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

[Arsenal of Doom]

Actually, it's been demonstrated that WI didn't have a surplus. At the same time, the Governor did pass tax cuts that made the budget gap worse before taking his current stand. So I think it's fair to question if balancing the budget is such a serious concern, why pass tax cuts before trying to remove collective bargaining rights in the interest of closing the budget gap?

That spending was targeted to spur economic development and to create jobs. If successful, it will pay for itself in additional revenues.

That's been pointed out numerous times in this thread. So has the debunking of the "surplus". Wonder how many more times this will get brought up? Never let the facts get in the way of the liberals. They'll keep repeating themselves over and over, true or not.

Cutting taxes may be the right thing to do to encourage long-term growth, but lets not pretend that it's a solution to solve a budget gap. No one seriously believes that tax-cuts pay for themselves.

 

[Fishboy]

The unions compromise is just a ploy at this point. Walker has stated over and over again about the big cuts that are coming to the local municipalities and school districts here in Wisconsin. If they are still allowed to collectively bargain whatever they want, the local governments are going to be stuck.

Like I keep saying, the bigger cuts are still coming and is totally being overshadowed here.

 

[timschochet]

No one seriously believes that tax-cuts pay for themselves.

Actually, this is part of the disconnect between conservatism and progressivism which has led us to where we are now. Conservatives DO believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. It is a message repeated over and over again, a hundred times a week, on conservative talk radio, on Fox News, on right-wing websites: Tax cuts stimulate the economy which creates more revenue, not less. I used to believed this myself, but have changed my mind after the Bush tax cuts failed to do this. Still, most conservatives accept this as mantra.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Hi!

Short-time lurker, first time poster.

Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

 

[djmich]

Now he threatens to fire 12,000 state workers. I didn't see any Hitler signs, but he is acting pretty dictatorial here.

You're much better than this cr8f.

No, he's not.

 

[Fishboy]

Actually, it's been demonstrated that WI didn't have a surplus. At the same time, the Governor did pass tax cuts that made the budget gap worse before taking his current stand. So I think it's fair to question if balancing the budget is such a serious concern, why pass tax cuts before trying to remove collective bargaining rights in the interest of closing the budget gap?

That spending was targeted to spur economic development and to create jobs. If successful, it will pay for itself in additional revenues.

That's been pointed out numerous times in this thread. So has the debunking of the "surplus". Wonder how many more times this will get brought up? Never let the facts get in the way of the liberals. They'll keep repeating themselves over and over, true or not.

Cutting taxes may be the right thing to do to encourage long-term growth, but lets not pretend that it's a solution to solve a budget gap. No one seriously believes that tax-cuts pay for themselves.

Don't think I ever mentioned that these tax cuts were going to solve the immediate budget gap. I've seen so many businesses pack up and leave this state because the tax climate here in WI is so terrible and other states are lining up and picking off the major players one by one and begging for the corporate tax dollars. We can't keep losing this much industry in the state and expect any sort of balanced budget when we are losing so much tax revenue with every company departure.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Hardly unprecedented though. Both Republicans and Democrats in the past have used this tactic to delay a vote and allow public attention and pressure to build; even Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a window to try to stop a quorum vote from occurring. I have a hard time going so far as to label this un-democratic, when it wouldn't even be an issue if WI happened to be one of roughly half the states with a codified filibuster.

But it isn't. If politicians want that filibuster law (and personally, I think it's a pretty good idea) then they need to vote on it. The fact that what the Dems have done is unprecedented doesn't make it right. Furthermore, I'm sure there are some around here who agree with me on this but would not agree with me if it were Republicans doing it or if the bill was something they were very much against instead of very much for. But that doesn't matter: either the principle is right or it isn't.

I'm not arguing that what they are doing is outside of the parliamentary procedures of the state, and therefore illegal. In extreme circumstances, however, passive dissent has a long-standing place in our democratic traditions. If the law-makers are willing to face whatever the legal consequences of their actions are, I have absolutely no issue with them making a point.

 

[timschochet]

The unions compromise is just a ploy at this point. Walker has stated over and over again about the big cuts that are coming to the local municipalities and school districts here in Wisconsin. If they are still allowed to collectively bargain whatever they want, the local governments are going to be stuck. Like I keep saying, the bigger cuts are still coming and is totally being overshadowed here.

Nope, sorry, this doesn't fly. If the unions are willing to accept cuts on this level, they're going to willing to accept cuts on the local level as well. And if Walker's not sure of this, he could work into the compromise a means for the local governments, this one time only, to have the power to enforce their cuts, without permanently destroying collective bargaining. But he won't do it. So I am convinced that his main goal here is to destroy the power of the unions to support Democrats in elections. That's what this is all about, and why it has such national implications. Without the money the unions can put together, there is no competition to the corporate interests that support Republicans.

 

[timschochet]

Hardly unprecedented though. Both Republicans and Democrats in the past have used this tactic to delay a vote and allow public attention and pressure to build; even Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a window to try to stop a quorum vote from occurring. I have a hard time going so far as to label this un-democratic, when it wouldn't even be an issue if WI happened to be one of roughly half the states with a codified filibuster.

But it isn't. If politicians want that filibuster law (and personally, I think it's a pretty good idea) then they need to vote on it. The fact that what the Dems have done is unprecedented doesn't make it right. Furthermore, I'm sure there are some around here who agree with me on this but would not agree with me if it were Republicans doing it or if the bill was something they were very much against instead of very much for. But that doesn't matter: either the principle is right or it isn't.

