Earlier today a news brief was posted on the Daily Record’s website that spoke about the increase in students attending county colleges. Below is an excerpt of the release, which I’m sure will be made into a fuller article in the coming days:

The New Jersey Council of County Colleges says there are 158,152 students taking classes this fall. Nearly 81,000 are full-time, a 4.6 percent increase over last year.

County colleges previously had more part-time students. But the group says that trend has changed as tuition climbed at four-year schools.

Tuition at New Jersey’s county colleges averages about $2,500. It’s $9,500 at four-year schools.

This is great! Not only are New Jersey students saving some money by attending the county colleges, but as more and more of them make the 2-year pit stop at “county” before heading off to the larger schools, there is less and less of a stigma attached to the schools. County colleges often get tagged with the “13th Grade” moniker or other derogatory nicknames. I’ve never attended classes at a county college, so I wouldn’t know what the classroom atmosphere is like though I can’t imagine it is too much different than attending a smaller class at Rutgers, Monmouth, Rowan, or TCNJ.

As a side note, if this means that more New Jerseyans are going to college, then that is another great outcome of the county colleges!

USA Today had a great article a few days back that talked about the rapidly declining PC and laptop sales in the Japanese technology market. It’s a pretty interesting read so you may want to check it out if you get a few free minutes.

The article makes a great point regarding the growing internet capabilities of handheld devices like cell phones and video game systems. It also points out the new abilities for digital cameras to connect directly to televisions and to printers without having to go through a computer.

Again, it’s pretty interesting so take a read if you get a chance, but from my view - I don’t think that the PC is going the way of the dinosaur any time soon. There are too many uses for the machine for it to become obsolete. I do, however, think that prices of new computers need to drop dramatically. And I’m not talking about paying $250 for a personal computer with a 15 inch LCD screen and substandard parts, either. I mean when Dell announces a new XPS and HP announces a new high-end laptop, these things can’t be priced at $2,000! There’s no way to keep the larger home computer market sustainable at that price range - it just can’t happen.

Granted, there are increased costs with creating a higher-end computer and that is understandable, but when computers that were high-end 3 or 4 years ago are still priced out of the general consumer market, that’s a problem. That said, Best Buy is offering a $200 computer for Black Friday, but the specs on it don’t look all that exciting.

First of all, it’s an eMachines computer. I know many folks (old college buddies) that have had problems with these computers, though I also know fewer folks who have not had a problem with them. As the article linked above says:

Don’t expect the world though. The PC is rumored to be powered by an Intel Celeron running at 2.66 Ghz (meaning no efficient and powerful ‘Core’ for you), comes with 512 megabytes of RAM (which is the bare minimum for doing just about anything on a computer these days), has a measly 80 Gigabyte hard drive, and it has no DVD burner.

No DVD burner? It’s 2007, right?

Anyway, check out those articles - they are pretty interesting reads.

Today’s Daily Record is carrying an article about the Chief Financial Officer in Mount Arlington stepping down from his position. The article is written such that the “story” is how the expected replacement does not have a Master’s Degree nor has she finished the required training classes to assume the position yet. Alright, maybe there is some type of story there, but I’m not really interested in that.

My interest, as many of you know, is with unnecessary government expenditures. The article in the Daily Record lists out the remuneration of the current CFO:

Dickinson was paid $15,000 a year to work about one day a week as the borough’s chief financial officer. He also earned an additional $10,000 this year for extra work overseeing the borough’s bond offerings and an additional $12,000 for acting as an internal auditor.

The salary the next chief financial officer will earn has yet to be determined, Ondish said.

Dickinson will retire from his internal auditor and bond service roles in addition to retiring as chief financial officer. It is expected that Rinaldi will be appointed only as chief financial officer, although she would also retain her current duties as assistant administrator.

Does anyone else see a problem with paying a guy $15,000 per year for “about one day a week” of work? I do. For a municipality as small as Mount Arlington there is no need to spend more than $5,000 per year on such a part-time employee. The $10,000 for overseeing the bond issue is about in the right range, but I have another issue with the $12,000 for acting as the internal auditor.

