Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Star Ledger"]Corzine, business execs brainstorm on financial crisis by Beth Fitzerald/The Star-Ledger Monday September 22, 2008, 3:15 PM While Congress considers adding foreclosure-prevention measures to the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout of the stumbling U.S. financial sector, Gov. Jon Corzine is convening a forum in Newark with 27 business executives and state government officials to "hear ideas from people who are living and working every day in the world of our real economy." Jerry McCrea/The Star-Ledger Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey (center); speaks during an economic forum with NJ business leaders held at the NJIT campus in Newark. Corzine, speaking briefly to the press just before a 2 p.m. closed-door meeting at New Jersey Institute of Technology, said he's looking for ideas to "help us ease some of the dislocations that are pretty obvious: Main Street's got problems just as much as Wall Street does." More coverage in the Star-Ledger Business blog. The governor said he wants to know what steps government can take to ease the impact of the credit market crisis on New Jersey; what steps government and business can take together, "and how we can facilitate steps you might need to take on your own." Corzine said he will make the case to Washington that the states "are going to be a negative factor in the economic well-being of the country if we are not part of the solution." New Jersey's unemployment rate is rising, and Corzine said the state's Medicaid expenses rise $1.1 billion for each 1 percent rise in the jobless rate. Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Congress for authority to spend $700 billion over the next two years to buy the mortgage-related securities now weighing down the books of banks and investment firms. These securities are plummeting in value as housing foreclosure and default rates rise and home prices sink, igniting a crisis of confidence in the U.S. financial system. Congress is expected to vote on a bailout plan this week. According to a Corzine spokesperson, those attending the two-hour economic conference included Ralph Izzo, chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group; Joseph Riggs, group president of the homebuilder K. Hovnanian Homes; Gus Milano, executive vice president of the commercial real estate firm Hartz Mountain Industries; Gil Medina, executive managing director of Cushman & Wakefield and a former New Jersey commerce secretary, and Caren Franzini, chief executive of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/corzine_asks_business_leaders.html[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
joe the plumber
Posted: Fri, Nov 14 2008, 4:07 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
But, is it not The American Way to make our reach extend beyond our grasp? Everyman/woman a millionaire?
Those pesky regulations get in our way and keep us from getting rich at someone else's expense!
Guest
Posted: Fri, Nov 14 2008, 10:55 am EST
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
Given Paulson's handling of the crisis and the "Goldman Sachs" tag (which is a minus in today's environment), I think the chances of Corzine being picked as the next Treasury Secretary are slim.
Wall Street Journal
Posted: Thu, Nov 13 2008, 11:33 pm EST
Post subject: Corzine Emerges as a Candidate for Treasury Secretary
November 13, 2008, 4:48 pm
Corzine Emerges as a Candidate for Treasury Secretary
Elizabeth Holmes reports on the transition.
The buzz surrounding President-elect Barack Obama’s pick for Treasury secretary has focused on Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. But a new name is emerging in the mix: New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.
Corzine,received praise Thursday from Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. Other handicappers are following Corzine because he has such a range of experience in both the public and private sectors. He’s a former head of Goldman Sachs, the same position current Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson held.
After more than two decades at Goldman, including turning the firm into a public company, he won a U.S. Senate seat. In 2005, he was elected governor. The latest polls have him at a 47% approval rating.
Corzine supported Obama’s primary opponent, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, but has since been said to have a strong relationship with Obama and his inner circle. The New Jersey Star-Ledger reported last week that Corzine was being vetted for the position.
Stern, who leads a union with two million members in the U.S. and Canada, said he liked Corzine’s strong economic credentials. Plus, he said, experience in an executive branch position like governor offers an array of responsibilities, calling it a “rude awakening to life.”
Stern also said he would not object to Summers, who served as Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and was forced to resign as president of Harvard University after a comment that gender differences might account for the small number of women with high-level jobs in math and science. Geithner, on the other hand, was not top on Stern’s list because his experience revolves solely around government-type positions.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/13/corzine-emerges-as-a-candidate-for-treasury-secretary/
Guest
Posted: Thu, Oct 23 2008, 6:31 pm EDT
Post subject: Bloomberg gets another shot, term limits extended to 3 terms in NYC Mayoral Race
Bloomberg gets another shot at a 3rd term, term limits extended in NYC Mayoral Race to 3
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081023/bloomberg_third_term.html
cranbury liberal
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 8:02 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
I think we're saying the same thing at this point. As I said, I completely hold individuals responsible for the consequences of their actions and I favor zero bail out of individuals.
