Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (1 Viewer)

[Sarnoff]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s War On Craft Beer

"But why would Walker — who calls small businesses the “backbone of our economy” and has postured himself as their champion — side with a foreign-owned mega-corporation over locally owned small brewers? It may have to do with the fact that MillerCoors, which is joint venture with foreign-owned SABMiller, donated $22,675 to his campaign."

http://volokh.com/2011/06/10/wisconsins-war-on-craft-brewers/

Wisconsin legislators wrote a provision into the state’s budget legislation barring brewers from owning wholesale distributors. The measure is allegedly intended to prevent Anheuser-Busch from purchasing distributors and expanding its presence within the state . (Wisconsin is MillerCoors territory.) But while focused on Budweiser, the restriction threatens some of the state’s craft brewers and would limit their ability to market their own beers. Perhaps that’s really the point.

(HT: zuch)

ADDENDUM: It’s interesting what different types see in this story. For the free market folks at CEI this is just another example of corporate rent seeking to the advantage of larger corporations. For the folks at Think Progress, on the other hand, this is yet the latest example of Gov. Scott Walker’s craven catering to campaign contributors — even though not a single source Think Progress cites links the governor to this proposal. To the contrary, several of the stories mention this provision was slipped in by a legislative committee, and only one of the stories even mentions Gov. Walker by name — and only then to refer generally to the governor’s budget. Gov. Walker may well support this measure — and, if so, shame on him — but I see no evidence of that — certainly nothing to justify blaming him for the “war on craft beer.”

 

[Sarnoff]

Wisconsin union 'zombies' interrupt Special Olympics

WSJ opinion:

It's not uncommon for political protesters to act like bullies, but it takes a special uncouthness to bully Special Olympians. It would be like holding an angry antiwar protest at the funeral of a fallen soldier--which, come to think of it, is just what the so-called Westboro Baptist Church does.

To be sure, "God hates ###" is a more objectionable message than "Gov. hates students." Yet at the protest that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the Westboro members stayed 1,000 feet away from the church where the funeral was taking place. "None of the picketers entered church property or went to the cemetery," Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Snyder v. Phelps, "They did not yell or use profanity."

How obnoxious are the zombies of Wisconsin? So obnoxious that that they could use lessons in civility from the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[timschochet]

Wisconsin union 'zombies' interrupt Special Olympics

WSJ opinion:

It's not uncommon for political protesters to act like bullies, but it takes a special uncouthness to bully Special Olympians. It would be like holding an angry antiwar protest at the funeral of a fallen soldier--which, come to think of it, is just what the so-called Westboro Baptist Church does.

To be sure, "God hates ###" is a more objectionable message than "Gov. hates students." Yet at the protest that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the Westboro members stayed 1,000 feet away from the church where the funeral was taking place. "None of the picketers entered church property or went to the cemetery," Chief Justice John Roberts noted in Snyder v. Phelps, "They did not yell or use profanity."

How obnoxious are the zombies of Wisconsin? So obnoxious that that they could use lessons in civility from the Westboro Baptist Church.

I have to say- and this is purely anecdotal on my part, I have no data to back this up- liberal protesters tend to behave more classless and like #######s than conservative protesters do. I don't know why this is, but this has been my impression over several years.

 

[the moops]

Rachel Grant, a spokeswoman for the Special Olympics, said officials were nervous when the zombie protesters first arrived but they turned out to be peaceful.

"We were all a little bit on edge but it turned out for the best," Grant said. "Nothing was disruptive at all."

Kelly Kloepping, another Special Olympics official, said the protesters were respectful and did not diminish the excitement the Special Olympians felt about being in Madison to meet Walker and other leaders.

"We feel it's really about the athletes," Kloepping said. "We knew the protesters were there but they were respectful of our athletes."

 

[timschochet]

Rachel Grant, a spokeswoman for the Special Olympics, said officials were nervous when the zombie protesters first arrived but they turned out to be peaceful."We were all a little bit on edge but it turned out for the best," Grant said. "Nothing was disruptive at all."Kelly Kloepping, another Special Olympics official, said the protesters were respectful and did not diminish the excitement the Special Olympians felt about being in Madison to meet Walker and other leaders."We feel it's really about the athletes," Kloepping said. "We knew the protesters were there but they were respectful of our athletes."

It's still incredibly distasteful. That event was supposed to be to celebrate the achievement of those athletes. It had nothing to do with those protesters or their issue. It's classless of them to even be there, IMO.

 

[Ilov80s]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's War On Craft Beer

"But why would Walker — who calls small businesses the "backbone of our economy" and has postured himself as their champion — side with a foreign-owned mega-corporation over locally owned small brewers? It may have to do with the fact that MillerCoors, which is joint venture with foreign-owned SABMiller, donated $22,675 to his campaign.

Do the large breweries have to abide by the same rules? If so, I'm not sure I see the problem. Why should small breweries get privileges that the large ones don't?

The large breweries already used wholesalers because they move such a massive amount of product. This isn't creating a new rule that all breweries must now follow. It is saying that all breweries must follow the gameplan that the megabreweries use- hire a middleman to sell and distribute. Ultimately, it will be ok for the craft breweries.Michigan has the same laws about wholesalers. However, it is stupid that a bar can't order beer from a brewer, but instead has to go through a middle man.

