The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Smash255]

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.

Actually no.  More than 1/2 the deficit is caused by Walker's programs.

[krazen1211]

Actually no.  More than 1/2 the deficit is caused by Walker's programs.

The ones that don't go into effect until next year?

Jim Doyle conceded that there was a structural deficit last November.

[krazen1211]

The actual truth calculated by an outside economist, not the bs tossed by the liberals.


http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers/reschovsky2010-016.pdf


Projected deficit:


Two-year total $2.877 billion


In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state must return $200 million to the
state’s Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund that it had transferred to the
General Fund in October 2007. The courts have not yet determined a schedule for the
transfer.  If part or all of the required transfer is scheduled during the next biennium, the
state’s structural fiscal deficit could be as large as $3.1 billion.

[King]

Actually no.  More than 1/2 the deficit is caused by Walker's programs.

The ones that don't go into effect until next year?

Isn't this whole fight about the excessive cuts for the massive deficit projected for next year?  There's a deficit for this year, sure, but these would not have been necessary with Doyle's projected budget deficit.

[Smash255]

The actual truth calculated by an outside economist, not the bs tossed by the liberals.


http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers/reschovsky2010-016.pdf


Projected deficit:


Two-year total $2.877 billion


In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state must return $200 million to the
state’s Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund that it had transferred to the
General Fund in October 2007. The courts have not yet determined a schedule for the
transfer.  If part or all of the required transfer is scheduled during the next biennium, the
state’s structural fiscal deficit could be as large as $3.1 billion.

That report was from BEFORE Walker's new programs.

The state does have a deficit problem, but Walker made the problem much worse and then decided to go after the Teachers and Unions to fix a budget problem, that he helped make much worse in the first place.   

Get rid of the programs that Walker pushed for when he took office that exploded the deficit even more.  Perhaps include all the Unions and not just the ones Gov Walker does not like.  Doing something like that would result in less extreme givebacks being forced from the Unions, the ability to keep the Collective Bargaining Rights, and perhaps yes some cutbacks, but something perhaps everyone can agree with.

That is a better alternative to going full throttle for the Unions in order to help close a deficit you helped double.

[jimrtex]

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

I only found three bills that had an effect on revenue (they are all mentioned in the report from the Fiscal Bureau.

One would extend the federal deduction for Health Savings Accounts to the Wisconsin income tax.  Two would provide tax incentives for new hires and businesses that relocate to Wisconsin.  The bill on relocating appears to be very tightly drawn - that no business have been done in the state in the previous 10 years.  And the benefit must be directed at small business because it shows up as a revenue loss from the individual income tax rather than the corporate income tax.  These will apply to tax year 2011, and show up in fiscal year 2012 when taxes are paid.

IIRC. I think the fiscal note was around $100 million for the biennium.

[krazen1211]

The actual truth calculated by an outside economist, not the bs tossed by the liberals.


http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers/reschovsky2010-016.pdf


Projected deficit:


Two-year total $2.877 billion


In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state must return $200 million to the
state’s Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund that it had transferred to the
General Fund in October 2007. The courts have not yet determined a schedule for the
transfer.  If part or all of the required transfer is scheduled during the next biennium, the
state’s structural fiscal deficit could be as large as $3.1 billion.

That report was from BEFORE Walker's new programs.

The state does have a deficit problem, but Walker made the problem much worse and then decided to go after the Teachers and Unions to fix a budget problem, that he helped make much worse in the first place.   

Get rid of the programs that Walker pushed for when he took office that exploded the deficit even more.  Perhaps include all the Unions and not just the ones Gov Walker does not like.  Doing something like that would result in less extreme givebacks being forced from the Unions, the ability to keep the Collective Bargaining Rights, and perhaps yes some cutbacks, but something perhaps everyone can agree with.

That is a better alternative to going full throttle for the Unions in order to help close a deficit you helped double.

What programs?

[Smash255]

The actual truth calculated by an outside economist, not the bs tossed by the liberals.


http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers/reschovsky2010-016.pdf


Projected deficit:


Two-year total $2.877 billion


In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state must return $200 million to the
state’s Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund that it had transferred to the
General Fund in October 2007. The courts have not yet determined a schedule for the
transfer.  If part or all of the required transfer is scheduled during the next biennium, the
state’s structural fiscal deficit could be as large as $3.1 billion.

