs and which educators will keep their jobs or lose their jobs as they vote w/ their feet and take their children and the tax dollars used to educate those children from failing schools and send them to schools that deserve that money.

Oh, here it is. The Catholic school cost model where teachers MAX at $30K/yr. I hope you are not equating TUITION with COST when it comes to private schools. Educate yourselves and look at some data, along with analysis from an expert:
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/stossel-coulson-misinformation-on-private-vs-public-school-costs/

Right on, with the money we fork out in this state, we should be number 1. . . There's something telling me that the abott districts were probably screened out of this report though. . . I have a huge question about these so called charter schools. Would love to hear form anyone who knows the answer: When a poor kid gets one of these vouchers to go to choice scchool, how much is it worth in NJ? In other words, how much are the Rich, Connected people that are now going to start gobbling up these "charter/private schools" going to be paid per student? The same price as we are paying per kid in the abbott districts? If so, this is another SCAM!!!!! Our tax dollars will be paid directly to these rich investors. Follow the money, everyone. . . This may not be a plan to "help" those in poverty, it may be just another way for money to flow into the Rich, Connected pockets. . . Plus, why should the poor, non-working, non tax paying families be enabled to send their kids to private schools, but the average middle class family who works, pays taxes, etc., can't afford to???? What am i missing?

" But it turns out the state isn’t so great at protecting children’s emotional and spiritual well-being. The Garden State hit only No. 16 for that marker, which measured suicide rates and children without weekly religious attendance."...did you miss the SUICIDE rates Sara? It was not just about attending religious services

Oh Sarah...I have to reply. Please don't think that children that attend a worship service with their family on a weekly basis are brainwashed. Children see and hear from people (hopefully) who have knowledge about which they speak. My church is not a doctrine oriented church, but it is based on truth, Biblical Truth, but the children are always encouraged to ask questions, engage or not in discussion and comment as they see fit. Faithful people are no more perfect than anyone else, but we do have Hope that God will guide us if we ask. Knowing you are not alone and knowing you do not have to carry your burden alone is critical to a believer and I pray my children will have that foundation always.

I would have been nice to have those two very different numbers separated.

+1 Sarah. I also agree with the other poster who wishes that they had not conflated the two factors. Truth be told, it makes me question the construction of the study and thus how seriously to take the reported results. BUT, in any case, good to see that children in NJ are doing things other than attending religious services.

I think that many are missing the point of a numbered ranking system. Firstly, it makes no sense to take number rankings literally. There is too much context and variety of measurement to think that there is a number one that is clearly better then a number two and so on. Secondly, the matter of being number one or two or three or five means being very very good. Period.

There is nothing narrow minded about properly understanding Christie's agenda of cutting services. The very fact that taxes come up in just about every discussion about to education reform makes clear what the point is. The discussion is never centered around the nature of curriculum or instruction.

The constant demands of the unions for raises, more generous benefits & the screeching sounds they make about Christie have nothing to do w/ curriculum or instruction so WTF is your point?

There is always room for improvement via constructive discussion, no matter how good something is.

Finland is, indeed, an excellent example for comparison. Their model is essentially the complete opposite of what "education reform" prescribes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jnFkE0qtL4

Finland is a horrible example. It is a homogeneous population that all speaks the same language.

Actually Red, Finland is a bilingual nation, both in terms of what is actually spoken there and in terms of having two official languages- Finnish and Swedish. Those two languages, and the culture groups they represent, are remarkably dissimilar. The languages are certainly more dissimilar then English and Spanish, which is the second most common language in the US. Yet every Finn learns to speak, read and write in both languages. And they all learn English as well. Many of them take on a fourth language or more.

You aren't making your case. If they all learn to speak it, that only makes them all the more homogeneous. You certainly don't have a dozen different languages spoken in the same school. You don't have people coming to that country who are functionally illiterate like we do here. You are comparing apples to roast beef.

Red,

My thought is that one of the best ways of finding out what might be worth emulating for improvement is to start by looking at what actually is working out there.

