By Rod Hirsch

There will be steep ascents, sharp bends and a few bumps in the roadbed, but the freight trains rumbling through Union County and the greater New Jersey/New York metropolitan region should help carry the state and local economy through the downturn gripping the nation.

Union County is a major crossroads for two of the country’s largest freight railroad companies, CSX and Norfolk Southern, with Port Elizabeth and its extensive rail system at the epicenter of a vast network with miles of rail that spider their way throughout the county.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates Port Elizabeth, Port Newark and terminals on Staten Island, this year is investing $600 million to upgrade the port rail facilities at all three locations. This ultimately will allow the facilities to accommodate 1.5 million containers a year, all of which arrive and depart by rail.

Yet rail transport is a panacea for more than the economy. It also is a viable alternative to an overtaxed transportation system, will help slow the destruction of the environment and reduce emissions, and can improve the overall quality of life, according to top railroad executives and rail advocates.

Those powerful iron horses that pull the freight trains to points west, south and north of New Jersey are big “green” machines, fuel efficient and economical, according to Laura McNichol, New Jersey state director of Growth Options for the 21st Century, or GO 21.

GO 21 is a non-profit public interest organization dedicated to improving the quality of life and building a stronger economy by promoting increased use of freight rail transportation as an alternative to trucks and highways.

“Railroads can move a ton of freight 436 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel,” McNichol said. “That really can’t be beat. That’s a tremendous benefit to the public.”

William Goetz, resident vice president of CSX, said freight rail has enjoyed a “renaissance” over the past 30 years primarily because of its economic and environmental benefits.

“When a ship comes into port, a crane removes the containers and places them on the train, which heads west to Cleveland,Detroit or Chicago,” he said. “That container may not hit the highway until it reaches Illinois. Those solutions have allowed the Port to grow, without strangling the state’s highway network.”

Scott Muir, resident vice president of Norfolk Southern, also emphasized the environmental and economic benefits of rail freight.

“The demand for moving freight in the United States is expected to more than double over the next 10 years,” Muir said. “Obviously, many segments of the interstate system are already at capacity – especially in New Jersey.

“With one train being able to carry as much freight as 300 trucks, we think that there will be significant opportunities to increase rail volumes, while at the same time relieving highway congestion and reducing emissions.”

Goetz says the short- and long-term fundamentals for long haul freight trains are solid.

“What we continue to see is a very prominent role for freight rail now and in the future, especially in the east coast states,” he said. “As fuel prices increase, the utilization of freight rail becomes even more compelling. We use one-third of the fuel which means our carbon footprint is one-third of the pollutants in the air.”

Reliance on freight rail also eases the strain on the nation’s transportation infrastructure, according to Goetz.

Goetz also notes that New Jersey is on record as committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. In 2007 Gov. Jon Corzine signed a law that requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent of 2006 levels by 2050.

“Freight rail puts you on the good side of that debate,” Goetz said.

Norfolk Southern and CSX are the two largest freight rail carriers in New Jersey, transporting imports and exports in and out of the state to the Midwest, West Coast, deep South and further north, everything from automobiles and orange juice to municipal waste and chemicals.

Goetz and Muir concede their rail networks have taken a hit recently but remain bullish on their near and long term futures.

“We generally view traffic volumes on a network level,” Muir explained. “Our 2008 volumes declined 3 percent when compared to 2007. Fourth quarter 2008 volume was down by 8 percent when compared to fourth quarter 2007, which certainly is a reflection of the economic downturn.”

Despite that softening, Norfolk Southern expects to spend $1.4 billion on infrastructure improvements; CSX has committed $1.6 billion.

“The economy is challenged and we have seen that reflected in our traffic levels, as has every industry in North America,” Goetz said. “What’s different, though, is that we are already looking at this as having a definite ending to it. It’s like being on a landing between two up escalators; rail is waiting for the ride up. Other businesses in the downturn are cutting and retrenching. We’re not. We’re anticipating the end of this and planning to further grow our franchise.”

CSX runs 50 trains a day in and out of New Jersey, many of them out of Port Elizabeth. The freight on board each of those trains is the equivalent of at least 250 42-foot trailer trucks, according to Goetz.

“New Jersey is a very important part of the Norfolk Southern network,” Muir said, citing Port Elizabeth, the surrounding manufacturing and industrial complex in Union and surrounding counties and across the Hudson River into New York, as well as the 19 million consumers who live in the greater metropolitan area.

