Steve Fulop's callousness on state aid and property taxes

As everyone who follows the SOMSD school budget and who pays taxes here knows, despite the fact that we pay enormous property taxes, our school spending is average at best and we are facing a monstrous budget deficit that will only be closed with painful cuts to programs that most of us took for granted.

For two years I’ve done my best to make everyone aware of how our budget and tax problems are the result of getting almost none of the state aid that NJ’s own aid formula (SFRA) entitles us to. I’ve done my best to make people aware of how unfair that this underaiding and sacrifice are not things that occur in every district, where exurban districts and Abbott districts are usually very well aided, while suburban districts like the SOMSD, West Orange, Bloomfield, Belleville etc are ripped off.

Anyway, I wanted to make everyone aware of something extremely callous and ignorant that Steve Fulop recently said.

Sen. Michael Doherty of Warren County has criticized overaiding of Jersey City by using Mayor Steve Fulop’s own property tax bill as am emblem of how the tax burden in NJ is unequally shared.

Mayor Steve Fulop of Jersey City owns a townhouse worth $739,000 and yet only pays $7,700 a year in taxes (all-in). Doherty makes a point of comparison by indicating that a house with the same assessment in his town would pay $24,000 in property taxes, about the same a house in SOMA would pay.

Doherty is correct that this privilege is enabled by Jersey City getting massive state aid; $420,000,000 for K-12 plus another $67.5 million for Pre-K. Jersey City's local school tax levy, on $18.6 billion of equalized valuation, is $110 million. This is the same as SOMA's local school levy on less than a third of that valuation.

Jersey City is overall not a high-resource district, so a most of that aid is justified, but Jersey City’s gentrification has been substantial and $114 million of that aid is from Adjustment Aid. Adjustment Aid, FYI, is legalized aid hoarding. Adjustment Aid is the result of a ratchet-like legal mechanism in SFRA that prevents a district from ever losing state aid. If Jersey City did not PILOT so much new development (PILOTed property is invisible to the formula for Equalization Aid), the proportion of its money from Adjustment Aid would be even higher. Although I've criticized the state for giving too much money to Hillsborough ($25 million for 7,200 kids), the real money is in what goes to Jersey City.

Steve Fulop's inability to recognize the unfairness of the aid distribution is disturbing. Notice how his response doesn't address the substance of Doherty's criticism or realize that Doherty was using Fulop’s own townhouse as an example of a problem.

Folup’s response is what I consider callous:

"it is a little creepy that Sen. Doherty would pry closely into the Mayor's personal life in order to grandstand. If Sen. Doherty solved problems in Trenton instead of stalking Mayor Fulop, I am sure his constituents would actually realize a benefit."

When I think of the dire budget situation in the SOMSD and the programs we are going to lose and large class sizes we are going to have to accept, I am infuriated by Fulop's inability to show recognition of the fact that there are problems in how NJ distributes school aid and that Jersey City is part of the problem. I'd expect someone who wants to run for governor to concede unfairness, to talk about being a "governor of all New Jerseyans," or to at least defend JC somehow, but Fulop just dismisses the issue.

True, Doherty contextualized his criticism in terms of taxes and not how Jersey City hurts districts like South Orange-Maplewood, Bloomfield, Belleville, West Orange etc, but if Fulop is going to run for governor he should know that most NJ districts don’t enjoy the privileges that his district gets.

Mike Doherty, however, should not talk about Jersey City and Newark in the same sentence. Newark has little gentrification and gets almost no Adjustment Aid. Some people could still think that Newark gets too much aid, but legally, it legally it isn't an aid hoarder like Jersey City is. Newark's equalized property valuation is only $13 billion for 280,000 people. Jersey City's equalized property valuation is $18.6 billion for 257,000. Other than being big, the two cities have little in common from a school finance perspective.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/jersey_city_mayor_steve_fulop_plays_hide_the_ratab.html

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/07/star-ledger_columnist_puts_spotlight_on_fulops_tax.html

Thank you for posting this.

Kurt

Everything about how schools are funded is a disaster. Property tax takes no bearing on how much a person is able to afford.

Dup post

I agree that the way NJ funds education is archaic and absurd. However there was no reason for Doherty to make it personal against the mayor of JC. Fulop did not create the problem and Jersey City (as far as I understand) is playing within the rules that the State has set up. The rules are ridiculous, I agree. But to target Fulop personally was, IMHO, not necessary.

