Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

[Phatscotty]

Tea Party speech in Madison today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t49OQxIri4

Simpsons did it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

New thread title? The Battle of our Time VS. The Simpsons

[Symmetry]

Tea Party speech in Madison today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t49OQxIri4

Simpsons did it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

New thread title? The Battle of our Time VS. The Simpsons

Might be an idea. I suspect the Simpsons would win. Even George H. W. couldn't win that fight.

But just to confirm, I know you don't like Ezra Klein, but did any of the article I posted, or the data linked to it, have any impact on your thinking? I do knee-jerk reactions too, we all do, but it does seem to add another dimension to the story in spite of the source.

Seriously though- a surplus turned into a deficit by tax cuts for wealthy corporations. That being used as an excuse to cut the power of only those unions who supported the opposition? Seems dodgy to me, and certainly up for discussion and counter-argument.

[Phatscotty]

Tea Party speech in Madison today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t49OQxIri4

Simpsons did it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

New thread title? The Battle of our Time VS. The Simpsons

Might be an idea. I suspect the Simpsons would win. Even George H. W. couldn't win that fight.

But just to confirm, I know you don't like Ezra Klein, but did any of the article I posted, or the data linked to it, have any impact on your thinking? I do knee-jerk reactions too, we all do, but it does seem to add another dimension to the story in spite of the source.

Seriously though- a surplus turned into a deficit by tax cuts for wealthy corporations. That being used as an excuse to cut the power of only those unions who supported the opposition? Seems dodgy to me, and certainly up for discussion and counter-argument.

Okay. Let's get into that. Let's give uber-agenda-Ezra the benefit of the doubt. First, how did the Stimulus bill factor into the 2011-13 projections? I understand many states fell into the stimulus trap. The states cannot fill that hole that not getting another stimulus package will leave. The projects involving jobs created by the stimulus were created to fail the moment the money ran out. This is the main reason I have been against the stimulus bill from day 1. point, the stimulus package itself is responsible for a majority of the deficit. Wisconsin has to cut everything that was artificially propped up.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44713312.html click on the chart once

and, about these tax cuts. I see your point if all you focus on is the lost revenue, but I am seeing with my own eyes the opportunity created in WI for business/job creation. It's an investment, and I have faith in this competition formula. I break it all down into my support of real earned economic growth/my opposition of artificial growth and redistribution of wealth. The formula of the private sector paying more and more for the public sector has to be reset. the private sector needs to be revitalized, and that can't happen with such huge demands by the public sector onto the private sector.

Economic freedom produces benefits, not the other way around.

[Symmetry]

Seriously though- a surplus turned into a deficit by tax cuts for wealthy corporations. That being used as an excuse to cut the power of only those unions who supported the opposition? Seems dodgy to me, and certainly up for discussion and counter-argument.

Okay. Let's get into that. Let's give uber-agenda-Ezra the benefit of the doubt. First, how did the Stimulus bill factor into the 2011-13 projections? I understand many states fell into the stimulus trap. The states cannot fill that hole that not getting another stimulus package will leave. The projects involving jobs created by the stimulus were created to fail the moment the money ran out. This is the main reason I have been against the stimulus bill from day 1. point, the stimulus package itself is responsible for a majority of the deficit. Wisconsin has to cut everything that was artificially propped up.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44713312.html click on the chart once

and, about these tax cuts. I see your point if all you focus on is the lost revenue, but I am seeing with my own eyes the opportunity created in WI for business/job creation. It's an investment, and I have faith in this competition formula. I break it all down into my support of real earned economic growth/my opposition of artificial growth and redistribution of wealth. The formula of the private sector paying more and more for the public sector has to be reset. the private sector needs to be revitalized, and that can't happen with such huge demands by the public sector onto the private sector.

Economic freedom produces benefits, not the other way around.