It's also hardly the move of a guy who reveres the free market, as Walker claims to be. What business does the state have telling a private business how to go about making its purchases? Sure sounds like Walker's "conservatism" is rather selective.

The impression I got from the article was that the middle-man restriction existed for large breweries, and that they now imposed it on small breweries. In terms of "free-marketness", potential actions would seem to be ranked:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries.

2. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field.

3. Leave things as is.

If the article is accurate, I'd agree that number one would have been preferable. However, knowing that all politicians are going to repay donors, I don't find this a particularly egregious example.

I'd rank it as:

1. Remove the restriction for all breweries: the obvious answer

2. Leave it alone: the current structure has been very good for a local business: craft beers and despite a poor economy, craft breweries in Wisconsin have been growing. Why tamper with one of the few sectors of the local economy that is growing? Besides, MillerCoors has been making record profits themselves, no reason to feel guilty here.

3. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field: so we do the old 2 wrongs will make it right game and maybe even damage an expanding new local industry a long the way.

 

[Ilov80s]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's War On Craft Beer

"But why would Walker — who calls small businesses the "backbone of our economy" and has postured himself as their champion — side with a foreign-owned mega-corporation over locally owned small brewers? It may have to do with the fact that MillerCoors, which is joint venture with foreign-owned SABMiller, donated $22,675 to his campaign."

http://volokh.com/20...-craft-brewers/

Wisconsin legislators wrote a provision into the state's budget legislation barring brewers from owning wholesale distributors. The measure is allegedly intended to prevent Anheuser-Busch from purchasing distributors and expanding its presence within the state . (Wisconsin is MillerCoors territory.) But while focused on Budweiser, the restriction threatens some of the state's craft brewers and would limit their ability to market their own beers. Perhaps that's really the point.

(HT: zuch)

ADDENDUM: It's interesting what different types see in this story. For the free market folks at CEI this is just another example of corporate rent seeking to the advantage of larger corporations. For the folks at Think Progress, on the other hand, this is yet the latest example of Gov. Scott Walker's craven catering to campaign contributors — even though not a single source Think Progress cites links the governor to this proposal. To the contrary, several of the stories mention this provision was slipped in by a legislative committee, and only one of the stories even mentions Gov. Walker by name — and only then to refer generally to the governor's budget. Gov. Walker may well support this measure — and, if so, shame on him — but I see no evidence of that — certainly nothing to justify blaming him for the "war on craft beer."

Yeah, it seems to have come from the Joint Finance Committee. Here is a more detailed article on the issue- still an oped piecehttp://www.openmarke...ts-big-brewers/

As for said JFC, it is made up of 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Both co-chairs are Republican.

 

[Mario Kart]

The whole beer thing should not be happening. I am disappointed that it is and I don't even drink the stuff. Whenever adding a middle man to business it will increase the costs of whatever. Not sure if the government will see that money in taxes or any other way but it increases costs for the small business and consumer. Not good.

 

[RCon]

It's also hardly the move of a guy who reveres the free market, as Walker claims to be. What business does the state have telling a private business how to go about making its purchases? Sure sounds like Walker's "conservatism" is rather selective.

The impression I got from the article was that the middle-man restriction existed for large breweries, and that they now imposed it on small breweries. In terms of "free-marketness", potential actions would seem to be ranked:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries.2. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field.3. Leave things as is.If the article is accurate, I'd agree that number one would have been preferable. However, knowing that all politicians are going to repay donors, I don't find this a particularly egregious example.

I'd rank it as:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries: the obvious answer2. Leave it alone: the current structure has been very good for a local business: craft beers and despite a poor economy, craft breweries in Wisconsin have been growing. Why tamper with one of the few sectors of the local economy that is growing? Besides, MillerCoors has been making record profits themselves, no reason to feel guilty here. 3. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field: so we do the old 2 wrongs will make it right game and maybe even damage an expanding new local industry a long the way.

You're ranking them that way based on your personal preferences. Frankly, I might rank them that way as well, based on my personal preferences. However, there's no debate that free market principles would rank them the way I did in my previous post.

 

[boots11234]

MN has been trying to do away with the three tier system for years.

 

[Ilov80s]

It's also hardly the move of a guy who reveres the free market, as Walker claims to be. What business does the state have telling a private business how to go about making its purchases? Sure sounds like Walker's "conservatism" is rather selective.

The impression I got from the article was that the middle-man restriction existed for large breweries, and that they now imposed it on small breweries. In terms of "free-marketness", potential actions would seem to be ranked:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries.2. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field.3. Leave things as is.If the article is accurate, I'd agree that number one would have been preferable. However, knowing that all politicians are going to repay donors, I don't find this a particularly egregious example.

I'd rank it as:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries: the obvious answer2. Leave it alone: the current structure has been very good for a local business: craft beers and despite a poor economy, craft breweries in Wisconsin have been growing. Why tamper with one of the few sectors of the local economy that is growing? Besides, MillerCoors has been making record profits themselves, no reason to feel guilty here. 3. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field: so we do the old 2 wrongs will make it right game and maybe even damage an expanding new local industry a long the way.