No, it’s not the expense (which seems about right for doing a municipal audit) - it’s that in a state where “double-dipping” is seen as a major issue and the word “corruption” is thrown around as a catchphrase, I wouldn’t want either of those negative stigmas to hit my good hometown. Of course, my concern might be borne of the fact that I live in Monmouth County a.k.a. Corruption Capital of the Jersey Shore!

In any event, I think it is high time for taxpayers to create independent, VOLUNTEER councils to review municipal expenditures. If such a council can operate on a volunteer basis and remain politics-free, then they would be major benefits to the entire municipality. That is, of course, a pipe dream!

Anyway, check out New Jersey Carpet Cleaning for the best carpet cleaning in the Garden State!

The folks at MSNBC took a break from producing complete garbage for a change and posted an editorial by Chuck Todd that talked about today’s electorate. He specifically cited the failure of New Jersey’s stem cell research referendum to pass in this past Tuesday’s elections.

His point is an interesting one - what is it that could take a generally left-of-center electorate in New Jersey and have it defeat a generally left-of-center funding concept (this is not about the topic - stem cell research - which has bipartisan support in this state)? In other words, what is eating away at the electorate that they are against these types of programs? Another one of Todd’s examples is the failure of a private school voucher system in Utah - where it should have been a shoe-in.

This all comes down to an electorate that is dissatisfied and distrustful of government leaders. Who would trust the government to run any of these programs effectively? I sure as hell wouldn’t! I would trust a private company to be more efficient about certain programs, though, since they have a bottom line to worry about. Politicians are generally part of a bloated bureaucracy that doesn’t need to be concerned about fiscal responsibility. Everyone is guilty here - Republicans and Democrats. In New Jersey, though, the Democrats are really bad at fiscal responsibility as is evidenced by our ridiculous state budget and its many shortfalls. The stance that these shortfalls were all Republican produced is garbage. There have been more than enough Democrats controlling this state for a prolonged period of time that they could have cut the fat if they wanted to.

And this is an essential part of the problem in Trenton and why the New Jersey electorate is mad. The Democrats are just doing a bad job in this state with half-promises and go-nowhere policies…and the Republicans are not a viable option right now! What is the electorate to do in such a situation where you don’t trust your Democratic government and you aren’t excited about the Republican candidates? Simple. You vote “no” as many times as possible.

This is what the New Jersey electorate did on Tuesday and I, for one, am excited about what the electorate will do come Election Day 2008!

Earlier today, CBS News posted a story on their website about the FCC lifting certain restrictions on apartment buildings with respect to cable services. They cite the ability for low-income folks who live in apartments or government-sponsored housing projects to have a choice in their cable provider. In other words, the ability to choose a lower cost provider (which is great!).

As someone who works in an industry closely related to these large-scale, low-income developments I can tell you that the folks who live in these places need all of the breaks that they can get. If that means they can save $5 per month on the cable bill, then so be it!

And isn’t this logical? That competition for services SHOULD lead to a net decrease in costs? Well, not if you’re Comcast Cable. A spokesperson for the company said:

“The net result is that many consumers are likely to wind up paying more for services if the FCC’s interference in the competitive marketplace stands,” Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said in an e-mailed statement.

Huh? Isn’t the “interference in the competitive marketplace” the fact that there is NO competition in these apartment buildings? For those of you that don’t know, many of these apartment buildings sign contracts with cable providers for the entire building, which restricts tenants to using that provider.

I mean come on! This is a no-brainer. For Comcast to come out and make the dumb comment that lifting this restriction will have a net result of higher cable prices for consumers is all sorts of idiotic. First of all, you have the logic argument cited above. Second, you have the fact that a rate increase is decided by the cable companies! In other words, you have cable companies saying, “If you take this action, we will be forced to raise rates. If we raise rates, then prices go up for consumers.”

Here’s an idea, dummies - DON’T RAISE YOUR RATES!

