Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers


cr8f

Recommended Posts

But I also agree with the thought that elections matter. Unfortunately for regular working people, in large part to the Supreme Court over reach on Citizens United, their ability to organize and have a political voice to combat immense corporate interests is being stripped away. Union busting is a corporate tool to remove dissent, organization and to crush political opposition.

I've dealt with this topic in the Chris Christie thread. There is a significant difference between private sector unions and public sectors unions. When the public pays the bill through tax monies taken by the government by force, the foundation of the dispute is different. I wouldn't even call this union busting as the term implies what happened in the private sector. We have a different animal here with state and municipal workers. Now, I am not from this state so I have no idea what the real truth is about all the stuff being floated around, but I do live in NJ and know exactly whats going on here.

Public unions need to realize the difference and work with the system the states have at this point or, in my opinion, they need to be dissolved and/or destroyed. It has nothing to do with worker's rights and everything to do with the police power and taxing power of the government and how those powers are used to take money from taxpayers to give to public employees. The states that are having this fight - NJ for one - are going to go bankrupt if something doesn't change. When the debt hole to be solved is the size of over 1/3 of the total actual budget and the pension systems are underfunded for prior promises - like NJ - it has to be made up somewhere. Higher and higher taxes cost our state billions and didn't do anything. Bonding to pay for salaries makes the problem worse. The only true fix is to stop the madness.

Gov. Christie had a discussion with a cop and I posted the link in that thread. The cop was upset that his last raise, because of the new laws passed including caps on local spending and pension steps and raises including having to now pay for some portion of medical benefits resulted in him only getting a $4 raise in his last check. The answer by Christie was simple and easy - the room was filled with taxpayers of whom 10% are unemployed and others who haven't seen a raise in years. Be happy you still have a check and work with us to fix the system so that you actually ahve a pension in 20 years and not a bankrupt system that can't pay anything leaving you out to dry. :shrug: The choice is up to the unions in NJ - it's going to be a choice most states force at some point because they won't have a choice if they are anywhere near as screwed up as we were for the past 20 years.

This has everything to do with worker's rights and their ability to collectively bargain.
Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some excellent arguments being made in this thread on both sides of this issue- especially by Yankee23fan on behalf of the governor (and other governors) and by ericttspikes on behalf of the teachers (and other public employees.)

One of my real problems with trying to make up my mind about this is that, IMO, there aren't any bad guys in this situation. I know there are liberals trying to demonize the governor, and there are conservatives trying to demonize the teachers, but neither party has reached this point as a result of their own doing. We Americans have reached this point because we have chosen, collectively over the last several decades, to have our government spend more than it has taken in. Now we have to start paying the price. There are no good solutions. There's going to be lots of unhappy people. Some are going to use this to gain political advantage (that may be what is happening in this case, at least partly.) And people are going to be hurt.

Logically, I believe the governor has an excellent case, though I think he should pursue it without trying to get rid of collective bargaining. Emotionally, I am on the side of the teachers because I see them as heroes, though in this situation I think that by staying home they are behaving somewhat irresponsibly. This is the beginning of ugly times and we're going to see more and more of it, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I also agree with the thought that elections matter. Unfortunately for regular working people, in large part to the Supreme Court over reach on Citizens United, their ability to organize and have a political voice to combat immense corporate interests is being stripped away. Union busting is a corporate tool to remove dissent, organization and to crush political opposition.

I've dealt with this topic in the Chris Christie thread. There is a significant difference between private sector unions and public sectors unions. When the public pays the bill through tax monies taken by the government by force, the foundation of the dispute is different. I wouldn't even call this union busting as the term implies what happened in the private sector. We have a different animal here with state and municipal workers. Now, I am not from this state so I have no idea what the real truth is about all the stuff being floated around, but I do live in NJ and know exactly whats going on here.

Public unions need to realize the difference and work with the system the states have at this point or, in my opinion, they need to be dissolved and/or destroyed. It has nothing to do with worker's rights and everything to do with the police power and taxing power of the government and how those powers are used to take money from taxpayers to give to public employees. The states that are having this fight - NJ for one - are going to go bankrupt if something doesn't change. When the debt hole to be solved is the size of over 1/3 of the total actual budget and the pension systems are underfunded for prior promises - like NJ - it has to be made up somewhere. Higher and higher taxes cost our state billions and didn't do anything. Bonding to pay for salaries makes the problem worse. The only true fix is to stop the madness.

Gov. Christie had a discussion with a cop and I posted the link in that thread. The cop was upset that his last raise, because of the new laws passed including caps on local spending and pension steps and raises including having to now pay for some portion of medical benefits resulted in him only getting a $4 raise in his last check. The answer by Christie was simple and easy - the room was filled with taxpayers of whom 10% are unemployed and others who haven't seen a raise in years. Be happy you still have a check and work with us to fix the system so that you actually ahve a pension in 20 years and not a bankrupt system that can't pay anything leaving you out to dry. :hot: The choice is up to the unions in NJ - it's going to be a choice most states force at some point because they won't have a choice if they are anywhere near as screwed up as we were for the past 20 years.