You're ranking them that way based on your personal preferences. Frankly, I might rank them that way as well, based on my personal preferences. However, there's no debate that free market principles would rank them the way I did in my previous post.

And they obviously aren't operating on free market principles, otherwise they would be attempting to undo over regulation of the industry.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s War On Craft Beer

"But why would Walker — who calls small businesses the “backbone of our economy” and has postured himself as their champion — side with a foreign-owned mega-corporation over locally owned small brewers? It may have to do with the fact that MillerCoors, which is joint venture with foreign-owned SABMiller, donated $22,675 to his campaign."

This legislation won't hurt craft brewers at all, unless they are making over 300,000 barrels a year (which would affect maybe New Glarus or Sprecher, neither of which self-distributes anyway). I spoke with one of our best craft brewers (Central Waters) two nights ago and he said he has no concerns about it at all. MillerCoors bought this legislation to keep ABInbev from buying its own distributors in Wisconsin.

 

[Ilov80s]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's War On Craft Beer

"But why would Walker — who calls small businesses the "backbone of our economy" and has postured himself as their champion — side with a foreign-owned mega-corporation over locally owned small brewers? It may have to do with the fact that MillerCoors, which is joint venture with foreign-owned SABMiller, donated $22,675 to his campaign."

This legislation won't hurt craft brewers at all, unless they are making over 300,000 barrels a year (which would affect maybe New Glarus or Sprecher, neither of which self-distributes anyway). I spoke with one of our best craft brewers (Central Waters) two nights ago and he said he has no concerns about it at all. MillerCoors bought this legislation to keep ABInbev from buying its own distributors in Wisconsin.

Then why are Sprecher, New Glarus, and the Wisconsin Brewers Guild against it?

 

[RCon]

It's also hardly the move of a guy who reveres the free market, as Walker claims to be. What business does the state have telling a private business how to go about making its purchases? Sure sounds like Walker's "conservatism" is rather selective.

The impression I got from the article was that the middle-man restriction existed for large breweries, and that they now imposed it on small breweries. In terms of "free-marketness", potential actions would seem to be ranked:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries.2. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field.3. Leave things as is.If the article is accurate, I'd agree that number one would have been preferable. However, knowing that all politicians are going to repay donors, I don't find this a particularly egregious example.

I'd rank it as:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries: the obvious answer2. Leave it alone: the current structure has been very good for a local business: craft beers and despite a poor economy, craft breweries in Wisconsin have been growing. Why tamper with one of the few sectors of the local economy that is growing? Besides, MillerCoors has been making record profits themselves, no reason to feel guilty here. 3. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field: so we do the old 2 wrongs will make it right game and maybe even damage an expanding new local industry a long the way.

You're ranking them that way based on your personal preferences. Frankly, I might rank them that way as well, based on my personal preferences. However, there's no debate that free market principles would rank them the way I did in my previous post.

And they obviously aren't operating on free market principles, otherwise they would be attempting to undo over regulation of the industry.

The point was that timschochet claimed it was anti-free market, when it's actually a more free market approach than leaving things as they were.

 

[Mario Kart]

It's also hardly the move of a guy who reveres the free market, as Walker claims to be. What business does the state have telling a private business how to go about making its purchases? Sure sounds like Walker's "conservatism" is rather selective.

The impression I got from the article was that the middle-man restriction existed for large breweries, and that they now imposed it on small breweries. In terms of "free-marketness", potential actions would seem to be ranked:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries.2. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field.3. Leave things as is.If the article is accurate, I'd agree that number one would have been preferable. However, knowing that all politicians are going to repay donors, I don't find this a particularly egregious example.

I'd rank it as:1. Remove the restriction for all breweries: the obvious answer2. Leave it alone: the current structure has been very good for a local business: craft beers and despite a poor economy, craft breweries in Wisconsin have been growing. Why tamper with one of the few sectors of the local economy that is growing? Besides, MillerCoors has been making record profits themselves, no reason to feel guilty here. 3. Impose the restriction for small breweries to level the playing field: so we do the old 2 wrongs will make it right game and maybe even damage an expanding new local industry a long the way.

You're ranking them that way based on your personal preferences. Frankly, I might rank them that way as well, based on my personal preferences. However, there's no debate that free market principles would rank them the way I did in my previous post.

And they obviously aren't operating on free market principles, otherwise they would be attempting to undo over regulation of the industry.

The point was that timschochet claimed it was anti-free market, when it's actually a more free market approach than leaving things as they were.

Is this similar to how buying carbon credits is a free market solution?

 

[RCon]

Is this similar to how buying carbon credits is a free market solution?

No. Buying carbon credits is more free-market than some solutions, certainly, but it is not more free-market than the status quo. In the brewery case, the change is closer to a free-market solution than was the status quo, although it's not the most free-market solution.

 

[Mario Kart]

Is this similar to how buying carbon credits is a free market solution?

No. Buying carbon credits is more free-market than some solutions, certainly, but it is not more free-market than the status quo. In the brewery case, the change is closer to a free-market solution than was the status quo, although it's not the most free-market solution.

How is the status quo not a free market solution? Whenever a cost is added to a business, that lessens the "free market" of it. And, where does the cost go? It is a new cost that will raise prices which inhibits the free market from occurring.