Ah- faith in voodoo economics, and a few political strawmen. The focus is indeed lost revenue, and more to the point, cutting taxes to the wealthy in a time of deficit. Or in this case, a time of surplus, turning it into a deficit. No comments about unions? Does the exemption of public sector unions contributing to Republican causes make you as uncomfortable as it makes me?

[Phatscotty]

Seriously though- a surplus turned into a deficit by tax cuts for wealthy corporations. That being used as an excuse to cut the power of only those unions who supported the opposition? Seems dodgy to me, and certainly up for discussion and counter-argument.

Okay. Let's get into that. Let's give uber-agenda-Ezra the benefit of the doubt. First, how did the Stimulus bill factor into the 2011-13 projections? I understand many states fell into the stimulus trap. The states cannot fill that hole that not getting another stimulus package will leave. The projects involving jobs created by the stimulus were created to fail the moment the money ran out. This is the main reason I have been against the stimulus bill from day 1. point, the stimulus package itself is responsible for a majority of the deficit. Wisconsin has to cut everything that was artificially propped up.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44713312.html click on the chart once

and, about these tax cuts. I see your point if all you focus on is the lost revenue, but I am seeing with my own eyes the opportunity created in WI for business/job creation. It's an investment, and I have faith in this competition formula. I break it all down into my support of real earned economic growth/my opposition of artificial growth and redistribution of wealth. The formula of the private sector paying more and more for the public sector has to be reset. the private sector needs to be revitalized, and that can't happen with such huge demands by the public sector onto the private sector.

Economic freedom produces benefits, not the other way around.

Ah- faith in voodoo economics, and a few political strawmen. The focus is indeed lost revenue, and more to the point, cutting taxes to the wealthy in a time of deficit. Or in this case, a time of surplus, turning it into a deficit. No comments about unions? Does the exemption of public sector unions contributing to Republican causes make you as uncomfortable as it makes me?

of course. their exceptions won't last though. I would like to see more specifics on this. AS for voodoo, Call it what you want, I live in MN and I can feel the buzz. Especially here in the river towns. Think it through. Wisconsin is also talking about abolishing the corporate income tax. This alone would provide 100,000's of thousands of jobs, jobs that generate....a shit load of tax dollars. There is a 5% sales tax in WI, do the math there on as far as what millionaires spend at the local restaurants and retail outlets. Also taxes on capital investment including machinery, I could go on. This move WILL provide jobs and solid tax revenue bases in WI. Then, they can elect democrats and start redistributing the wealth all over again, and then they can go too far, and then elect republicans, and so on....

[patches70]

Ah- faith in voodoo economics, and a few political strawmen. The focus is indeed lost revenue, and more to the point, cutting taxes to the wealthy in a time of deficit. Or in this case, a time of surplus, turning it into a deficit. No comments about unions? Does the exemption of public sector unions contributing to Republican causes make you as uncomfortable as it makes me?

I didn't see anything about surpluses turned to deficits. WI has been running deficits for a while now.

Maybe I am not looking hard enough, or this is not the actual article you were citing originally about a surplus turned to deficit. I am not flaming you are anything, so please take no offense, sir.

I did see these other things in the article you linked to-

Some opponents of the governor’s budget bill want to argue that the shortfall is a fiction. This is not the case.

Wisconsin’s budget problems are real. The state has a $137 million shortfall in the current fiscal year – after taking into account the need for an additional Medicaid appropriation to get through the end of the year. The state has a $3.6 billion shortfall in the upcoming 2011-13 biennium (the two-year period that starts July 1, 2011). As always, we measure shortfalls as the gap between projected current-law revenues, and the cost of providing a continuing level of services, and that’s basically what the $3.6 billion figure reflects.

I mean, WI is in the same boat as a lot of other states, fiscal problems. At this point, it really doesn't help at all for people to be partisan, one way or the other. Something has to be done. It is always a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Someone is going to be pissed off, no matter what solution is finally reached. The guy got elected and during his campaign he was saying he was going to be doing these things the whole time. He won the election. Might as well let him give it a go and if things don't work out then the people can vote him out of office at the end of his current term.