I'm not arguing that what they are doing is outside of the parliamentary procedures of the state, and therefore illegal. In extreme circumstances, however, passive dissent has a long-standing place in our democratic traditions. If the law-makers are willing to face whatever the legal consequences of their actions are, I have absolutely no issue with them making a point.

I hardly think this is analogous to Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus. These are elected officials. They are expected to vote. That is their responsibility.

 

[cr8f]

Firefighters offer to give up pay increase to help other union members.

 

[Fishboy]

The unions compromise is just a ploy at this point. Walker has stated over and over again about the big cuts that are coming to the local municipalities and school districts here in Wisconsin. If they are still allowed to collectively bargain whatever they want, the local governments are going to be stuck. Like I keep saying, the bigger cuts are still coming and is totally being overshadowed here.

Nope, sorry, this doesn't fly. If the unions are willing to accept cuts on this level, they're going to willing to accept cuts on the local level as well. And if Walker's not sure of this, he could work into the compromise a means for the local governments, this one time only, to have the power to enforce their cuts, without permanently destroying collective bargaining. But he won't do it. So I am convinced that his main goal here is to destroy the power of the unions to support Democrats in elections. That's what this is all about, and why it has such national implications. Without the money the unions can put together, there is no competition to the corporate interests that support Republicans.

I do see your point and I guess this is where you and I see the exact opposite thing from happening. Where you are convinced that it's Walkers MO to destroy collective bargaining, I'm convinced that the unions are in panic mode and will make whatever concessions here and when all the state funding is drastically reduced to the localities, they'll hamstring the local governments and "collectively bargain" whatever they want, which is part of what got this fine state into the mess it's in today.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Hardly unprecedented though. Both Republicans and Democrats in the past have used this tactic to delay a vote and allow public attention and pressure to build; even Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a window to try to stop a quorum vote from occurring. I have a hard time going so far as to label this un-democratic, when it wouldn't even be an issue if WI happened to be one of roughly half the states with a codified filibuster.

But it isn't. If politicians want that filibuster law (and personally, I think it's a pretty good idea) then they need to vote on it. The fact that what the Dems have done is unprecedented doesn't make it right. Furthermore, I'm sure there are some around here who agree with me on this but would not agree with me if it were Republicans doing it or if the bill was something they were very much against instead of very much for. But that doesn't matter: either the principle is right or it isn't.

I'm not arguing that what they are doing is outside of the parliamentary procedures of the state, and therefore illegal. In extreme circumstances, however, passive dissent has a long-standing place in our democratic traditions. If the law-makers are willing to face whatever the legal consequences of their actions are, I have absolutely no issue with them making a point.

I hardly think this is analogous to Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus. These are elected officials. They are expected to vote. That is their responsibility.

I have no vested interest in this, don't even really support public unions conceptually, and think this is one of the most egregious over-reaches I've ever seen from a politician on any level in this country. If someone can point out where Walker specifically brought up terminating collective bargaining rights or "decertifying" in his words as Governor-elect, the public unions as part of his platform during the campaign I'd probably change my mind. Even if this were happening next year in response to a significantly deteriorating budget position and failed attempts to negotiate a compromise with the unions, I wouldn't think too much of it. But seriously, three or four months after the election with no attempt to negotiate in good faith and selectively targeting public unions that didn't support you during the election? I think that's pretty extreme. Maybe not Rosa Parks, but I don't think that needs to be the bar for a pretty mild dissenting response like this. At most, these guys will have bought a week or two of attention to the issue. I think democracy will survive.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Cutting taxes may be the right thing to do to encourage long-term growth, but lets not pretend that it's a solution to solve a budget gap. No one seriously believes that tax-cuts pay for themselves.

Don't think I ever mentioned that these tax cuts were going to solve the immediate budget gap. I've seen so many businesses pack up and leave this state because the tax climate here in WI is so terrible and other states are lining up and picking off the major players one by one and begging for the corporate tax dollars. We can't keep losing this much industry in the state and expect any sort of balanced budget when we are losing so much tax revenue with every company departure.

I think there's an excellent case for that. I don't know what the tax structure is like there, so I can't comment on the specific expansionary effects but growth is good. However, tax cuts pretty much universally make the short-medium range budget outlook worse and are dependent on marginal propensity to consume (MPC) to promote long-term growth. Most of the reporting and discussion seems to be around the 2011-2013 budget window, which was almost certainly made worse by the tax cuts.

 

[Ilov80s]

The unions compromise is just a ploy at this point. Walker has stated over and over again about the big cuts that are coming to the local municipalities and school districts here in Wisconsin. If they are still allowed to collectively bargain whatever they want, the local governments are going to be stuck.

Like I keep saying, the bigger cuts are still coming and is totally being overshadowed here.

It seems like based on what I have read here and through actual print articles that if collective bargaining is eliminated, the only thing unions can bargain is wages. The unions would lose power to bargain over a wide variety of issues that are not directly related to $ but to school policy and procedures.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

 

[Pipes]

Now he threatens to fire 12,000 state workers. I didn't see any Hitler signs, but he is acting pretty dictatorial here.

You're much better than this cr8f. Putting aside the reference to Hitler, which I repeat is shameful no matter who uses it, the governor is not acting "dictatorial" at all. He is trying to pass a bill through a democratic process by gaining a majority of those elected to vote for it. He is warning (in a far too draconian way, IMO) of the consequences of not passing the bill. He is refusing to compromise, which I don't like, but that's his right. What has any of this to do with dictatorship??I disagree with Walker. Now that the unions have offered a compromise, I am on the side of the unions. But why does everyone have to resort to this sort of extremist rhetoric? This guy is not a dictator. Obama is not a dictator. Walker is not a fascist, and Obama is not a Communist. We need to really tone this stuff down; it does no one any good.