 

[RCon]

Is this similar to how buying carbon credits is a free market solution?

No. Buying carbon credits is more free-market than some solutions, certainly, but it is not more free-market than the status quo. In the brewery case, the change is closer to a free-market solution than was the status quo, although it's not the most free-market solution.

How is the status quo not a free market solution? Whenever a cost is added to a business, that lessens the "free market" of it. And, where does the cost go? It is a new cost that will raise prices which inhibits the free market from occurring.

As I understood the existing situation from the posted article, the status quo was such that large brewers were required to use the middle man distributor, but small brewers were not. That's clearly not a free market situation, when some competitors have government imposed restrictions and others do not.

 

[Mario Kart]

Is this similar to how buying carbon credits is a free market solution?

No. Buying carbon credits is more free-market than some solutions, certainly, but it is not more free-market than the status quo. In the brewery case, the change is closer to a free-market solution than was the status quo, although it's not the most free-market solution.

How is the status quo not a free market solution? Whenever a cost is added to a business, that lessens the "free market" of it. And, where does the cost go? It is a new cost that will raise prices which inhibits the free market from occurring.

As I understood the existing situation from the posted article, the status quo was such that large brewers were required to use the middle man distributor, but small brewers were not. That's clearly not a free market situation, when some competitors have government imposed restrictions and others do not.

So, your solution is to add more people to the regulation instead of allowing more to not be regulated? Again, this is no the free market nor does it benefit the small business and it's customers. I don't see how any free marketer can like this.

 

[RCon]

Is this similar to how buying carbon credits is a free market solution?

No. Buying carbon credits is more free-market than some solutions, certainly, but it is not more free-market than the status quo. In the brewery case, the change is closer to a free-market solution than was the status quo, although it's not the most free-market solution.

How is the status quo not a free market solution? Whenever a cost is added to a business, that lessens the "free market" of it. And, where does the cost go? It is a new cost that will raise prices which inhibits the free market from occurring.

As I understood the existing situation from the posted article, the status quo was such that large brewers were required to use the middle man distributor, but small brewers were not. That's clearly not a free market situation, when some competitors have government imposed restrictions and others do not.

So, your solution is to add more people to the regulation instead of allowing more to not be regulated? Again, this is no the free market nor does it benefit the small business and it's customers. I don't see how any free marketer can like this.

You're missing the point. timschochet stated that this legislation is anti-free market. While he is correct that it is not a 100% free market policy, free market policies aren't simply true/false. Some policies can be 100% free market, some can be close to a free market, some are further, and others are the exact opposite of free market. It is misleading to state that someone who implements this particular policy is anti-free market, when this new policy is closer to a 100% free market policy than the previous policy.

 

[Teumessian Fox]

WI Supreme Court overturns ruling blocking collective bargaining bill

 

[Mario Kart]

WI Supreme Court overturns ruling blocking collective bargaining bill

Doesn't say but was the vote 4-3 or what?

 

[Teumessian Fox]

WI Supreme Court overturns ruling blocking collective bargaining bill

Doesn't say but was the vote 4-3 or what?

It says 3 concurred in part and dissented in part, whatever that means.

 

[Mario Kart]

WI Supreme Court overturns ruling blocking collective bargaining bill

Doesn't say but was the vote 4-3 or what?

It says 3 concurred in part and dissented in part, whatever that means.

That threw me for a loop as well.

 

[Teumessian Fox]

Link to the ruling for any of the law talking guys to look at

 

[Mario Kart]

Sounded like a 7-0 vote. Aren't dissents normal though?

 

[sho nuff]

So where then are all those who pumped up the thought that they ramrodded it through illegally because the one very liberal judge held it up?

 

[Statorama]

ab initioNow I'm just a simple country lawyer (thumbs under suspenders) but doesn't ab initio mean that the court felt that Judge Sumi not only got it wrong, she got it so spectacularly wrong that they don't want her to revisit it?

"There is no such thing known to the law as an unconstitutional bill. A court cannot deal with the question of constitutionality until a law has been duly enacted and some person has been deprived of his constitutional rights by its operation."

 

[Tom Servo]

ab initioNow I'm just a simple country lawyer (thumbs under suspenders) but doesn't ab initio mean that the court felt that Judge Sumi not only got it wrong, she got it so spectacularly wrong that they don't want her to revisit it?

"There is no such thing known to the law as an unconstitutional bill. A court cannot deal with the question of constitutionality until a law has been duly enacted and some person has been deprived of his constitutional rights by its operation."

/thread

 

[Rayderr]

Sounded like a 7-0 vote. Aren't dissents normal though?

Per CNN:

The state's Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, set aside a ruling by a lower court judge who had placed a permanent injunction against the law. The court ruled the state Legislature did not violate the state's constitution when it passed the legislation.

 

[Mario Kart]

Sounded like a 7-0 vote. Aren't dissents normal though?

Per CNN:

The state's Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, set aside a ruling by a lower court judge who had placed a permanent injunction against the law. The court ruled the state Legislature did not violate the state's constitution when it passed the legislation.

While big, this is not as huge a victory as some might hope for. One judge leaves, gets voted out, passes on, and the opposing side gets voted on... people will sue to have this overturned. I won't walk away from this as happy as most would.