This has everything to do with worker's rights and their ability to collectively bargain.
Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.
Government employees are taxpayers too, no? There seems like there are, or at least should be, laws in place to address bad contracts other than unilaterally breaking them. Seems that many unions in the private sector have renegotiated their deals based on the exact realities you describe (UAW comes to mind). I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy with someone stripping away agreed upon rights and refusing to negotiate. These are real problems, but I suspect there are other ways to fix them than what Walker seems to be proposing. What I do like about what I think I see out of Christie is that he doesn't seem like an ideologue. I could be wrong. The Wisconsin thing seems way more about ideology than an actual serious attempt to fix the problem. No matter what side your on, corporate interests or workers rights, that is a dangerous precedent IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you support the legislation, I think you have to ask why Walker wants it passed this week, when it was just introduced on Tuesday. Why not allow us a week or two to read it and consider all the implications? Why not face the Wisconsin people and answer our questions, and explain and defend your bill, which is unquestionably a drastic measure? The current budget is good through June (I believe). In a sense, Walker has to bear some of the blame for the protesting teachers and fleeing Democratic legislators. If he had introduced this with a reasonable timetable, there would be no need for this level of dramatic reaction, and I doubt teachers would be walking out on their students if Walker hadn't teed it up this way.

edit: For those who want to read it: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1AB-11.pdf

Edited by CletiusMaximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government employees are taxpayers too, no? There seems like there are, or at least should be, laws in place to address bad contracts other than unilaterally breaking them. Seems that many unions in the private sector have renegotiated their deals based on the exact realities you describe (UAW comes to mind). I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy with someone stripping away agreed upon rights and refusing to negotiate. These are real problems, but I suspect there are other ways to fix them than what Walker seems to be proposing. What I do like about what I think I see out of Christie is that he doesn't seem like an ideologue. I could be wrong. The Wisconsin thing seems way more about ideology than an actual serious attempt to fix the problem. No matter what side your on, corporate interests or workers rights, that is a dangerous precedent IMO.

From what was posted earlier in the thread, no existing contract is being broken. The contract has already expired.Yes, Walker appears to be overly heavy-handed in his approach to move forward, but best I can tell, he is not planning to renege on promises already made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you support the legislation, I think you have to ask why Walker wants it passed this week, when it was just introduced on Tuesday. Why not allow us a week or two to read it and consider all the implications? Why not face the Wisconsin people and answer our questions, and explain and defend your bill, which is unquestionably a drastic measure? The current budget is good through June (I believe). In a sense, Walker has to bear some of the blame for the protesting teachers and fleeing Democratic legislators. If he had introduced this with a reasonable timetable, there would be no need for this level of dramatic reaction, and I doubt teachers would be walking out on their students if Walker hadn't teed it up this way.

This is another very good point. For those of us who would like to see this situation solved with the least number of people being hurt, this is exactly what should have happened, and the governor is partly to blame and deserves criticism, as do the Democrats and teachers.But there are those among us who don't care about "solving" the situation as much as they care about winning- both in this case and in the future, and I suspect they're gleeful about this confrontation. I'm talking about some conservatives on one side who want to destroy the unions, and some progressives on the other side who are happiest when they're at war with "corporate interests" (Ed Shultz, anyone?) These guys don't care who gets hurt so long as their side wins. They're the ones driving this battle and its awful results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:lol: We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walker is ramming his legislation through ambush-style, on approximately 4 days notice for a 150 page bill than makes major changes to the employment status of thousands of people. He wants no discussion, explanation or debate.

Can't be debated if the legislators won't show up and do their jobs...Oh, and ramming huge legislation through one-sided without letting the opposition discuss or debate is the precedent now. Worked for Obamacare. Can't say it's unfair now that the shoe's on the other foot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then. So why is this not about lost elections? Seems like it is.

No matter what happens in an election people are always free to act in their own self-interest. Do you think Obama's victory in 2008 meant that the wealthy and others who oppose tax increases of all kinds should have just shut up and accepted his proposal for tax increases on those making over $200,000?
Yeah, I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government employees are taxpayers too, no? There seems like there are, or at least should be, laws in place to address bad contracts other than unilaterally breaking them. Seems that many unions in the private sector have renegotiated their deals based on the exact realities you describe (UAW comes to mind). I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy with someone stripping away agreed upon rights and refusing to negotiate. These are real problems, but I suspect there are other ways to fix them than what Walker seems to be proposing. What I do like about what I think I see out of Christie is that he doesn't seem like an ideologue. I could be wrong. The Wisconsin thing seems way more about ideology than an actual serious attempt to fix the problem. No matter what side your on, corporate interests or workers rights, that is a dangerous precedent IMO.