I was simply responding to who holds more blame and I still fault the institutions more than the individuals. We ay have to agree to disagree on that point.
I do think it would be unfair to bail out the institutions any more than it would to bail out the individuals though.
Historically Fiscal
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 6:51 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
cranbury liberal wrote:
I often agree with your posts but I disagree on a couple key points this time.
First, while the origin of our troubles is greed, I strongly disagree that this mess was started not by the institutions who gave risky loans but by the people who received them. To be sure, both parties share responsibility. But if you have to define which is first in this chicken/egg scenario, it is definitely the institutions...
Cranbury Liberal I do agree with many of your points, but you yourself proved an important one I made. You too were enticed by the very same banks and institutions to spend beyond your means, they wanted you to buy that larger house, bigger mortgage and you didn't - sound fiscal reasoning prevailed in your household. You lived within your means despite the offers and temptation to overextend, and others who are fiscally minded homeowners also figured out how to afford our lifestyle and home.
So who's fault is it? Who started it? Its moot, because as I see it, the individual is ultimately responsible for overextending.
I often get bombarded by Banks wanting me to get another Credit Card, get lower rates if I signup for another Card - Do I follow this advice and advertising - No I don't want to be in bigger debt so I only have 2 cards - little to nothing on the cards.
When the TV commercial is tempting me to buy more on my Capitol One Credit Card so that I earn points for Free Gifts, do I belive that its free? Do I max out my Credit? Nope Instead I see through the logic of the adverts.
So should we also regulate this type of temptations and fiscal hazards as well, and bail out the folks going bankrupt and overextended credit cards because of the Banks tempting them to overextend? NO WAY - but if we start doing this for "Main St" foreclosures then this is the next logical bailout crisis to come. So it doesnt mater how it started, its the individual who gets themselves into the mess.
The free market has a way to clean up a bad system, Crashes are the markets way of fiscal Darwinism. I hope its a soft Crash/Recession but ultimatly I see this foreclosure crisis helping at the individual level (i.e. Main St). If there was no demand for risky mortgages then there would be no supply. Same with penny stocks - sometimes the individual investor gets Greedy, drives up the stock and the Market is all to happy to capitalize on the opportunity. Is that the Market's fault? and how can we protect the individual from every financial hazard, only way I can think of is in the pocketbook and lessons learned by Main St.
It gets cold when you loose your shirt on the gambling table of life, so most dont put up their shirt right?
So you can see I'm not disagreeing, I mostly agree with all your points. But when it comes to GREEDY individuals or institutions, I'm totally against any protection or Bailout. I do understand for the greater good of the whole, we need to interveen in some special cases to save the stronger firms and re-create a healthy market. I dont see that at odds like TV depits. Its not a WallSt.vs.MainSt to me, its saving the strongest financial business so that MainSt can continue doing good business. Most of it is still good business and good loans out there. And its not a blank check either or unsuppervised, becuase better regulations has to be apart of the Bailout plan. Some firms will no longer exist after this (Lehman Bros) and also some overextended individuals will go into foreclosure - leasons to the worst offendors in both I hope will be ensured as a result of it. Hard lesson but necessary for both.
James
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 6:46 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
Here's a really funny, but accurate powerpoint on the subprime mortgage mess.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/02/how-subprime-re.html
cranbury liberal
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 6:24 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
I don't think sub-prime mortgages as a category are entirely to blame for the problem. The problem is, first, that mortgage providers got more and more creative in offering exotic and special types of mortgages. These creative, risky loans vehicles were not mandated by Congressional acts. This was private companies getting more and more out of control in creating vehicles to spur more loans and refinancing. And by relying middlemen mortgage brokers to drive business they encouraged a system where brokers rampantly misrepresented the terms and risks of the mortgages they were selling to people not savvy or sophisticated enough to question them. Again, I am not relieving those individuals of responsibility for their own consequences. If all that went wrong was some sub-prime loans going bad, we wouldn't be in this situation. The pain spread because of prime loans that used variable rate financing, prime loans that were overburdened with second and third mortgages, speculators who bought investment properties with financing dependent on rapid appreciation, and most of all on the investment banks who leveraged themselves 30-times their available assets on the faith that they would never have a meaningful call on their assets. It is convenient to blame it on Congress or the sub-prime mortgage holders but they were not the drivers of the problem.