 

[Soonerman]

Why should one arm of government be able to take money from taxpayers in order to lobby another arm of government to increase the size and cost of government?

I'm with FDR on the unworkability of the whole scheme.

 

[timschochet]

Hardly unprecedented though. Both Republicans and Democrats in the past have used this tactic to delay a vote and allow public attention and pressure to build; even Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a window to try to stop a quorum vote from occurring. I have a hard time going so far as to label this un-democratic, when it wouldn't even be an issue if WI happened to be one of roughly half the states with a codified filibuster.

But it isn't. If politicians want that filibuster law (and personally, I think it's a pretty good idea) then they need to vote on it. The fact that what the Dems have done is unprecedented doesn't make it right. Furthermore, I'm sure there are some around here who agree with me on this but would not agree with me if it were Republicans doing it or if the bill was something they were very much against instead of very much for. But that doesn't matter: either the principle is right or it isn't.

I'm not arguing that what they are doing is outside of the parliamentary procedures of the state, and therefore illegal. In extreme circumstances, however, passive dissent has a long-standing place in our democratic traditions. If the law-makers are willing to face whatever the legal consequences of their actions are, I have absolutely no issue with them making a point.

I hardly think this is analogous to Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus. These are elected officials. They are expected to vote. That is their responsibility.

I have no vested interest in this, don't even really support public unions conceptually, and think this is one of the most egregious over-reaches I've ever seen from a politician on any level in this country. If someone can point out where Walker specifically brought up terminating collective bargaining rights or "decertifying" in his words as Governor-elect, the public unions as part of his platform during the campaign I'd probably change my mind. Even if this were happening next year in response to a significantly deteriorating budget position and failed attempts to negotiate a compromise with the unions, I wouldn't think too much of it. But seriously, three or four months after the election with no attempt to negotiate in good faith and selectively targeting public unions that didn't support you during the election? I think that's pretty extreme. Maybe not Rosa Parks, but I don't think that needs to be the bar for a pretty mild dissenting response like this. At most, these guys will have bought a week or two of attention to the issue. I think democracy will survive.

I agree with your point about Walker.

 

[timschochet]

Amazing how many conservatives are gleefully quoting one of their great archvillians, Franklin Roosevelt. When FDR made those comments, the public unions weren't the force they are in Democratic politics today. Also, we didn't have an existing 50 year history of collective bargaining for public unions. If FDR were alive today I doubt he'd be making the same comments.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

In short, the Teachers union in Wisconsin had been working on an expired contract for some time. They reached an agreement with the previous administration, but not until after the election. The legislature attempted to pass the new agreement in lame-duck session, but a couple of Democrats broke ranks and sided with the Governor-elect who had requested that no agreement be made so he could deal with the agreement as part of the 2011-2013 budget process. As part of the patch for the current year budget, he submitted language that would seriously curtail the collective bargaining rights of public union members. They would have to accept immediate changes to the way benefits are currently handled and would only be able to collectively bargain on base salary going forward. They would also be required to have yearly certification votes on the union. Public safety union workers (Police and Fire) are not included. Governor Walker believes these changes are necessary to deal with the state's budget gap and that he was elected based on a platform of fiscal responsibility to solve it. Democrat lawmakers refused to show up for a vote, preventing the formation of a quorum so the legislation cannot be voted on. People on both sides are protesting.ETA - I tried to be as neutral as possible with this. If anyone feels I have mis-represented something please point it out.

 

[Soonerman]

Amazing how many conservatives are gleefully quoting one of their great archvillians, Franklin Roosevelt. When FDR made those comments, the public unions weren't the force they are in Democratic politics today. Also, we didn't have an existing 50 year history of collective bargaining for public unions. If FDR were alive today I doubt he'd be making the same comments.

LOL. If anything, the "50 year history" has completely validated his concerns. It's government using taxpayer money to lobby government to increase government. That is wrong.

 

[Sarnoff]

Now he threatens to fire 12,000 state workers. I didn't see any Hitler signs, but he is acting pretty dictatorial here.

You're much better than this cr8f.

Seriously Tim? You ever read anything he's ever posted? Ever?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Amazing how many conservatives are gleefully quoting one of their great archvillians, Franklin Roosevelt. When FDR made those comments, the public unions weren't the force they are in Democratic politics today. Also, we didn't have an existing 50 year history of collective bargaining for public unions. If FDR were alive today I doubt he'd be making the same comments.

LOL. If anything, the "50 year history" has completely validated his concerns. It's government using taxpayer money to lobby government to increase government. That is wrong.

Government, households, and private enterprise are recognized as three separate economic entities. Unions represent households, not the government. Naturally, households paid by the government are going to have specific interests that the union will represent. The same can be said about companies and employees of companies that have government contracts, or benefit from tax cuts. I don't necessarily disagree, but the statement applies to a far broader scope than just public union workers.