Idiots…

The New York Times ran an article on their website the other day where they talked about Max Levchin, the Founder of PayPal (and the guy who eventually sold it to eBay). Needless to say, Levchin is filthy rich - the kind of rich that the rest of us only dream about. But the point of this article is an interesting one; the New York Times postulates that Levchin, and other young tech-millionaires like him, may be bored. How bored? So bored that they are starting new business and new ventures - in essence, they are in competition against themselves and against each other to hit the next big thing.

I found this to be very interesting. My roommate and I had a discussion the other day about how money does and does not buy happiness. You would think that these guys who have so much money that they no longer need to think about working would be floating on an island somewhere. At the very least, you would think that they are in a low-impact position at some global corporation like Google or Microsoft. Turns out that they’re not - they’re out there trying to make the next Facebook or MySpace.

For my part, I know what I would do if I ever hit it rich. I’d pay off my debts (and my family’s debts, of course) and then I’d set-up an annuity or a trust fund that generated about $100,000 annually in interest (I’m assuming that I REALLY hit it rich). After that, I’d give the rest away. Seriously - what’s the point in sitting on tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars? Why not go to your local high school or your alma mater and give each graduating senior a free college education? Or go to the local senior center and give them the state of the art amenities.

I just think that there are better things to do with millions and billions of dollars than just sit on them. Hopefully I’ll have the opportunity to prove that one day - but not quite yet! Anyway, the article is a good read - I suggest it if you have some spare time.

Here’s a quick follow-up op-ed that appeared in today’s Daily Record newspaper with respect to finding some way to lower property taxes in Mount Arlington. For those of you that are not up to curve on this issue, here is a previous entry that talks about what the proposal was in Mount Arlington (to eliminate their police force and share services with a neighboring squad). The op-ed as it appears in the Daily Record:

Mount Arlington officials have regrettably caved to pressure and tabled a reasonable idea to seek a cost savings by contracting with a larger town for police services. The plan would have eliminated the borough’s 13-member police force.

Opposition to the idea, which was intense, largely was based on misconceptions, the biggest being a belief that police service in the borough would have been reduced. Officials had no intention of doing that.

Of course, some criticism was legitimate. The report, which was done by former Washington Township Police Chief Ted Ehrenburg, seemed a little light for its cost of $43,500. Also, the council at times irritated opponents by not being more forthcoming with information about the plan.

Notwithstanding those problems, Mayor Art Ondish and the council were right to raise the issue. The mayor says he thinks he was ahead of the curve, and we agree with him.

If property taxes are ever going to be reduced, officials and residents have got to accept the fact that it can not be business as usual. The majority of residents who came out on this issue lacked vision, opting to remain trapped in traditional thinking. And politics being what it is, they got their way.

Over time, however, pressure to consolidate services, or even towns, is bound to increase. We may even see a day when such consolidations are ordered by the state.

“It’s going to happen in the future, It’s just not going to happen with this council in Mount Arlington,” Ondish said. That’s a shame.

Sorry, I had to post the entire thing because these Gannett newspapers are not making their online archives available any more. Rats!

Last week the Mount Arlington, New Jersey, Township Council released a report from an independent consulting firm called Blue Shield Consulting Services. The purpose of commissioning the report was to ascertain whether or not the Mount Arlington Police Department should be merged with one of the surrounding localities. Since I grew up in Mount Arlington and my family still lives there (and I visit there quite often and have even thought about moving back at some point), I have some comments on this issue. But first, the rest of the story….

The report suggested that it would save Mount Arlington multiple millions of dollars to consolidate their police force with an adjoining municipality. There is a grassroots organization based out of Roxbury that disagrees, though (I think it’s Roxbury - the founder lives in Roxbury, but is a former Mount Arlington resident - not sure what the deal is here). On their website (saveMAPD.com), they show that they’ve got around 1140 signatures on an online petition. The problem with this, though, is that some of these petition signers are not Mount Arlington residents, but instead they are former residents like I am.

The folks behind saveMAPD.com commissioned a counter report that (obviously) disagreed with the Blue Shield Consulting Services report. As a side note, this just goes to show you that in the academic and consulting worlds you can get anyone to write you a report using facts that support your case! I think that’s obviously what happened with the saveMAPD.com folks, but I wonder if that’s how the Township Council prefaced their conversation with Blue Shield Consulting Services. Who knows this information besides those who are actually behind closed doors, right?

