The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Beet]

For those supporting the unions, how would you close Wisconsin's budget gap?

[Beet]

This is hard to believe. Walker's changes only affected hundreds of millions. It would not be enough to turn a $100 million surplus into a $2-$3 billion deficit.

[Beet]

This is hard to believe. Walker's changes only affected hundreds of millions. It would not be enough to turn a $100 million surplus into a $2-$3 billion deficit.

There is no billion dollar deficit. Walker is just lying.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

You want us to believe that TPM is the only one to pick up on a bald faced lie? The Leg. Fiscal Bureau's report is clearly measuring something different than the projected budget, based on spending plans. I really don't think this is the appropriate line of attack, px75.

Aiming at the draconian nature of the attack on the unions' bargaining rights might be more fruitful. Also, Smash255's comments in the other thread about how the law enforcement and firefighter unions shared in the sacrifice, just as much money could be saved.

[Beet]

px,

cinyc is citing Politifact (Pulitzer prize, called Michelle Bachmann "beyond preposterous", acknowledged that the stimulus created 1 million jobs, etc. etc. etc).

You're citing TPM, an obviously unhinged Madison newspaper editorial, and a legislative document with no context which you are almost surely misinterpreting. Your story-- that a $1.5 billion deficit as of late 2010 was transformed into a $100 million surplus in early 2011, which was transformed back into a $2-3 billion deficit by $140 million in budget changes by the Walker administration is makes no sense on face. If the roles were reversed, all of us would be saying that it's another example of how the tea party, the birthers, etc. have driven the GOP off the rails. Let's not do the same thing.

Here's more from the Progressive blog Wisconsin Budget Project:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Beet]

See my comments in the other thread.

[Beet]

This video pretty much describes how I feel without me feeling the need to go on a long tangent about it myself.

This has nothing to do with the budget, this has nothing to do with anything. This is about politics. It is about crippling the Democratic Party in Wisconsin and beyond. This is about winning elections. Nothing less.

px,

cinyc is citing Politifact (Pulitzer prize, called Michelle Bachmann "beyond preposterous", acknowledged that the stimulus created 1 million jobs, etc. etc. etc).

You're citing TPM, an obviously unhinged Madison newspaper editorial, and a legislative document with no context which you are almost surely misinterpreting. Your story-- that a $1.5 billion deficit as of late 2010 was transformed into a $100 million surplus in early 2011, which was transformed back into a $2-3 billion deficit by $140 million in budget changes by the Walker administration is makes no sense on face. If the roles were reversed, all of us would be saying that it's another example of how the tea party, the birthers, etc. have driven the GOP off the rails. Let's not do the same thing.

I haven't taken the time to look up anything about the budget situation in Wisconsin, so I don't pretend to know everything about it. (Because, frankly, this issue has nothing to do with the budget. The budget is the excuse.)

If this was about the deficit in Wisconsin, why pass nearly 200 million dollars in tax cuts as one of your first actions in a state with a supposedly critical budget situation? If unions must sacrifice, why not even try to negotiate with them? Why go whole hog and effectively remove the ability for these unions to negotiate and collectively bargain at all? If you're going to take this drastic action, why exempt the three unions that, conveniently, supported your election bid, while taking the knife to everyone else?

This has nothing to do with the budget. This isn't even about public employee unions trimming up their salaries at all. Negotiating over cuts is one thing, and maybe you could even provide a winning argument that that is what is needed, but Walker didn't negotiate, he never wanted to negotiate, he proposed something and wanted it passed immediately that went straight for the jugular of the unions in Wisconsin. (Which, in and of itself, actually has nothing to do with the deficit anyway.)

This is about politics. It's about winning elections. What we are witnessing here is the first major power grab against unions in the new modern American economy. The powers that be have taken off their gloves. (God, I hate sounding like this, but it's the truth.) They're not hiding anymore, they're not pretending anymore. They have the numbers right now and while they've got them, they're going wild. If it isn't stopped here, the consequences will be dire, not just politically, but economically and socially. All because of Wisconsin.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint. Here's the thing that gets me, though. You say this issue has nothing to do with the budget. Yet the outcome of this battle will surely impact the budget, not only in Wisconsin but in many other states, and not only this year but for many years to come. I mean, when does it become about the budget? We've been putting off the budget discussion for 10 years, which is why we're in this mess to begin with. In Washington, they're not seriously discussing it either. I demand to have the budget discussion. And since no one is giving it to me, I want to take it where-ever I can get it, including this union-busting bill. In other words, I'm not buying px75's bullsh**t. Even the Ezra Klein blog post makes no refutation of the $2 billion-$3 billion deficit claim. So the cuts have to come somewhere. Where do you think they should come?

[Beet]

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint. Here's the thing that gets me, though. You say this issue has nothing to do with the budget. Yet the outcome of this battle will surely impact the budget, not only in Wisconsin but in many other states, and not only this year but for many years to come. I mean, when does it become about the budget? We've been putting off the budget discussion for 10 years, which is why we're in this mess to begin with. In Washington, they're not seriously discussing it either. I demand to have the budget discussion. And since no one is giving it to me, I want to take it where-ever I can get it, including this union-busting bill. In other words, I'm not buying px75's bullsh**t. Even the Ezra Klein blog post makes no refutation of the $2 billion-$3 billion deficit claim. So the cuts have to come somewhere. Where do you think they should come?

Of course not. The idea is to lie and pretend that this action is about the last couple months of this year's budget, when its actually about the next 2 years worth of budgets and red ink.

Doyle unfortunately expanded government health care for the poor during his tenure and blew through any sort of cash balance he could get his hands on, such as the transportation and medical malpractice funds.