They are taxpayers, but they aren't the majority and we also don't have direct democratic rule either, so you work with the government you have.It does appear he is going to fast here. We are still in the middle of the changes necessary in NJ and we are a year into the Christie administration. Some things happened quick because they had to, but the overall massive changes that required legislative action went the normal course. I agree that this is a dangerous precedent because of what appears to be happening. New Jersey's fight is obviously making more governor's emboldened to make these fights. In the current economic climate, they have to anyway, but at least there is a state where it's happening, it's working, and there is something to measure the progress against. What could happen, though, is that - god willing - everything gets fixed right in NJ and there in turn becomes a wave across the country - not just WI and NY and possibly CA - where this fight is had again and again and again to the point that the public worker union as we know it now is radically altered or abolished.I see the "danger" there that you would define. Above and beyond the arguments of any one state though, I'm not so sure it shouldn't happen as a matter of course anyway. I'm not convinced that public employees should be allowed to unionize. Again, this isn't a "business" where workers were repressed and forced into slave labor. Publi employees work, by definition, at the expense and whim of the public. While I understand the defined need for a change to publi employment on the heels of the late 19th century and the creation of the civil service system, like any government policy, we've gone too far to the other side of the spectrum. There is a medium, I would think, between political boss control of everything forcing political acts in certain ways, and the curent civil service system giving rise to all powerful unions that can bankrupt a state and force the creation of laws (like NJ) where if they don't get their way the state budget could be found unconstitutional.In the end, it simply makes no sense for a state who sees 10% unemployment on average, and more in certain sectors, continuing to raise property taxes on homeowners in that group to the point where they can't afford those taxes in the middle of a continued housing crises that has seen home values being cut in half, simply to pay for public employee union benefits that were given based on a lie; feeding a system that is over $50 billion underfunded that will cripple and bankrupt the state. We have a governor in NJ that sees that and is telling the truth. By acting now we can save as much of the promises made 20 years ago to ensure the system is still there.Maybe WI is going too fast down the same path. Maybe not. The path has to be traveled though, one way or the other. The federal government cannot keep propping up the states, and the states cannot keep propping up their municipalities where, in NJ, in the midst of unemployment numbers going higher and higher, are increasing their personnel budgets to the tune of 10-20% for new hires and the benefits that go with it. I think the number we have here is that 68% of municipal budgets right now deal with personnel costs (salary benefits and health care). It's unsustainable. Anyone should see that. Camden just lost 45% of the police force because the union wouldn't give an inch. The public unions are not looking out for the long term benefit of their workers. They are the problem - not the workers, the leaders. If it means gutting them once and for all, then that's what needs to be done. Using the taxing power to force taxpayers into foreclosure and bankruptcy to make sure public employees get their step raises some 10% over the average in the private sector and free health care for life while the national health system as a whole is collapsing under its own weight isn't going to solve the problem. It's going to make it worse. I understand the flip side. You can raise taxes on "the rich." We did that in NJ. We raised a "one time" tax on millionaires (which in NJ means people who makes over $400,000 a year) to raise about $800 million or so in FY 2010. We still had a budget deficiet of $11 billion, and state studies show that as a result of that tax and other similar taxes in our state which are the highest among the nation, we lost about $70 billion in money through business leaving, investments leaving, and "the rich" leaving. We lost the trade. Jon Corzine acted like the owner of the Red Sox and traded away Babe Ruth for short term financial gain for a side project (his teachers union in this case) that ended up costing the state of New Jersey more than we can measure. Other governors did too. We're trying not to be cursed for 90 years now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government employees are taxpayers too, no? There seems like there are, or at least should be, laws in place to address bad contracts other than unilaterally breaking them. Seems that many unions in the private sector have renegotiated their deals based on the exact realities you describe (UAW comes to mind). I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy with someone stripping away agreed upon rights and refusing to negotiate. These are real problems, but I suspect there are other ways to fix them than what Walker seems to be proposing. What I do like about what I think I see out of Christie is that he doesn't seem like an ideologue. I could be wrong. The Wisconsin thing seems way more about ideology than an actual serious attempt to fix the problem. No matter what side your on, corporate interests or workers rights, that is a dangerous precedent IMO.

From what was posted earlier in the thread, no existing contract is being broken. The contract has already expired.Yes, Walker appears to be overly heavy-handed in his approach to move forward, but best I can tell, he is not planning to renege on promises already made.
Could be the case. I can't tell fact from fiction on this one.If that is the case, teachers and whoever else have the right to strike, no? And then the governor has the right to hire scabs. I'd be curious to know how much hiring scabs would cost. My guess is a hell of lot. And the bureaucracy of a "free agent" hiring system also seems like it would be very costly to implement and maintain, also adding to uncertainty and possible service shut downs. Dunno, doesn't seem like a lot of thought has gone into the governor's decision other than politics. Something doesn't seem right when debate is taken off the table.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government employees are taxpayers too, no? There seems like there are, or at least should be, laws in place to address bad contracts other than unilaterally breaking them. Seems that many unions in the private sector have renegotiated their deals based on the exact realities you describe (UAW comes to mind). I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy with someone stripping away agreed upon rights and refusing to negotiate. These are real problems, but I suspect there are other ways to fix them than what Walker seems to be proposing. What I do like about what I think I see out of Christie is that he doesn't seem like an ideologue. I could be wrong. The Wisconsin thing seems way more about ideology than an actual serious attempt to fix the problem. No matter what side your on, corporate interests or workers rights, that is a dangerous precedent IMO.

From what was posted earlier in the thread, no existing contract is being broken. The contract has already expired.Yes, Walker appears to be overly heavy-handed in his approach to move forward, but best I can tell, he is not planning to renege on promises already made.
Something doesn't seem right when debate is taken off the table.
Agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I also agree with the thought that elections matter. Unfortunately for regular working people, in large part to the Supreme Court over reach on Citizens United, their ability to organize and have a political voice to combat immense corporate interests is being stripped away. Union busting is a corporate tool to remove dissent, organization and to crush political opposition.