Anyway, that’s not my gripe with this situation. In fact, I don’t think I have a gripe with the situation as much as I have two comments to make about it all. First, the fact that consolidation of a police department that covers a few square miles is a debated issue has got to have our friends out in the Midwest and South rolling over with laughter. To those folks I say, “Welcome, friends, to New Jersey! This is a state that is made up of 566 fiefdoms that each fight, scratch, and claw for their territory! This is the state of the political bosses and good old boy system. This is - New Jersey!”

My second point is that you have to wonder about the legitimacy of the Township Council’s position on the consolidation. They’ve taken the stance that consolidating will save the township money. Okay, fine. As a student of public policy the very first thing you learn about taxes and local municipalities (and state governments for that matter) is that once they raise a tax rate, they NEVER lower it! Sure, you may have a few extreme examples from around the nation, but the chances of this “saved money” from the consolidation equating to a lower tax rate is slim at best.

So you have to competing sides arguing for two inherently awkward positions. New Jersey should be much more regionalized when it comes to service provisions. If done correctly, this would ease costs and (more importantly for those of us who live in the state) put an end to the abuse of power that is prevalent in the local police forces around New Jersey. At the same time, there will always be people who fight against regionalization because it means that some jurisdiction is going to lose some measure of power. Further, some folks will have hurt feelings about losing fiefdom-specific services.

My issue is that no matter what happens the one thing that you can be sure of is that the tax rate will NOT go down - and THAT, folks, is something worth getting mad about.

Well, the last homegrown bank in New Jersey was sold off to a Canadian company earlier this morning. If you haven’t heard yet, TD Bank Financial Group has struck a deal with Commerce Bank to purchase the entire nugget. Early word is that NJ Political Boss George Norcross III struck a simultaneous deal with TD Bank to re-acquire the insurance division of Commerce Bank.

The other thing I heard is that the bank will be rebranded under the TD Bank logo. For those of us on the Jersey shore (where Commerce banks are ubiquitous) - that should be a fun “makeover” job to watch next summer!

There goes yet another large-scale/regional business headquartered in New Jersey!

The last week of August was my vacation and it was a good vacation. I got a bigger bed, my Mother and I adopted a pug from the local shelter, and I got a lot of cleaning and de-cluttering accomplished. I also had some rest and relaxation, had my truck breakdown and wipe out my bank account (again), and was able to sign a few new contracts for Usable Web Solutions, LLC, but those are different posts!

Anyway, as I was cleaning up my room and my apartment I realized that not only did I have a large number of crappy DVDs (Navarro, Van Brunt, Booey, Surfer Jay, and pretty much everyone else that has seen my collection up front will rejoice at those words), but I also had a bunch of PlayStation 2 games that were literally collecting dust. Folks, I’m talking about games that I once bought because they looked like they were fun - and then never played them once. Some games never made it out of the box! Likewise with the DVD movies. I once purchased Suburban Commando just to piss off a roommate that I was living with! Of course, this helps to explain why I had a 200+ DVD collection, but also why I had a ton of crappy movies.

So I decided to bring some of these video games and crappy DVDs to GameStop and trade them in for store credit. Remember, I have a Nintendo Wii and a Nintendo DS Lite and I need games for these systems! I put together 12 PlayStation 2 discs and 18 DVDs and brought them over to the local GameStop.

Guess how much I was credited for these discs.

$200?

$150?

$100?

Nope.

Fifty bucks. I was credited fifty bucks for 30 items, more than half of which were video games. Talk about getting the shaft! Three of four of those DVDs would cost $50 combined! Yeah, I was hot after that, but I looked at it this way. I never played these video games and I never watched these DVDs so what was the purpose in keeping them and letting them collect dust? That would be a huge waste of space.

So I took my shafting from GameStop and hopefully I’ve learned to not spend money on excess video games and excess DVDs. The truth is that if you’re not dying to see a movie or play a specific game, then you probably don’t need to spend money on another game or movie just to fill the void.

After getting $50 for my troubles, consider this a lesson learned the hard way!