By contrasting the level of cultural and immigrant diversity of the US with Finland it sounds to me as if you are suggesting that we shouldn't regard the relative successes and failures of educational systems in different countries as a meaningful barometer of our own domestic successes and failures, as Karin has suggested. Is that your position? If so, it seems to me that there would be no legitimacy to anyone's claim to the effect that there is any sort of competitive crisis in the US educational system, particularly in the case of NJ. So much for the idea that we need "reform."

Moreover, do Christie and other "education reform" figureheads really care at all about improving NJ's public schools? Or do they just think that society does not have a collective responsibility to properly maintain well functioning public schools, and are using this as a pretext to slash away? If the so-called "education reform" movement is about innovative educational practice and not only about slashing away, then why do these two topics always come up together... every single time that talk of "reform" comes up at all.

What works is accountability.

"Accountability" is not what is making kids do so well in Finland. It is not what is working in high functioning settings in the US, public or private.

"Accountability" is the mantra you will hear applied to America's lowest functioning and most socially deprived schools, where days and years are are made longer, high stakes testing, drill based instruction and recitation has become the curriculum itself.

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide evaluation in OECD member countries (currently there are 65 member nations) of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance, performed first in 2000 and repeated every three years. It is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with a view to improving educational policies and outcomes. Another similar study is the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which focuses on mathematics and science but not reading.

Critics, such as Mel Riddile say that low performance in the United States is closely related to American poverty, but the same reasoning applies to other countries.[13][14] Riddile also shown that when adjusted for poverty, the richest areas in the US, especially areas with less than 10% poverty can perform an average PISA score of 551 (higher than any other country).[14] In essence, the criticism isn't so much directly against the Programme for International Student Assessment itself, but against people who use PISA data uncritically to justify measures such as Charter schools.[16]

The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates.[14]

Country Poverty Rate PISA score
United States < 10% 551
Finland 3.4% 536
Netherlands 9.0% 508
Belgium 6.7% 506
Switzerland 6.8% 501

Finland has 5.3 million residents, it's education is steeped in culture. 80% of school attendees attend the same type of church and religion is taught in the schools. Unfortunately, Finnish experts explain that there is very little diversity and that given the culture and small population of finland, it is near impossible to extend this theoretical learning to most any other nation.

Yes Pied. Let me put in the rest of the table that you included. Not for the purpose of contradicting your point about Americans under the right socioeconomic conditions doing quite well when compared internationally, which I agree with, but because of the table's strength in directly illustrating the clear effects of US wealth and poverty on academic performance.

Country Poverty Rate PISA score
United States < 10% 551
Finland 3.4% 536
Netherlands 9.0% 508
Belgium 6.7% 506
Switzerland 6.8% 501
United States 10%–24.9% 527
Canada 13.6% 524
New Zealand 16.3% 521
Japan 14.3% 520
Australia 11.6% 515
United States 25–49.9% 502
Estonia 501
Poland 14.5% 500
United States 50–74.9% 471
Austria 13.3% 471
Turkey 464
Chile 449
United States > 75% 446
Mexico 425

I basically agree that one can not expect the whole of US society to conform to the same cultural standards as Finland. But I would highly recommend that both critics and pundits watch the documentary that I pasted in above, and consider the nature of curriculum and instruction demonstrated in the video and whether it is really all that different from the way that things are done in successful learning environments in the US. And also, this should be contrasted with the sorts of methods advocated by "education reform" ideologues.

There are actually seven parts to it, better accessed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jnFkE0qtL4&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLBBB1741DF70C37C5

"Accountability" plays little if any role in success, anywhere.

Couldn't agree more, socioeconimic issues and support for those students,play a major role in education- critics of the comprehensive school system" (same system used in Finland) note that there are large gaps re:socioeconomics. As to my point and apparently those experts in Finland, who state that it is culturally based belief that education is of the utmost importance to a country. One notes that Private schools in Finland are banned. Every school is state funded and offers the same curriculum. This directly correlates with the country's need to ensure that every school is an academic success. Their educational philosophy is not about competing. Culturally, that would be near impossible, especially in the US.