Elections have consequences, isn't that what we are told?

[spurgistan]

And in this case, the case was a governor is elected with a projected surplus, passes loads of tax cuts, and then blames the public sector employee unions.

Also, the Tea Party missed the part where you're supposed to respect the consequences of elections. You're not, regardless.

[Timminz]

He won the election. Might as well let him give it a go and if things don't work out then the people can vote him out of office at the end of his current term.

Good point. Shall I trot out this pearl of wisdom in all the threads about how Obama is turning your country into a socialist state?

[Symmetry]

Seriously though- a surplus turned into a deficit by tax cuts for wealthy corporations. That being used as an excuse to cut the power of only those unions who supported the opposition? Seems dodgy to me, and certainly up for discussion and counter-argument.

Okay. Let's get into that. Let's give uber-agenda-Ezra the benefit of the doubt. First, how did the Stimulus bill factor into the 2011-13 projections? I understand many states fell into the stimulus trap. The states cannot fill that hole that not getting another stimulus package will leave. The projects involving jobs created by the stimulus were created to fail the moment the money ran out. This is the main reason I have been against the stimulus bill from day 1. point, the stimulus package itself is responsible for a majority of the deficit. Wisconsin has to cut everything that was artificially propped up.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44713312.html click on the chart once

and, about these tax cuts. I see your point if all you focus on is the lost revenue, but I am seeing with my own eyes the opportunity created in WI for business/job creation. It's an investment, and I have faith in this competition formula. I break it all down into my support of real earned economic growth/my opposition of artificial growth and redistribution of wealth. The formula of the private sector paying more and more for the public sector has to be reset. the private sector needs to be revitalized, and that can't happen with such huge demands by the public sector onto the private sector.

Economic freedom produces benefits, not the other way around.

Ah- faith in voodoo economics, and a few political strawmen. The focus is indeed lost revenue, and more to the point, cutting taxes to the wealthy in a time of deficit. Or in this case, a time of surplus, turning it into a deficit. No comments about unions? Does the exemption of public sector unions contributing to Republican causes make you as uncomfortable as it makes me?

of course. their exceptions won't last though. I would like to see more specifics on this. AS for voodoo, Call it what you want, I live in MN and I can feel the buzz. Especially here in the river towns. Think it through. Wisconsin is also talking about abolishing the corporate income tax. This alone would provide 100,000's of thousands of jobs, jobs that generate....a shit load of tax dollars. There is a 5% sales tax in WI, do the math there on as far as what millionaires spend at the local restaurants and retail outlets. Also taxes on capital investment including machinery, I could go on. This move WILL provide jobs and solid tax revenue bases in WI. Then, they can elect democrats and start redistributing the wealth all over again, and then they can go too far, and then elect republicans, and so on....

I wish I had your faith in the future. It's actually pretty refreshing when conservatives just come out and say stuff like this. It's a point that I can genuinely disagree on, but not argue that there's any dishonesty. I can't say the same for the arguments around the budget cuts in Wisconsin- it seems like a lot of misinformation is being fed to the public, and a lot of information withheld (if I can just go by this thread). Especially in the framing of this as a Union busting issue.

[Phatscotty]

for a centureeeeeee

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=132472&p=2899579&hilit=hayek+keynes#p2899579

Governor Scott Walker's Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/governorscottwa ... 0369698214

[Woodruff]

He won the election. Might as well let him give it a go and if things don't work out then the people can vote him out of office at the end of his current term.

Good point. Shall I trot out this pearl of wisdom in all the threads about how Obama is turning your country into a socialist state?

Well that is clearly just a different situation!

[karel]

get rid of all the unions,we dont need them,they are the reason this country is broke,unions are a waste of time,and get rid of tarp reform,dont need that also,this would save so much money

[Phatscotty]

get rid of all the unions,we dont need them,they are the reason this country is broke,unions are a waste of time,and get rid of tarp reform,dont need that also,this would save so much money

That is not the answer. Unions can be an exceptional thing. Unions can also go WAY TOO FAR, just like anything else.