 

[timschochet]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

The new Republican governor, Walker, is attempting to reduce the budget significantly, which includes cuts for public employees in salary and benefits. In addition, his bill removes collective bargaining rights from the public employee unions, including their ability to raise monies for political candidates. However, firemen and police unions have been excluded. Walker says they were excluded because the state can't afford fire and police walking off their jobs. Progressives say the fire and police were excluded because these two unions support Republicans and this bill is meant to target unions that support Democrats.The unions have offered a compromise: they will agree to the cuts, but not to remove the collective bargaining. Walker has refused: he argues that more budget cuts are coming which will force the local governments of the state to make reductions, and he doesn't want collective bargaining to hamstring their ability to do so. The union leaders argue that this is disingenuous, and that Walker and the conservatives really want to destroy Union power to support Democrats in elections. Furthermore, progressives on the side of the unions point out that there was no budget crisis in Wisconsin; in fact there was a surplus until Walker instituted corporate tax cuts in his bill, which creates the deficit. This argument is heavily disputed by conservatives, and personally I stlll have trouble trying to get at what the facts are. Protesters have come to Madison in support of the union from all over the state- and from out of state- they are very loud and boisterous and some of their rhetoric is, IMO, way over the top. A smaller but equally vocal number of Tea Partiers are protesting in support of Walker. Meanwhile the Democratic members of the legislature, in what I consider to be an undemocratic move, have left the state to prevent the governor from getting a quorum in order to have a vote. Obama has spoken out in support of the public unions, which has chagrined many conservatives. Obama very likely needs to win the state of Wisconsin in order to be re-elected. I think I've covered everything. If someone thinks I have been unfair, let me know.

 

[Fishboy]

Hardly unprecedented though. Both Republicans and Democrats in the past have used this tactic to delay a vote and allow public attention and pressure to build; even Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a window to try to stop a quorum vote from occurring. I have a hard time going so far as to label this un-democratic, when it wouldn't even be an issue if WI happened to be one of roughly half the states with a codified filibuster.

But it isn't. If politicians want that filibuster law (and personally, I think it's a pretty good idea) then they need to vote on it. The fact that what the Dems have done is unprecedented doesn't make it right. Furthermore, I'm sure there are some around here who agree with me on this but would not agree with me if it were Republicans doing it or if the bill was something they were very much against instead of very much for. But that doesn't matter: either the principle is right or it isn't.

I'm not arguing that what they are doing is outside of the parliamentary procedures of the state, and therefore illegal. In extreme circumstances, however, passive dissent has a long-standing place in our democratic traditions. If the law-makers are willing to face whatever the legal consequences of their actions are, I have absolutely no issue with them making a point.

I hardly think this is analogous to Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus. These are elected officials. They are expected to vote. That is their responsibility.

I have no vested interest in this, don't even really support public unions conceptually, and think this is one of the most egregious over-reaches I've ever seen from a politician on any level in this country. If someone can point out where Walker specifically brought up terminating collective bargaining rights or "decertifying" in his words as Governor-elect, the public unions as part of his platform during the campaign I'd probably change my mind. Even if this were happening next year in response to a significantly deteriorating budget position and failed attempts to negotiate a compromise with the unions, I wouldn't think too much of it. But seriously, three or four months after the election with no attempt to negotiate in good faith and selectively targeting public unions that didn't support you during the election? I think that's pretty extreme. Maybe not Rosa Parks, but I don't think that needs to be the bar for a pretty mild dissenting response like this. At most, these guys will have bought a week or two of attention to the issue. I think democracy will survive.

Ok, not quite before the election, but shortly thereafter. I didn't dig that hard on the google machine.http://www.huliq.com/10177/governor-elect-...employee-unions

But it's been out there for months and everyone is acting like he came up with this idea last week. Like I've previously said, if he says it, he'll most likely act on it.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Now he threatens to fire 12,000 state workers. I didn't see any Hitler signs, but he is acting pretty dictatorial here.

He's a "dictator" for trying to stay within budget. Oh the left...

How many times does it have to be pointed out that a)Wisconsin had a surplus and b) the workers had already agreed to make substantial concessions before people like you can get that this isn't about staying within the budget at all.

Quit lying...

 

[otello]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

In short, the Teachers union in Wisconsin had been working on an expired contract for some time. They reached an agreement with the previous administration, but not until after the election. The legislature attempted to pass the new agreement in lame-duck session, but a couple of Democrats broke ranks and sided with the Governor-elect who had requested that no agreement be made so he could deal with the agreement as part of the 2011-2013 budget process. As part of the patch for the current year budget, he submitted language that would seriously curtail the collective bargaining rights of public union members. They would have to accept immediate changes to the way benefits are currently handled and would only be able to collectively bargain on base salary going forward. They would also be required to have yearly certification votes on the union. Public safety union workers (Police and Fire) are not included. Governor Walker believes these changes are necessary to deal with the state's budget gap and that he was elected based on a platform of fiscal responsibility to solve it. Democrat lawmakers refused to show up for a vote, preventing the formation of a quorum so the legislation cannot be voted on. People on both sides are protesting.ETA - I tried to be as neutral as possible with this. If anyone feels I have mis-represented something please point it out.

Thanks for the summary. Did the Gov mention why he excluded public safety workers or are they next?

 

[Soonerman]

Amazing how many conservatives are gleefully quoting one of their great archvillians, Franklin Roosevelt. When FDR made those comments, the public unions weren't the force they are in Democratic politics today. Also, we didn't have an existing 50 year history of collective bargaining for public unions. If FDR were alive today I doubt he'd be making the same comments.

LOL. If anything, the "50 year history" has completely validated his concerns. It's government using taxpayer money to lobby government to increase government. That is wrong.

Government, households, and private enterprise are recognized as three separate economic entities. Unions represent households, not the government. Naturally, households paid by the government are going to have specific interests that the union will represent. The same can be said about companies and employees of companies that have government contracts, or benefit from tax cuts. I don't necessarily disagree, but the statement applies to a far broader scope than just public union workers.

It is completely different, hence the FDR concerns. FDR was certainly not a person to shrink away from increasing government, but even he recognized that collective bargaining as practiced by private firms and their unions simply does not translate into the public sphere.