Guest
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 5:33 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
[
Quote:
quote]It is this same kind of reasoning I belive that got us into this mess in the first place. I'm not a fan of the Bailout, but generally we need market stability so we need to intervene into the free market. But I am a proponent of free market, if you take on risky loans then live with the outcome.
The problem didnt start with greedy Wall Street, but started with the individual that ASKED/GOT a risky mortgage that they couldnt afford in the first place. Sure the Bank should have been regulated for this not to happen, but the GREED started at home first. If it wasnt soooo dam easy to sell that risky loan to other institutions like Fanny/Freddy/etc. then this rampant GREED would have been contained in the FREE MARKET. Its not about more regulations that will fix it and bigger government, but responsible rules that eliminate this type of risky business in banks that is at fault.
Quote:
I often agree with your posts but I disagree on a couple key points this time.
First, while I the origin of our troubles is greed, I strongly disagree that this mess was started not by the institutions who gave risky loans but by the people who received them
[/quote]
It is my understanding that this began because, through legislation, CONGRESS forced banks and lending institutions to give loans to people who could not qualify for them. So, we now have the same people (CONGRESS) who created the mess trying to fix it. While people need to take personal responsibility for their finances, without this legislation that was passed back in the 90's, which eventually created the subprime market, many of these people would never have qualified for a mortgage to begin with.
Guest
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 12:57 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
As for executive pay, I believe one of the problems is that most people have their money in funds. Any type of pay increase automatically goes through approved by the board because no one (or very few) are actively watching to say "no". Tiaa-Cref was one of the few I have heard that tried to limit CEO pay. I think more people need to make their voices heard at shareholder meetings. But it is very time intensive, which creates part of the problem. Plus they need to stop giving CEOs golden parachutes for doing a poor job.
cranbury liberal
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 10:59 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
Historically Fiscal wrote:
It is this same kind of reasoning I belive that got us into this mess in the first place. I'm not a fan of the Bailout, but generally we need market stability so we need to intervene into the free market. But I am a proponent of free market, if you take on risky loans then live with the outcome.
The problem didnt start with greedy Wall Street, but started with the individual that ASKED/GOT a risky mortgage that they couldnt afford in the first place. Sure the Bank should have been regulated for this not to happen, but the GREED started at home first. If it wasnt soooo dam easy to sell that risky loan to other institutions like Fanny/Freddy/etc. then this rampant GREED would have been contained in the FREE MARKET. Its not about more regulations that will fix it and bigger government, but responsible rules that eliminate this type of risky business in banks that is at fault.
I often agree with your posts but I disagree on a couple key points this time.
First, while I the origin of our troubles is greed, I strongly disagree that this mess was started not by the institutions who gave risky loans but by the people who received them. To be sure, both parties share responsibility. But if you have to define which is first in this chicken/egg scenario, it is definitely the institutions. I remember when we bought our first house in the mid-90’s that that the home builder’s (it was a new home) finance arm tried to talk us into taking a bigger, more expensive home by putting the same money down but having it represent a smaller percentage down payment and to use special variable rate financing that would have initially resulted in comparable payments to the smaller home. As much as we would have liked the more expensive home, we resisted. But the point is, even then that was the standard operating procedure of the institutions– they were actively trying to sell the buyers on more risky options that wouldn’t even have occurred to the buyers without their intervention, all to increase their profit.
Back then it was usual to get a loan with less than 10% down. When the real trouble started at the beginning of this decade it became increasingly common for loans to be provided with 3% or even 0% down or even interest-only loans. Again, all these higher risk products were dreamed up by the institutions and actively marketed to potential new home owners – they were not created by home owners themselves. And it was the industry that spent billions (literally) actively marketing home equity loans and reserve mortgages to home owners to fuel their loan pipeline but ultimately erode the equity safety cushion people had in these homes. These used to be relatively minor products, a form of collateral for loans people really needed. Industry transformed them into open checkbooks, convincing people that home equity lines were a smart idea even if they didn’t need a loan, simply to “take advantage” of the equity in their homes. Insane. You can track the cause-and-affect. Marketing dollars and increase in commissions to “brokers” (the real villain in this whole saga BTW) skyrocket, then a huge increase in people closing specialized loans follows, not the other way around. They built a house of cards, put out the welcome mat, threw a big party and people showed up like the good Lemmings they are.