During 2008, the Port of New York and New Jersey set a new record for its on-dock rail system, transporting 377,827 containers, a nearly 6 percent increase over 2007.

To stimulate greater use of its ExpressRail system, the Port Authority in January approved an incentive program to encourage shippers using the Port of New York and New Jersey to transport even more cargo by rail.

The Port Authority receives $52 in revenue for each cargo container transported by the ExpressRail system. The new program will provide an incentive of $27 per container shipped by rail to any ocean carrier that increases its rail cargo business over its 2008 levels.

“Our $600 million investment in an efficient and sustainable ExpressRail system is a critical factor in our port’s number-one standing on the East Coast,” said Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia. “This incentive program will keep our port competitive and ensure that it remains a leading source of jobs and economic activity in our region, despite the challenging economic climate.”

Two major ExpressRail projects are scheduled for completion in June – the opening of a second lead track into ExpressRail Elizabeth, and the completion of a rail support facility along Corbin Street in Elizabeth. These projects will nearly double the port’s rail capacity and improve overall rail service, according to Port Authority executive director Chris Ward.

“The competition for port business is intense, and we must find creative ways to maintain our competitive edge during difficult economic times,” Ward said. “With jobs and economic activity on the line, we believe this incentive – coupled with our multibillion-dollar investment in rail infrastructure – will allow us to maintain our standing as the East Coast’s No. 1 port.”

In reality, however, the number of banks in trouble is actually quite low.

In November the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced that the list of banks it considered to be in trouble during the third quarter of 2008 increased nearly 50 percent, to 171 institutions. While that is the highest number of banks in trouble in more than 10 years, it still represents only 2 percent of the nearly 8,500 FDIC-insured institutions in the country.

“We’ve had profound problems in our financial markets that are taking a rising toll on the real economy,” FDIC chairman Sheila Bair said in her Nov. 25 statement accompanying the report.

Yet one segment of the banking industry in particular has remained remarkably free of the troubles of the past year. Very few community banks have made it to the FDIC’s trouble list.

Community banks have fared better in the last year than their larger counterparts due to smart lending and loan retention, according to Jim Silkenson, co-president and co-CEO of NJBankers, an association of the state’s banks.

“The community banks of New Jersey have not made the sub-prime loans or used the alternative lending instruments that started this mess,” Silkenson said. “Instead, they have concentrated on standard, fixed and adjustable rate instruments that were well underwritten.”

In addition, community banks held on to their loans rather than selling them, making the bankers at these institutions more conscious of the need to only make loans they were sure could be paid back, he added.

Marshall McKnight, spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, also credited the state’s strong banking charter and anti-predatory lending laws for the lack of trouble at New Jersey’s community banks.

Officials at community banks in the Union County area support Silkenson and McKnight.

“Provident did not get caught up in exotic lending and investing practices,” said Jean Quinn, vice president of corporate communications with The Provident Bank. “Our loan approvals are made by informed decision-makers who are familiar with the local economic climate.

“We establish and maintain relationships with our customers so we can work with them to meet their needs. This includes ensuring that they will be able to stay within the terms of their loan. Additionally, we hold on to most of our loans, so we have the ability to work with our customers if they get in over their heads financially.”

Despite reports of a tightening on lending, banks are lending money, according to Silkenson.

“Banks have tightened their criteria, but they are anxious to make loans. They do have money and they are lending it,” he said.

Northfield Bank is proof.

“We had our largest lending year in history in 2008,” said John Alexander, Northfield chairman and CEO. “Banks are lending money, but most have tightened their lending standards. You need to clearly show that you have an income stream.”

Alexander cited commercial real estate such as shopping centers as an example of an area requiring scrutiny.

“There are vacant stores in every shopping mall,” he said. “You need to show the lender that you have an income stream that is sustainable, even if some of your current renters do go out of business and leave vacancies. What will happen to your income if occupancy rates drop to 20 percent? Can you sustain your business?”

Both lenders and borrowers are gun shy right now, Alexander added.

“We aren’t necessarily seeing the pot of gold and the end of the rainbow yet. Things  could get worse,” he said.

Relationship banking is another key to the success of community banks, according to officials at those institutions.

“Provident’s focus on relationship banking inspires customer loyalty,” Quinn said. “This loyalty is part of the reason that we have been so successful.”

Alexander agreed.

“We talk with our customers,” he said. “If someone is in trouble, we sit down and talk with them before they get so far in that they can’t get out. We try not to wait for our customers to be in crisis.”

