Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

[Newtons Bit]

Maybe then you could explain the functional difference between a budgetary shortfall incurred due to $140 million dollars worth of spending increases and a budgetary shortfall incurred due to $140 million dollars worth of tax cuts?

And of course he is, right after he used the budget shortfall he created to attack unions. Funny how that worked out.

Also, maybe you could try addressing the rest of my post and, oh I don't know, address me instead of your imaginary audience?

The State of Wisconsin has a budget of $14.2 billion, have debt of 18.0 billion and a projected 3.6 billion in deficits over two years. So what the does $140 million have to do with it? That a new governor added 1% to the budget (if you count tax cuts as spending measures anyways) to try and stimulate their economy. Is that what you're upset about?

Do you not realize that 3.6 billion over the next two years is a lot of money? Much more than $140 million?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The State of Wisconsin has a budget of $14.2 billion, have debt of 18.0 billion and a projected 3.6 billion in deficits over two years. So what the does $140 million have to do with it? That a new governor added 1% to the budget (if you count tax cuts as spending measures anyways) to try and stimulate their economy. Is that what you're upset about?

Do you not realize that 3.6 billion over the next two years is a lot of money? Much more than $140 million?

The $140 million is just a number I'm using to point out the fallacy BAC is making. I want him to explain what the functional difference is between a deficit of $140 million attained by spending increases and by tax cuts. But your indignation is so-noted.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't think there's only one "deficit" that's being discussed here, one group seems to be blaming Walker for a current deficit and claiming he started with a surplus, but there was a projected future shortfall of $2.2B (allegedly that number also presumed about $1B of existing spending cuts to be continued by Walker) over the next 2 years when he took office. The $2.2B is definitely not his fault, as for the other number people are talking about I have no idea. Either way the budget issues aren't simply "fake" like is being stated. He may or may not have overspent or overcut or whatever in his first couple months, but I'd like to see where he uses this 2-month budget deficit as the primary justification of the bill..

The math on that is pretty simple: As of January 31st, there was a surplus of $121 million for the fiscal year, and now there is a shortfall of $137 million. To address this shortfall, this "budget repair" bill is currently trying to be jammed through the state legislature.

Now I'm reading the tax breaks he gave to businesses don't take effect until next year's budget anyway..

I'd like to see your sources for that, because I know that in at least one case, it's not true:

The first bill would provide a total personal income or corporate tax break for two years for businesses that relocate to Wisconsin. The incentive would be retroactive to Jan. 1...

Source: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/114944994.html

Well I tried, and I can't find anywhere that Scott Walker pointed at this year's budget as the reason for the bill. All I can find is him talking about the $3B+ two-year deficit that's projected. People who are saying that he spent/taxcut $150M or so as an excuse to pass this bill, please provide a link where he actually makes any such excuse..

Again, the math is simple. See above.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wisconsin teachers probably would accept cheese as payment, especially if you threw beer and brats in with it.

It seems like this is what the guv wants to pay them.

 

[johnny karate]

The State of Wisconsin has a budget of $14.2 billion, have debt of 18.0 billion and a projected 3.6 billion in deficits over two years. So what the does $140 million have to do with it? That a new governor added 1% to the budget (if you count tax cuts as spending measures anyways) to try and stimulate their economy. Is that what you're upset about?

Do you not realize that 3.6 billion over the next two years is a lot of money? Much more than $140 million?

You make a good point about the overall numbers.

Which makes me wonder why Walker and the Republican-controlled state legislature found it necessary to try and jam through a "budget repair" bill to address this relatively minor shortfall.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And WTF does disempowering unions have to do with the budget "crisis"?

Nothing, he knows is, we know it and the nation knows it. The provision to take away collective bargaining rights is pure union-busting.

 

[johnny karate]

Representative Gordon Hintz gives a passionate explanation of why Walkers actions piss him off.

And here I thought the Republicans were being unethical and sleazy.

Boy is my face red.

 

[johnny karate]

And WTF does disempowering unions have to do with the budget "crisis"?

Nothing, he knows is, we know it and the nation knows it. The provision to take away collective bargaining rights is pure union-busting.

It's quite clear that union-busting is the whole point of this bill.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And WTF does disempowering unions have to do with the budget "crisis"?

Nothing, he knows is, we know it and the nation knows it. The provision to take away collective bargaining rights is pure union-busting.

That would be true if the unions would agree to either pay cuts or benefits cost-sharing, etc. Have the unions voiced an opinion on whether they would agree to that?

edit: from Johnny Karate's link it appears they will.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That would be true if the unions would agree to either pay cuts or benefits cost-sharing, etc. Have the unions voiced an opinion on whether they would agree to that?

edit: from Johnny Karate's link it appears they will.