I have paid union dues since I was 15. Every year I get a letter from my union saying my pension is underfunded 89%. My Union good or bad???

and, here's what I saw in Madison

[got tonkaed]

get rid of all the unions,we dont need them,they are the reason this country is broke,unions are a waste of time,and get rid of tarp reform,dont need that also,this would save so much money

That is not the answer. Unions can be an exceptional thing. Unions can also go WAY TOO FAR, just like anything else.

I have paid union dues since I was 15. Every year I get a letter from my union saying my pension is underfunded 89%. My Union good or bad???

and, here's what I saw in Madison

clearly this whole thread is a misunderstanding. If that was what is going on in Madison things are looking alright for Wisconsin.

[Phatscotty]

Scott Walker's announcement to the Protesters!

We are going to ram this bill through the gate!
The gates closed?
We go over the fence!
The fence is too high?
We pole vault in!
If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in!
But we will pass this any way we can because it's for Wisconsin own good!

I wonder what the protesters would be doing if Walker treated them the way Pelosi treated us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imUyBlc7NHQ

[Woodruff]

The Republican governor didn't try to sit down with the unions and re-negotiate, he tried to outlaw them.

Seriously? Again with the rhetoric. He's not trying to outlaw unions. He's trying to limit the ability of unions to negotiate for anything other than salaries. In other words, he wants to stop the state employees from having the ability to negotiate for stuff like state-funded pensions or state-funded health insurance.

He's not really that interested in fixing the budget crisis:
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions

And for another thought on this budget "crisis":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/bringing-home-150-troops_b_825522.html?ir=Politics#

[Juan_Bottom]

I just wanted to ask though, you said collective bargaining rights are guaranteed under the first amendment. Why are there 20 states who do not have collective bargaining laws? And why has not the AFL CIO sued those states and force them to uphold the constitution?

This makes zero sense. Just because I have the right to free speech does not mean I am required to speak.

There is more to the first amendment than just free speech, and I don't think that's what he meant when he said Article 1. MYOB

He's onto something when he talks about Free Speech. Many local governments take that away by requiring protesters to acquire "permits" in order to hold protests, and then they can only protest in "designated zones." That's not having the Freedom of Speech. Our government works exactly as George Carlin said that it does when he said "You have no 'rights' in this country. All you have are privileges."

[thegreekdog]

I'll caveat the next paragraph by indicating that I have not heard this on any media outlet or from the governor or protestors. Also please keep in mind that I agree that at a base level the union and the Wisconsin government should spend their time compromising at this point since it has become clear that what the governor wants to get passed will not get passed:

Let's say, for example, that Democrats are in control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. Let's say the union contract with the state is up. Keeping in mind that the majority of the union leadership (probably all of them) are Democrats... keeping in mind that the unions probably gave campaign contributions only to the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature and the governor... keeping in mind that the unions gave nothing to the Republicans... keeping all that in mind, where is the bargaining going on? If both sides of the table agree that the union employees should receive a free pension and free health insurance, is there really collective bargaining occurring? This is the point I'm trying to make about stripping away collective bargaining rights for everything other than salary. If the Democrats are in charge, I do not think there is much bargaining going on. The conversation is, "What do you want union people who helped us get elected?" "Well Mr. Governor, we want 100% of our pensions paid for by taxes." "Okay."

Again, I did not hear this from the governor, but I believe this is the problem. Let's say the unions negotiate and say "We'll pay 12% of our health insurance and 50% of our pensions." What happens when Democrats are in control again? Does that all go away?

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but Wisconsin will be in another budget crisis sooner rather than later.

By the way, on the subject of Wisconsin taxes - they are very onerous; among the more onerous in the US.