“Relationships are also part of why we have seen recent success with our small business and commercial lending divisions,” added Quinn. “In this time of turmoil, people are turning to banks that they know they can rely on.”

<Back to top>

“We won’t hit our sales numbers this year with ‘business as usual’.”

I heard this from a business owner the second week of January. A sales team member responded, “How can you say this? It’s only the second week of January. We have to give our efforts a chance.”

Do we?

Most of us look back at the end of a long business day and feel w gave it our  “best effort.” This is satisfying. From childhood, we heard the refrain: “It’s OK, as long as you give it your best effort.”

Is this really OK?

Could we live in a culture that sadly mistakes “best efforts” with results? In the current economic environment, best efforts – business as usual – may not be enough.

I have an advantage over many business people. In the boom time years of the 1990s, I had to struggle and keep focused on results. Best efforts – business as usual – weren’t nearly enough to feed the family. In fact, the challenging years caused me to fully embrace a “do or die” attitude.

During this period, I had a gift business – sales were tepid. I needed a “big hit.” Then word came down from Coca-Cola to the licenses: there was an opportunity for a pallet program at Wal-Mart, with Cokelicensed products. As one of 80-plus licensees, I was invited to present concepts for Wal-Mart’s review.

There were only two problems. The first difficulty was the “Man Behind the Curtain” challenge – lack of control. I would present my ideas to the licensing department of Coca-Cola, which would present the best ideas up the chain. A top Coca-Cola executive would then present to a top executive at Wal-Mart. I would never get to talk to the “Man Behind the Curtain,” the person making the decision.

This was the small problem. The bigger problem was that I wasn’t a vendor of record at Wal-Mart. It was very difficult to become a vendor at the retailer. The likely outcome was Wal-Mart would select a licensed product from an existing Wal-Mart vendor.

I faced a “do or die” scenario. I had to close this order. But I didn’t have a chance.

“Business as usual” was a non-starter.

I considered how the other licensees might approach this opportunity. They would probably send in pictures of stock items that best fit the need and price points. I decided to differentiate myself by creating a custom item for the promotion, making a prototype. I sent our concept to Coca-Cola and received encouragement.

I kept asking myself what else can we do to earn this order? Would this be enough to get qualified as a Wal-Mart vendor? I looked at the problem from the decision-making needs of the Wal-Mart executive. They were going to buy a pallet. They probably would like to see what the pallet looked like.

My problem was that the product didn’t exist yet – the pallet didn’t exist.

But there was nothing to stop us from building a prototype pallet in my office. Creating 144 samples by hand; building and decorating the pallet base; assembling the entire structure – it took more than a week.

We finished the night before the final submissions were due. We raced to photograph the pallet and have a beautiful 8x10-inch picture produced. Then we overnighted the picture to Coca-Cola, at the 11th hour and 59th minute.

That picture did the trick. It traveled through the Coca-Cola organization and was presented to Wal-Mart. That one picture was worth a thousand words.

And a 50-truck-load order.

“Business as usual” didn’t have a chance.

There’s one consolation about a “business as usual,” best efforts approach in this challenging year. You probably won’t have any problems with your business next year.

Because you won’t be in business next year.

Embrace a “do or die” attitude to thrive in this challenging time.

Stability. It is not a word often associated with banking in today’s economy. Yet stability is just what The Provident Bank continues to provide residents and businesses throughout New Jersey.

“We are celebrating our 170th anniversary this year,” said Jean Quinn, vice president of corporate communications at Provident. “We’ve survived depressions and stock market crises. We’re strong.”

Provident’s strength comes from more than just its longevity, however. As a community bank, Provident has long been committed to personal banking.

“We consider ourselves a relationship bank,” Quinn said. “We’re very good at establishing and maintaining relationships. Our branch managers are active in the community, they’re out there meeting with Rotaries, attending charitable events.”

This small bank mentality is reflected in Provident’s lending practices. Decisions are made locally by people familiar with the area’s economic climate.

“When you apply for a loan, you don’t have to wait days for an answer from someone in another state,” Quinn said.

Someone in another state also will not know a customer’s name, much less their personal situation or that of their business. Proximity and familiarity allows Provident to keep a watchful eye on its customers and help them through any difficult periods.

“We try to stay ahead of problems,” Quinn said. “Provident holds on to the majority of the mortgages we write. This allows us to work with the borrower who is in trouble.”

Yet while Provident retains the personal touch established in 1839 and nourished throughout the decades since, it offers 21st century products and services that today’s consumers demand.

