The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[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.

[phk]

Public sector unions are immoral and they should be abolished.

[Lief 🗽]

This is great:

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Public sector unions are immoral and they should be abolished.

You believe in morality now?

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is great:

Actually really awesome and touching, in a way. Great message.

[John Dibble]

Just to throw in my two cents...

We do need to get rid of teachers' unions. They need to have so little power and influence that their existence would serve no point to anyone. A significant part of this would actually have to involve increasing teacher pay and benefits. With the pay/benefits increase there should be increased responsibility and standards for teachers, of course, so I would expect many current teachers to have to find new jobs under this model, but I imagine with the increased pay people with the right credentials would be more inclined to accept a job as a teacher than they currently would be.

[Gustaf]

This is great:

Actually really awesome and touching, in a way. Great message.

I think the battle of the Wisconsin middle class for more taxpayer money, noble as it may be, is hardly comparable to the battle of the Egyptian people for basic human rights. But that may be just me...

[krazen1211]

http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=11040
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_0c7079a6-d642-11df-9ccd-001cc4c03286.html


How Jim Doyle looted the transportation fund.


In 2005, Doyle also said he was proud of the proposed raids on the transportation fund he was sending to the Legislature.

"My budget transfers $250 million from the transportation fund to support our investment in schools and other key priorities," he said in his February 2005 budget address. "With such a large transportation budget, and so many pressing needs in our state, it's the only responsible thing to do."


Some thought Doyle got a little too creative. In each of his budgets, he transferred money from the transportation fund for a total over the last seven years of $428.5 million, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The move angered road builders and local governments in particular.
Doyle also transferred $200 million from the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund to the state’s general fund in the 2007-2009 budget. The fund is intended to cover money damages for victims of medical malpractice, including past and future medical expenses, and Doyle’s maneuver was challenged in court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that transferring the money was illegal and ordered the state to repay it.






This is part of what explains the large budget hole over the next biennium.

As years went by, GOP resistance became more pronounced. It especially became marked after Doyle used his veto pen in 2005 to excavate $427 million out of the highway account.

As researchers at the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance have stated, the governor used the so-called Frankenstein veto - in which he could cross out words and numbers to create a new sentence from two or more sentences - to pare a 752-word section to 20 words sanctioning the transfer of the $427 million to the general fund to be used education.

[Roemerista]

So it is Democracy in action when democrats disagree with popular will and stop its fruition by denying the convening of the representative body, yet the very legal, and very time honored tradition of filibuster, by Republicans is seen as obstruction of progress. Thus only the majority will is only real when it fits into your little view of the world.

I would not doubt that it is a crime to cause the assembly to convene, so the question remains what sort of punishment is acceptable?

For the record, I am pretty pro-union, but the rule of law should be absolute.

[Inverted Things]

There are a lot of folks worried, and with good cause, about the effect that public union pensions and healthcare will have on local government.  From a philosophical perspective, it is absolutely unfair to the unions to cut their benefits, since the previous generation of union members basically chose lower pay in exchange for better benefits.  And the government acquiesced, as future money seemed easier to promise than present money.

Now, there's philosophical and there's pragmatic.  Given the state of things, some governments are saying "Whoops!  Can't give you what we promised."  And it's not pleasant, but the fact of the situation is that unions probably do have to give some things up.

(Some folks argue that public employee benefits should be cut to be on par with typical private employee benefits, as though it's an axiom that public employees shouldn't have anything better that private employees.  I reject this axiom, as the only arguments in favor of this viewpoint are flavored heavily with sour-grapes.)

According to everything I've read about this current situation, the unions were willing to talk about cutting benefits.  Scott Walker and his friends in the legislature ignored them.  Instead Scott Walker dictated how much their benefits could be cut, AND said that they would lose their collective bargaining rights, AND said that the National Guard would be ready for worker unrest.  (By the way, it's illegal for teacher's unions in Wisconsin to strike; that's why the collective bargaining is so important to them.)

(To translate this to a private sector situation, it seems this is rather like you going to your employer and saying "I understand our firm is having a tough time right now, and you may not be able to pay me what you agreed to.  I'm willing to work with you.  Can we talk?"  And your employer responds "I've already decided to cut your pay by this much, and if you don't like it and try to quit I'll have some hit men bring you to work.")

Now look: I know people lie.  The unions might well have been saying they were willing to accept lower benefits merely for good PR.  The fact is, though, that the unions extended on open hand (perhaps insincerely), and Walker didn't bother to shake it even to humor them.  Instead he responded with a hard slap in the face.