 

[Sarnoff]

Sounded like a 7-0 vote. Aren't dissents normal though?

Per CNN:

The state's Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, set aside a ruling by a lower court judge who had placed a permanent injunction against the law. The court ruled the state Legislature did not violate the state's constitution when it passed the legislation.

Apparently parts of it were agreed to 7-0, the 3 nays concurred in part/dissented in part. Not sure which parts, there were several issues being decided.

While big, this is not as huge a victory as some might hope for. One judge leaves, gets voted out, passes on, and the opposing side gets voted on... people will sue to have this overturned. I won't walk away from this as happy as most would.

Reynolds says:

They lost in the legislature. They lost in a judicial special election, where union organization should have been decisive. And they lost in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And in the meantime, they made themselves look like thugs — and, worse, not very scary ones, really, just kind of nasty and pathetic ones — even going so far as to disrupt an award ceremony for Special Olympics kids. So: Losers. If they can’t win in Wisconsin, where can they win?

 

[Sarnoff]

Skimming through the decision. Abrahamson and Crooks wrote dissents, Bradley joined both.

Abrahamson's concur in part/dissent in part: "I agree that the Budget Repair Bill is not in effect. I further agree that the certification by the court of appeals should be denied."

Crooks's concur in part/dissent in part: "I also concur because I agree with the majority that Act 10 is not in effect, and that the certification and motions for temporary relief in case No. 2011AP613-LV should be denied."

The dissents are on matters of procedure, and how long they had to hear the case. None of the dissenters think the court got the final decision wrong.

Abrahamson: "It is exactly because the issues in the present case are of such constitutional and public policy importance that I do not join the order." "[T]his court gives this important case short shrift."

Crooks: "I dissent in part because, in taking these matters as an original action and swiftly vacating the circuit court's orders without sufficient examination, the majority has proceeded the wrong way."

 

[Statorama]

Victory in Wisconsin helps Christie gain bipartisan support in New Jersey

Wisconsin was groud zero for states looking to have their public employees FINALLY pay their fair share toward benefits. You won't hear a lot about this one in the media since it was bipartisan.

New Jersey lawmakers tonight voted to enact a sweeping plan to cut public worker benefits after a long day of high-pitched political drama in the streets and behind closed doors.

Union members chanted outside the Statehouse and in the Assembly balcony, and dissident Democrats tried to stall with amendments and technicalities. Although they successfully convinced top lawmakers to remove a controversial provision restricting public workers’ access to out-of-state medical care, they failed to halt a historic defeat for New Jersey’s powerful unions and a political victory for Republican Gov. Chris Christie.

Nearly 8500 people gathered in the streets surrounding the Statehouse in Trenton to defend their stance on pension and benefit reform. Collective bargaining was the overall theme, but some delved deeper as to what exactly is important to them and their families as a bill awaits a vote in the state assembly.

"Together, we’re showing New Jersey is serious about providing long-term fiscal stability for our children and grandchildren," Christie said in a statement released after the vote. "We are putting the people first and daring to touch the third rail of politics in order to bring reform to an unsustainable system."

 

[Ilov80s]

Wisconsin's reforms are child's play compared to what has passed in Michigan.

 

[Statorama]

School district able to add teachers and reduce class size due to Walker's budget reforms

I'm glad children are finally the focus instead of the unions.

Madison – Kaukauna School District today released a press release detailing the ways Act 10 (better known as the Budget Repair Bill) has benefited the district and students who attend. Most notably the District’s projected operating budget moved from negative $400,000 to a positive $1,500,000.

The changes also allow the District to hire additional teachers, reducing class sizes and providing students with a higher quality of education. In addition to new teachers the school will be experimenting with merit pay – which will reward teachers who are truly exceptional.

“When AB 10 was being passed, there was so much misinformation about how this bill would hurt schools. But, as time has passed, it is becoming clearer that this bill gives schools the tools they need to create better learning environments for the children of Wisconsin” said Representative Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna).

 

[Mario Kart]

School district able to add teachers and reduce class size due to Walker's budget reforms

I'm glad children are finally the focus instead of the unions.

Madison – Kaukauna School District today released a press release detailing the ways Act 10 (better known as the Budget Repair Bill) has benefited the district and students who attend. Most notably the District’s projected operating budget moved from negative $400,000 to a positive $1,500,000.

The changes also allow the District to hire additional teachers, reducing class sizes and providing students with a higher quality of education. In addition to new teachers the school will be experimenting with merit pay – which will reward teachers who are truly exceptional.

“When AB 10 was being passed, there was so much misinformation about how this bill would hurt schools. But, as time has passed, it is becoming clearer that this bill gives schools the tools they need to create better learning environments for the children of Wisconsin” said Representative Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna).

Not diminishing this at all, but it is only one school district. And, Kaukauna is a decently run school district to begin with unlike the Racine's, Milwaukee's, and other suburbs in the southern part of the state. I know there may not be many due to the last minute contract deals many districts have signed but lets wait a school year or at least till October when the school districts have things mapped out a bit more to claim "victory" on this. Again, Kaukauna is a well run school district compared to Milwaukee, so while they are able to save money and set an example for the new law, the ball is just beginning to roll.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Its good to see Governor Walker finally admitting what many of us have been saying for several months now - that it would have been politically responsible for him to introduce his collective bargaining agenda with a reasonable timeframe, make his case, and "lay it on the table" for the people of Wisconsin to judge for themselves. It is obvious now what we were saying last Winter - that his ambush tactics cost the state dearly, tore us apart, forced our senators to flee the state like criminals, and made us a national punch line. Of course, he's failing to acknowledge the obvious, that had he campaigned on this legislation, he never would have won the election last fall.