Personal banking includes a full menu of checking, savings, loan and investment options.

Commercial customers are offered a variety of flexible products designed to help them grow their businesses, including BusinessAdvantageSM checking, which offers 1000 no fee transactions per month; Remote Deposit Capture, which cuts trips to the bank; and Escrow Account Management, which was built from the account holder’s perspective. Provident even offers wealth management services that allow customers to plan for tomorrow at the same institution that helps them enjoy today.

Provident also recognizes that not every member of the community is so fortunate and is deeply entrenched in community outreach to help those in need. The Provident Bank Foundation has donated more than $11 million to local causes, including education, the arts, health and wellness, and recreation.

Provident employees are active in Habitat for Humanity, Girl Scouts and Junior Achievement, as well as food and coat drives, pet adoption days and wellness offerings. The bank is running a fundraiser to benefit the Community FoodBank of New Jersey.

“A lot of these ideas come from the branch managers,” Quinn said. “This is our way of helping our community.”

A way of spreading stability.

In partnership with Junior Achievement of New Jersey, 33 volunteers from The Provident Bank, including President and COO Chris Martin (middle row, right), recently visited with students ranging from kindergarten through third grade at Jersey City Public School #11 to teach financial literacy.

Inside Views

Never have so many depended on so few

Quite a few years ago I was engaged in a lively discussion with one of my closest friends and mentors over what is the fair share for the rich to pay in taxes. With a graduated tax system at both the state and federal level, the wealthier you are the greater the percentage of your income goes to paying taxes.

My friend thought that the amount of income tax paid by the wealthy was far lower than it should be. The wealthy have more and can thus pay more, not only in gross amount, but also as a percentage of their total income.

I asked him what the level should be. How much of the total taxes collected should come from, say, the top 1 percent of income earners? Should it be 10 percent, or 20 percent? What’s the fair level?

My friend realized I knew what the number actually was and refused to say what he thought it should be, only that it was too low.

So how about my readers; what do you think the top 1 percent should contribute? 10 percent? 20 percent? What’s fair in your view?

Well now that you have the number in your mind, here’s how it actually plays out.

In 2006, the last year on a federal level I could find numbers for, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a whopping 40 percent of the total tax collected. The top 5 percent paid 60 percent; the top 10 percent paid 70 percent; the top 25 percent paid 86 percent; and the top 50 percent paid 97 percent of all personal income taxes collected. The bottom 50 percent ended up contributing only 3 percent.

To give some perspective, the top 1 percent earned more than $389,000. The top 5 percent earned more than $154,000. The top 10 percent was at $109,000+, the top 25 percent at $65,000+ and the top 50 percent at $32,000+.

In New Jersey, the story is much the same. In 2006, before the McGreevy tax increase, the top 1.5 percent of taxpayers accounted for 42 percent of the taxes collected. Those earning more than $250,000, or the top 4 percent, accounted for 54 percent of the taxes collected. Those earning less than $100,000, nearly 80 percent of the total returns, paid only 19 percent of the taxes.

Absent the fairness discussion, it’s easy to see why this isn’t good policy, especially in a state like New Jersey. The top tax rate in New Jersey is 6.5 times the lowest. Every dollar of income decline at the top income level lowers state revenue by 6.5 times as much as a dollar lost in the lowest tax bracket.

So what happens when that hotshot bond trader who works on Wall Street doesn’t get a bonus this year because the president has capped his compensation at $500,000 instead of the $2.5 million he made last year? The state’s tax collections fall by $180,000 and the federal government loses $700,000.

This is exactly what we are seeing, and we can expect a huge hole in New Jersey’s tax collections for both this fiscal year and next.

Anyone in business knows that if you depend on a very few clients for your revenue you can wake up one day and be out of business. The alternative is to diversify.

On a tax basis this can be done by sharing the tax burden more widely, or it can be done by finding new sources of revenue. You could also cut expenses, but in government that is the last thing ever considered.

Unfortunately, I expect New Jersey to follow the New York example and raise income taxes on the top earners even more. What politician would ever discuss a tax increase for the many when he can discuss it for the few? The tyranny of the majority is alive and well and as shortsighted as ever.

James Coyle

President

A recent report by the New Jersey Department of Education showed an alarmingly high percentage of failing math test scores among the state’s youth, yet it seems that Congress is most in need of math tutoring. Many on Capital Hill do not seem to understand basic math.

