Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (2 Viewers)

jon_mx said:

cr8f said:

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

Click to expand...

Hitler always a crowd pleaser. There were plenty of Hitler sightings in Wisconsin this week...here are a few. You might not want to click, then you can still make that silly statement. One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Oh, yes...and a death to tyrant poster...very nice

Six

Click to expand...

Thunderlips said:

jon_mx said:

cr8f said:

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

Click to expand...

Hitler always a crowd pleaser. There were plenty of Hitler sightings in Wisconsin this week...here are a few. You might not want to click, then you can still make that silly statement. One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Oh, yes...and a death to tyrant poster...very nice

Six

Click to expand...

Lot of Conservative plants in that crowd!

Click to expand...

Steve Tasker said:

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

Click to expand...

The lowdown: State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor's collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.

As the free-market MacIver Institute in Wisconsin points out, the benefits concessions Walker is asking public union workers to make would still maintain their health insurance contribution rates at the second-lowest among Midwest states for family coverage. Moreover, a new analysis by benefits think tank HCTrends shows that the new rate "would also be less than the employee contributions required at 85 percent of large Milwaukee_area employers."

This modest call for shared sacrifice has triggered the wrath of the White House-Big Labor-Michael Moore axis.

Click to expand...

What the bill does:

• Restricts public employees from negotiating everything except their wage

• Does not affect police and fire workers

• Limits wage increases to the rate of inflation

• Requires any larger wage increase to be approved by referendum

• Requires public employees to pay 5.8 percent of their pensions and 12 percent of their health care benefits

• Requires that collective bargaining units take annual votes to maintain certification as a union

• Prohibits employers from collecting union dues

• Releases members of collective bargaining units from dues paying requirements

• Authorizes restructuring of principal payments in the current budget for general obligation bonds, reducing debt payment costs by $165 million

• Increases general revenue for Medicaid to cover an estimated $153 million deficit

• Provides $22 million to address shortfalls in the prisons budget

• Authorizes the Department of Administration to sell state heating plants, with the net proceeds deposited in the budget stabilization fund

Click to expand...

NorvilleBarnes said:

Thunderlips said:

jon_mx said:

cr8f said:

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

Click to expand...

Hitler always a crowd pleaser. There were plenty of Hitler sightings in Wisconsin this week...here are a few. You might not want to click, then you can still make that silly statement. One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Oh, yes...and a death to tyrant poster...very nice

Six

Click to expand...

Lot of Conservative plants in that crowd!

Click to expand...

Number four doesn't even make sense.

Click to expand...

NorvilleBarnes said:

Thunderlips said:

jon_mx said:

cr8f said:

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

Click to expand...

Hitler always a crowd pleaser. There were plenty of Hitler sightings in Wisconsin this week...here are a few. You might not want to click, then you can still make that silly statement. One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Oh, yes...and a death to tyrant poster...very nice

Six

Click to expand...

Lot of Conservative plants in that crowd!

Click to expand...

Number four doesn't even make sense.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Without the money the unions can put together, there is no competition to the corporate interests that support Republicans.

Click to expand...

Soonerman said:

timschochet said:

Without the money the unions can put together, there is no competition to the corporate interests that support Republicans.

Click to expand...

This is not really true. Corporate money often splits 50-50. Union money usually goes about 97-3 to Democrats.

Click to expand...

Revolutions everywhere--in the middle east, in the middle west. But there is a difference: in the middle east, the protesters are marching for democracy; in the middle west, they're protesting against it. I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process? Isn't it interesting that some of those who--rightly--protest the assorted Republican efforts to stymie majority rule in the U.S. Senate are celebrating the Democratic efforts to stymie the same in the Wisconsin Senate?

An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week. And we all know about the near-impossibility of getting criminal and morally questionable--to say nothing of less than competent--teachers fired. The negotiation of such contracts were acts of collusion rather than of mediation. Government officials were, in effect, bribing their most activist constituents.

Public employees unions are an interesting hybrid. Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed...of the public? Despite their questionable provenance, public unions can serve an important social justice role, guaranteeing that a great many underpaid workers--school bus drivers, janitors (outside of New York City), home health care workers--won't be too severely underpaid. That role will be kept intact in Wisconsin. In any given negotiation, I'm rooting for the union to win the highest base rates of pay possible...and for management to win the least restrictive work rules and guidelines governing how much truly creative public employees can be paid.