ParticleMan said:
I agree that the way NJ funds education is archaic and absurd. However there was no reason for Doherty to make it personal against the mayor of JC. Fulop did not create the problem and Jersey City (as far as I understand) is playing within the rules that the State has set up. The rules are ridiculous, I agree. But to target Fulop personally was, IMHO, not necessary.

If Fulop is planning to run for Governor, he had better get used to things being personal. Not only is his city a beneficiary of education funding inequalities, he is a personal beneficiary.

Washington state got $70 million in revenue from legal marijuana sales last year. How much would an extra $70 million help NJ schools and the funding situation?Legit question.

ParticleMan said:
I agree that the way NJ funds education is archaic and absurd. However there was no reason for Doherty to make it personal against the mayor of JC. Fulop did not create the problem and Jersey City (as far as I understand) is playing within the rules that the State has set up. The rules are ridiculous, I agree. But to target Fulop personally was, IMHO, not necessary.

I suppose I have a different threshold for what counts as an improper personal attack. When Mitt Romney ran for president he was criticized for paying lower taxes than most middle-class people. Technically that's personal, but it's legitimate in my opinion because Romney's low tax rate can be seen as emblematic of the unfairness of the US tax code, just like Steve Fulop's low property taxes are emblematic of how unfair NJ's aid distribution is.

No one accuses Fulop of doing anything illegal here. He is just accused of benefitting from services and privileges that were established when Jersey City was much poorer than it is now. Nor is Fulop accused of creating the unfairness, but Steve Fulop has sought to maintain it and therefore I wouldn't give him a pass.

I also criticized Fulop directly for his "let them eat cake" attitude to tax burdens outside of Jersey City. Even if he doesn't realize how bad non-Abbott districts have it with school funding, he has no excuse for not knowing how bad the tax burdens outside of Jersey City are. How is it fair that someone in JC pays $7,700 in property taxes on a $739,000 house while someone in SOMA would pay the same $7,700 on a $230,000 house?

There is an overall issue with school funding but regarding Jersey City (and Hoboken) there is an even larger issue that Abbot has no mechanism to take into account changing demographics. Jersey City has changed signifcantly since Abbot was set up.

Why on earth would the mayor of JC criticize the sweet flow of state aid? He'd have to be crazy. Take all you can (legally) get and keep your head down.

RobB said:
Why on earth would the mayor of JC criticize the sweet flow of state aid? He'd have to be crazy. Take all you can (legally) get and keep your head down.

The time for him to care only about JC is past, given his pretty clear intention to run for governor of the whole state.

mjh said:

RobB said:
Why on earth would the mayor of JC criticize the sweet flow of state aid? He'd have to be crazy. Take all you can (legally) get and keep your head down.

The time for him to care only about JC is past, given his pretty clear intention to run for governor of the whole state.

And there lays the problem. What makes you a hero in your city, makes you a villain in the state. How do you manage to turn that around?

mjh said:

RobB said:
Why on earth would the mayor of JC criticize the sweet flow of state aid? He'd have to be crazy. Take all you can (legally) get and keep your head down.

The time for him to care only about JC is past, given his pretty clear intention to run for governor of the whole state.

Agreed. As Fulop campaigns for governor he has got to address school funding from a statewide POV, not a Jersey City POV. However, to deny Jersey City's privilege for political expediency, as Fulop has done, is dishonest and assumes a lack of understanding of state budget issues that I think Jersey City voters do possess. It should not be political suicide for Fulop to admit that Jersey City can afford to pay more in taxes than it does.

What is very worrying to me is that the NJ Supreme Court has ordered that every single 3 and 4 year old living in Abbott districts receive "free" Pre-K, no matter what the state's overall budget situation is and no matter how wealthy the child's parents are. Yes, kids need Pre-K, but when the state's resources are so limited and when kids in poverty living outside of Abbotts get $0 the NJ Supreme Court and Education Law Center need to come to their senses and allow means-testing.

Jersey City is going through a building boom (almost all PILOTed). Jersey City's Pre-K population is projected to increase by 25% over the next five years. Jersey City's Pre-K funding is now $67.5 million. If costs increase by only 25%, Jersey City's Pre-K funding should have to increase by to $84 million a $17 million increase from the present.