Two bills pending in Washington – the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act and the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act – would introduce greater regulation to the freight rail industry and threaten to undermine decades of progress made rebuilding a sector of the economy that was hemorrhaging in financial losses and contraction as recently as the 1980s.

For decades the freight rail industry was suffocating under the weight of over-regulation that led to unprofitable operations, insufficient investment in infrastructure and contraction of the industry.

To halt the industry’s collapse and get the engines rolling again, Congress in 1980 relaxed regulation through the Staggers Act and the railroads began rebuilding.

It worked. Today freight railroads are financially healthy and play an integral role not only in the nation’s current economy but also in its future, both economically and environmentally.

That is why the pending legislation to introduce greater regulation into the industry does not add up. Consider these numbers:

        • Trains move one ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel.

       • Freight trains produce one-third the carbon footprint of trucks.

      • 16 percent of the nation’s freight tonnage moves by rail. If all freight moved by rail were shifted to trucks it would add 92 billion truck vehicle-miles-of-travel to the nation’s highway system and cost federal, state and local transportation agencies an additional $64 billion for highway improvements over the next 20 years, according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

     • Such a shift from rail to truck also would cost rail shippers an additional $69 billion in shipping costs each year.

Yet ironically is it the shippers who are driving this legislation. They claim that the freight railroads are enjoying greater profits – a claim supported by the Wall Street Journal – yet also raising their rates at the same time, resulting in greater operational costs for the shippers and, ultimately, higher prices for consumers.

The call for greater regulation is being led by Consumers United for Rail Equity (CURE), a coalition of freight rail customers, including trade association representing the utility, chemical and manufacturing industries, among others. Through the pending legislation CURE is seeking greater competition, a greater ability to challenge rates and disputes, and amendment to the freight rail industry’s anti-trust exemptions. What they really seem to want is lower rates.

The freight rail industry counters that its activities – including rates – already are regulated by the federal Surface Transportation Board and that freight rail customers are free to ship their products via truck or other method if they find rail costs to be excessive. After all, while the movement of freight on the nation’s rail lines offers limited choice of carriers along certain routes, there are no restrictions on the choice of method of shipping.

Which brings the discussion back to math. For many decades shippers enjoyed artificially low prices when employing rail to move their freight. Following deregulation in 1980, the freight rail industry was able to more properly set rates and operational policies as it reversed its track to nowhere. Now that railroads are financially sound and earning a fair return on their investment shippers want to return to the unfair arena that can only come with greater regulation.

If that does not add up, throw this fact into the calculation: Even with rate increases that took place in 2008, freight rail prices actually have declined overall since 1980.

Many Americans believe the current economic crisis challenging their lives was the result of Wall Street being left to operate free of regulation in its pursuit of obscene profits, and understandably take umbrage with any industry claiming it will be damaged by increased regulation.

Yet consider this: Trucks ride on publicly funded roads, barges move in publicly maintained canals and airlines fly in air space operated by a national air transportation system. Freight railroads own and maintain their own tracks and rights of way. They are independently owned and invest in the infrastructure required to move the nation’s goods – there are no $1.4-million bathrooms in this sector. And the industry rebuilt itself only after the weight of deregulation was lifted.

Re-regulating the freight rail industry will introduce a hairpin turn to an industry that is right on track. With all that needs to be fixed in the current economic environment, why derail an industry that is running fine. It does not add up.

Because of the dearth of community programs to care for the developmentally disabled, parents and family members face a tough choice: continue to care for their loved ones at home with few or no state supports or have them institutionalized.

Many families struggle to provide care in a home setting, hoping a community alternative to a state institution will become available. Though many families want to remain together or in the community, they desperately need support services to make this possible.

Today the Community Services Waiting List for such families has 8,000 names on it – a number that has doubled in 10 years. For many, this list is difficult to navigate, a seemingly endless purgatory.

As time passes, waiting becomes filled with anxiety, as aging parents wonder what would happen to their loved ones should they suddenly die or become incapacitated. It’s a terrible, terrifying thought that confronts many New Jerseyans daily.

In New Jersey, we have not invested enough in community programs to care for individuals with mental retardation, autism and other developmental disabilities, because we have instead focused more on state institutions.

Nationally, we have a higher rate of institutionalization than every state except Mississippi and Louisiana. We spend a third of our developmental disabilities budget to provide care for only 8 percent of New Jersey’s developmentally disabled residents – those in institutions.