 

[urbanhack]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

In short, the Teachers union in Wisconsin had been working on an expired contract for some time. They reached an agreement with the previous administration, but not until after the election. The legislature attempted to pass the new agreement in lame-duck session, but a couple of Democrats broke ranks and sided with the Governor-elect who had requested that no agreement be made so he could deal with the agreement as part of the 2011-2013 budget process. As part of the patch for the current year budget, he submitted language that would seriously curtail the collective bargaining rights of public union members. They would have to accept immediate changes to the way benefits are currently handled and would only be able to collectively bargain on base salary going forward. They would also be required to have yearly certification votes on the union. Public safety union workers (Police and Fire) are not included. Governor Walker believes these changes are necessary to deal with the state's budget gap and that he was elected based on a platform of fiscal responsibility to solve it. Democrat lawmakers refused to show up for a vote, preventing the formation of a quorum so the legislation cannot be voted on. People on both sides are protesting.ETA - I tried to be as neutral as possible with this. If anyone feels I have mis-represented something please point it out.

Thanks for the summary. Did the Gov mention why he excluded public safety workers or are they next?

Because they were the only unions to contribute to his campaign.

 

[timschochet]

The truth about the supposed surpus vs. supposed deficit shouldn't be that crucial to anyone in deciding where they stand here: we all know that state budgets have to be cut anyhow, and severely- the questions are where and how you go about it.

That being said, we're being fed two sets of contradictory facts about this from liberals and conservatives. Somebody is either misinformed or lying and I don't know who.

 

[Fishboy]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

The new Republican governor, Walker, is attempting to reduce the budget significantly, which includes cuts for public employees in salary and benefits. In addition, his bill removes collective bargaining rights from the public employee unions, including their ability to raise monies for political candidates. However, firemen and police unions have been excluded. Walker says they were excluded because the state can't afford fire and police walking off their jobs. Progressives say the fire and police were excluded because these two unions support Republicans and this bill is meant to target unions that support Democrats.The unions have offered a compromise: they will agree to the cuts, but not to remove the collective bargaining. Walker has refused: he argues that more budget cuts are coming which will force the local governments of the state to make reductions, and he doesn't want collective bargaining to hamstring their ability to do so. The union leaders argue that this is disingenuous, and that Walker and the conservatives really want to destroy Union power to support Democrats in elections. Furthermore, progressives on the side of the unions point out that there was no budget crisis in Wisconsin; in fact there was a surplus until Walker instituted corporate tax cuts in his bill, which creates the deficit. This argument is heavily disputed by conservatives, and personally I stlll have trouble trying to get at what the facts are. Protesters have come to Madison in support of the union from all over the state- and from out of state- they are very loud and boisterous and some of their rhetoric is, IMO, way over the top. A smaller but equally vocal number of Tea Partiers are protesting in support of Walker. Meanwhile the Democratic members of the legislature, in what I consider to be an undemocratic move, have left the state to prevent the governor from getting a quorum in order to have a vote. Obama has spoken out in support of the public unions, which has chagrined many conservatives. Obama very likely needs to win the state of Wisconsin in order to be re-elected. I think I've covered everything. If someone thinks I have been unfair, let me know.

I think you strayed right off the bat. Walker never said he was cutting pay or benefits, just that he thinks it's fair if the public employee pays a fraction of the national average.Being in the state, I hear nothing of cutting nor mass layoffs like the private sector has been doing.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Now he threatens to fire 12,000 state workers. I didn't see any Hitler signs, but he is acting pretty dictatorial here.

You're much better than this cr8f. Putting aside the reference to Hitler, which I repeat is shameful no matter who uses it, the governor is not acting "dictatorial" at all. He is trying to pass a bill through a democratic process by gaining a majority of those elected to vote for it. He is warning (in a far too draconian way, IMO) of the consequences of not passing the bill. He is refusing to compromise, which I don't like, but that's his right. What has any of this to do with dictatorship??I disagree with Walker. Now that the unions have offered a compromise, I am on the side of the unions. But why does everyone have to resort to this sort of extremist rhetoric? This guy is not a dictator. Obama is not a dictator. Walker is not a fascist, and Obama is not a Communist. We need to really tone this stuff down; it does no one any good.

This from the guy who has repeatedly called anyone opposed to illegal immigration "racists" and "xenophobes". Talk about

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I have no vested interest in this, don't even really support public unions conceptually, and think this is one of the most egregious over-reaches I've ever seen from a politician on any level in this country. If someone can point out where Walker specifically brought up terminating collective bargaining rights or "decertifying" in his words as Governor-elect, the public unions as part of his platform during the campaign I'd probably change my mind. Even if this were happening next year in response to a significantly deteriorating budget position and failed attempts to negotiate a compromise with the unions, I wouldn't think too much of it.

But seriously, three or four months after the election with no attempt to negotiate in good faith and selectively targeting public unions that didn't support you during the election? I think that's pretty extreme. Maybe not Rosa Parks, but I don't think that needs to be the bar for a pretty mild dissenting response like this. At most, these guys will have bought a week or two of attention to the issue. I think democracy will survive.

Ok, not quite before the election, but shortly thereafter. I didn't dig that hard on the google machine.http://www.huliq.com/10177/governor-elect-...employee-unions

But it's been out there for months and everyone is acting like he came up with this idea last week. Like I've previously said, if he says it, he'll most likely act on it.