Again, I am not excusing the adults who chose to make these high risk decisions and live beyond their comfortable means. I just dispute that they pushed and the industry followed, versus the other way around. The facts don’t support this.
That said, I think I am more free market than you, ironically. I don’t support any bailout. I think part of the problem is we keep prolonging the real pain with artificial band-aids but while that can give very short-term confidence it doesn’t create any long term conviction that the market is stable, which is what is needed to really spur substantial new investment and calm in the market. There is still a TON of money out there. People just can’t trust the market right now. I think you have to go one way or the other but not try to have your cake and eat it too as the Bush Administration and the Wall Street companies are trying to do. They want government intervention to help them but otherwise do nothing to punish them for their excesses, disincentivize them from trying it again or hold them accountable for future results. Heck, they even want to structure it so the bail-out itself is a huge profit center for them. Their greed remains paramount.
I personally favor no bail-out of Main Street or Wall Street. I think we should accept that that we actually NEED a major recession in the natural cycle of a free market economy and that it will result in a lot of foreclosures and bankruptcies that will have rippled affects for us all, slamming the values of homes and savings, reducing our purchasing power and make getting new loans very hard. But the net result will be a REAL bottom, not these constant false assurances of an artificially created bottom than doesn’t sustain confidence for more than a week or two at a time. And the painful act of market contraction is usually very healthy in the end. What emerges is fewer, stronger players with the best employees, fewer homeowners who can really afford their homes, etc. I would rather see a 30-40% loss within the next year on my home and portfolio value if the net result is it results in a sustainable bull market afterward than the continued verge-of-panic we are perpetuating now which will continue to have all kinds of unpredictable world consequences that transcend just the economy and tie into our position in world politics as well. We are losing our leadership credibility.
But, okay, I am in the minority with my tough love true-free market philosophy. But if you are going to intervene, if you are going to break the principles of a free market and small government in the first place, don’t even try and be so hypocritical as to suggest we should throw money out there but do nothing to regulate the result. If we go this route, even what Congress and the presidential candidates are proposing isn’t far enough. They need to make future executive management criminally liable for results like this, not just is there is overt fraud but because of gross recklessness or negligence. Even if the result is not hard time, there should be a very real threat of personal bankruptcy for these people as the government can pursue personal assets in their judgments. See how recklessly risky they want to be then. I don’t think total comp should be capped as some propose, but I think a vast majority of it should have to be TRULY long-term and tied to performance. There should be a very tight limit on cash comp for senior management, something well below $1M annually, with all other comp being options (not restricted shares or grants and with no back-dating of course) that have at least 5+ year first vesting windows, rather than annually starting just a year later. This more properly aligns senior management with the long term prosperity of their companies, not short-term returns.
Historically Fiscal
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 12:30 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Corzine urges public works spending to spur state's economy
Star Ledger wrote:
"How we pay people on Wall Street and in a lot of places needs serious revision," said Corzine, who entered politics after running the investment bank Goldman Sachs. "There needs to be 'clawback' considerations when people have not done well and it comes out after they have been paid. Executive compensation comes under the purview of the board of directors, and I don't think those boards have always done a good job."
I like this idea for government also Gov Corzine, a "CLAWBACK" for bad decision making in NJ on any Sr NJ politician/sr. executive would make NJ government better just like your proposal for Wall St.
Historically Fiscal
Posted: Wed, Sep 24 2008, 12:15 am EDT
Post subject: Re: Gov Corzine
Its interesting how divergent strategies are being used by the NY/NJ Governors during this financial crisis. This week Bloomberg was cutting taxes for NY taxpayers, while Corzine was in emergency economic meetings with the largest land developers to justify how to spend his way out of this fiscal crisis. Is that what you would personally do? In our current economic situation, when prices are rising, gas is increasing, bills are pilling up, are you thinking of spending your way out like Corzine wants to do to NJ? I didnt think so, most are conserving and preparing for a rainy day, and its starting to pour out there isnt it?
It is this same kind of reasoning I belive that got us into this mess in the first place. I'm not a fan of the Bailout, but generally we need market stability so we need to intervene into the free market. But I am a proponent of free market, if you take on risky loans then live with the outcome.