Alarmingly, the state estimates that 81 percent of the institutionalized population would be better served in community programs, yet we continue to keep these individuals in state developmental centers. We have committed to waiting lists and warehousing human life, instead of aggressively promoting the best level of care for some of our most fragile citizens.

It’s time to change that by allowing more for consumer choice-driven care, as opposed to strict  governmental institutional care. We must drastically reduce the waiting list and give these men and women the opportunity to reach their full potential in the community. Working with advocacy groups, experts and family members, I have introduced legislation to accomplish these goals.

My bill will rebalance funding for the developmentally disabled, creating a more robust network of community alternatives to institutionalization. These community programs will vary, ranging from shared-living residences serving many individuals to smaller, supervised apartments where individuals can have greater control of their lives.

By investing in community care, this legislation would reduce the waiting list, ending years of stressful waiting for many families. Furthermore, this bill will move any institutionalized individuals who choose community placement into more beneficial community programs, consolidating the state’s seven developmental centers. Such a move will prove more cost-efficient, cutting capital expenses on obsolete and antiquated state facilities, while elevating care quality.

This legislation provides cost-effective alternatives to the current institutional standard. It costs the state $641 per person per day to institutionalize a person, while community programs cost $300 per person per day, on average. By offering more choices, we will provide a higher quality of life to the developmentally disabled in a more fiscally responsible manner.

I realize that community settings are not for everyone. Some individuals do require the intense level of care provided by a state developmental center, and my bill is sensitive to that fact. My plan will create a broader range of options for developmentally disabled individuals, their doctors, and their family members to choose from, ensuring the availability of both institutionalization and community placement alternatives to those who need them.

Those with developmental disabilities are often a silent population – unable to speak for themselves. We are morally obligated to ensure they receive the best care possible.

By investing more in community programs, New Jersey will give developmentally disabled individuals a higher quality of life and the opportunity to be more independent and thrive in the community. Equally as important, we will put to rest the fears of family members who go through each day wondering if their loved ones will receive quality care should tragedy suddenly strike.

The “honeymoon” lasted only two weeks. That was how long it took most mainstream media to start criticizing the Obama Administration. But our 44th president admitted some of the knocks were deserved.

On the same day, Nancy Killefer, an executive with McKinsey and Co., withdrew her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government. She cited her failure to pay unemployment compensation tax for a household employee.

“Today was an embarrassment for us,” added President Obama, who said top government officials should be held to the same standards as “ordinary folks.”

Just two weeks into the new administration, the New York Times ran the headline “Obama Ethics Reform Faces Test,” and AOL News trumpeted, “Obama Suffers Embarrassment.”

This time there’s no waiting for 100 days or more. Our economy is in tatters and many Americans want a quick fix, which is unlikely. But another reason for the truncated “honeymoon” is the drastically changed media landscape.

Political coverage generated ratings and revenue for many media outlets over the past year. It came at a critical time as many newspapers are struggling to stay alive. Most local television stations, which relied on car dealers for almost a third of their advertising, are cutting staff and scaling back their news coverage.

Along came the Obama campaign, with the promise of change. Cable news channel ratings jumped. Newspapers made extra money off the sale of special editions on the election and Inauguration. The broadcast and cable networks sold DVDs on our 44th president. The inaugural events became the latest version of “must see TV.”

As one media observer put it, these information-driven companies are trying to survive at a time when “analog dollars are being turned into digital pennies” – meaning they haven’t figured out how to make big dollars off their Internet businesses. Few media companies have been able to generate more than 10 percent of their revenue from their digital side of the business.

Bloggers from all sides of the political spectrum are writing columns online. Some bloggers are seasoned journalists, but many others have no news background. Misinformation lives and breathes around the Internet; some of it remains posted indefinitely.

Many Americans aged 18-35 get a lot of their information from “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central. As one student told me, “I do check out news web sites so I can understand what they’re talking about on ‘The Daily Show.’”

Too few viewers read news sites regularly. Many prefer infotainment, such as stories on First Lady Michelle Obama’s ball gown or the search for a pooch for the First Family.

What we really need is a media that’s willing to investigate the issues that affect the quality of our lives. We need to know how Bernard Madoff pulled off his alleged $50-billion Ponzi scheme so it doesn’t happen again. We need to know the media will be a watchdog to blow the whistle on failing companies that received federal bailout money and are still handing out obscene bonuses.

Unfortunately, quality investigative reporting that makes a difference has decreased dramatically. Most media companies won’t spend the money and take the legal risks to expose wrongdoing.

For too many media companies, the big money-making honeymoon is over.