I've dealt with this topic in the Chris Christie thread. There is a significant difference between private sector unions and public sectors unions. When the public pays the bill through tax monies taken by the government by force, the foundation of the dispute is different. I wouldn't even call this union busting as the term implies what happened in the private sector. We have a different animal here with state and municipal workers. Now, I am not from this state so I have no idea what the real truth is about all the stuff being floated around, but I do live in NJ and know exactly whats going on here.

Public unions need to realize the difference and work with the system the states have at this point or, in my opinion, they need to be dissolved and/or destroyed. It has nothing to do with worker's rights and everything to do with the police power and taxing power of the government and how those powers are used to take money from taxpayers to give to public employees. The states that are having this fight - NJ for one - are going to go bankrupt if something doesn't change. When the debt hole to be solved is the size of over 1/3 of the total actual budget and the pension systems are underfunded for prior promises - like NJ - it has to be made up somewhere. Higher and higher taxes cost our state billions and didn't do anything. Bonding to pay for salaries makes the problem worse. The only true fix is to stop the madness.

Gov. Christie had a discussion with a cop and I posted the link in that thread. The cop was upset that his last raise, because of the new laws passed including caps on local spending and pension steps and raises including having to now pay for some portion of medical benefits resulted in him only getting a $4 raise in his last check. The answer by Christie was simple and easy - the room was filled with taxpayers of whom 10% are unemployed and others who haven't seen a raise in years. Be happy you still have a check and work with us to fix the system so that you actually ahve a pension in 20 years and not a bankrupt system that can't pay anything leaving you out to dry. :goodposting: The choice is up to the unions in NJ - it's going to be a choice most states force at some point because they won't have a choice if they are anywhere near as screwed up as we were for the past 20 years.

This has everything to do with worker's rights and their ability to collectively bargain.
Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.
That shouldn't mean that they can't choose to bargain collectively and unionize. If taxpayers have a problem with how much things cost, then they have the right to elect people that bargain to reduce pay. And they have done that here!

But that doesn't mean they get to take away the rights of the other side to bargain and force the already underpaid Wisconsin public sector employees to take whatever terms the government wants. If things are truly so dire that the governor of WI feels it necesary to violate the basic rights of workers, then why did he just go on a $140 special interest spending spree? The entire size of the gap for the remaining fiscal year appears to be that move. The governor is creating an 'emergency' and trying to use to invalidate the rights of the workers and it is shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:goodposting: We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.
This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:goodposting: We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.
This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.
Most pension plans are progressive, meaning you start to accrue from day one or some vesting period and the amount increases over time. So, most employees who have been on the job for any significant period of time will be vested and entitled to some level of pension right now. Nothing prevents them from choosing to leave government service and go work in the private sector if they don't like the new employment terms being asked of them. You know, kind of like how the private sector works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:lmao:

We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.

This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.

Their pension plans are not being cut. They are being asked to fund a portion of it, a whopping 6%.

Where are you getting your information from? :scratches head:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's at stake in Wisconsin

What bill would do

1) Eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public workers. So while unions still could represent those workers, they would not be able to seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum.

2) Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

3) Local police, firefighters and state troopers would retain their collective bargaining rights.

4) Public workers would have to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage. That represents an average of 8 percent increase in state employees' share of pension and health care costs.

In exchange, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs. Gov. Scott Walker has threatened to lay off up to 6,000 state workers if the measure does not pass.

Estimated savings

$30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years to address a Republican-projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

Background

The proposal marks a dramatic shift for Wisconsin, which in 1959 was the first to pass a comprehensive collective bargaining law for public employees and was the birthplace of the national union representing all non-federal public employees.

When voters last year elected Gov. Walker, an outspoken conservative, along with GOP majorities in both legislative chambers, it set the stage for a dramatic reversal of the state's labor history.

National significance

New Republican governors and legislatures in other states have proposed cutting back on public employee costs to reduce budget shortfalls, but Wisconsin's move appears to be the earliest and most extensive.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41664858/ns/us_news-life/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government employees are taxpayers too, no? There seems like there are, or at least should be, laws in place to address bad contracts other than unilaterally breaking them. Seems that many unions in the private sector have renegotiated their deals based on the exact realities you describe (UAW comes to mind). I wouldn't expect anyone to be happy with someone stripping away agreed upon rights and refusing to negotiate. These are real problems, but I suspect there are other ways to fix them than what Walker seems to be proposing. What I do like about what I think I see out of Christie is that he doesn't seem like an ideologue. I could be wrong. The Wisconsin thing seems way more about ideology than an actual serious attempt to fix the problem. No matter what side your on, corporate interests or workers rights, that is a dangerous precedent IMO.

From what was posted earlier in the thread, no existing contract is being broken. The contract has already expired.

Yes, Walker appears to be overly heavy-handed in his approach to move forward, but best I can tell, he is not planning to renege on promises already made.

Could be the case. I can't tell fact from fiction on this one.