Well we know having a unionized workforce who can't be fired for slapping kids, offering to give them drinks, drink on the job, hitting on them, lying on HUD applications to get into affordable housing, goofing off during school hours or just being absolutely horrible teachers doesn't work.

Princeton is not good enough?

Princeton is just fine. Of course it is also a private institution so that might explain that.

yeah Princeton is good
but you have all that traffic on 206 a real pain.
all jokes aside anyone who plans on visiting colleges should visit Princeton first and take the tour.
you then can compare the other colleges to the best

Princeton is consistently ranked 1 or 2 in the country. I believe over the last 2 or 3 years, it's been ranked #1. That's something to be very proud of. Small unknown fact is that JFK initially went to Princeton, not Harvard. While he was there he became ill and left the University to go back home. He then attended Harvard.

I took the Princeton tour and the Cornell tour
Princeton tells you they will not let you fail
Cornell tells you if you fail someone is waiting for your seat.

B@B... THANK YOU!! I have to agree with you on that! And as in the case with Ridgewood... a pretty football field that cost the taxpayers every other year when we get these "storms/floods of a century".. But hey at least it floats! Argh!
Never had these expenses when the field was grass!

Nicely put Ira!

I would only clarify that it is not the fact of wealth, itself, that is a problem but the inequities which make for some being so wealthy at the expense of others being impoverished.

In addition to wealth and poverty being key factors in school performance, community minded values also factor in. That is, in communities where people work cooperatively and look out for one another kids tend to thrive.

Citing income inequalities as a factor in education ignores the fact that success in education is based on proper guidance, personal ability and determination more than material resources. Engaging in class warfare/personal property redistribution is an admission of failure to provide proper guidance and foster determination. As RM points out, it's a culture problem, not a material wealth problem.

My point was that it is both a culture problem AND a wealth inequity problem.

There is also a very strong correlation between community wealth and school funding and the quality of public (and private) schools.

Agreed Tom - throwing money at an underperforming school isn't going to fix the problem, especially when the large portion of the students don't put any effort into their own learning. Sometimes the situation is indeed that the underperforming students are putting in effort, but are overcome by frustration, lack of help and guidance, etc., but so many times the students don't even care about attending class or doing homework, which is actually wasting much of the aid that is supposed to help them.

It is a massive cultural problem. People like RM think it is acceptable to take from those who accomplish something in life and give to those who don't and that will magically make things better. Sorry lady, all it does is teach people to become dependent on the hard work of others.

No that is not what I think Red. And stop saying what I think. You don't know. Think and speak for yourself. That is something you do know. State what you think and why, and present reasoning that contradicts those you disagree with if you wish. What you are doing is a straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Be honest, conversation really isn't your intention in commenting on the Patch is it? You are a troll, aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

You shouldn't be complaining about straw man arguments b/c every time you claim Christie wants to cut services, you are doing just that. The man is trying to force everyone to cut spending while maintaining services. You just are a tad slow and can't figure that one out.

You are right that Christie wants to cut spending for services. He has stated so explicitly.

It is not my problem if your town refuses to cut wasteful spending. Deal with it. Cut spending like everyone else and live within your means. Your town is perfectly capable of cutting spending and maintaining services at the same time. There is plenty of fat in every town's budget to easily absorb so big fat cuts.

Teachers are most definitly PART of the problem. There are many teachers that simply do not teach to an acceptable level. In fact there are some who are harmful to the development of our kids. Being able to fire failing teachers is critical to improving the education system.

What problem? I thought this article showed that NJ is ranked third in the country for education.

That is funny! LOL..
Here's a few good ones..
"If you think this is bad, you should of seen Old Jersey!"
OR...
"Welcome to the __________ State!.. We sold the Garden to help pay our property taxes!".
OR..
"New Jersey... Compared to Staten Island.. We ARE the Garden State!"
OR..
Why did George Washington cross the Delaware River in the middle of winter? To get to JERSEY!!!
Oh I could go on all day with these!