I've seen that, and IMHO it makes Walker look far worse. It appears to be clearly something he had planned, but withheld from the voters until after the election. Here's what I would suggest as a compromise if I were mediating the issue - the union is apparently willing to make the concessions on health and pension benefits. They should agree to a new two-year agreement on those terms, but also put off any further action on collective bargaining rights until after then next legislative election cycle. Then it will specifically be on the table for voters to decide, and the unions/Democrats will have no standing to object if voters make that choice. The short-term budget is addressed and the long-term issue is still on the table.

 

[timschochet]

Now he threatens to fire 12,000 state workers. I didn't see any Hitler signs, but he is acting pretty dictatorial here.

You're much better than this cr8f. Putting aside the reference to Hitler, which I repeat is shameful no matter who uses it, the governor is not acting "dictatorial" at all. He is trying to pass a bill through a democratic process by gaining a majority of those elected to vote for it. He is warning (in a far too draconian way, IMO) of the consequences of not passing the bill. He is refusing to compromise, which I don't like, but that's his right. What has any of this to do with dictatorship??I disagree with Walker. Now that the unions have offered a compromise, I am on the side of the unions. But why does everyone have to resort to this sort of extremist rhetoric? This guy is not a dictator. Obama is not a dictator. Walker is not a fascist, and Obama is not a Communist. We need to really tone this stuff down; it does no one any good.

This from the guy who has repeatedly called anyone opposed to illegal immigration "racists" and "xenophobes". Talk about

Got bored of bgO546, so back to your old alias?I'd appreciate if you didn't lie about me. I suggested a few years back that there was an element of racism involved in the anti-illegal movement, and I still believe that's true. I did not, IMO, overgeneralize, though some of the wording I used back then could have been taken that way and so I apologized for it that one time. My thoughts regarding illegal immigration have been pretty consistent. So has your hostility to me. In fact, your comments and questions have been so hostile and out of bounds that you make it impossible to have any kind of discussion with you over issues. Which is too bad, because you can offer some insights and make good points on occassion. Not often, but sometimes.

 

[Soonerman]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

In short, the Teachers union in Wisconsin had been working on an expired contract for some time. They reached an agreement with the previous administration, but not until after the election. The legislature attempted to pass the new agreement in lame-duck session, but a couple of Democrats broke ranks and sided with the Governor-elect who had requested that no agreement be made so he could deal with the agreement as part of the 2011-2013 budget process. As part of the patch for the current year budget, he submitted language that would seriously curtail the collective bargaining rights of public union members. They would have to accept immediate changes to the way benefits are currently handled and would only be able to collectively bargain on base salary going forward. They would also be required to have yearly certification votes on the union. Public safety union workers (Police and Fire) are not included. Governor Walker believes these changes are necessary to deal with the state's budget gap and that he was elected based on a platform of fiscal responsibility to solve it. Democrat lawmakers refused to show up for a vote, preventing the formation of a quorum so the legislation cannot be voted on. People on both sides are protesting.ETA - I tried to be as neutral as possible with this. If anyone feels I have mis-represented something please point it out.

Thanks for the summary. Did the Gov mention why he excluded public safety workers or are they next?

Because they were the only unions to contribute to his campaign.

Wrong. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin supported his opponent. The Milwaukee branches gave minimal financial support to him. The real reason he excluded them is pure political expediency.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The truth about the supposed surpus vs. supposed deficit shouldn't be that crucial to anyone in deciding where they stand here: we all know that state budgets have to be cut anyhow, and severely- the questions are where and how you go about it.

That being said, we're being fed two sets of contradictory facts about this from liberals and conservatives. Somebody is either misinformed or lying and I don't know who.

This outlines it pretty clearly. The surplus number floated around did not factor in Medicare liabilities and some other budget factors.ETA: more good background budget info here:

Due to rising costs within a variety of state agencies, in particularly Medicare (projected $148 million overage), the Public Defender’s Office (projected $9 million overage), and the state prison system, which also might finish the year in the red, Walker officials maintain it will be nearly impossible to avoid this deficit.

These predictions by the Walker team are in stark contrast to the report by the DOA, especially in regards to the current budget that ends June 30. According to this report, not only will there not be a $100 million deficit, there will actually be a surplus of $10 million. This razor thin profit would be out of an overall budget of $13.54 billion (.074%) and would only be enough to run state programs for about 6.5 hours.

However, a surplus of any size surely is better than a deficit, state officials maintain. As published on JSOnline, State Administration Secretary Dan Schooff said, “It seems like people would like there to be a budget emergency, but there’s not.”

According to Walker officials, the $1.5 billion does not take into consideration the projected shortfall of $100 million in the current budget, the shortfall of the aforementioned agencies, nor does it account for the $200 million that the state has been ordered to pay back to the Patients Compensation Fund after an illegal raid in 2007 authorized by Gov. Jim Doyle to help balance the state’s budget.

Additionally, tax revenues for the current budget year are expected to fall short of projections. Overall income from this revenue source is expected to fall about $140 million shy of the 5.4% growth that was expected in this sector, serving to further exacerbate the issue.

Lastly, the projected budget deficit makes nearly $1.1 billion in cost-saving assumptions by the Doyle administration over the next two years, namely state employee furloughs, no pay raises, and a virtual hiring freeze, something that is not guaranteed with a new governor being sworn in on Jan. 3.

When one considers the costs not factored in plus the cost saving assumptions made in the development of the budget, Wisconsin is staring a $3.3 billion deficit for the 2011-2013 budget in the face, placing the state in the upper tier of budget deficits across the country.

To put this projected deficit into perspective, it would be a whopping 11% of the overall $29.23 billion state budget for 2011-2013 and would be enough to run both the University of Wisconsin system and the Wisconsin Technical College system for two years with money left to spare.