What I should have done from a political standpoint is build that case sooner. I focused on getting it done.

 

[The Kerminator]

School district able to add teachers and reduce class size due to Walker's budget reforms

I'm glad children are finally the focus instead of the unions.

Madison – Kaukauna School District today released a press release detailing the ways Act 10 (better known as the Budget Repair Bill) has benefited the district and students who attend. Most notably the District’s projected operating budget moved from negative $400,000 to a positive $1,500,000.

The changes also allow the District to hire additional teachers, reducing class sizes and providing students with a higher quality of education. In addition to new teachers the school will be experimenting with merit pay – which will reward teachers who are truly exceptional.

“When AB 10 was being passed, there was so much misinformation about how this bill would hurt schools. But, as time has passed, it is becoming clearer that this bill gives schools the tools they need to create better learning environments for the children of Wisconsin” said Representative Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna).

Not diminishing this at all, but it is only one school district. And, Kaukauna is a decently run school district to begin with unlike the Racine's, Milwaukee's, and other suburbs in the southern part of the state. I know there may not be many due to the last minute contract deals many districts have signed but lets wait a school year or at least till October when the school districts have things mapped out a bit more to claim "victory" on this. Again, Kaukauna is a well run school district compared to Milwaukee, so while they are able to save money and set an example for the new law, the ball is just beginning to roll.

Give credit where credit is due. That well run school district of Kaukauna had a deficit of $400,000 before Walker's plan and now has a surplus of $1,500,000 and still managed to reduce class sizes and hire more teachers. They will now also give out merit pay for exceptional teachers which they couldn't before. That's a much different picture than the union was painting during the protests when they said this bill would balloon class sizes and hurt the quality of education for students.

 

[dickey moe]

forced our senators to flee the state like criminals

This is absolute garbage.

 

[snogger]

Its good to see Governor Walker finally admitting what many of us have been saying for several months now - that it would have been politically responsible for him to introduce his collective bargaining agenda with a reasonable timeframe, make his case, and "lay it on the table" for the people of Wisconsin to judge for themselves. It is obvious now what we were saying last Winter - that his ambush tactics cost the state dearly, tore us apart, forced our senators to flee the state like criminals, and made us a national punch line. Of course, he's failing to acknowledge the obvious, that had he campaigned on this legislation, he never would have won the election last fall.

What I should have done from a political standpoint is build that case sooner. I focused on getting it done.

on the Bold part.. Seriously??

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Its good to see Governor Walker finally admitting what many of us have been saying for several months now - that it would have been politically responsible for him to introduce his collective bargaining agenda with a reasonable timeframe, make his case, and "lay it on the table" for the people of Wisconsin to judge for themselves. It is obvious now what we were saying last Winter - that his ambush tactics cost the state dearly, tore us apart, forced our senators to flee the state like criminals, and made us a national punch line. Of course, he's failing to acknowledge the obvious, that had he campaigned on this legislation, he never would have won the election last fall.

What I should have done from a political standpoint is build that case sooner. I focused on getting it done.

Edit:

 

[snogger]

Back to the reason that there is a lot of anger towards Unions.

On the heels of announcing 519 layoffs, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Gregory Thornton called on the teachers union to reconsider pension concessions that could save 200 jobs.

Thornton announced Wednesday that 519 district employees, including 354 teachers, will receive layoff notices this week because of deep budget cuts in the new fiscal year that begins Friday.

If the 5,600 members of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association would agree to pay 5.8% of their pay toward pensions, the superintendent estimated the district could save $20 million and about 200 teaching jobs.

Because the teachers union settled a contract last fall that runs through 2013, MPS cannot require teachers to contribute pay toward pensions, as is happening in many other districts with teacher contracts that expire this week, or districts that signed side agreements with unions to offer more savings. The new state budget gives districts several avenues to make up for state funding cuts, including requiring employees to pay a percentage of salary toward pensions.

MTEA President Bob Peterson released a statement Wednesday night defending the union's refusal to make pension concessions.

"We call on community stakeholders, particularly the business community, to step up and help solve the district's immediate budget crisis by matching the $94 million," he said. "This would be a significant step toward providing Milwaukee children with the educational opportunities they deserve."

Peterson said earlier this month that the teachers union would return to the bargaining table only if the Legislature restored full collective bargaining.

"Months ago, the statewide union leader of (Wisconsin Education Association Council), Mary Bell, said all of her members would accept increased health care and pension contributions to save teachers' jobs," Werwie said. "Instead of following the statewide union leader," he said, "MTEA would rather lay off teachers than contribute a modest amount toward their benefits."

We could save 200 jobs, but we'd rather keep our contract as is.

 

[greenroom]

Back to the reason that there is a lot of anger towards Unions.

On the heels of announcing 519 layoffs, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Gregory Thornton called on the teachers union to reconsider pension concessions that could save 200 jobs.