NJ has very good TV reception
2 away 2
1 frenchie one
2 no onions on 5
1 mustard kraut

Those pointy-headed librul commies over at Harvard Business School say MERIT PAY DOESN'T WORK.

http://hbr.org/2012/01/tackling-business-problems/ar/1

*** I meant PARENTS should decide if teachers are effective, not students... sorry!

I agree. I hesitate to say private unions should be illegal, because there is something inherently anti-American to me to say that people can't or shouldn't be able to organize any way they see fit. That's why public is my exception, because there is a sort of in-breeding that happens where the politicians and the unions keep rewarding each other at taxpayer expense, and those of us in the private industry have no voice because we can't exactly "boycott" public education.

But i do think the era of Unions being necessary to protect the lives and rights of those who are employed is in the past. We have SO many laws/regulations/protections against discrimination, abusive working conditions etc. It's not like if there is no Auto Union, companies are going to start hiring 5 year old orphans to run the manufacturing plants.

What is inherently anti-American is forcing people to join a union or pay dues when they belong to a certain profession.

ITA, Redrider. Same for laws being proposed to eliminate secret ballots for unions (e.g. allow members to be intimidated). Why is that necessary? If Unions need to intimidate members to get things done, then maybe those things deserve a second look.

What is inherently anti-American is not caring about the basic livelihoods of other Americans.

Careful, correlation does not equal causation. I don't think there is any evidence that can connect unions & tenure to better performing schools.

Well, if it isn't the unions, then what is it? Are kids in blue states just naturally smarter than those in red states?

Well, part of it is money spent on education (and I don't mean unions and tenure), socioeconomic status, parental education and involvement - there are lots of reasons why some states have better records on educations. Unions and tenure are probably the least important. There are good and bad teachers in every state.

Exactly what M.Moore said. MANY socioeconomic differences. Why do suburban schools tend to have better records than urban schools? Also, am I missing something -- do southern schools, or "red states" as you say, not have unions or tenure?

By your reasoning, I could argue that private schools are better than public schools because they DON'T have unions. I think it's a factor, but I'm sure politically "blue" people would be very quick to point out the socioeconomic differences there. And you'd be right to do so.

And for the record, as "good" as you may argue that blue state schools are, I'd argue they could be MUCH MUCH better, and run with a MUCH smaller price-tag.

Make a list of all the things high performing and low performing schools have in common. Could be in the same county, state, country, or even between countries. Now make a list of all the things that are different. This analysis reveals some interesting things that fly in the face of the dung flung by the "ed reform" businesses, er, proponents.
Please read:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-07-forum-students_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/from-finland-an-intriguing-school-reform-model.html?pagewanted=all

So -- without tenure, the corrupt administrators will abuse their power, firing good teachers to hire cheaper ones, giving themselves raises they don't deserve, etc... So the solution is to give tenure so that these administrators can continue to abuse their power by giving themselves even HIGHER salaries, as well as teachers who may or may not deserve it?

Maybe we should be asking ourselves why administrators can do this in the first place? Shouldn't we be taking steps to remove the corruption & abuse of power/money in the first place? Tenure is a band-aid that doesn't "heal" the problem. Why doesn't an administrator care if a good teacher is fired? It's because there is NO consequence for THEM if the school doesn't perform well. There is no consequence for anyone, so nothing gets better...

Again, this could not happen in the same way in a private model because there is inherent accountability since the school has to maintain a certain quality in order to continue to attract parents/students. They wouldn't need tenure to protect good teachers because they have incentive on their OWN to keep them.

Heather, are you aware of the sorts of salaries that private school administrators make?

If a private company can stay afloat paying teachers well, giving a solid education to students, AND paying their administrators 2 million a year, then good for them. Our public schools pay those crazy administrative salaries, but not only do the results not back them up, but neither do the finances. They are always out of money. If these public schools were private, they'd go bankrupt. That's the difference.

Private companies have one motive: PROFIT. All actions taken will be done to maximize profit. No one will be paid any sort of a decent salary because that would interfere with the maximization of profit.