But we've had far too many state legislatures, of both parties, that have been cowed by the political power of the unions and enacted contracts that force state and city governments to be run for the benefit of their employees, rather than for their citizens. This situation is most egregious in far too many school districts across the nation. The events in Wisconsin are a rebalancing of power that, after decades of flush times and lax negotiating, had become imbalanced. That is also something that, from time to time, happens in a democracy.

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

Surprised to see Time Magazine on the side of the taxpayers

Revolutions everywhere--in the middle east, in the middle west. But there is a difference: in the middle east, the protesters are marching for democracy; in the middle west, they're protesting against it. I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process? Isn't it interesting that some of those who--rightly--protest the assorted Republican efforts to stymie majority rule in the U.S. Senate are celebrating the Democratic efforts to stymie the same in the Wisconsin Senate?

An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week. And we all know about the near-impossibility of getting criminal and morally questionable--to say nothing of less than competent--teachers fired. The negotiation of such contracts were acts of collusion rather than of mediation. Government officials were, in effect, bribing their most activist constituents.

Public employees unions are an interesting hybrid. Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed...of the public? Despite their questionable provenance, public unions can serve an important social justice role, guaranteeing that a great many underpaid workers--school bus drivers, janitors (outside of New York City), home health care workers--won't be too severely underpaid. That role will be kept intact in Wisconsin. In any given negotiation, I'm rooting for the union to win the highest base rates of pay possible...and for management to win the least restrictive work rules and guidelines governing how much truly creative public employees can be paid.

But we've had far too many state legislatures, of both parties, that have been cowed by the political power of the unions and enacted contracts that force state and city governments to be run for the benefit of their employees, rather than for their citizens. This situation is most egregious in far too many school districts across the nation. The events in Wisconsin are a rebalancing of power that, after decades of flush times and lax negotiating, had become imbalanced. That is also something that, from time to time, happens in a democracy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

Surprised to see Time Magazine on the side of the taxpayers

Revolutions everywhere--in the middle east, in the middle west. But there is a difference: in the middle east, the protesters are marching for democracy; in the middle west, they're protesting against it. I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process? Isn't it interesting that some of those who--rightly--protest the assorted Republican efforts to stymie majority rule in the U.S. Senate are celebrating the Democratic efforts to stymie the same in the Wisconsin Senate?

An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week. And we all know about the near-impossibility of getting criminal and morally questionable--to say nothing of less than competent--teachers fired. The negotiation of such contracts were acts of collusion rather than of mediation. Government officials were, in effect, bribing their most activist constituents.

Public employees unions are an interesting hybrid. Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed...of the public? Despite their questionable provenance, public unions can serve an important social justice role, guaranteeing that a great many underpaid workers--school bus drivers, janitors (outside of New York City), home health care workers--won't be too severely underpaid. That role will be kept intact in Wisconsin. In any given negotiation, I'm rooting for the union to win the highest base rates of pay possible...and for management to win the least restrictive work rules and guidelines governing how much truly creative public employees can be paid.

But we've had far too many state legislatures, of both parties, that have been cowed by the political power of the unions and enacted contracts that force state and city governments to be run for the benefit of their employees, rather than for their citizens. This situation is most egregious in far too many school districts across the nation. The events in Wisconsin are a rebalancing of power that, after decades of flush times and lax negotiating, had become imbalanced. That is also something that, from time to time, happens in a democracy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Arsenal of Doom said:

There are plenty of liberals, myself included, who are neutral at best on the necessity of public unions. Where I think Joe Klein completely misses the target with this analysis is in asserting that Walker's requests are "modest ones" and the the basic collective bargaining right of employees for compensation is preserved. There are two major components of compensation, salary and benefits. The split between them varies, but as a general rule of thumb private industry is split about 70/30 between the two and public sector is split closer to 60/40. The flip side of that is that there is also typically or expected to be more upside salary and bonus potential potential in the private workforce. Without getting into what constitutes a correct, appropriate, or reasonable split, the point is that benefits make up a large percentage of total comp regardless of what sector you are looking at. With two major components in play, if you take away bargaining rights over one of them you have effectively ended all bargaining over compensation. In other words, the union can negotiate whatever salary terms they want and under the new plan the state can simply modify the benefit components of reach the same total comp amount. If salary alone is the only thing that union can negotiate, there's simply no reason for the union to exist. I'm sure that's also why this bill would require a yearly certification vote.

Click to expand...