As for the aftermath... you get the union you deserve.  Walker's slap in the face resulted in a teacher pseudo-strike.  Good for them: remind the taxpayers that they have kids to take care of daily, which isn't cheap.  And kudos to the democrats for running away.  It prevents a more permanent poisoning of the union-government relationship, so that the unions might still be willing to negotiate in some good-faith.

[opebo]

While I'm not surprised that the public sector workers are woefully under paid compared to the 'private' sector, I am surprised at the salary levels in your chart.  Most americans make around $12-15/hour, and most people I know with master's degrees wait at table.. so the chart seems a bit dubious.

[Lief 🗽]

This is great:

Actually really awesome and touching, in a way. Great message.

I think the battle of the Wisconsin middle class for more taxpayer money, noble as it may be, is hardly comparable to the battle of the Egyptian people for basic human rights. But that may be just me...

No one is protesting for more taxpayer money. And public employees pay just as much in taxes as everyone else.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

While I'm not surprised that the public sector workers are woefully under paid compared to the 'private' sector, I am surprised at the salary levels in your chart.  Most americans make around $12-15/hour, and most people I know with master's degrees wait at table.. so the chart seems a bit dubious.

Opebo, did you read the chart?

It says total compensation and not only that but it's for Wisconsin workers only.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Damn snowstorm.

[opebo]

It says total compensation and not only that but it's for Wisconsin workers only.

That's still enormous salary.  Most people only get their $12-15/hour as total compensation, as they have no benefits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While I'm not surprised that the public sector workers are woefully under paid compared to the 'private' sector, I am surprised at the salary levels in your chart.  Most americans make around $12-15/hour, and most people I know with master's degrees wait at table.. so the chart seems a bit dubious.

Those numbers for doctorates and professional degrees certainly seem inflated.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Food service department at a historical attraction.

So how do you survive?  And don't you find your poverty would tend to serve as an argument near-at-hand in favor of unions?

I actually like making money, so I show up to work.  And I'm not exactly in poverty.

[jimrtex]

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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

It says total compensation and not only that but it's for Wisconsin workers only.

That's still enormous salary.  Most people only get their $12-15/hour as total compensation, as they have no benefits.

I think it includes insurance coverage as a benefit. The source of chart didn't include anything on methodology though so I can't say for sure.

[memphis]

Food service department at a historical attraction.

So how do you survive?  And don't you find your poverty would tend to serve as an argument near-at-hand in favor of unions?

I actually like making money, so I show up to work.  And I'm not exactly in poverty.

Still living off parents.

[Smash255]

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.

How much impact does the policies Walker put through when he first took office on the deficit?

[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.

[krazen1211]

How much impact does the policies Walker put through when he first took office on the deficit?

Pretty minimally. The money that Jim Doyle borrowed from the medical malpractice fund (and Walker has to pay back) is a much larger quantity.

[Inverted Things]

Looks to me like this is almost over: The troopers union has repudiated their endorsement of Walker, and the unions have said they'll agree to the cuts so long as they keep collective bargaining.  Republicans really can't push things any further without looking vindictive.

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703498804576156964112764614.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/labor-pains-pro-walker-troopers-union-repudiates-endorsement-in-wisconsin.php

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that we only pay the salaries of public employees, but that those of private employees are no concern of ours or are not in any way borne by us is quite mind bogglingly illogical to me, quite frankly.

Why is it any concern of yours again as to what some private client of mine and I agree will be my billing rate?  Why is it any concern of yours, or the public, whether we agree on $250 an hour, or $500 an hour?  And why is it any concern of yours whether I make 200K per year, or 600K, if all paid by private clients?

The way in which I would pay for it depends on who the client is (I'm not sure what type of attorney you are so please forgive my ignorance in that regard). If he's a representative of a corporation that sells products or services, the legal expenses are going to be paid for by higher prices. If he's paying you for a criminal defense, it doesn't have nearly as much direct impact, but increases in the going rate for such services does make them that much more inaccessible to those unable to pay the fees.

I could go on, but again, there is no magic reason why public sector wages are the only ones we pay.

But public sector wages are the only ones in which we cannot easily make individual decisions on whether to pay.  If a private company pays more to its employees than another does, causing it to have have higher prices to generate the same profit, I can easily choose to buy from the other company.   (Note, I may choose to pay the higher price if I perceive that the first company has higher quality as well.)  If I live in Wisconsin, then to change my government service provider, I would have to move, which can be a costly endeavor, especially if I have already put down roots.  Despite that, as the last few censuses have shown, people are generally leaving the higher cost states for less expensive ones.