Praise for Jim Doyle's administration from DOA

Despite the looming budget deficit, Schooffs maintains that the shortfall had been even larger just a few short years ago heading into the 2009-2011 budget, and through the assistance of the federal government, the state was able to proactively address this issue and save Wisconsin money. The DOA in their report to Doyle and state legislators seem to validate this claim.

As published in the Biz Times, the report reads, “Economists have reported that the economic recovery, which began earlier this year, is expected to remain tempered for the next several months, with the global and national economies having limited capacity to weather any further financial crises. However, there are several positive signs for future economic growth, including strong corporate balance sheets and improvement in consumer debt levels and disposable income. Despite the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, under the leadership of Governor Jim Doyle, Wisconsin was able to keep its budget balanced.”

Ability to create jobs?

Walker, who campaigned heavily on Wisconsin’s need to cut spending and lower taxes (please see video), now finds himself in an unfavorable environment in which to fulfill his biggest campaign pledge: to create 250,000 new Wisconsin jobs. Walker opponents argue that, facing such a drastic budget deficit and with state tax revenue projected to be roughly $140 million short, cutting taxes further will simply exasperate the issue.

As published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette, John Witte, professor of public affairs and political science at UW-Madison, said, “You can argue ‘I’m going to cut taxes and that’s a good thing’, but to link it to a specific job number, that’s going to be very hard. I don’t see how he can cut taxes unless he’s going to give up on fiscal responsibility.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com: WI Gov.-elect Scott Walker to inherit projected $3.3 billion budget deficit - Madison Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-...t#ixzz1EWnbc7U1

 

[Ilov80s]

Wrong. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin supported his opponent. The Milwaukee branches gave minimal financial support to him. The real reason he excluded them is pure political expediency.

Right, if police and fire were protesting and taking mass sick days, the problem would be 10 fold for the governor.

 

[Sarnoff]

Wrong. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin supported his opponent. The Milwaukee branches gave minimal financial support to him. The real reason he excluded them is pure political expediency.

Right, if police and fire were protesting and taking mass sick days, the problem would be 10 fold for the governor.

He'd just do what Coolidge did as governor. Only downside was it made Coolidge so popular they made him Vice President.

 

[Ilov80s]

It just makes me wonder why this is such an explosive situation. It seems like some parties are either greatly overreacting or are being far too politically aggressive. In Michigan, all public employees took a 5% pay cut and are now paying atleast 10% of their own insurance costs + a 3% "tax" to pay for retirees health care. In addition, 10k public jobs have been cut over the last few years. All this was done in a much more amicable way than the seemingly more modest changes we are seeing in Wisconsin. Considering Michigan is considered the king of the union states, it surprises me it went so peacefully compared to Wisconsin.

 

[Sarnoff]

In Michigan, all public employees took a 5% pay cut and are now paying atleast 10% of their own insurance costs + a 3% "tax" to pay for retirees health care. In addition, 10k public jobs have been cut over the last few years.

Dictatorial! What's it like living under the rule of Hitler?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Wrong. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin supported his opponent. The Milwaukee branches gave minimal financial support to him. The real reason he excluded them is pure political expediency.

Right, if police and fire were protesting and taking mass sick days, the problem would be 10 fold for the governor.

Those also aren't the only Police and Fire unions. Here's a little more background:

Walker collected endorsements from the Milwaukee Police Association, the West Allis Professional Police Association, the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters and the Wisconsin Troopers Association during his campaign. And on Tuesday the governor announced he had hired Steven Fitzgerald, father of state Senate and Assembly majority leaders Scott and Jeff Fitzgerald — two figures Walker needs to advance his agenda through the Legislature — as State Patrol superintendent.

Read more: http://www.postcrescent.com/article/201102...l#ixzz1EWp2qE17

 

[Soonerman]

It just makes me wonder why this is such an explosive situation. It seems like some parties are either greatly overreacting or are being far too politically aggressive. In Michigan, all public employees took a 5% pay cut and are now paying atleast 10% of their own insurance costs + a 3% "tax" to pay for retirees health care. In addition, 10k public jobs have been cut over the last few years. All this was done in a much more amicable way than the seemingly more modest changes we are seeing in Wisconsin. Considering Michigan is considered the king of the union states, it surprises me it went so peacefully compared to Wisconsin.

Really? This for example doesn't exactly seem like sweetness and light:http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...-35-cities.html

 

[Steve Tasker]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

The new Republican governor, Walker, is attempting to reduce the budget significantly, which includes cuts for public employees in salary and benefits. In addition, his bill removes collective bargaining rights from the public employee unions, including their ability to raise monies for political candidates. However, firemen and police unions have been excluded. Walker says they were excluded because the state can't afford fire and police walking off their jobs. Progressives say the fire and police were excluded because these two unions support Republicans and this bill is meant to target unions that support Democrats.The unions have offered a compromise: they will agree to the cuts, but not to remove the collective bargaining. Walker has refused: he argues that more budget cuts are coming which will force the local governments of the state to make reductions, and he doesn't want collective bargaining to hamstring their ability to do so. The union leaders argue that this is disingenuous, and that Walker and the conservatives really want to destroy Union power to support Democrats in elections. Furthermore, progressives on the side of the unions point out that there was no budget crisis in Wisconsin; in fact there was a surplus until Walker instituted corporate tax cuts in his bill, which creates the deficit. This argument is heavily disputed by conservatives, and personally I stlll have trouble trying to get at what the facts are. Protesters have come to Madison in support of the union from all over the state- and from out of state- they are very loud and boisterous and some of their rhetoric is, IMO, way over the top. A smaller but equally vocal number of Tea Partiers are protesting in support of Walker. Meanwhile the Democratic members of the legislature, in what I consider to be an undemocratic move, have left the state to prevent the governor from getting a quorum in order to have a vote. Obama has spoken out in support of the public unions, which has chagrined many conservatives. Obama very likely needs to win the state of Wisconsin in order to be re-elected. I think I've covered everything. If someone thinks I have been unfair, let me know.