Soonerman said:

Arsenal of Doom said:

There are plenty of liberals, myself included, who are neutral at best on the necessity of public unions. Where I think Joe Klein completely misses the target with this analysis is in asserting that Walker's requests are "modest ones" and the the basic collective bargaining right of employees for compensation is preserved. There are two major components of compensation, salary and benefits. The split between them varies, but as a general rule of thumb private industry is split about 70/30 between the two and public sector is split closer to 60/40. The flip side of that is that there is also typically or expected to be more upside salary and bonus potential potential in the private workforce. Without getting into what constitutes a correct, appropriate, or reasonable split, the point is that benefits make up a large percentage of total comp regardless of what sector you are looking at. With two major components in play, if you take away bargaining rights over one of them you have effectively ended all bargaining over compensation. In other words, the union can negotiate whatever salary terms they want and under the new plan the state can simply modify the benefit components of reach the same total comp amount. If salary alone is the only thing that union can negotiate, there's simply no reason for the union to exist. I'm sure that's also why this bill would require a yearly certification vote.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.

Click to expand...

Soonerman said:

Arsenal of Doom said:

There are plenty of liberals, myself included, who are neutral at best on the necessity of public unions. Where I think Joe Klein completely misses the target with this analysis is in asserting that Walker's requests are "modest ones" and the the basic collective bargaining right of employees for compensation is preserved. There are two major components of compensation, salary and benefits. The split between them varies, but as a general rule of thumb private industry is split about 70/30 between the two and public sector is split closer to 60/40. The flip side of that is that there is also typically or expected to be more upside salary and bonus potential potential in the private workforce. Without getting into what constitutes a correct, appropriate, or reasonable split, the point is that benefits make up a large percentage of total comp regardless of what sector you are looking at. With two major components in play, if you take away bargaining rights over one of them you have effectively ended all bargaining over compensation. In other words, the union can negotiate whatever salary terms they want and under the new plan the state can simply modify the benefit components of reach the same total comp amount. If salary alone is the only thing that union can negotiate, there's simply no reason for the union to exist. I'm sure that's also why this bill would require a yearly certification vote.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.

Click to expand...

Alex P Keaton said:

Soonerman said:

Arsenal of Doom said:

There are plenty of liberals, myself included, who are neutral at best on the necessity of public unions. Where I think Joe Klein completely misses the target with this analysis is in asserting that Walker's requests are "modest ones" and the the basic collective bargaining right of employees for compensation is preserved. There are two major components of compensation, salary and benefits. The split between them varies, but as a general rule of thumb private industry is split about 70/30 between the two and public sector is split closer to 60/40. The flip side of that is that there is also typically or expected to be more upside salary and bonus potential potential in the private workforce. Without getting into what constitutes a correct, appropriate, or reasonable split, the point is that benefits make up a large percentage of total comp regardless of what sector you are looking at. With two major components in play, if you take away bargaining rights over one of them you have effectively ended all bargaining over compensation. In other words, the union can negotiate whatever salary terms they want and under the new plan the state can simply modify the benefit components of reach the same total comp amount.

If salary alone is the only thing that union can negotiate, there's simply no reason for the union to exist. I'm sure that's also why this bill would require a yearly certification vote.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.

Click to expand...

I don't know any teachers who have retired at age 52 with full benefits.Not a union fan in the least.....and agree that public unions have been getting some....interesting....deals. But I don't see gutting the right to collectively bargain as the right solution.

Click to expand...

Soonerman said:

Alex P Keaton said:

Soonerman said:

Arsenal of Doom said:

There are plenty of liberals, myself included, who are neutral at best on the necessity of public unions. Where I think Joe Klein completely misses the target with this analysis is in asserting that Walker's requests are "modest ones" and the the basic collective bargaining right of employees for compensation is preserved. There are two major components of compensation, salary and benefits. The split between them varies, but as a general rule of thumb private industry is split about 70/30 between the two and public sector is split closer to 60/40. The flip side of that is that there is also typically or expected to be more upside salary and bonus potential potential in the private workforce. Without getting into what constitutes a correct, appropriate, or reasonable split, the point is that benefits make up a large percentage of total comp regardless of what sector you are looking at. With two major components in play, if you take away bargaining rights over one of them you have effectively ended all bargaining over compensation. In other words, the union can negotiate whatever salary terms they want and under the new plan the state can simply modify the benefit components of reach the same total comp amount.