Ok, $17 million might not sound like a lot compared to the state's overall budget, but NJ only increased overall K-12 spending by $5.2 million for 2015-16 (almost all going to Interdistrict Choice). If NJ continues to offer "free" Pre-K for all 3s and 4s in all the Abbotts it will subtract from the amount of money going for K-12 education in the non-Abbotts.

The SOMSD now gets $4.2 million. This is less money than we got in the early 1990s. If there are no limits put in place on Pre-K in Jersey City and Hoboken, those districts continue to be allowed to hoard aid through Adjustment Aid, and the state focuses on putting on new revenue into pensions, the SOMSD will get less money in the future than it gets now.

Hoboken's Pre-K is even more outrageous because Hoboken could afford to pay for Pre-K for its kids and still have a low tax rate. Hoboken's school tax rate is 0.36 ($39 million on $11.1 billion in equalized valuation). Hoboken now gets $10.2 million in Pre-K aid. If it lost all that money and had to make up the losses through local taxation its tax rate would be ~0.44.

Chris Christie, unfortunately, has sided with Hoboken and Jersey City against the rest of the state. He is obsessed with not letting any district lose any state aid, no matter how overaided it is. I can understand his inability to fully fund SFRA, but I cannot accept that he financially treats Hoboken the same as he treats Belleville.

JBennett said:

Chris Christie, unfortunately, has sided with Hoboken and Jersey City against the rest of the state. He is obsessed with not letting any district lose any state aid, no matter how overaided it is. I can understand his inability to fully fund SFRA, but I cannot accept that he financially treats Hoboken the same as he treats Belleville.

Why would Christie continue to reward his political nemesis Furlop?

State-wide office? Why would anyone from our under-aided district vote for Furlop. He is JC's creature. And JC demonstrates yet another pernicious consequence of PILOTs. Maplewood money flows to Wall Street west, with its massive ratables from which its own school system takes nothing. Even as SOMA raises class sizes, cuts programs, and defers maintenance, all while trying to chip away at an achievement gap.

Unjust. Unjust. Unjust. Thanks a lot, NJ Supreme Court. Thanks a lot, PILOT commercial complex and Trenton power brokers. Thanks a lot, Hudson County. You got yours.

JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.

afa said:
Washington state got $70 million in revenue from legal marijuana sales last year. How much would an extra $70 million help NJ schools and the funding situation?Legit question.

A lot but that depends on whether or not the funds would be earmarked for NJ public schools and definitely used for NJ schools. There's a lot of missing money around here and we, the taxpayers, are used to make up the difference. It's shameful the way our public schools are financially mishandled by seemingly EVERYONE. Is there any hope to get us to where we rightfully should be?

Sybil said:
JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.

Who is hating Jersey City for its success?

BTW, JC's proximity to Walk Street was a factor in its success. So it would not have been as easy for Newark to have the same. Not impossible, but not the same.

ParticleMan said:

Sybil said:
JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.

Who is hating Jersey City for its success?
BTW, JC's proximity to Walk Street was a factor in its success. So it would not have been as easy for Newark to have the same. Not impossible, but not the same.

Not JC - we seem to be hating on Fulop. He should have done the responsible thing and NOT taken all that money for JC.

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:

Sybil said:
JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.

Who is hating Jersey City for its success?
BTW, JC's proximity to Walk Street was a factor in its success. So it would not have been as easy for Newark to have the same. Not impossible, but not the same.

Not JC - we seem to be hating on Fulop. He should have done the responsible thing and NOT taken all that money for JC.

You've entirely missed the point of the OP. No one is hating on him for taking money for JC. They are hating on him for his callous indifference - as an unannounced gubenetorial candidate - to the property tax woes of the rest of the state.

xavier67 said:

JBennett said:

Chris Christie, unfortunately, has sided with Hoboken and Jersey City against the rest of the state. He is obsessed with not letting any district lose any state aid, no matter how overaided it is. I can understand his inability to fully fund SFRA, but I cannot accept that he financially treats Hoboken the same as he treats Belleville.

Why would Christie continue to reward his political nemesis Fulop?