Thornton announced Wednesday that 519 district employees, including 354 teachers, will receive layoff notices this week because of deep budget cuts in the new fiscal year that begins Friday.

If the 5,600 members of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association would agree to pay 5.8% of their pay toward pensions, the superintendent estimated the district could save $20 million and about 200 teaching jobs.

Because the teachers union settled a contract last fall that runs through 2013, MPS cannot require teachers to contribute pay toward pensions, as is happening in many other districts with teacher contracts that expire this week, or districts that signed side agreements with unions to offer more savings. The new state budget gives districts several avenues to make up for state funding cuts, including requiring employees to pay a percentage of salary toward pensions.

MTEA President Bob Peterson released a statement Wednesday night defending the union's refusal to make pension concessions.

"We call on community stakeholders, particularly the business community, to step up and help solve the district's immediate budget crisis by matching the $94 million," he said. "This would be a significant step toward providing Milwaukee children with the educational opportunities they deserve."

Peterson said earlier this month that the teachers union would return to the bargaining table only if the Legislature restored full collective bargaining.

"Months ago, the statewide union leader of (Wisconsin Education Association Council), Mary Bell, said all of her members would accept increased health care and pension contributions to save teachers' jobs," Werwie said. "Instead of following the statewide union leader," he said, "MTEA would rather lay off teachers than contribute a modest amount toward their benefits."

We could save 200 jobs, but we'd rather keep our contract as is.

How about honoring the contract that was signed by both sides?? It is nice to point the finger down, but it took both sides to get into this mess. And when they want one side to cave in, it does not make it right

 

[snogger]

Back to the reason that there is a lot of anger towards Unions.

On the heels of announcing 519 layoffs, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Gregory Thornton called on the teachers union to reconsider pension concessions that could save 200 jobs.

Thornton announced Wednesday that 519 district employees, including 354 teachers, will receive layoff notices this week because of deep budget cuts in the new fiscal year that begins Friday.

If the 5,600 members of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association would agree to pay 5.8% of their pay toward pensions, the superintendent estimated the district could save $20 million and about 200 teaching jobs.

Because the teachers union settled a contract last fall that runs through 2013, MPS cannot require teachers to contribute pay toward pensions, as is happening in many other districts with teacher contracts that expire this week, or districts that signed side agreements with unions to offer more savings. The new state budget gives districts several avenues to make up for state funding cuts, including requiring employees to pay a percentage of salary toward pensions.

MTEA President Bob Peterson released a statement Wednesday night defending the union's refusal to make pension concessions.

"We call on community stakeholders, particularly the business community, to step up and help solve the district's immediate budget crisis by matching the $94 million," he said. "This would be a significant step toward providing Milwaukee children with the educational opportunities they deserve."

Peterson said earlier this month that the teachers union would return to the bargaining table only if the Legislature restored full collective bargaining.

"Months ago, the statewide union leader of (Wisconsin Education Association Council), Mary Bell, said all of her members would accept increased health care and pension contributions to save teachers' jobs," Werwie said. "Instead of following the statewide union leader," he said, "MTEA would rather lay off teachers than contribute a modest amount toward their benefits."

We could save 200 jobs, but we'd rather keep our contract as is.

How about honoring the contract that was signed by both sides?? It is nice to point the finger down, but it took both sides to get into this mess. And when they want one side to cave in, it does not make it right

I agree, they both made mistakes in the previous Contract Negotiations. But Unions do hold tremendous power and most districts bent over and took it because they could always run to the State/Fed for Money to cover it.That train has left now and the consequences are people losing their jobs because the Unions won't budge.

IMO.. This should be left up to the remaining teachers to decide, not the Unions.

Give the teachers who will survive, but have extra work ahead of them, the choice of paying the 5.8% that would save 200 jobs.

 

[Bogeys]

Back to the reason that there is a lot of anger towards Unions.

On the heels of announcing 519 layoffs, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Gregory Thornton called on the teachers union to reconsider pension concessions that could save 200 jobs.

Thornton announced Wednesday that 519 district employees, including 354 teachers, will receive layoff notices this week because of deep budget cuts in the new fiscal year that begins Friday.

If the 5,600 members of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association would agree to pay 5.8% of their pay toward pensions, the superintendent estimated the district could save $20 million and about 200 teaching jobs.

Because the teachers union settled a contract last fall that runs through 2013, MPS cannot require teachers to contribute pay toward pensions, as is happening in many other districts with teacher contracts that expire this week, or districts that signed side agreements with unions to offer more savings. The new state budget gives districts several avenues to make up for state funding cuts, including requiring employees to pay a percentage of salary toward pensions.

MTEA President Bob Peterson released a statement Wednesday night defending the union's refusal to make pension concessions.

"We call on community stakeholders, particularly the business community, to step up and help solve the district's immediate budget crisis by matching the $94 million," he said. "This would be a significant step toward providing Milwaukee children with the educational opportunities they deserve."

Peterson said earlier this month that the teachers union would return to the bargaining table only if the Legislature restored full collective bargaining.