If salary alone is the only thing that union can negotiate, there's simply no reason for the union to exist. I'm sure that's also why this bill would require a yearly certification vote.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.

Click to expand...

I don't know any teachers who have retired at age 52 with full benefits.Not a union fan in the least.....and agree that public unions have been getting some....interesting....deals. But I don't see gutting the right to collectively bargain as the right solution.

Click to expand...

http://www.ehow.com/info_7756354_many-work...can-retire.html

Click to expand...

Arsenal of Doom said:

Soonerman said:

Arsenal of Doom said:

There are plenty of liberals, myself included, who are neutral at best on the necessity of public unions. Where I think Joe Klein completely misses the target with this analysis is in asserting that Walker's requests are "modest ones" and the the basic collective bargaining right of employees for compensation is preserved. There are two major components of compensation, salary and benefits. The split between them varies, but as a general rule of thumb private industry is split about 70/30 between the two and public sector is split closer to 60/40. The flip side of that is that there is also typically or expected to be more upside salary and bonus potential potential in the private workforce. Without getting into what constitutes a correct, appropriate, or reasonable split, the point is that benefits make up a large percentage of total comp regardless of what sector you are looking at. With two major components in play, if you take away bargaining rights over one of them you have effectively ended all bargaining over compensation. In other words, the union can negotiate whatever salary terms they want and under the new plan the state can simply modify the benefit components of reach the same total comp amount. If salary alone is the only thing that union can negotiate, there's simply no reason for the union to exist. I'm sure that's also why this bill would require a yearly certification vote.

Click to expand...

The problem with this is that public unions have been getting both; regular raises through the teeth of this recession plus extremely generous retirement benefits. Again, it's the very unbalanced nature of public union negotiations that is the problem, not just cutting enough to get through the short-term crisis.I don't know about you, but I really resent paying high taxes to support a teacher retiring at age 52 with full benefits.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, teachers in Wisconsin and around the country have been taking unpaid furloughs, frozen wages, layoffs, and other measures to work through the State budget problems. The Wisconsin benefits hadn't been touched yet, and that certainly seems appropriate. I don't even have a problem with the state changing the rules around what unions can negotiate going forward. I just think it should to be an issue that is publicly debated over at least one election cycle, not dropped as an "oh by the way, no more collective bargaining" a couple of months after an election.

Click to expand...

Soonerman said:

But teachers are very disingenuous about this. I have heard lots of whining from teachers about not getting pay increases. What they neglect to mention is the state law mandated step increases that they have been getting all along, even while their cost of living increases may have been cut back.

Click to expand...

Alex P Keaton said:

Soonerman said:

But teachers are very disingenuous about this. I have heard lots of whining from teachers about not getting pay increases. What they neglect to mention is the state law mandated step increases that they have been getting all along, even while their cost of living increases may have been cut back.

Click to expand...

The other thing teachers have been disingenuous about is that in many districts, teachers unions explicitly gave up pay increases to attain better benefits (health, retirement, etc). So yeah, their "pay" went up slowly, but their benefits increased more steeply.Of course, the flip side is that teacher opponents are now complaining about benefits being too high.....without recognizing why they are so high.I have no position on this, other than to say I generally hate public pensions and health retirement benefits, because it is far too easy (and attractive in the short term) for politicians to jack up benefits unsustainably, basically passing the buck on costs to future generations. It's a huge problem. I also dislike a system that incents employees to "lock in" and never leave their job, lest they lose a giant form of future compensation. It encourages stagnant people to remain in a job that they don't really like, and frankly reinforces a "public sector" mentality that I personally find destructive.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

Click to expand...

Class Dismissed said:

I was surprised to see earlier that the CSI types, (forensic experts, lab techs, etc) belong to a public employee union.Do they have they have a choice, the freedom to choose whether they want to join the union or are they automatically placed in the union and their checks garnished automatically for union dues?

Click to expand...

BoneYardDog said:

Where are you Tim, these hateful protests are exactly what you said the Tea Party was like and that was a lie...Not only were you wrong about the Tea Party but you are a hypocrite to see, accept and make excuses for it from the left...Faux outrage at the right and no outrage to the left when it is obvious that the left is by far the more violent and hateful of the two...This show of hatred will have big consequences in 2012...

Click to expand...