I don't have a good answer to this. Back in 2013 a cynic would say that Christie let overaided districts keep their aid because Christie wanted a huge reelection victory and taking aid away from overaided districts would have been more controversial than a redistribution. IBut why is Christie letting overaided districts hoard their aid now? I don't know, but deals happen in Trenton that the public knows nothing of.

Unfortunately there is almost no constituency for a redistribution of aid. First, there is almost no understanding of just how irrational the aid distribution is. The issues in education right now that get the most attention are student testing, charter schools, and teacher evaluation. Second, the mentality among BOEs, activist groups, and state legislators is that the way to make the aid fairer is to make the pie larger by fully funding SFRA. Dividing the pie more fairly - which is what I support because I know how bad the state's own budget is - is a minority opinion and the only people who publicly advocate for it are rural Republicans who don't like how much money the Abbott districts get.

Although Christie has been blind to the irrationality and unfairness of the aid distribution for the past three years, back in 2012 Chris Cerf, then Christie's commissioner of education, proposed that Adjustment Aid be cut in half for districts that were above adequacy. Cerf proposed that the money taken out of Adjustment Aid be rechanneled into other streams of aid. If this proposal had been enacted Hoboken, rural, and Shore would have lost aid, but the overwhelming majority of NJ's lowest-resource districts would have gained aid.

This was, in short, the most progressive move on aid Christie ever associated himself with.

What happened?

The Education Law Center, urban Democrats, and rural Republicans (whose districts also get Adjustment Aid) went on the attack.

Sen. Steve Oroho (Sussex County) of said this of the proposal to reduce Adjustment Aid:

“This is exactly why we need a new funding formula that is balanced and accountable,” said Oroho. “Dozens of our local school districts are now among about 185 suburban and rural districts shortchanged from receiving basic aid, leaving them faced with potential increases in already too costly property taxes.” [sic]

http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/oroho/orohomchosechiusano-latest-figures-continue-to-show-school-aid-formula-is-broken/11263

Then the reactionaries of the Education Law Center joined the fight and also totally misrepresented the consequences of the proposal.

"Any cuts in adjustment aid would likely disproportionately fall on 'High Needs' districts serving significant concentrations of low-income students and Black and Latino students."

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/222-new-jersey-school-districts-could-see-adjustment-aid-cut-in-fy2011

David Sciarra's reaction is a complete misrepresentation. Adjustment Aid districts Below Adequacy would not have lost Adjustment Aid. Most Adjustment Aid districts affected are rural and have very few Black and Latino students anyway. A district like Hoboken, whose public schools do have a large Black and Latino population, can easily make up for the lost aid with local taxes.

Finally, almost none of NJ's poorest districts get Adjustment Aid anyway.

These are the districts in NJ with the highest proportion of FRL-eligible students. Notice how few get Adjustment Aid and of those that do, it's a small portion of their budgets. ( a * indicates that it is an Abbott)

District Name...... % FRL eligible...... Adj Aid as a Percentage of Total Spending

Camden City*................ 95%......... 12.83%
Union City* ................... 95%.......... 0.00%
Seaside Heights Boro...... 94% ......... 9.37%
Woodlynne Boro .............93%........... 0.00%
Asbury Park City*........... 93%........... 30.89%
Bridgeton City*................93%............ 0.00%
Passaic City*.................. 91%............ 0.00%
Paterson*........................ 90%........... 0.00%
Trenton*......................... 89%.............7.01%
Atlantic City................... 89%.............. 4.13%
Red Bank Boro................ 89% .............0.00%
Salem City*.................. 89%................ 8.46%
Plainfield*...................... 88%................ 0.00%
East Newark................ 88%..................0.00%
New Brunswick*............. 88%................0.00%
Lakewood..................... 86%................ 0.00%
City of Orange*................ 86%............. 0.00%
Pleasantville*................ 85%................ 15.66%
Perth Amboy*................ 85%................ 0.00%
Elizabeth City*................ 85%................ 0.00%
Wildwood City................ 85%................ 18.09%
Prospect Park................ 85%................ 0.00%
Fairfield Twnp................ 83%................ 2.58%
Commercial Township........... 81%............ 0.00%
Harrison*................ 81%....................... 0.00%
Egg Harbor City................ 79%................ 0.00%
Long Branch*................ 79%................ 0.00%
Guttenberg................ 78%................... 0.00%
Fairview................ 77%....................... 0.00%
Freehold Boro................ 77%................ 0.00%
Lindenwold................ 76%................ 0.00%
East Orange*................ 76%................ 13.31%
Paulsboro................ 75%...................0.00%
Irvington*................ 74%................ 14.16%
Lawnside................ 74%....................0.00%