That report was from BEFORE Walker's new programs.

The state does have a deficit problem, but Walker made the problem much worse and then decided to go after the Teachers and Unions to fix a budget problem, that he helped make much worse in the first place.   

Get rid of the programs that Walker pushed for when he took office that exploded the deficit even more.  Perhaps include all the Unions and not just the ones Gov Walker does not like.  Doing something like that would result in less extreme givebacks being forced from the Unions, the ability to keep the Collective Bargaining Rights, and perhaps yes some cutbacks, but something perhaps everyone can agree with.

That is a better alternative to going full throttle for the Unions in order to help close a deficit you helped double.

What programs?

Economic Development Plan
Health Savings Accounts
Corporate Tax Incentives.

[cinyc]

Actually no.  More than 1/2 the deficit is caused by Walker's programs.

That, quite simply, isn't true.  As I've said numerous times with supporting links, even the outgoing DEMOCRATIC governor estimated the deficit for the next biennial period to be $2.1 billion.  Please cite ANY estimate of Wisconsin's 2011-2013 budget gap as $4.2 billion. And that $2.1 billion figure was highly optimistic and unrealistic.  Every other estimate was higher.  So to double the deficit, the evil Republicans would likely have had to raise it to about $6 billion.  That simply hasn't happened.  The highest estimate I've seen is $3.6 billion.

Walker and the evil Republicans caused the deficit to double about as much as Jim DeMint started the recession.

[jimrtex]

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.

Let's put it in the context of this thread:

Landslide Lyndon cited the report as showing that there was no deficit at the start of this year, in fact a surplus of $121 million (while this seems like a lot, it is about 1% of annual revenue).

I explained that the report also showed:

(1) That Wisconsin is required to maintain a minimum account balance of $65 million, so the net balance was $56 billion.

(2) The report showed substantial current needs in Medicaid and Corrections that no money has been appropriated for in the current fiscal biennium.

(3) That Wisconsin has a couple of debts that have not been addressed (a) Of about $60 million to Minnesota, which presumably can be turned over to collection agencies.  What happens if a tow truck pulls up at 3 AM and drives off with Lambeau Field?  (b) $200 million that was transferred to the general fund, which has been found to have been illegal, and in which a court hearing will be held in March with regard to putting back the purloined funds.

How is that not responsive to Landslide Lyndon's claims?

You apparently inferred that I was responding to some other discussion (eg "if you look around the internet on the claims and counter claims and the links to this PDF:).  I am not responsible for all claims and counterclaims that may be made on the internet.

You were inferring words that I did not write.

When I first read about the situation in Wisconsin, I went to the Wisconsin legislature web site, and read the budgets for past few years.  I also read this report.  I also went to the current bills for the special session and read several, in particular the three bills mentioned in the report, and read their fiscal notes.  I also found the controversial bill and saw that it included the appropriations for Medicaid and Corrections that were identified in the report.

For something to be misleading, there has to be a misleader and the misled.

Is the Legislative Fiscal Board misleading the legislators in that report?  If so, how so?

Was Jimrtex misleading Landslide Lyndon or Beet?  If so, how so?

[jimrtex]

The actual truth calculated by an outside economist, not the bs tossed by the liberals.


http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers/reschovsky2010-016.pdf


Projected deficit:


Two-year total $2.877 billion


In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state must return $200 million to the
state’s Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund that it had transferred to the
General Fund in October 2007. The courts have not yet determined a schedule for the
transfer.  If part or all of the required transfer is scheduled during the next biennium, the
state’s structural fiscal deficit could be as large as $3.1 billion.

That report was from BEFORE Walker's new programs.

What are Walker's new programs?  Have these been put into legislation, in which case you could cite the bill numbers, and we could go check the fiscal notes.  Or did Walker make some decrees?

Get rid of the programs that Walker pushed for when he took office that exploded the deficit even more.

Which new programs?  Be specific.

[jimrtex]

What programs?

Economic Development Plan
Health Savings Accounts
Corporate Tax Incentives.

AB 3 provides tax credit for businesses that relocate to Wisconsin.  $280,000 over biennium.  Passed House 82-12; Passed Senate 24-9.