StrikeS2k said:

timschochet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not really. I keep hoping that one day you'll be able to do your own research but I'm not holding my breath. You seem to find it much more enjoyable to make comments on things you're totally misinformed about. Anyways, here you go:

Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statem...ave-budget-sur/

Click to expand...

cr8f said:

StrikeS2k said:

timschochet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not really. I keep hoping that one day you'll be able to do your own research but I'm not holding my breath. You seem to find it much more enjoyable to make comments on things you're totally misinformed about. Anyways, here you go:

Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statem...ave-budget-sur/

Click to expand...

Budget cutting is no longer the issue because at least one union has said they will do that. Walker isn't interested because he thinks he'll win and won't negotiate.

This is now about taking away rights workers have had for about 50 years because that is what the RGA(Gov ###.-the group Fox owner gave $100million to last year) said it wants after the last election.

Wisconsin is just the first state this will be in. This is an effort to stop unions from spending on elections because 7 out of the 10 outside group spenders in the last election were right wing groups.

The other 3 were unions. Without them the National Chamber(much different than local chambers) and other right wing groups will have all the big money themselves.

Also I have seen reports here this year there could be a surplus even with Walker giving over $100 million away in tax cuts, but now this is about bargaining as a group for contracts.

Click to expand...

Class Dismissed said:

I was surprised to see earlier that the CSI types, (forensic experts, lab techs, etc) belong to a public employee union.Do they have they have a choice, the freedom to choose whether they want to join the union or are they automatically placed in the union and their checks garnished automatically for union dues?

Click to expand...

Ilov80s said:

IMO the teachers union is a scapegoat for the real problem with public spending on education: the giant bureaucracies that suck up money. The teachers are the ones on the front line providing a really important service. I think the American public and the teachers unions need to sit down and have a rational discussion about how to improve schools. This conversation is impossible because of rhetoric and propaganda on both sides. The real cuts need to be made with the ISDs, State, and Federal Education Department. Those groups make far more money than teachers while providing not serving on the frontline. Consolidation and reduction of those areas is where cutbacks need to be made and money saved. I do think teachers need to make cuts in salary and benefits, however they should retain the right to be able to bargain school policy, basic labor conditions and teacher evaluations.The local ISD where I work is a big complex with nicer rooms, offices, equipment, and technology than 90% of the schools in the area. They have a great cafeteria with a really wide array of good healthy food. They do some good things: provide and maintain unified systems to tracking paperwork to meet state and National requirements (there are MANY) as well as represent the schools in court proceedings. However much of their research and classes are a waste and teachers only attend them because the state essentially forces them to keep their license. The classes IMO are bad and the people leading the class tend to break every basic rule of good teaching they advocate for. So much fat there, especially in population dense areas.

Click to expand...

Ilov80s said:

IMO the teachers union is a scapegoat for the real problem with public spending on education: the giant bureaucracies that suck up money. The teachers are the ones on the front line providing a really important service. I think the American public and the teachers unions need to sit down and have a rational discussion about how to improve schools. This conversation is impossible because of rhetoric and propaganda on both sides. The real cuts need to be made with the ISDs, State, and Federal Education Department. Those groups make far more money than teachers while providing not serving on the frontline. Consolidation and reduction of those areas is where cutbacks need to be made and money saved. I do think teachers need to make cuts in salary and benefits, however they should retain the right to be able to bargain school policy, basic labor conditions and teacher evaluations.The local ISD where I work is a big complex with nicer rooms, offices, equipment, and technology than 90% of the schools in the area. They have a great cafeteria with a really wide array of good healthy food. They do some good things: provide and maintain unified systems to tracking paperwork to meet state and National requirements (there are MANY) as well as represent the schools in court proceedings. However much of their research and classes are a waste and teachers only attend them because the state essentially forces them to keep their license. The classes IMO are bad and the people leading the class tend to break every basic rule of good teaching they advocate for. So much fat there, especially in population dense areas.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

BoneYardDog said:

Where are you Tim, these hateful protests are exactly what you said the Tea Party was like and that was a lie...Not only were you wrong about the Tea Party but you are a hypocrite to see, accept and make excuses for it from the left...Faux outrage at the right and no outrage to the left when it is obvious that the left is by far the more violent and hateful of the two...This show of hatred will have big consequences in 2012...

Click to expand...