The problem didnt start with greedy Wall Street, but started with the individual that ASKED/GOT a risky mortgage that they couldnt afford in the first place. Sure the Bank should have been regulated for this not to happen, but the GREED started at home first. If it wasnt soooo dam easy to sell that risky loan to other institutions like Fanny/Freddy/etc. then this rampant GREED would have been contained in the FREE MARKET. Its not about more regulations that will fix it and bigger government, but responsible rules that eliminate this type of risky business in banks that is at fault.
So I go back to my main point with NJ spending and getting into more debt, just like the individuals that are in middle of foreclosures because they couldnt afford the risky mortgages.
Should Corzine take out bigger NJ loans, bigger mortgages out on NJ and spend more of our NJ tax dollars to build these large development projects as the economic solution to our current fiscal crisis?
I'm very disappointed in my Governor as this is Corzine's current strategy and what his committee of economic advisors came up with in this week emergency economic meeting. Maybe its because most of those that are attending happen to be builders and developers themselves? The outcome should have been obvious to us all.
I wonder if Corzine even knows what the top business are in NJ, if he went onto Wikipedia he would know that land development doesnt even make the top 10 in NJ. But no one from Pharma, Finance, Agra, etc was even in this emergency economic meeting. So how is spending more of our NJ tax dollars helping me and my fellow NJersians prepare for harder financial times Gov. Corzine??
I'm very disappointed by Corzine, maybe we can get Bloomberg to come to NJ as someone else suggested on this forum. We can sure use his fiscally responsible judgement and cleanup NJ politics.
Bloomberg Orders $1.5 Billion in Cuts Sept 23rd
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/bloomberg-orders-15-billion-in-cuts/index.html
Corzine's Emergency Economic Roundtable Sept 23rd
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/09/corzine_urges_public_works_spe.html
http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/23781/mchose-chiusano-governor-corzine-s-economic-stimulus-plan-misses-mark
Star Ledger
Posted: Tue, Sep 23 2008, 2:10 pm EDT
Post subject: Corzine urges public works spending to spur state's economy
Corzine urges public works spending to spur state's economy
by Beth Fitzgerald and Claire Heininger/The Star-Ledger
Tuesday September 23, 2008, 12:05 AM
Gov. Jon Corzine today proposed accelerating state spending on public works projects such as schools, roads and mass transit and encouraging the creation of new energy conservation jobs -- all in a bid to forestall the dire economic consequences of the Wall Street financial crisis.
Corzine also suggested New Jersey's bargain commercial real estate prices might attract jobs from New York's embattled financial services industry.
The governor spoke about the crisis on Wall Street following a two-hour meeting in Newark, where he invited 27 business leaders and state officials to discuss strategies for bolstering the state's economy. A $700 billion bailout package now being discussed by Congress not only should help financial institutions, but also should go toward keeping families from losing their homes, Corzine said. And he raised concerns about allowing huge compensation packages for Wall Street titans responsible for the current meltdown.
"How we pay people on Wall Street and in a lot of places needs serious revision," said Corzine, who entered politics after running the investment bank Goldman Sachs. "There needs to be 'clawback' considerations when people have not done well and it comes out after they have been paid. Executive compensation comes under the purview of the board of directors, and I don't think those boards have always done a good job."
Among the ideas that emerged form the brainstorming session was bringing New Jersey's smaller community banks together to form lending syndicates that, with backing of the state Economic Development Authority, could funnel capital to businesses caught in the credit crisis.
While Corzine was meeting with business experts in Newark, state lawmakers convened an emergency hearing in Trenton to gather ideas on what they can do to soften the economic blow to Garden State residents.
Testimony before the Assembly's Labor Committee covered a range of ideas, including raising the minimum wage, rolling back corporate taxes, investing in transportation infrastructure and doing nothing at all. Legislators did not immediately embrace any new policy prescriptions, though several interest groups used the occasion to renew calls for their respective favorite causes.
The first person to testify, Rutgers economist James Hughes, confirmed the grim possibilities facing the Garden State. "A sharp economic rebound is not in the cards," Hughes said. "We still have a lot of pain to go through."
Forty percent of New Jersey's income tax is paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of residents, Hughes said, and under the "worst-case scenario" the state could see its income-tax collection drop by 13 percent or so in the wake of Wall Street cutbacks. Retail sales are also likely to flatline or grow slowly, which will affect sales tax collections, he said. As for job losses, Hughes put the worst-case figure at 100,000.
