HAPPY BIRTHDAY SCOTT WALKER!

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Mags, you don't appear to have read the Ezra Klein piece, so I'll post the first couple paragraphs...

Posted at 9:36 AM ET, 02/18/2011

Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget

By Ezra Klein

Let's be clear: Whatever fiscal problems Wisconsin is -- or is not -- facing at the moment, they're not caused by labor unions. That's also true for New Jersey, for Ohio and for the other states. There was no sharp rise in collective bargaining in 2006 and 2007, no major reforms of the country's labor laws, no dramatic change in how unions organize. And yet, state budgets collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Taxes had to go up, and spending had to go down, all across the country.

Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don't blame the unions. Not for this recession.

Of course, the fact that public-employee pensions didn't cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn't mean they're not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they've been promised don't exceed what state budgets seem able to bear. But the buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzing the economy, throwing millions out of work, and destroying the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services? The answer to that is not to end collective bargaining for (some) public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.

In fact, it particularly doesn't work for what Walker is attempting in Wisconsin. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank. Instead, it's facing a deficit.

To read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Simple question. My observations from this thread are as follows:

  • Wisconsin now has a balanced budget, based in large part from cutting public employee benefits.
  • Wisconsin has lost a lot of jobs this year.
  • Wisconsin now has a budget deficit, instead of a surplus, since the change in Governor.

Sorry if I've missed something. Let me know where I'm wrong - I'm sure I am.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Mags, you don't appear to have read the Ezra Klein piece, so I'll post the first couple paragraphs...

Posted at 9:36 AM ET, 02/18/2011

Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget

By Ezra Klein

Let's be clear: Whatever fiscal problems Wisconsin is -- or is not -- facing at the moment, they're not caused by labor unions. That's also true for New Jersey, for Ohio and for the other states. There was no sharp rise in collective bargaining in 2006 and 2007, no major reforms of the country's labor laws, no dramatic change in how unions organize. And yet, state budgets collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Taxes had to go up, and spending had to go down, all across the country.

Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don't blame the unions. Not for this recession.

Of course, the fact that public-employee pensions didn't cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn't mean they're not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they've been promised don't exceed what state budgets seem able to bear. But the buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzing the economy, throwing millions out of work, and destroying the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services? The answer to that is not to end collective bargaining for (some) public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.

In fact, it particularly doesn't work for what Walker is attempting in Wisconsin. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank. Instead, it's facing a deficit.

To read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/unions_arent_to_blame_for_wisc.html

Trench - I was referring to your arguments you made in your first email.

No, I didn't read Mr. Klein's comments. He is very partisan, certainly not balanced. No different than reading something that Rush would have to say. No value.

Seems to me, there is an easy solution to this: peg public benefits to be at the 50 percentile of all private benefits, taking into account all private companies. With computers today, it would be easy to plug in each companies plans and cost share (including those companies that don't offer benefits) and derive an average.

Since taxpayers are on the hook, it would make sense to offer the "average" plan that the taxpayers get.

It's too easy of an answer - so it will never happen.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Simple question. My observations from this thread are as follows:

  • Wisconsin now has a balanced budget, based in large part from cutting public employee benefits.
  • Wisconsin has lost a lot of jobs this year.
  • Wisconsin now has a budget deficit, instead of a surplus, since the change in Governor.

Sorry if I've missed something. Let me know where I'm wrong - I'm sure I am.

Chad: #1 and #3 seem in direct opposition?

I'll admit, I don't know the jobs numbers. Since Obama has done nothing for the economy, isn't the more relevant number WI job growth (or lack of it) compared to the other 49 states?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
That's my point, Mags. Someone is not explaining things properly, and I'm wondering what it is - other than if Walker is claiming a balanced budget with what he did, and it's now turning out there is an actual deficit after what he did. Of course, I suppose this is going to be blamed on Obama from supporters of Walker. I just want to know what the situation really is there. It's more of a question - I honestly don't know. I'm not saying either position is correct.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Trench - I was referring to your arguments you made in your first email.

No, I didn't read Mr. Klein's comments. He is very partisan, certainly not balanced. No different than reading something that Rush would have to say. No value.

Seems to me, there is an easy solution to this: peg public benefits to be at the 50 percentile of all private benefits, taking into account all private companies. With computers today, it would be easy to plug in each companies plans and cost share (including those companies that don't offer benefits) and derive an average.

Since taxpayers are on the hook, it would make sense to offer the "average" plan that the taxpayers get.

It's too easy of an answer - so it will never happen.
Comparing Ezra Klein to Rush Limbaugh?? Now, that's funny, Mags... :0074

Mags, you keep kurby away from what I've been saying since February -- Blaming public unions and employees for budget deficits in 45 states, while it may make you feel better about your comparitve position in the private sector and provide some temporary relief to stressed budgets, it's neither the cause of nor the fix for budget deficits. It's just further erosion of the middle-class. I'm truly sorry that you're too blind to see that, buddy.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
That's my point, Mags. Someone is not explaining things properly, and I'm wondering what it is - other than if Walker is claiming a balanced budget with what he did, and it's now turning out there is an actual deficit after what he did. Of course, I suppose this is going to be blamed on Obama from supporters of Walker. I just want to know what the situation really is there. It's more of a question - I honestly don't know. I'm not saying either position is correct.

Chad - the way numbers can be manipulated (figures lie, liers figure), I have a hunch that there are multiple ways to interpret this - all depending on which side of the fence you are looking from....
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Comparing Ezra Klein to Rush Limbaugh?? Now, that's funny, Mags... :0074

Mags, you keep kurby away from what I've been saying since February -- Blaming public unions and employees for budget deficits in 45 states, while it may make you feel better about your comparitve position in the private sector and provide some temporary relief to stressed budgets, it's neither the cause of nor the fix for budget deficits. It's just further erosion of the middle-class. I'm truly sorry that you're too blind to see that, buddy.

The erosion of the middle class is the result of many things, but bringing public/private benefits in line is hardly one of those.

So many people are struggling in private industry - it makes no sense to raise taxes on them just to pay bloated benefits in the public sector. This was an issue that was going to come to a head sooner or later, as the chasm between public and private benefits has been widing for years now.

The problem is, the taxpayers had no say for years while Dems kept giving their base richer and richer benefits. But finally, we voted for change in WI (ring familar?), and voted for somebody that would institute a more level playing field between private and public benefits.

What is so wrong with that? Sounds fair.....:shrug:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top