Yes. It's true. Walker is just on of many Pubs in power that are doing their best to destroy unions.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes. It's true. Walker is just on of many Pubs in power that are doing their best to destroy unions.

I find the excuse and the politics of it disgusting.

That said, I don't think there should be unions doing collective bargaining agreements for pay/benefits in the public sector. Something of it smacks of a serious conflict of interest.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why would it be a conflict of interest for public employees to have unions?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The $140 million is just a number I'm using to point out the fallacy BAC is making. I want him to explain what the functional difference is between a deficit of $140 million attained by spending increases and by tax cuts. But your indignation is so-noted.

The numbers have been confusing but one site I looked at I don't want to hunt for again said the current fiscal year was what the 140 million applied to, (I think their number was slightly different), And all the billion dollar figures referred to the next fiscal year.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why would it be a conflict of interest for public employees to have unions?

Because the person who negotiates against them does not have the motivation of keeping costs down. His/Her motivation is to get reelected. And the unions give giant amounts of campaign contributions to those that help them out. That gives said politician a big boost in getting reelected.

I greatly appreciate unions for their importance in helping workers historically and for modern day worker protection stuff. But in todays political landscape they are a landmine of trouble.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I found the article that has budget numbers reliable enough Politifact used them to resolve the question of Rachel Maddow's report on her Fri show. I'm sure Rachel will retract any erroneous numbers she gave when she comes back on Monday.

Wisconsin's state budget -- frequently asked questions

Walker has said the state faces a $137 million budget shortfall for this fiscal year ending on June 30 and a $3.6 billion shortfall for the next two years.

Opponents are pointing to a Jan. 31 memo by the Legislature’s nonpartisan budget shop that says that the state will finish this fiscal year with $121.4 million in its main account.

But there’s more to the memo. The budget surplus will only happen if the state keeps its spending in line with what has been budgeted.

But the memo lays out about $258 million in spending by the state that is projected to go over budget. That’s in several areas, including health care spending for the poor, prisons and a payment due to Minnesota in December after the canceling of an income tax agreement between the two states.

Once this over-budget spending is factored in, the state will be unable to pay all its bills this fiscal year if no action is taken.

“We have $121 million in the bank but if we addressed the $258 million in shortfalls then we’re in the hole by $137 million,” said Bob Lang, the director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

So I was right, the current fiscal year shortfall was around 140 millions and the next two year shortfall was in the low billions.

So, Newton's Bit, regardless of whatever Kthulhut Fhtagn was referring to, the number wasn't that far off for this year's shortfall.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I found the article that has budget numbers reliable enough Politifact used them to resolve the question of Rachel Maddow's report on her Fri show. I'm sure Rachel will retract any erroneous numbers she gave when she comes back on Monday.

Wisconsin's state budget -- frequently asked questionsSo I was right, the current fiscal year shortfall was around 140 millions and the next two year shortfall was in the low billions.

So, Newton's Bit, regardless of whatever Kthulhut Fhtagn was referring to, the number wasn't that far off for this year's shortfall.

Right, but something still needs to be done about that "low billions" of dollars deficit over the next two years. Saying that this is all his fault for a hundred million dollars of spending is... ludicrous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because the person who negotiates against them does not have the motivation of keeping costs down. His/Her motivation is to get reelected. And the unions give giant amounts of campaign contributions to those that help them out. That gives said politician a big boost in getting reelected.

Or the unions merely provide a counter offer to the millions the employers contribute to campaigns.

But what about the unionized government workers who might contribute? Well at least some of them like nurses, have private industry counterparts and having worked in that field for decades, wages follow suit after whomever negotiates first. So private, for profit hospitals have a motivation to donate to the campaign of someone who would keep wages down.

As for other unions, if you wipe them all out with tunnel vision looking at government workers, that leaves corporate donations to candidates going unopposed. You can bet you'll be better off with a politician beholden to thousands of workers than one beholden to the next Enron.

I greatly appreciate unions for their importance in helping workers historically and for modern day worker protection stuff. But in todays political landscape they are a landmine of trouble.

The biggest landmine is the potential for unions to be the scapegoat in Repub propaganda campaigns.

"Vote for the Tea Party and Repubs, they'll take care of those evil unions who are responsible for all the unemployment. Don't look behind that curtain. There's just some Wall St guys and Bankers back there, look over here at the bad unions, yes look over here."


Dems Closed Much Larger Budget Shortfall In Wisconsin Without Destroying Worker Rights

We know that Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker is framing his bid to roll back public sector worker rights as a necessary measure of fiscal austerity. And we know that's basically bogus. But how bogus? And how accurate are the dire warnings of fiscal crisis? And how standard are the tools Walker's using to address it?