Let no reader have sympathy for Asbury Park, the one high poverty district where Adjustment Aid is a high proportion of spending. If Asbury Park lost half of its $24.4 million in Adjustment Aid, its per pupil state aid would drop from $23,600 per student (not counting pensions and capital spending) to $18,400 per student. $18,400 per student is still much higher than the ~$15,000 per student that Newark gets and MUCH, MUCH higher than what a low-resource non-Abbott like Belleville ($5400 per student) gets.

Aside from the ignorance of how unfair the aid distribution is, a huge problem the suburbs have is that we are divided politically between Republican and Democratic districts. Suburban legislators do not work together on aid like rural and urban legislators do. Suburban legislators, for good or ill, put their parties and their ideologies ahead of working together for the tax relief of their constituents and the financial stability of their school districts. Suburban legislators are more likely to focus on statewide education issues too. Sen. Ruiz of Belleville, one of NJ's most underaided and underfunded districts, focuses on teacher evaluation and now special ed. Mila Jasey of South Orange focuses on charter schools and Interdistrict Choice. There are no suburban equivalents of Sens. Oroho and Doherty. There are no suburban equivalent to the urban Democrats who voted against SFRA en bloc. Tom Kean of Westfield, an underaided and surprisingly low-spending district, focuses on school vouchers.

mjh said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:

Sybil said:
JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.

Who is hating Jersey City for its success?
BTW, JC's proximity to Walk Street was a factor in its success. So it would not have been as easy for Newark to have the same. Not impossible, but not the same.

Not JC - we seem to be hating on Fulop. He should have done the responsible thing and NOT taken all that money for JC.

You've entirely missed the point of the OP. No one is hating on him for taking money for JC. They are hating on him for his callous indifference - as an unannounced gubenetorial candidate - to the property tax woes of the rest of the state.

I'm not missing anything. This is like refusing to sign a pitcher because he shut out your team 4x the year before. He's the Mayor of Jersey City, not Maplewood. He's fought hard to squeeze every penny he can for Jersey City, not Maplewood. Is he supposed to take the money and say "jeez, this is terrible - just terrible - you guys should really stop paying us all this cash. We really don't need it."

RobB said:

mjh said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:
Sybil said:
JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.
Who is hating Jersey City for its success?
BTW, JC's proximity to Walk Street was a factor in its success. So it would not have been as easy for Newark to have the same. Not impossible, but not the same.

Not JC - we seem to be hating on Fulop. He should have done the responsible thing and NOT taken all that money for JC.

You've entirely missed the point of the OP. No one is hating on him for taking money for JC. They are hating on him for his callous indifference - as an unannounced gubenetorial candidate - to the property tax woes of the rest of the state.

I'm not missing anything. This is like refusing to sign a pitcher because he shut out your team 4x the year before. He's the Mayor of Jersey City, not Maplewood. He's fought hard to squeeze every penny he can for Jersey City, not Maplewood. Is he supposed to take the money and say "jeez, this is terrible - just terrible - you guys should really stop paying us all this cash. We really don't need it."

So how would you feel if someone from private equity or the hedge fund industry who aspired for office answered a question about the Carried Interest Deduction and his his ultra-low tax rate with "it is a little creepy that you would pry closely into my personal life in order to grandstand. If you solved your own problems instead of stalking me, I am sure you would actually realize a benefit." Fulop pretends not torealize that he is singled out for his low property taxes because he is the only person from Jersey City who is running for governor.

And how much political damage in Jersey City would Fulop experience if he conceded that Jersey City is privileged and most places are less well-off with school funding and taxes? Just how selfish do you think people in Jersey City are anyway that they would not comprehend that Jersey City has become wealthier and doesn't need as much aid as it used to? Do you think that people in Jersey City don't realize that affluent parents take advantage of "free" Pre-K? Even if Fulop didn't plan on running for governor he could concede the need for some redistribution of state money. Fulop is a Democrat and the Democratic party's ideological impulse is compassion for the less fortunate. In the case of NJ, the less fortunate are taxpayers and students outside of the Jersey City.