If that is the case, teachers and whoever else have the right to strike, no? And then the governor has the right to hire scabs. I'd be curious to know how much hiring scabs would cost. My guess is a hell of lot. And the bureaucracy of a "free agent" hiring system also seems like it would be very costly to implement and maintain, also adding to uncertainty and possible service shut downs. Dunno, doesn't seem like a lot of thought has gone into the governor's decision other than politics. Something doesn't seem right when debate is taken off the table.

Who exactly is taking debate off the table at this point? It would appear it is the Democrats, who have lost all sense of "democracy", by refusing to even show up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and force the already underpaid Wisconsin public sector employees to take whatever terms the government wants.

Two parts here:1. Underpaid Wisconsin public sector employees - I don't agree with that terminology. They should be paid nothing more than what the government has to spend. There is not a future profit measurement to use to base salaries with. There is only taxing power.2. Whatever terms the government wants - Yes, they should. The government makes no money to base a salary off of. They take money from others. My retirement is being underfunded because I have to pay to ensure someone else gets a massively bloated cadillac retirement benefit. Sorry. Doesn't compute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:lmao:

We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.

This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.

Their pension plans are not being cut. They are being asked to fund a portion of it, a whopping 6%.

Where are you getting your information from? :scratches head:

I said that their retirement plans are being cut. The proposal is to not fund their retirement at as high a level as before. I consider that a cut. I don't really feel like getting into a semantic argument with you, so if you really need to "win" a meaningless argument, fine. Nobody's actually taking money out of their existing pensions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:lmao: We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.
This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.
How is that any different than the private sector? When I started working for my current firm I was 'promised' a salary with regular raises based on performance (never cost of living, something public employees get every year) end of year bonuses based on performace, no health benefits at all because my salary raises based on expectations for the following 3 years would have covered the cost to me to pay them, and matching payments to my 401K.In the past 3 years I have lost the matching funds without say, haven't gotten a raise becasue of the economny and have received less than 5% of what the expected bonuses were to be. In the meantime I know of at least one municipal employee in my town who got a COL raise every year of 4%, a raise on top of that based on union demands and the cotnract entered into with the town, almost free massive bloated healthcare and payments into the pension system, and another one that retired with unused sick time that required payment for that sick time of somewhere in the $30,000 range in one lump sum upon retirement.Promises sometimes don't come to fruition. My choice was simple - I could find another job or take it. Public employees deserve nothing more than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.

How does a deduction for a Health Savings Account create new jobs? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I honestly don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that doesn't mean they get to take away the rights of the other side to bargain and force the already underpaid Wisconsin public sector employees to take whatever terms the government wants. If things are truly so dire that the governor of WI feels it necesary to violate the basic rights of workers, then why did he just go on a $140 special interest spending spree? The entire size of the gap for the remaining fiscal year appears to be that move. The governor is creating an 'emergency' and trying to use to invalidate the rights of the workers and it is shameful.

If they truly feel they are underpaid, then get a new job. If the government feels that they are not attracting enough qualified people, they will need to increase salaries. That's how it works in the real world.And there's that "special interest spending spree" again. God forbid he actually try and attract businesses here and create jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.

How does a deduction for a Health Savings Account create new jobs? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I honestly don't know.
That's not what I highlighted. tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.

How does a deduction for a Health Savings Account create new jobs? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I honestly don't know.
:thumbdown::rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:thumbdown: We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.
This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.
How is that any different than the private sector? When I started working for my current firm I was 'promised' a salary with regular raises based on performance (never cost of living, something public employees get every year) end of year bonuses based on performace, no health benefits at all because my salary raises based on expectations for the following 3 years would have covered the cost to me to pay them, and matching payments to my 401K.In the past 3 years I have lost the matching funds without say, haven't gotten a raise becasue of the economny and have received less than 5% of what the expected bonuses were to be. In the meantime I know of at least one municipal employee in my town who got a COL raise every year of 4%, a raise on top of that based on union demands and the cotnract entered into with the town, almost free massive bloated healthcare and payments into the pension system, and another one that retired with unused sick time that required payment for that sick time of somewhere in the $30,000 range in one lump sum upon retirement.Promises sometimes don't come to fruition. My choice was simple - I could find another job or take it. Public employees deserve nothing more than that.
I agree, it's not different. You just forgot about a third option available to you- you and your coworkers could voice your displeasure with the new arrangement, and strike. The result would either have been that your employer would have upped its offer if it felt you and your coworkers brought value that made a better offer in its best interest, or you would have been fired and replaced by someone willing to do the job under the new terms, and your employer would have taken the presumed hit in quality of work (and, presumably, the PR hit from a mass firing) in exchange for the savings. The government can do that here, too. Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.

How does a deduction for a Health Savings Account create new jobs? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I honestly don't know.
That's not what I highlighted. tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees
Yeah, but it's one of the tax cuts that the "Liberals" you take to task were referencing. Since we don't know what the Liberal was referring to when he talked about "special interest handouts to corporate pals" or whatever, why do you assume it wasn't the HSA deduction?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
Unsure about future healthcare costs and more regulation costs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
Unsure about future healthcare costs and more regulation costs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
They are waiting to see what will happen with the trainwreck that is Obamacare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
Unsure about future healthcare costs and more regulation costs?
Yes..i'm sure that's it. Healthcare costs have risen 130% over the past decade before HCR was even introduced into the picture.