AB7 provides a tax credit for small businesses (less than $500,000 gross receipts, so we're talking fewer than 10 employees).  In addition, almost all of the impact is on individual income so it must be mainly Subchapter S corporations and partnerships.  Cost $81 million over biennium.  Passed by House 60-37; Passed by Senate 25-8.

SB 2 adds deduction for Health Savings Account to match federal deduction.  Cost $48 million over biennium.  Passed by Senate 21-12; Passed by House 66-28.

SB 6 creates Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.  Cost indeterminate.  May produce reduction in expenditures based on termination of Department of Commerce programs.  Passed by Senate 29-12; Passed by House 59-33.

So that is $129 million over the biennium, or about 1/2 of 1% of state revenue.  Moreover, they are statically scored, they most likely will result in increased private economic activity in Wisconsin.

The Economic Development Corporation may well reduce expenditures in the Department of Commerce.

The "corporate tax incentives" will be almost entirely reflected on individual income taxes.  So if they are going to corporations it is to Subchapter S corporations.  The small businesses will either hire more people, or the owner will spend more of his profits on consumption, or will otherwise invest it.

The HSA deduction simply makes Wisconsin income taxes consistent with federal income taxes.  Any money "saved" will probably actually be spent on health services provided in Wisconsin.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?



Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.


If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

[Torie]

Apparently the teachers have folded on the financial issues. So now it is apparently all about castrating the public employee non public safety union(s). And so it goes.

Am I missing anything? 

[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.

[krazen1211]

Here it comes. Fight back!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49919_Page3.html


There had been some fear from Democrats earlier Monday that Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald might try to separate the collective bargaining provisions from the overall budget bill and hold a vote on the legislation’s most controversial piece, because it technically does not involve the budget and would not require a quorum of 20 members. But, for now, Fitzgerald does not intend to do so, according to local reports. A spokesman for Fitzgerald did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Fitzgerald said Republicans may try to force the Democrats to return this week by calling a bill to the floor that would require voters to show identification at polling places - a bill Democrats oppose because they worry it will disenfranchise some voters. And Walker tried to add fear in his press conference Monday night by saying that if the legislature does not act on his budget soon, he will have to lay off 1,500 state workers because of the savings that will be lost.



Time to move on these bills. They will pass unanimously.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Apparently the teachers have folded on the financial issues. So now it is apparently all about castrating the public employee non public safety union(s). And so it goes.

Yep. The cuts aren't the reason that people are pissed, it's getting rid of collective bargaining.

[Lief 🗽]

Apparently the teachers have folded on the financial issues. So now it is apparently all about castrating the public employee non public safety union(s). And so it goes.

Am I missing anything? 

I'm fairly certain that the union reps have agreed to the cuts since the beginning of the protests; this has always been about opposing Walker destroying (yes, that will be the eventual conclusion if this bill is passed) the public employee unions for no financial/budgetary reasons.

[Smash255]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?



Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.


If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

Poor wording on my part.  The budget deficit is going to be higher than thought a few months ago, much of that difference is due to Walker.  Its also not just spending increases, but more tax cuts for wealthy corporations.

[Smash255]

Apparently the teachers have folded on the financial issues. So now it is apparently all about castrating the public employee non public safety union(s). And so it goes.

Am I missing anything? 
[/quote

Yup that is pretty much it.  The teachers have agreed to all the concessions called for by Walker.  This is all about the Collective Bargaining Rights that Walker is trying to take away from the Unions.

[Napoleon]

In wake of agreeing to the concessions, wouldn't that be unnecessary?

[Sbane]

In wake of agreeing to the concessions, wouldn't that be unnecessary?

What will be unnecessary? Busting the unions? That was the whole point of this bill.

The concessions demanded from the unions may be tough, but they are nothing unusual. Similar deals are being cut all over America. This fight is all about whether people should be able to collectively bargain.

[Marokai Backbeat]

In wake of agreeing to the concessions, wouldn't that be unnecessary?

Busting unions and undermining Democratic electoral strength was the point from the very beginning. In Walker's mind, it's very necessary.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And, of course, Ohio is next.

[Sbane]

And, of course, Ohio is next.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I highly support this part of the bill. The most messed up part about public employee unions is when the big shots decide not to take pay cuts, and the new guy is the one who gets axed. It's ridiculous.

Does this bill actually try weakening collective bargaining though, instead of making some common sense reform as to what exactly the unions can bargain for?