Since you and Strike seem to love calling me a hypocrite, let's get a couple things straight:1. I have made several posts in this thread already criticizing the over the top rhetoric of these protesters, and specifically their use of Hitler. It's shameful. I'm getting tired, however of having to repeat myself. If you're so convinced I'm a hypocrite, then it really won't matter to you what I write. 2. What I wrote about the Tea Party was not a lie. In many situations their rhetoric was also extremist and over the top. Their use of Hitler was shameful as well. And many of their views are extremist as well.3. The two groups have more in common than you might suppose. Populism tends to bring out the worst in people. That's why I dislike it so much. When the public is "energized" generally bad things happen. Given the level of hateful rhetoric that Walker is receiving, I sincerely hope he is well protected. 4. But Boneyard Dog, your comments are so entirely predictable. You provide no thoughtful commentary whatsoever. All you ever do around here is come in and act like a cheerleader for whatever the conservative side of the issue is (excluding social issues, that is.) If you have an argument to make, make it. But your contribution is pointless.

Click to expand...

Class Dismissed said:

cr8f said:

StrikeS2k said:

timschochet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not really. I keep hoping that one day you'll be able to do your own research but I'm not holding my breath. You seem to find it much more enjoyable to make comments on things you're totally misinformed about. Anyways, here you go:

Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statem...ave-budget-sur/

Click to expand...

Budget cutting is no longer the issue because at least one union has said they will do that. Walker isn't interested because he thinks he'll win and won't negotiate.

This is now about taking away rights workers have had for about 50 years because that is what the RGA(Gov ###.-the group Fox owner gave $100million to last year) said it wants after the last election.

Wisconsin is just the first state this will be in. This is an effort to stop unions from spending on elections because 7 out of the 10 outside group spenders in the last election were right wing groups.

The other 3 were unions. Without them the National Chamber(much different than local chambers) and other right wing groups will have all the big money themselves.

Also I have seen reports here this year there could be a surplus even with Walker giving over $100 million away in tax cuts, but now this is about bargaining as a group for contracts.

Click to expand...

Do you know how the public employee union came to be in Wisconsin?Was there a vote and the employees voted themselves a union, or was it done by legislative action?

I have tried to find out the history of it and have been unsuccessful.

Click to expand...

Soonerman said:

Ilov80s said:

IMO the teachers union is a scapegoat for the real problem with public spending on education: the giant bureaucracies that suck up money. The teachers are the ones on the front line providing a really important service. I think the American public and the teachers unions need to sit down and have a rational discussion about how to improve schools. This conversation is impossible because of rhetoric and propaganda on both sides. The real cuts need to be made with the ISDs, State, and Federal Education Department. Those groups make far more money than teachers while providing not serving on the frontline. Consolidation and reduction of those areas is where cutbacks need to be made and money saved. I do think teachers need to make cuts in salary and benefits, however they should retain the right to be able to bargain school policy, basic labor conditions and teacher evaluations.The local ISD where I work is a big complex with nicer rooms, offices, equipment, and technology than 90% of the schools in the area. They have a great cafeteria with a really wide array of good healthy food. They do some good things: provide and maintain unified systems to tracking paperwork to meet state and National requirements (there are MANY) as well as represent the schools in court proceedings. However much of their research and classes are a waste and teachers only attend them because the state essentially forces them to keep their license. The classes IMO are bad and the people leading the class tend to break every basic rule of good teaching they advocate for. So much fat there, especially in population dense areas.

Click to expand...

That would be nice, but unions are among the most reactionary institutions we have. I don't see them making much of an effort to truly improve schools. Why should they? Their reason for being is to protect teachers' pay and benefits, not advocate for schoolchildren.

Click to expand...

Ilov80s said:

Soonerman said:

Ilov80s said:

IMO the teachers union is a scapegoat for the real problem with public spending on education: the giant bureaucracies that suck up money. The teachers are the ones on the front line providing a really important service. I think the American public and the teachers unions need to sit down and have a rational discussion about how to improve schools. This conversation is impossible because of rhetoric and propaganda on both sides. The real cuts need to be made with the ISDs, State, and Federal Education Department. Those groups make far more money than teachers while providing not serving on the frontline. Consolidation and reduction of those areas is where cutbacks need to be made and money saved. I do think teachers need to make cuts in salary and benefits, however they should retain the right to be able to bargain school policy, basic labor conditions and teacher evaluations.

The local ISD where I work is a big complex with nicer rooms, offices, equipment, and technology than 90% of the schools in the area. They have a great cafeteria with a really wide array of good healthy food. They do some good things: provide and maintain unified systems to tracking paperwork to meet state and National requirements (there are MANY) as well as represent the schools in court proceedings. However much of their research and classes are a waste and teachers only attend them because the state essentially forces them to keep their license. The classes IMO are bad and the people leading the class tend to break every basic rule of good teaching they advocate for. So much fat there, especially in population dense areas.