What type of regulations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
Unsure about future healthcare costs and more regulation costs?
Yes..i'm sure that's it. Healthcare costs have risen 130% over the past decade before HCR was even introduced into the picture.

What type of regulations?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/the-top-...sses-hate-most/

http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/01/obam...ost-28-billion/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political...issa_heari.html

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9KVTC7G0.htm

You have your head in the sand if you really think business owners aren't concerned about the negative ramifications Obamacare will have on them.

Edited by Eric Stratton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?

Diamond Jim Doyle and the previous administration did pretty much everything they could to discourage companies from coming to Wisconsin. The tax climate here right now is awful. Walker is introducing measures to try and reverse that trend, and actually encourage company to come here, thus creating jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I see it. It's a different animal when the "boss" is the taxpayer who is forced to turn over funds to the government to make these payments.

:) We've basically got one class of people being asked to forgo their retirement to finance the retirement of another class. That won't fly.
This statement could honestly apply in either direction. Except that the public employees aren't being asked. They're being told that their retirement plans, which presumably they considered part of their compensation package when they decided to take their jobs, are being cut because tax cuts were more important.
How is that any different than the private sector? When I started working for my current firm I was 'promised' a salary with regular raises based on performance (never cost of living, something public employees get every year) end of year bonuses based on performace, no health benefits at all because my salary raises based on expectations for the following 3 years would have covered the cost to me to pay them, and matching payments to my 401K.In the past 3 years I have lost the matching funds without say, haven't gotten a raise becasue of the economny and have received less than 5% of what the expected bonuses were to be. In the meantime I know of at least one municipal employee in my town who got a COL raise every year of 4%, a raise on top of that based on union demands and the cotnract entered into with the town, almost free massive bloated healthcare and payments into the pension system, and another one that retired with unused sick time that required payment for that sick time of somewhere in the $30,000 range in one lump sum upon retirement.Promises sometimes don't come to fruition. My choice was simple - I could find another job or take it. Public employees deserve nothing more than that.
I agree, it's not different. You just forgot about a third option available to you- you and your coworkers could voice your displeasure with the new arrangement, and strike. The result would either have been that your employer would have upped its offer if it felt you and your coworkers brought value that made a better offer in its best interest, or you would have been fired and replaced by someone willing to do the job under the new terms, and your employer would have taken the presumed hit in quality of work (and, presumably, the PR hit from a mass firing) in exchange for the savings. The government can do that here, too.
Sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.

How does a deduction for a Health Savings Account create new jobs? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I honestly don't know.
That's not what I highlighted. tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees
Yeah, but it's one of the tax cuts that the "Liberals" you take to task were referencing. Since we don't know what the Liberal was referring to when he talked about "special interest handouts to corporate pals" or whatever, why do you assume it wasn't the HSA deduction?
How is a HSA deduction a handout to corporate pals?

I seriously think Liberals have such a disdain for corporations and the "wealthy", that they don't want to see them succeed under any circumstance, despite the fact that this means the one who ultimately suffers the most is the worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another story out today

A Jan. 31 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the state will actually finish the fiscal year on June 30 with a $56 million surplus. That is $54 million more than state administrators estimated and far more than the $137 million in red ink that Darling and Vos refer to.

Neither Vos, R-Rochester, nor Darling, R-River Hills, responded to requests for comment for this report, but those accounting differences have Democrats claiming Republicans are overstating the depth of the problem to push a hard-right agenda and break public worker unions.

"In our conversations with the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, it has become blatantly evident Governor Walker has manifested this fiscal crisis as a Trojan horse in order to enact unfair public policy in the name of fixing the budget," says state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison.

Scot Ross of the left-leaning group One Wisconsin Now went a step further, calling the Walker plan a "handout in special interest spending to his corporate pals."

Ross was referring to $117.2 million in tax breaks approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in January. Those items making health savings accounts tax deductible, tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees.

Ross and others have said those tax breaks alone have created the shortfall through the end of this budget cycle that Darling and Vos have cited. But the $117.2 million figure cited by the Fiscal Bureau refers to the cost of those tax breaks over the next 2.5 years, not just the next few months.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.
They are extremely flush with cash right now. Where are the jobs?
Unsure about future healthcare costs and more regulation costs?
Yes..i'm sure that's it. Healthcare costs have risen 130% over the past decade before HCR was even introduced into the picture.

What type of regulations?

What do you think it is? Do you think CEO's enjoy counting all the 10's and 20's they have in the vault in the basement. Idle capital is not useful for businesses, they want to apply it and earn a return, they are compelled by shareholders and boards to do this. They obviously are not yet comfortable with the economic/political environment to make investments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean things that actually might help create new jobs? It is simply amazing to me how Liberals want to vilify corporations, while failing to comprehend that they are the job creators.

How does a deduction for a Health Savings Account create new jobs? I'm not saying it does or it doesn't, I honestly don't know.
That's not what I highlighted. tax deductions for businesses that relocate and tax exclusions for hiring new employees
Yeah, but it's one of the tax cuts that the "Liberals" you take to task were referencing. Since we don't know what the Liberal was referring to when he talked about "special interest handouts to corporate pals" or whatever, why do you assume it wasn't the HSA deduction?
How is a HSA deduction a handout to corporate pals?