And did anyone notice that supers of CHARTER DISTRICTS (and every new charter school is a mini-district with its own administration which is not accountable to the taxpayers who fund it - the details are beyond the scope of this thread but you can research it) are EXEMPT from the superintendent salary caps? Why? Christie used to work for Cerf in the private education industry years ago...DO THE MATH AND FOLLOW THE MONEY!
http://www.bluejersey.com/diary/18320/cerfs-up-how-privatization-will-wipe-out-public-education-in-new-jersey-part-1

Right on Ira . I especially am glad to see someone else following what has been happening with this broken economic system. This borrowing and more borrowing is loading the rich even more, and pushing the middle class tighter. This concept of inflation is awful, the "growth" concept is forcing corporations on the stock market to keep cutting every corner possible,, e.g. like you said escape paying taxes and sending jobs overseas to keep their salary expense as low as possible. Although salaries have never ever kept pace with true inflation numbers, salaries still have had to increase over the years to some degree to avoid the whole country going into poverty. With the rise in american pay, the greedy corporations had to push to the undeveloped countries to cut expenses. It is a totally broken system that NONE of the leaders want to bother to fix---except Ron Paul. And now that MORAL HAZARD has been committed over again during he last few years, nothing will ever change. . The bailouts are now assumed and they will continue. These are the guys really running the show. People think it's the president and congress. No--the BIG BANKS AND FEDERAL RESERVE. Did we all pay for their convention of Elites in Davos Switzerland too? They digitize $, load up the banksand the corporations, and squeeze the public trying to save money and make a little interest. Instead, they keep gambling our money away and then have to print more and cause more inflation. What do we do?

Wealth alone does not beget better results; in the aggregate, the culture in affluent communities/households (except for things like heroin use: http://tinyurl.com/84f6nlv) is simply far more conducive to academic achievement. Rich kids don't count on making the NFL/NBA, or becoming a rap start to achieve wealth, which is far more common in low-SES neighborhoods. In affluent schools, scoring highly is something to be proud of; in far too many low-SES areas, it's something to hide.

Good comment, but the first two sentences are patently ridiculous. Test scores soared under Republican presidents? Cite, please.

@sp resident: it's more about SES than race, but race is an inexorable part of it. Sure, affluent kids dream of being gangsta rappers and pro athletes.

By the way, when was the last time you spent any significant time in a school setting, interacting with hundreds of kids (of any demographic)? How many of these "none [sic] interested teachers" do you know? Turn off NJ101.5FM and Go substitute for a week. And ask your kids if the other students in the class contribute to a positive learning environment - or are they sabotaging it. Why don't you volunteer to go in and help (read to younger kids, chaperone events, etc.)? Or do you already? Is there order in the school? Are the hallways filled with exposed buttocks, cuss words, and loitering?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26patterson.html

Yes Dan. And it is not enough to tell people who are treated unfairly that they should just suck it up because life isn't fair. It must always be added that it isn't fair to get in the way of this harsh fact. The means justifies the end. It matters less that a select privileged few live lavishly on the backs of suffering as long as they are allowed to remain free in doing so.

The essential function is to disregard moral responsibility in favor of displaying loyalty to established systems of privilege.

The last one always gets me Mike. The question is, are corporations men or are they women?

And if they were to be discovered to be transvestites or transsexuals, would fewer conservatives like them? Would they be more inclined to take away their rights?

Sorry, Mike. Your profile pic of Limpbo threw me off.

@Ridgewood Mom: What I want to know is who goes to jail or gets executed (or Texa-cuted) when a CorporatePersonWhatever commits an egregious crime. Or which CorporatePersonWhatevers volunteer to go to the front lines in war (Halliburton does not count). The history of this mess is interesting (http://tinyurl.com/77hhelp).

@Robert: I like to keep people guessing. LimpBall apparently does it.

Christie worked for Cerf in LobbyLand (http://tinyurl.com/78r76mv) - that's all we need to know for now. Gates and Zuckerberg and Broad wouldn't last ten minutes in front of a rough class but have all the answers.

I'd like to stop seeing wealth being redistributed from above.