Also, the pitcher analogy doesn't work. Fulop "didn't shut anyone out 4x." Jersey City won all that aid 20-25 years ago, when Fulop was a kid and even then the Abbott decision was unfair because low-resource districts that weren't part of the Abbott lawsuit got screwed.

To use a sports analogy, Jersey City is like a boxer who has gained muscle and still fights in a light-weight division because that's what it qualified for 20 years ago. It's like a football team was a loser back in 1991 and now is the Superbowl champ and still keeps the #1 draft pick. What Jersey City does is cheating and the victims are districts like SOMA, Belleville, Bloomfield, etc.

JBennett said:

So how would you feel if someone from private equity or the hedge fund industry who aspired for office answered a question about the Carried Interest Deduction and his his ultra-low tax rate with "it is a little creepy that you would pry closely into my personal life in order to grandstand. If you solved your own problems instead of stalking me, I am sure you would actually realize a benefit." Fulop pretends not torealize that he is singled out for his low property taxes because he is the only person from Jersey City who is running for governor.

And how much political damage in Jersey City would Fulop experience if he conceded that Jersey City is privileged and most places are less well-off with school funding and taxes? Just how selfish do you think people in Jersey City are anyway that they would not comprehend that Jersey City has become wealthier and doesn't need as much aid as it used to? Do you think that people in Jersey City don't realize that affluent parents take advantage of "free" Pre-K? Even if Fulop didn't plan on running for governor he could concede the need for some redistribution of state money. Fulop is a Democrat and the Democratic party's ideological impulse is compassion for the less fortunate. In the case of NJ, the less fortunate are taxpayers and students outside of the Jersey City.

Oh stop. When a Midwestern governor complains about FEMA on Tuesday and hungrily consumes disaster aid on Thursday after a tornado on Wednesday he's labeled a hypocrite (assuming that's how you spell hypocrite). I say take the money to which you're legally entitled and be happy about it.

RobB said:

I say take the money to which you're legally entitled and be happy about it.

This is your moral code?

RobB said:

mjh said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:
Sybil said:
JC is growing and it is benefiting. That is great. Newark could have been JC. Both were in similar situations. Newark blew it, while JC capitalized. So don't hate JC for its success.
Who is hating Jersey City for its success?
BTW, JC's proximity to Walk Street was a factor in its success. So it would not have been as easy for Newark to have the same. Not impossible, but not the same.

Not JC - we seem to be hating on Fulop. He should have done the responsible thing and NOT taken all that money for JC.

You've entirely missed the point of the OP. No one is hating on him for taking money for JC. They are hating on him for his callous indifference - as an unannounced gubenetorial candidate - to the property tax woes of the rest of the state.

I'm not missing anything. This is like refusing to sign a pitcher because he shut out your team 4x the year before. He's the Mayor of Jersey City, not Maplewood. He's fought hard to squeeze every penny he can for Jersey City, not Maplewood. Is he supposed to take the money and say "jeez, this is terrible - just terrible - you guys should really stop paying us all this cash. We really don't need it."

As a JC mayor no.

As a candidate for governor, absolutely!

JBennett said:

RobB said:

I say take the money to which you're legally entitled and be happy about it.

This is your moral code?

Guess it's easier to get personal. Have a nice day.

Fulop is just being a politician.

If poor kids are outside of Jersey City, they don't exist to him.

RobB said:

JBennett said:

RobB said:

I say take the money to which you're legally entitled and be happy about it.

This is your moral code?

Guess it's easier to get personal. Have a nice day.

Naw, it's easier to just work for Wall Street.

JBennett said:

RobB said:

I say take the money to which you're legally entitled and be happy about it.

This is your moral code?

You aren't seriously introducing a question of morals into a discussion about NJ politicians looking to (legally, as proscribed for them under the dumbass formula, no less) get their constituents funding, are you?

ctrzaska said:

JBennett said:

RobB said:

I say take the money to which you're legally entitled and be happy about it.

This is your moral code?

You aren't seriously introducing a question of morals into a discussion about NJ politicians looking to (legally, as proscribed for them under the dumbass formula, no less) get their constituents funding, are you?

Ok, you got me. My secret is that I'm an idealist. I should have publicly admitted this years ago.