The answers in order: very, overblown, and unconventional.

Fox Falsely Blames Public Unions For WI Budget Shortfall

In Fact, The Shortfall Is Largely Due To Obligations Unreleated To Unions

AP: Wisconsin Faces Shortfall "Due Largely To Anticipated Medicaid Expenses And A Court-Ordered Repayment To A Fund That Was Raided Four Years Ago," And Walker's Tax Policies "Actually Make The State's Ongoing Budget Problem Worse." In a February 1 article, The Associated Press reported that "[a] new analysis released Monday showed that Wisconsin's budget could be between $79 million and $340 million short by June 30 due largely to anticipated Medicaid expenses and a court-ordered repayment to a fund that was raided four years ago." The AP further reported that tax cuts pushed through by Walker will "make the state's ongoing budget problem worse": ..

...

The tax breaks go into effect next fiscal year when the shortfall was predicted to be in the billions.

I suppose the fund is the fund and one could single anything out of it and say that's where the problem is. But one can also make a scapegoat of the unions and proclaim the unions are causing workers to get more pay than they deserve. That is the Repub myth. It suits the Repubs politically to make a scapegoat conveniently out of your biggest political opponent.


And just like different stories on the budget, so are different slants on the wages of the workers:

Wisconsin: Dueling Statistics About Public Employees

The Wall Street Journal has a chart showing that "state and local government workers" clearly do better that "private-industry workers." ...

...But the New York Times has a more subtle chart that tells the real story. Focusing only on Wisconsin, the Times chart shows that among workers without a bachelor's degree, state workers are, indeed, better paid than private-sector workers - the figures are $37,000 annually for state workers, $33,250 for private-sector workers.

However, among workers with a bachelor's degree, private-sector workers earn more than state workers -- $57,113 for private-sector workers, $51,921 for public-sector workers.

The Times provides a helpful explanation of these numbers:

It would seem the WSJ chose different pools of workers to compare. No surprise there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Right, but something still needs to be done about that "low billions" of dollars deficit over the next two years. Saying that this is all his fault for a hundred million dollars of spending is... ludicrous.

The issue is much more about essentially manipulating the shortfall to exaggerate a crisis then claiming you have to kill the unions to solve it.

I would not have the same concerns here if we were looking at some honest straightforward, "state has no money sorry you get less", issue. I just don't see that. I see something along the lines of Naomi Kline's Shock Doctrine. Use a crisis to get big political advantages that will outlast the crisis and that you couldn't have gotten away with had there not been a crisis.


Something along the lines of the what the Muckracker article I cited above seems to fit what I see going on here:

If for unexpected reason, the state finds itself faced with a severe deficit within a biennial window, the legislature must pass what's known a "budget repair bill" -- to close the gap with spending cuts or other emergency measures.

The state has not crossed that threshold.

The previous governor, Democrat Jim Doyle, passed a budget that left the state poised for a surplus this year. When Walker took office in January he chipped away at that surplus with three conservative tax expenditure bills, but not severely enough to trigger a budget repair bill. The current, small shortfall was "manufactured by Governor Walker's own insistence on making the deficit worse with the bills he passed in January," Kreitlow said. But Walker cited that shortfall to introduce a "budget repair bill" anyhow -- a fully elective move that includes his plan to end collective bargaining rights for state employees.

"The trigger had not been reached prior to Governor Walker adding to the previous year's deficit by passing bills that didn't create a single job," Kreitlow said.

There may or may not have been a projected surplus this year until Walker's "three conservative tax expenditure bills". I don't know if those are the ones Politifact is claiming don't go into effect until next year. But when you talk about a 2 billion dollar shortfall it sounds scarier than 137 million. With the lower shortfall you can just negotiate with the unions, but with the larger one, "oh my we must stop the evil unions for bankrupting the state or stealing your tax dollars that belong to you".

 

[Frank Newgent]

No alcohol?

A Madison police sergeant noted that people picking up trash around Capitol Square left it cleaner than before the protests began. They even scraped up debris uncovered by melting snow.

He also offered one reason for the lack of violence among the tens of thousands of people demonstrating throughout the week: No alcohol.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_eb54a3dc-3ca3-11e0-b5ab-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[leftysergeant]

There were times of budget shortfalls and surpluses with the unions in place. Everytime some idiot decides it is time for the rich to get more tax breaks, whether on a state or federal level, the ecconomy, as far as working people are concerned, goes into the toilet and the government has a hard time collecting those taxes it still levies.

In the mean time, the investor class gets rich and the Greedy Old Perverts blame the working class for the proiblem.

That's what happened in Wisconsin.