That trickle down smells funny and is warm and yellow. Funny how Obama is at once inept yet powerful enough to destroy the country in 3 years. That said, he could have been so much more, but is still light years better than the freak show that's debated themselves about 19 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16714480

LMAO! By all means let him and Buffet pay more then...nothing stopping them! they keep saying that he wealthy should pay more, but do they give more money to the government at tax time???

Ridgewood_Mom: No I got their point! IF they feel that paying more is an obligation of the wealthy then why are they not offering to pay more? That is my point?

If you wish to pay more, then by all means do so. But get your hands off my wallet already.

Well, in terms of charitable giving they are paying a great deal.

But it makes no sense to conflate the notion of charitable giving with the notion of civic responsibility. You are welcome to argue that people, including them, ought not have to pay so much tax as they do. And naturally, you might expect others to argue conversely that all such people as them ought to pay more tax. But this mixing and matching of the the notion of free giving with the notion of responsibility to society makes no sense at all.

It sounds a lot more like many of the unreasoned sound bites one commonly hears as emotional propaganda.

Ridgewood_Mom: the reason they are giving so much in "charitable" donations is because neither one of them is going to allow their kids to inherit their money..they have to spend it/ give it away somehow. That of course is their right but they keep saying "wealthy should pay more" but make no move to lead by example :) that is my issue.

Nonsense. They are leading by example. How can you say they are not?

1. They are speaking out publicly in support of government policies that would require all such people as them to take on a larger share of the tax burden. Here is Warren Buffet doing so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID4cwjva1yo

2. They are giving immense volumes of money to charity.

You are welcome to disagree with them, but the idea that there is an inconsistency between their words about social responsibility and their actions makes no sense at all.

Actually, Buffet has made his motivation very clear - so no need to speculate or put words in his mouth. Concerns had been raised by the few non-multi-billionaires among us, that increasing the tax rate on multi-billionaires might somehow be counter-productive and hurt the economy or otherwise bring the sky falling down. Instead it was suggested that lowering the tax rate on their bracket would somehow inrease their spending (I suppose because they lack the cash to do so now).

His response was (I'm paraphrasing): Hogwash! You little people don't worry about defending us multi-billionaires. We absolutely DO have the means to make our own case, if we were felt that increasing the tax revenue to help pay for the country's fiscal obligations was not bearable to us.

He WAS leading by example - by being actually speaking out and providing first hand testimony that adjusting the tax rate for people of his means would NOT be the least unreasonable (and you may have noticed that there was NO subsequent backlash of other multi-billionaires airing their objections to Buffet's assertion).

They are SPEAKING out about raising taxes on the multibillionaires, but are they submitting more then is required when the file their taxes? There is a difference between speaking and actually doing! And giving to charity what does that have to do with taxes? Outside of it being a write off! I am not questioning their charitable giving..while I do not like Gate's foundation but that is for another time (LOL)

If Buffett's tax return says he owes say $2million in taxes is he submitting a $4million check instead? If Gate's tax return says he owes $15million in taxes is he actually submitting a check for $30million instead? That is what I am talking about when I say "lead by example" ..stop talking and do it! Show those other selfish multibillionaires what they should be doing...what they are "obligated" to do!

Yes Andy. What is most remarkable is how delusional many people with an income that just breaks six figures and a mortgage on a house worth a few hundred thousand in Upper Bergen county think of themselves as being threatened by the idea of a lesser proportion of taxes for the middle and working classes and a greater proportion of taxes for billionaires.

Such people aren't very rich. They are middle class. At best they are upper middle class. Yet for them it is all about about identifying with a tribe of "winners" and displaying loyalty to that tribe. They take a look at the ghettos and notice funny smells and see crime and other signals of social deprivation, and smirk about how much more diligent and industrious they are. They never, for a moment, look up and notice the lap of luxury that they are propping up at their own expense. But of course not. Those winners up there are their brothers and sisters. They are kin.

Oh really?

The sad thing, it (should have) nothing to do with party politics. It's like arguing over the best way to repair your car, because you and your mechanic don't have the same party affiliation.

It's basic economics. Our markets already have available all the goods and services that anyone would want. These providers/producers will only increase production (invest into supply stocks, addt'l staff, production capacity, pay more overtime) if they need to keep up with an increase in demand.