Thanks for the responses.What exactly are the cuts in salary and benefits? Does this only affect teachers unions, or does it include all unions except fire/police?

 

[Fishboy]

Hi!Short-time lurker, first time poster.Someone tell me what's going on in Wisconsin...facts only, bull#### partisan politics aside.

bump?

The new Republican governor, Walker, is attempting to reduce the budget significantly, which includes cuts for public employees in salary and benefits. In addition, his bill removes collective bargaining rights from the public employee unions, including their ability to raise monies for political candidates. However, firemen and police unions have been excluded. Walker says they were excluded because the state can't afford fire and police walking off their jobs. Progressives say the fire and police were excluded because these two unions support Republicans and this bill is meant to target unions that support Democrats.The unions have offered a compromise: they will agree to the cuts, but not to remove the collective bargaining. Walker has refused: he argues that more budget cuts are coming which will force the local governments of the state to make reductions, and he doesn't want collective bargaining to hamstring their ability to do so. The union leaders argue that this is disingenuous, and that Walker and the conservatives really want to destroy Union power to support Democrats in elections. Furthermore, progressives on the side of the unions point out that there was no budget crisis in Wisconsin; in fact there was a surplus until Walker instituted corporate tax cuts in his bill, which creates the deficit. This argument is heavily disputed by conservatives, and personally I stlll have trouble trying to get at what the facts are. Protesters have come to Madison in support of the union from all over the state- and from out of state- they are very loud and boisterous and some of their rhetoric is, IMO, way over the top. A smaller but equally vocal number of Tea Partiers are protesting in support of Walker. Meanwhile the Democratic members of the legislature, in what I consider to be an undemocratic move, have left the state to prevent the governor from getting a quorum in order to have a vote. Obama has spoken out in support of the public unions, which has chagrined many conservatives. Obama very likely needs to win the state of Wisconsin in order to be re-elected. I think I've covered everything. If someone thinks I have been unfair, let me know.

Thanks for the responses.What exactly are the cuts in salary and benefits? Does this only affect teachers unions, or does it include all unions except fire/police?

No cuts in salary or benefits. Going from memory here, so don't crucify me if these numbers aren't exact, but to contribute 12.5% to their medical benefits and 5% to their pension. Includes all public unions outside police/fire.

 

[Steve Tasker]

No cuts in salary or benefits. Going from memory here, so don't crucify me if these numbers aren't exact, but to contribute 12.5% to their medical benefits and 5% to their pension. Includes all public unions outside police/fire.

What kind of pensions? Defined benefit? How much do they currently pay into their health insurance ("medical benefits") and pension? Unions have agreed to this but don't want to give up their collective bargaining rights?

 

[cr8f]

The best sign yet.

 

[timschochet]

The best sign yet.

Honda! I've mentioned it twice already.

 

[Ilov80s]

It just makes me wonder why this is such an explosive situation. It seems like some parties are either greatly overreacting or are being far too politically aggressive. In Michigan, all public employees took a 5% pay cut and are now paying atleast 10% of their own insurance costs + a 3% "tax" to pay for retirees health care. In addition, 10k public jobs have been cut over the last few years. All this was done in a much more amicable way than the seemingly more modest changes we are seeing in Wisconsin. Considering Michigan is considered the king of the union states, it surprises me it went so peacefully compared to Wisconsin.

Really? This for example doesn't exactly seem like sweetness and light:http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...-35-cities.html

Was it easy and sweet and wonderful? Obviously these things never are. There were some small rallies, but nothing compared to the size or veracity we see in Wisconsin. Also, our legislators didn't bail on a vote. My districts union voted 85% in favor of pay freezes and increases in health care costs 2 years in a row. The teachers weren't excited about it, but we knew it was necessary for the district to remain financially stable.

 

[Ilov80s]

In Michigan, all public employees took a 5% pay cut and are now paying atleast 10% of their own insurance costs + a 3% "tax" to pay for retirees health care. In addition, 10k public jobs have been cut over the last few years.

Dictatorial! What's it like living under the rule of Hitler?

Not as bad as it sounds! All economic indicators seem to be pointing in the right direction as well.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Got bored of bgO546, so back to your old alias?I'd appreciate if you didn't lie about me. I suggested a few years back that there was an element of racism involved in the anti-illegal movement, and I still believe that's true. I did not, IMO, overgeneralize, though some of the wording I used back then could have been taken that way and so I apologized for it that one time. My thoughts regarding illegal immigration have been pretty consistent. So has your hostility to me. In fact, your comments and questions have been so hostile and out of bounds that you make it impossible to have any kind of discussion with you over issues. Which is too bad, because you can offer some insights and make good points on occassion. Not often, but sometimes.

Given how bad it makes you look I understand why you keep pretending you didn't say it. But you're the one lieing about it. I just find it hypocritical that you constantly rail on others for doing exactly what you've done in the past. If you want to do so you should preface it with "I used to do what you're doing" but you pretend as if you didn't do it. Any hostility I might show towards you has only to do with your utter hypocrisy. I find hypocrites extremely worthy of scorn, and you're the biggest hypocrite on this board.