I seriously think Liberals have such a disdain for corporations and the "wealthy", that they don't want to see them succeed under any circumstance, despite the fact that this means the one who ultimately suffers the most is the worker.

No idea, but I don't think small business cuts for employment are "handouts to corporate pals" either. I don't know what he meant.

That's a pretty pessimistic view. I can understand thinking that they vilify the rich for political gain, just as I think many Conservatives have been guilty of vilifying poor people or gays or whatever for political gain. happens all the time. But it's a big jump from that to actually thinking that anyone in this country actually hates another group of people and wants them to fail.* Your opinion is obviously your own, but ... ugh. Kind of downer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and force the already underpaid Wisconsin public sector employees to take whatever terms the government wants.

Two parts here:1. Underpaid Wisconsin public sector employees - I don't agree with that terminology. They should be paid nothing more than what the government has to spend. There is not a future profit measurement to use to base salaries with. There is only taxing power.2. Whatever terms the government wants - Yes, they should. The government makes no money to base a salary off of. They take money from others. My retirement is being underfunded because I have to pay to ensure someone else gets a massively bloated cadillac retirement benefit. Sorry. Doesn't compute.
They are underpaid relative to what similar employees make in the private market, as I showed earlier. The government gets to decide its level of spending and the taxpayers have their voice in the election, but the employees also have a voice. What the government doesn't get to decide is the employee’s right organize is somehow invalid just because they don't want to bother actually negotiating for the labor in the future. That is totally separate from the desire to pare back costs and is a plainly ideological attempt to weaken labor which he is using an “emergency” to push through without debate after he created a hole equal to the entire fiscal budget deficit a month ago! Oh, and link the the "massively bloated cadillac retirement benefits? My link earlier showed total compensation and still finds Wisconsin public sector to be underpaid. Maybe thier benefits aren't massively bloated afterall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's a ton of opposition to the concept of reducing salaries for many or most public employees, including teachers. I think the concern with Walker's tactics is that he is stripping the unions of their ability to collectively bargain on any of the issues cba's typically address, other than pay. I'm not really sure how he is doing this, but that is how it is being reported - that the teachers' union (for example) can no longer bargain over things like sick pay, hours, vacation discipline, promotions, etc. That seems strange to me, even as a critic of the teachers union. Its also a concern that he has completely exempted the police and firefighters unions, claiming they have special status relating to public security. In Milwaukee, both of these unions were big Walker supporters last November, although I know that was not necessarily true across the state.

:thumbup:

Agree with everything you've said. With Madison schools closing today (40% of teachers called in sick), expect to see many teachers and students at the capital today, haven't seen any news footage yet. It's interesting to see the public employee vs. private employee sentiment that is going on in the state. A couple months back there were a couple of articles in local papers pointing out the public employee benefit/pay packages and how they compare to private employees and it was slanted towards: the private employees are taking pay cuts and have to pay for benefits so the public should too. Will be interesting to see if this bill gets passed and if so, what ramifications there will be for those approving it. Many angry people in Wisconsin today.

Pathetic.

They should be fired.

Yea, "We're here for the kids" is a load of :bs:

So who are you gonna replace them with if you fire them? :thumbup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are underpaid relative to what similar employees make in the private market, as I showed earlier.

Then, to quote Chris Christie, "You don't have to do it anymore." Find another job in the private market where you can make more money and deal with even more violtile working conditions when it comes to raises bonuses and benefits. Sorry. I have no sympathy or empathy for public union members on that front. It sucks that they got sold a bill of goods that couldn't be backed up. It happens to everyone and they aren't immune.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's a ton of opposition to the concept of reducing salaries for many or most public employees, including teachers. I think the concern with Walker's tactics is that he is stripping the unions of their ability to collectively bargain on any of the issues cba's typically address, other than pay. I'm not really sure how he is doing this, but that is how it is being reported - that the teachers' union (for example) can no longer bargain over things like sick pay, hours, vacation discipline, promotions, etc. That seems strange to me, even as a critic of the teachers union. Its also a concern that he has completely exempted the police and firefighters unions, claiming they have special status relating to public security. In Milwaukee, both of these unions were big Walker supporters last November, although I know that was not necessarily true across the state.

:goodposting:

Agree with everything you've said. With Madison schools closing today (40% of teachers called in sick), expect to see many teachers and students at the capital today, haven't seen any news footage yet. It's interesting to see the public employee vs. private employee sentiment that is going on in the state. A couple months back there were a couple of articles in local papers pointing out the public employee benefit/pay packages and how they compare to private employees and it was slanted towards: the private employees are taking pay cuts and have to pay for benefits so the public should too. Will be interesting to see if this bill gets passed and if so, what ramifications there will be for those approving it. Many angry people in Wisconsin today.

Pathetic.

They should be fired.

Yea, "We're here for the kids" is a load of :bs:

So who are you gonna replace them with if you fire them? :lmao:
I suggest you have a clue before you post something like that.

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/2010...s-sorely-tested

Mallory Spaeth didn't have to think twice about accepting a temporary, part-time teaching job at Longfellow Elementary School in Sheboygan this fall, despite a more than hourlong commute from her West Bend apartment.