Pressed on what steps the Legislature can take, Hughes said there are few actions at the state level that would create a turnaround. He said investment in transportation infrastructure could help create jobs, but "it takes a long time to kick in."
Other speakers also cited transportation projects as an area where the state could act, and committee chairman Assemblyman Joseph Egan (D-Middlesex) said following through on plans to build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River should be a top priority. The tunnel is one of several projects that would be paid for with toll increases on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway under a plan now being considered by the Turnpike Authority.
Egan said he favors raising the minimum wage from $7.15 per hour, but that will probably not draw lawmakers' immediate focus, despite testimony from progressive organizations and labor advocates. They said a boost in the minimum wage would help keep people in New Jersey who would otherwise flee due to high housing costs, and pump money into the economy by allowing workers to spend more.
"Now is the time to invest in New Jersey's families, and not pull back," said Jon Shure, president of the liberal Trenton think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective. "We could have a race to the bottom--I'm not sure that's going to get us anyplace."
Business groups said a wage increase would be counterproductive and called for changes to the state's tax structure to make it more business-friendly.
John Rogers, representing the New Jersy Business and Industry Association, said the Legislature should also be prepared to pump more money into the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. The state put $260 million into the fund in June to avoid triggering a tax increase on businesses, but with unemployment rising -- it was at 5.9 percent in August, a five-year high -- the fund could soon be drained again, Rogers said.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/09/corzine_urges_public_works_spe.html
Guest
Posted: Mon, Sep 22 2008, 6:02 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: Corzine, business execs brainstorm on financial crisis
Star Ledger wrote:
According to a Corzine spokesperson, those attending the two-hour economic conference included Ralph Izzo, chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group; Joseph Riggs, group president of the homebuilder K. Hovnanian Homes; Gus Milano, executive vice president of the commercial real estate firm Hartz Mountain Industries; Gil Medina, executive managing director of Cushman & Wakefield and a former New Jersey commerce secretary, and Caren Franzini, chief executive of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority.
These are all developers - That's what Corzine thinks of when he talks about business.
Star Ledger
Posted: Mon, Sep 22 2008, 6:01 pm EDT
Post subject: Corzine, business execs brainstorm on financial crisis
Corzine, business execs brainstorm on financial crisis
by Beth Fitzerald/The Star-Ledger
Monday September 22, 2008, 3:15 PM
While Congress considers adding foreclosure-prevention measures to the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout of the stumbling U.S. financial sector, Gov. Jon Corzine is convening a forum in Newark with 27 business executives and state government officials to "hear ideas from people who are living and working every day in the world of our real economy."
Jerry McCrea/The Star-Ledger
Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey (center); speaks during an economic forum with NJ business leaders held at the NJIT campus in Newark. Corzine, speaking briefly to the press just before a 2 p.m. closed-door meeting at New Jersey Institute of Technology, said he's looking for ideas to "help us ease some of the dislocations that are pretty obvious: Main Street's got problems just as much as Wall Street does."
More coverage in the Star-Ledger Business blog.
The governor said he wants to know what steps government can take to ease the impact of the credit market crisis on New Jersey; what steps government and business can take together, "and how we can facilitate steps you might need to take on your own."
Corzine said he will make the case to Washington that the states "are going to be a negative factor in the economic well-being of the country if we are not part of the solution."
New Jersey's unemployment rate is rising, and Corzine said the state's Medicaid expenses rise $1.1 billion for each 1 percent rise in the jobless rate.
Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Congress for authority to spend $700 billion over the next two years to buy the mortgage-related securities now weighing down the books of banks and investment firms. These securities are plummeting in value as housing foreclosure and default rates rise and home prices sink, igniting a crisis of confidence in the U.S. financial system. Congress is expected to vote on a bailout plan this week.
According to a Corzine spokesperson, those attending the two-hour economic conference included Ralph Izzo, chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group; Joseph Riggs, group president of the homebuilder K. Hovnanian Homes; Gus Milano, executive vice president of the commercial real estate firm Hartz Mountain Industries; Gil Medina, executive managing director of Cushman & Wakefield and a former New Jersey commerce secretary, and Caren Franzini, chief executive of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/corzine_asks_business_leaders.html