[Juan_Bottom]

Really, you might as well say the same thing about all unions, since all of them support Democrats. Only maybe it's not immediately the state that is in danger, but rather the company the workers support. And if the company is in danger, then the town is in danger. But we've seen what happens in this country when there are no unions, and it's horrifying. When workers united to protest their wages and safety, the various robber-barons and tycoons they worked for would call on the state guard to slaughter them. Then they'd truck in new workers. But American's deserve an honest share of the wealth that they create. And when it comes to the public sector, the benefits have always been a motivating factor to stay. It's their share. The pay sucks, but at least they have great benefits; & I see no reason why they don't deserve great benefits.

But we all agree that's only when we can afford to give it to them. Though that means we're all playing tycoon here.
TGD I think you and I are both looking towards the future, but we're both weary about two separate things. My concern is that when the wealth returns, Wisconsin's public servants will have an impossible fight to get their share back. And I see that your concern is that they will take the lion's share before the wealth returns.
Obviously when it comes to teachers, there will always be intelligent politicians who understand how important good schools are to luring families into the state. No one wants to raise a family in a community where the schools are under-achieving(luckily that's everywhere right no so there's not much of a choice). So teachers will always be given just enough incentives to stay themselves. But what about the other public servants? Are the sanitation workers considered as important? & ect. I'm worried they'll all fall through the cracks without this collective protection. They're concerned too.
I don't know what the actual answer is when it comes to public sector unions. I don't have to know or try to figure it out because I'm not from WI. I do know however, that the governor needs to bargain now, while everyone is still afraid of him. And I know that he can't legislate the people's right to collectively bargain. I believe that even though a Democrat could be voted the next governor, these privileges that the union members enjoy now wont be returned as a consequence of that. Not until the budget is safe. It's harder to get something back once you've lost it.

[thegreekdog]

All unions do support Democrats, except that private employee unions (say the Auto Workers Union or the Electrical Workers Union, which is super powerful here in Philadelphia) are negotiating with companies (who, ostensibly, lean toward the Republicans). In the situation of state employees, if the Democrats are running the government, two people with the same interests are negotiating with each other. This is hardly a negotiation. And, frankly, I would bet dollars to doughnuts one of the reasons the state employees in Wisconsin have such a sweetheart deal is because they were negotiating with Democrats.

[karel]

yes as always blame the dems....never fails....unions hurt this country anyways,ban unions before its to late

[AndyDufresne]

Hell no, I won't go.
Hell no, stop the squeeze.
Hell no, Wisconsin cheese.

This is what I wish protesters and counter-protesters would chant.


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

All unions do support Democrats, except that private employee unions (say the Auto Workers Union or the Electrical Workers Union, which is super powerful here in Philadelphia) are negotiating with companies (who, ostensibly, lean toward the Republicans). In the situation of state employees, if the Democrats are running the government, two people with the same interests are negotiating with each other. This is hardly a negotiation. And, frankly, I would bet dollars to doughnuts one of the reasons the state employees in Wisconsin have such a sweetheart deal is because they were negotiating with Democrats.

The converse of this is when Republican's are in control. They're supported by corporations who get tax breaks... which are subsidized by taxing the middle and lower class.
Still, I don't know where the answer lies, I just know there are certain lines that can't be crossed.

[Juan_Bottom]

Hell no, I won't go.
Hell no, stop the squeeze.
Hell no, Wisconsin cheese.

This is what I wish protesters and counter-protesters would chant.


--Andy

One time, I ate some cheese from California. Now, California likes to claim that they have the world's happiest cows. If that's the kind of cheese you get from the milk of a happy cow, then I want my cows depressed and loudly mooing for an early death. I don't know if it's the misery that brings out the flavor or what exactly, but California cheese tastes like buttery ass or something. I don't know how Floridians can stomach that on their pizza.

[Night Strike]

The converse of this is when Republican's are in control. They're supported by corporations who get tax breaks... which are subsidized by taxing the middle and lower class.

The same corporations who when states give them tax breaks, they move their company to that state and begin providing better jobs to those people in the middle and lower class.