In many ways, the drive was a small price to pay to land steady work in a profession that has become increasingly hard to break into.

"I would have worked anywhere I could find a job," said Spaeth, 23, whose third-grade position became full time in October. "I was not out there to be picky about things."

Throughout Wisconsin, state and local budget cuts have left school districts strapped for cash and with little choice but to thin their ranks.

As a result, teachers — who've typically been insulated from past recessions — are facing their worst job market in decades. Worse yet, the situation isn't expected to improve any time soon, based on a just-completed budget cycle that showed more cuts will likely be needed again next year at many large school districts.

Applications soar

"We haven't seen anything like this for the past 25 years," said Mehraban Khodavandi, professor of education at Lakeland College and chair of the school's education division. "Almost every major school district in the state has either laid off teachers in the last two years, or not replaced those who left."

In Sheboygan, which typically has a dozen or more teacher openings every year, cuts were so severe Spaeth was the only new teacher the district hired this year, the lowest number in at least three decades, according to Al Calabresa, the district's assistant superintendent of human resources and administrative services.

Meanwhile, competition was intense for the few job openings at other area schools, with school districts in Plymouth, Random Lake, Sheboygan Falls, Kohler and Cedar Grove-Belgium reporting applications for many open positions doubled or even tripled heading into this school year.

The Plymouth Joint School District received more than 300 applications for the three elementary teaching positions it filled this fall — one was part time — or about double the number in a normal year.

While in Random Lake, district officials had more than 250 people to choose from when they filled three openings at the district's elementary school. In the past, those openings might have attracted 80 or so in a good year.

Even less popular positions are drawing relatively high numbers of applicants.

In the Sheboygan Falls School District, a technical education position that attracted six applicants seven years ago saw 22 this year, while a middle-school position in Random Lake that typically draws no more than 40 applicants had about 100.

Some specialty areas, such as special education, remain hard to fill, school officials said, but it's the exact opposite for traditional teaching jobs.

"When a school puts out an ad for a teacher, the numbers that apply are just huge," said Steve Shaw, Cedar Grove-Belgium School District superintendent. "It's pretty tough out there."

The applicant pools include a diverse mix of recent graduates, experienced teachers who were recently laid off and even a substantial number of out-of-state candidates. The upside for school districts is the quality of candidates is exceedingly high.

"It's a more challenging hiring process because you have so many people to look through, but it's provided us the opportunity to look at more diverse and experienced candidates," said Martin Lexmond, superintendent of the Kohler School District, where 119 people applied for a kindergarten position posted in August.

Many teachers, few jobs

Five years ago, Amanda Roethle had no problem landing interviews after graduating from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and eventually got a job in the Clintonville Public School District.

But then the economy tanked, and Roethle, who had little seniority, was told her job was no longer secure.

Fearing that her position would be cut, she began searching for a new position and started reading the minutes from school board meetings to see when teachers in other districts were retiring, but found most weren't begin replaced. Jobs she did apply to were ultra-competitive, including one in suburban Milwaukee that had more than 400 applicants.

"I was so discouraged, I started looking at things I could do besides teaching," said Roethle, 27, who after three years of searching, finally landed a new job teaching psychology this fall at Sheboygan Falls High School.

The market is even more daunting for college graduates looking for their first teaching position.

Tom Malmstadt, Random Lake School District superintendent, said many job candidates he sees are recent graduates who've been on the job market for several years.

"There are people who graduated three years ago who haven't been able to find full-time positions, and they're subbing or taking half-time jobs," he said. "It's the same number of teachers coming out of college, but there are fewer positions."

At Lakeland, the poor job market hasn't caused a notable decline in enrollment in the school's popular teacher education program, which had 232 students last year, nor has it caused an enrollment drop in similar programs at other colleges, according to Khodavandi.

Thus, there's an uninterrupted flow of new graduates entering a job market marked by job cuts and large numbers of older teachers who've deferred their retirements until the economy improves.

"It's a double whammy for young teachers," Khodavandi said.

Jocelyn Jackett, 22, who'll graduate from Lakeland this month with a bachelor's degree in early-middle childhood education, plans to work at a day care facility and to substitute teach to make ends meet.

"I need to remain optimistic and hopefully the economy turns around," she said.

Her classmate, Sarah Hoffman, 22, who's also graduating this month with a degree in early-middle childhood education, said she plans to substitute teach, work in child care and volunteer at area schools.

"You do it because you love the kids. So you have to stay involved with students," she said. "If you love what you're doing, a job will open up, but your heart has to be in it."

'No reason to panic'

As discouraging as the job market can be, Khodavandi said the situation is temporary and young people shouldn't be scared away from the profession.

The job market could improve somewhat next year in Sheboygan, where the school district this month announced that it will offer early retirement packages to its 130 teachers ages 55 or older with at least 10 years experience in the district.

The move will help the district address a projected $4.4 million budget deficit for 2011-12 and it could help ease the logjam of young teachers waiting for positions to open there.

Otherwise, Khodavandi expects the job market for teachers begin recovering in the next couple of years.

"There's no reason to panic," Khodavandi said. "Kids need to be patient and persistent and something will come up. If the economy picks up in the next two or three years, things will get better."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...