Yeah, I'm very disappointed that the Democrats here try to pretend as if Wisconsin has no budget problems and need no cuts. There are legitimate objections to what Walker's doing which have been brought up, so the bald faced lies are unnecessary.

Face reality people.

[Beet]

So how much of an idiot is this governor? Now, I am certainly no fan of public employee unions and perhaps they are being coddled in Wisconsin, I am not sure. I have seen his proposals to increase the contributions workers make to their healthcare and pensions and I agree with that. But where things go awry is when he tries to take away collective bargaining rights from the employees.

What does taking away the rights of unions to collect dues have to do with the deficit? What does having to have a yearly vote to keep your union together have to do with the deficit? This moron overreached and it's sad Republicans here can't see that. I also don't like public employee unions, but this bill goes above and beyond just taking away plush benefits from them. Keep the unions in line, but don't take away people's rights to form them.

Right. Just take out that part and this bill would be fine.

[Beet]

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

(snip)_

Here is the document. Enjoy reading.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Wisconsin requires that a general account balance of $65 million.  So the projected net balance was $56 billion.

But you apparently did not read Page 3, which noted the $153 million shortfall in Medicaid and $22 million in corrections budget just to get through June.

You would also have known about those if you had read the fiscal note for the pending legislation.

And you also ignore the $60 million that Wisconsin owes Minnesota, and the $200 million that Wisconsin illegally transferred from the Patients Compensation Fund in 2007-9.  Read Page 2

That still doesn't get anywhere near the $3.6 billion that Walker is claiming. It's true that the state probably has a shortfall that large based on projected agency requests for future years, but that report is pretty misleading.

[Beet]

Overtime is part of it. They all call in sick (personal days) at the same time, so the place is "understaffed," and overtime needs to be paid. They take turns. They must have a spreadsheet to manage it all. Overtime is particularly toxic, because their bloated defined benefit plan compensation gets a steroidal boost from playing the overtime game. It is really quite a dirty little nest that they inhabit.

Well its great that they can do that, Torie.  Do you propose that no one may be allowed to be ill?  Or that there be the same hourly pay for persons working over the 40 hour week?  People died in the 1930s fighting for these (incredibly meager) rights..  I'd hate to see them go just because your class wants more golden toilet bowls.

The people in the 1930s died for union rights in the private sector. Unfortunately they were undercut by Alabama, Arizona, Oklahoma and Texas. Wake me up when there's a UAW chapter striking at the Hyundai plant.

[Beet]

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

(snip)_

Here is the document. Enjoy reading.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Wisconsin requires that a general account balance of $65 million.  So the projected net balance was $56 billion.

But you apparently did not read Page 3, which noted the $153 million shortfall in Medicaid and $22 million in corrections budget just to get through June.

You would also have known about those if you had read the fiscal note for the pending legislation.

And you also ignore the $60 million that Wisconsin owes Minnesota, and the $200 million that Wisconsin illegally transferred from the Patients Compensation Fund in 2007-9.  Read Page 2

That still doesn't get anywhere near the $3.6 billion that Walker is claiming. It's true that the state probably has a shortfall that large based on projected agency requests for future years, but that report is pretty misleading.

How is the report misleading?  It mainly is concentrated on 2010-1.  It does make revenue projections for 2011-2013.

The pending legislation does include the Medicaid and Corrections funding for the fiscal biennium that ends in June, though I think it is a bit less than the note

Because Governor Walker claims that there is $3.6 billion multi-year deficit, and an at least $2 billion deficit has been backed up by multiple sources, yet the report neither mentions this figure nor explains how the 2010/2011 figures could be so different from the projections to 2013.

Instead, they spend a great deal of time trying to predict national macroeconomic variables which don't necessarily have bearing on Wisconsin, nor are they the ones in the best position to make such predictions.

[Beet]

Edit: fixed quoting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Governor Walker claims that there is $3.6 billion multi-year deficit, and an at least $2 billion deficit has been backed up by multiple sources, yet the report neither mentions this figure nor explains how the 2010/2011 figures could be so different from the projections to 2013.

Instead, they spend a great deal of time trying to predict national macroeconomic variables which don't necessarily have bearing on Wisconsin, nor are they the ones in the best position to make such predictions.

The introduction says: "In the odd-numbered years, our report includes estimated revenues and expenditures for the current fiscal year and tax collection projections for each year of the next biennium. This report presents the conclusions of our analysis."

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau does not have any power to appropriate funds.  Their purpose is to produce information on which the legislature can make decisions.  They can make projections on future revenues.  They can provide information on the current budget, and highlight unfunded liabilities of the state, and whether the current appropriations will meet the actual needs of the state.

How is this in any way misleading?  Who is being mislead?

BTW, the fiscal note on benefit cuts for government employees show a much larger savings for local governments than for the state government.

jimrtex,

Have you been reading this thread? Or following this debate? MASSIVELY disparate numbers are being thrown around, this report is being cited with no context, and it is being used to make claims that are in no way addressed to the report.

I already explained why it's misleading. Nothing in your first reply to me indicated an engagement with my explanation of why it's misleading, nor did anything in your second reply. You continue to make irrelevant statement that do not address my issues. I see no point in repeating myself for a third time. But if you look around the internet on the claims and counter claims and the links to this PDF, you should see. This PDF has become complete political fodder without any context whatsoever.

It's a disaster.

[Beet]

jimrtex,

Are you the author of this report? In case you haven't noticed, I never accused you of misleading anyone. I never said you were responsible for jack. I never even addressed you until you responded to me with a question. I answered. You never acknowledged receiving the answer, repeated it, and are now defending yourself against a charge that I never made of you. I am not interested in what you personally did at the Wisconsin web site after reading this story. And I can't continue this bizzare exchange in which I only respond to you and you never respond to me.