People of Buffet's caliber already have enough disposable income to buy what they like. A taxation change in either direction will not affect any "economic stimulus". That's why they have no problem if their country needs to use some of that money to become solvent. Their investments benefit from the country turning around.

On the other end of the spectrum, it is the people who currently struggle to keep up with their finances who will be able to purchase needed goods/services that they have been unable to thus far, and thus an increase of THEIR disposable income WILL indeed trigger economic growth. This is accomplished by reducing their other costs, such as THEIR taxation, offering them basic services such as health care, low credit rates and CPI increases by maintaining a strong currency (since we are net importers). Borrowing money from China so that it can be sent into middle east to pay for wars and oil had long caused the opposite effect.

The problem is that there is no way in hell that any state or the Fed will raise enough money by taxing people like Buffet to do anything. The Buffet Tax won't fix anything. The wealth redistributionists are going after everyone who makes a decent living and pays taxes. The expiration of the Bush Tax cuts alone will be the largest tax increase this country has ever seen and they want hundreds of billions more a year on top of that obscenely large tax hike.

Yes it will fix it Red. Current tax revenue is about $2.3 trillion. Current spending is about $3.6 trillion. Thus the budget "gap" is about $1.3 trillion. The ending of spending on Afghanistan and Iraq, currently over $700 billion and the repealing of the Bush tax cuts alone will easily fill the budget gap, balance the budget and create excess leading to the repayment of debt. That is not even to begin to consider the immense increases to government revenue that will come from reduced unemplyment (all of those people we don't like to be receiving government assistance will both stop receiving it and pay taxes into the system). Its simple math.

You are welcome to believe that this is not a fair way to fix this gap. But you are not welcome to create your own mathematical laws.

You are assuming that Obama is going to use the "extra" revenue to pay down the debt I am thinking that extra revenue is going to be spent elsewhere. Where are all these jobs coming from that you say will get people off the handouts?

I am not assuming that he will do that, although I think that you are assuming he won't. I'm just saying that it is a clear and easy fix to the deficit issue.

Karin, the jobs come from relatively better wages and working conditions for working class and middle income Americans (most Americans), or even stimulus or relative tax relief specifically for that group only, who then put most of their earned income back into the economy via spending, as opposed to amassing wealth. Increased spending across the board means more money flowing for the services provided by smaller businesses at home and thus a rise in the demand for people who can provide those services. Higher demand means more jobs. As more of those jobs become filled with working class and middle income Americans more money gets spent and thus more jobs are needed.

Its basic a reverse cycle to the way its been going.

We have the highest tax burdens in the country. Get used to people being annoyed w/ the bloated and inefficient public sector in this state. Completely inexcusable that we have 500+ school districts in this state and all the waste, redundancy and inefficiency that creates.

To my point Red, you are still talking about taxes.

Wow guys, look up at the article at the top of this page! New Jersey's public schools average amongst the best in the nation!!!

RM, the article actually references high taxes before it gets around to the Child Well-Being Index results. Taxes can easily be considered as a measure of infringement upon or even loss of personal liberty. When someone labors 40, 50, 60 or more hours per week, their earnings represent that part of their life. And not only that part of their life, but the whole of their life supported by those labors. The Founders must be rolling over in their graves at the notion that the government would take 15% or more of someone's life. Fifteen percent of one year is 55 days. Can we really talk about "well being" when we are expected to let the government suck the life out of us?

Times are tough. We are all feeling it.

Don't vote for anyone endorsed by the unions and I suspect you may find your taxes stop going up. The unions, their pay, their benefits, their work rules & their constant demands for more, more, more are the primary reason property taxes keep going up. Something like 60-70% of your local tax bill ends up in their pockets. Stop voting for the people they like, the people who keep giving them more and more of your money.

@Redrider: Are you pro-charter?
@Karin: I didn't know Obama was solely responsible for determining where the money goes. Thanks for the info.
@Ridgewood Mom: if the tax loopholes are closed for the 1%, they might have to use regular unleaded instead of premium, further decimating their standard of living.