Click to expand...

That would be nice, but unions are among the most reactionary institutions we have. I don't see them making much of an effort to truly improve schools. Why should they? Their reason for being is to protect teachers' pay and benefits, not advocate for schoolchildren.

Click to expand...

We can't look at it as us vs. them. We are all Americans. The two sides have different interests, but in good faith should be able to find fair compromises on all ends. I don't think unions or political leadership are talking in good faith at all. All sides are guilty from unions to administrators to school boards, legislators and voters themselves. It is time to drop all the BS and talk about reality on all sides in a civil manner. That means not cramming things through, not blindsiding each other, not abusing work sick policies, not shutting down schools, not making broad judgments and generally acting with a sense of respect towards each other. Everyday I wonder more and more WTF is wrong with people?

Click to expand...

Alex P Keaton said:

Ilov80s said:

Soonerman said:

Ilov80s said:

IMO the teachers union is a scapegoat for the real problem with public spending on education: the giant bureaucracies that suck up money. The teachers are the ones on the front line providing a really important service. I think the American public and the teachers unions need to sit down and have a rational discussion about how to improve schools. This conversation is impossible because of rhetoric and propaganda on both sides. The real cuts need to be made with the ISDs, State, and Federal Education Department. Those groups make far more money than teachers while providing not serving on the frontline. Consolidation and reduction of those areas is where cutbacks need to be made and money saved. I do think teachers need to make cuts in salary and benefits, however they should retain the right to be able to bargain school policy, basic labor conditions and teacher evaluations.

The local ISD where I work is a big complex with nicer rooms, offices, equipment, and technology than 90% of the schools in the area. They have a great cafeteria with a really wide array of good healthy food. They do some good things: provide and maintain unified systems to tracking paperwork to meet state and National requirements (there are MANY) as well as represent the schools in court proceedings. However much of their research and classes are a waste and teachers only attend them because the state essentially forces them to keep their license. The classes IMO are bad and the people leading the class tend to break every basic rule of good teaching they advocate for. So much fat there, especially in population dense areas.

Click to expand...

That would be nice, but unions are among the most reactionary institutions we have. I don't see them making much of an effort to truly improve schools. Why should they? Their reason for being is to protect teachers' pay and benefits, not advocate for schoolchildren.

Click to expand...

We can't look at it as us vs. them. We are all Americans. The two sides have different interests, but in good faith should be able to find fair compromises on all ends. I don't think unions or political leadership are talking in good faith at all. All sides are guilty from unions to administrators to school boards, legislators and voters themselves. It is time to drop all the BS and talk about reality on all sides in a civil manner. That means not cramming things through, not blindsiding each other, not abusing work sick policies, not shutting down schools, not making broad judgments and generally acting with a sense of respect towards each other. Everyday I wonder more and more WTF is wrong with people?

Click to expand...

Really? At this point, nothing surprises me. Go read some Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. People have been petty, selfish and motivated primarily by fear basically throughout history.

Click to expand...

BoneYardDog said:

You do remember when Giffords was shot and everyone, including yourself blamed Fox News etc. etc. and you were proven wrong then...Now over the past few days the left is doing exactly what the right was accused of and all you hear are crickets from the MSM, obama, and liberal congressmen and senators... Links have been provided above, have you even linked to any of them...The hypocrisy is so thick and obvious you could cut it with a knife... The left is exactly what they falsely accuse the Tea Party to be...

Click to expand...

Ilov80s said:

Yeah, but I would like to think progress has been made. It isn't the selfishness that gets me, I get that. It is borderline dogmatic approach to complex multi-faceted issues.

Click to expand...

Mr Two Cents said:

Do the Democrats really think that the majority of the people in the state back them? Anti union sentiment is he highest that it has been in years in this country. I would like to see a recall election of the governor, lets see how the people still feel about things. I think he would win by an even larger margin now.

Click to expand...

Mr Two Cents said:

Do the Democrats really think that the majority of the people in the state back them? Anti union sentiment is he highest that it has been in years in this country. I would like to see a recall election of the governor, lets see how the people still feel about things. I think he would win by an even larger margin now.

Click to expand...

Ilov80s said:

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.

Click to expand...