"Months ago, the statewide union leader of (Wisconsin Education Association Council), Mary Bell, said all of her members would accept increased health care and pension contributions to save teachers' jobs," Werwie said. "Instead of following the statewide union leader," he said, "MTEA would rather lay off teachers than contribute a modest amount toward their benefits."

We could save 200 jobs, but we'd rather keep our contract as is.

How about honoring the contract that was signed by both sides?? It is nice to point the finger down, but it took both sides to get into this mess. And when they want one side to cave in, it does not make it right

The school district is, that is why they are laying people off....which I am sure is provided for in the contract.

 

[Ilov80s]

School district able to add teachers and reduce class size due to Walker's budget reforms

I'm glad children are finally the focus instead of the unions.

Madison – Kaukauna School District today released a press release detailing the ways Act 10 (better known as the Budget Repair Bill) has benefited the district and students who attend. Most notably the District’s projected operating budget moved from negative $400,000 to a positive $1,500,000.

The changes also allow the District to hire additional teachers, reducing class sizes and providing students with a higher quality of education. In addition to new teachers the school will be experimenting with merit pay – which will reward teachers who are truly exceptional.

“When AB 10 was being passed, there was so much misinformation about how this bill would hurt schools. But, as time has passed, it is becoming clearer that this bill gives schools the tools they need to create better learning environments for the children of Wisconsin” said Representative Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna).

What were the specific changes in the budget bill that caused a nearly $2 million swing in this districts budget?

 

[jonessed]

Back to the reason that there is a lot of anger towards Unions.

On the heels of announcing 519 layoffs, Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Gregory Thornton called on the teachers union to reconsider pension concessions that could save 200 jobs.

Thornton announced Wednesday that 519 district employees, including 354 teachers, will receive layoff notices this week because of deep budget cuts in the new fiscal year that begins Friday.

If the 5,600 members of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association would agree to pay 5.8% of their pay toward pensions, the superintendent estimated the district could save $20 million and about 200 teaching jobs.

Because the teachers union settled a contract last fall that runs through 2013, MPS cannot require teachers to contribute pay toward pensions, as is happening in many other districts with teacher contracts that expire this week, or districts that signed side agreements with unions to offer more savings. The new state budget gives districts several avenues to make up for state funding cuts, including requiring employees to pay a percentage of salary toward pensions.

MTEA President Bob Peterson released a statement Wednesday night defending the union's refusal to make pension concessions.

"We call on community stakeholders, particularly the business community, to step up and help solve the district's immediate budget crisis by matching the $94 million," he said. "This would be a significant step toward providing Milwaukee children with the educational opportunities they deserve."

Peterson said earlier this month that the teachers union would return to the bargaining table only if the Legislature restored full collective bargaining.

"Months ago, the statewide union leader of (Wisconsin Education Association Council), Mary Bell, said all of her members would accept increased health care and pension contributions to save teachers' jobs," Werwie said. "Instead of following the statewide union leader," he said, "MTEA would rather lay off teachers than contribute a modest amount toward their benefits."

We could save 200 jobs, but we'd rather keep our contract as is.

How about honoring the contract that was signed by both sides?? It is nice to point the finger down, but it took both sides to get into this mess. And when they want one side to cave in, it does not make it right

The school district is, that is why they are laying people off....which I am sure is provided for in the contract.

Same thing is happening in Sacramento with the police officers. They pay nothing into their 90% pension at 50 and the city is asking them to pay the same 5% the rest of the city workers do. Not only have they said, "no", but they have refused to negotiate any cuts to anything at all to help the budget situation. They won't even enter discussions.The result is somewhere around 40 officers being layed off in a week.

 

[Statorama]

Its good to see Governor Walker finally admitting what many of us have been saying for several months now - that it would have been politically responsible for him to introduce his collective bargaining agenda with a reasonable timeframe, make his case, and "lay it on the table" for the people of Wisconsin to judge for themselves. It is obvious now what we were saying last Winter - that his ambush tactics cost the state dearly, tore us apart, forced our senators to flee the state like criminals, and made us a national punch line. Of course, he's failing to acknowledge the obvious, that had he campaigned on this legislation, he never would have won the election last fall.

What I should have done from a political standpoint is build that case sooner. I focused on getting it done.

on the Bold part.. Seriously??

Classic Cletius

 

[sts911911]

School district able to add teachers and reduce class size due to Walker's budget reforms

I'm glad children are finally the focus instead of the unions.

Madison – Kaukauna School District today released a press release detailing the ways Act 10 (better known as the Budget Repair Bill) has benefited the district and students who attend. Most notably the District’s projected operating budget moved from negative $400,000 to a positive $1,500,000.

The changes also allow the District to hire additional teachers, reducing class sizes and providing students with a higher quality of education. In addition to new teachers the school will be experimenting with merit pay – which will reward teachers who are truly exceptional.

“When AB 10 was being passed, there was so much misinformation about how this bill would hurt schools. But, as time has passed, it is becoming clearer that this bill gives schools the tools they need to create better learning environments for the children of Wisconsin” said Representative Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna).

What were the specific changes in the budget bill that caused a nearly $2 million swing in this districts budget?

NOt sure if this is true or not, so take it for what its worth...but I'm hearing from a lot of democrats that this surplus is misleading due to the unusual high retirement rate this year in the district..again not sure if its true but would be interested to hear how many retirees there were.