Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: SF Bay Area (recent MN transplant...go gophers)
148 posts, read 149,409 times
Reputation: 368
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
Wisconsin currently has a 500 million (half billion) SURPLUS
The United States is currently economically strong. As a result, every state that doesn't completely suck has a surplus. Michigan has one. California has a 4 billion dollar one for the next 2 years, and they're notoriously terrible with money.*
Especially in adequate-to-strong economic times, instead of looking at if a surplus exists, you have to take a more nuanced view. How much is the surplus? It is increasing or decreasing? Are there budgetary shortfalls coming up? If you have a 5 billion dollar surplus for a 2 year window that keeps decreasing as that window gets closer, or you see a lot of shortfalls from a state that weren't there before, it's not a good sign. Take Kansas, for example...as of June 2014, they had a surplus of $27 million for FY2015. That's not bad, right? A surplus is better than a deficit, at least, right? Well, that surplus used to be $700 million two years before.** With perspective, a fairly rosy picture turns into something straight out of an economist's nightmares.
But this is about Wisconsin, so let's do a bit of comparing to its sister state, Minnesota. Both have fairly similar economies, both were facepunched by the 2008 recession. At the time Gov. Dayton (D) and Gov. Walker were sworn in in January 2011, they were expecting a budget deficit for the FY 2014-15 biennium of $4.4 billion (for Minnesota)*** and $3.6 billion (for Wisconsin). Walker, as many have noted in this thread, has dropped that deficit down to approximately $2 billion, which sounds nice at first glance. Then you compare it to Minnesota, who brought theirs down to $627 million in early 2013...and if we're going to be honest, I couldn't find any results for "Minnesota budget deficit" so I assume it's gone at this point. They also slashed their unemployment rate by 1.4% in comparison to Wisconsin's 0.8% since January 2011, and have a budget surplus of over $1 billion dollars.**** Wisconsin has shortfalls and deficits. Minnesota doesn't, and they also have far, far better economic numbers across the board.
In other words, without perspective, Walker's 33% cut to WI's budget deficit and $500 million surplus are good signs. With perspective, they're signs that he and the rest of the state are getting their economic asses kicked up and down the St. Croix River.
It was 3 billion when he became governor and now it's 2 billion. Only a Democrat would think that is going in the wrong direction.
You mean like how the deficit has been going down year after year for Obama lately? I mentioned that in a thread here, and a ton of Republicans posted about how bad it was.......
Seriously though, compare it to neighboring states. Is it better? Absolutely! Is it better compared to them? uhmmmmmmm...no.
But lets be fair, at least he didnt do what Kansas did....
You mean like how the deficit has been going down year after year for Obama lately? I mentioned that in a thread here, and a ton of Republicans posted about how bad it was.......
Seriously though, compare it to neighboring states. Is it better? Absolutely! Is it better compared to them? uhmmmmmmm...no.
But lets be fair, at least he didnt do what Kansas did....
Very different when you compare the Governor of Wisconsin taking the deficit of that state down and Obama doubling the US deficit. You cannot compare states which have to control their deficit's to the US government, which does not....can you not see how different that is?
As for Obama's performance, he rocketed the deficit skyward when the Dems controlled all 3 branches and the deficit has been coming down since Repubs took the House and now the Senate.
I have stopped my harsh criticism of Obama's performance of late even though, imo, it only got better because Repubs took the Congress and reigned in the drunken sailor spending spree that Nancy, Harry, and then Obama took us on.
Location: SF Bay Area (recent MN transplant...go gophers)
148 posts, read 149,409 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
As of 1/17/2015, it was 977 million, up from 500 million just months prior.
Thank you for the update, that's a much better sign for both Walker and the state. Very good to hear.
Even with that jump, though, they're still unfortunately not better than their economic sister state in Minnesota...surplus, UE rate, or really any other statistical metric of economic growth. This recent news about the shortfall won't necessarily help either, especially if Walker wants to promote more tax cuts into his economic policy for the next FY. He might have to wait until that $280 million hole is gone first.
The United States is currently economically strong. As a result, every state that doesn't completely suck has a surplus. Michigan has one. California has a 4 billion dollar one for the next 2 years, and they're notoriously terrible with money.*
Especially in adequate-to-strong economic times, instead of looking at if a surplus exists, you have to take a more nuanced view. How much is the surplus? It is increasing or decreasing? Are there budgetary shortfalls coming up? If you have a 5 billion dollar surplus for a 2 year window that keeps decreasing as that window gets closer, or you see a lot of shortfalls from a state that weren't there before, it's not a good sign. Take Kansas, for example...as of June 2014, they had a surplus of $27 million for FY2015. That's not bad, right? A surplus is better than a deficit, at least, right? Well, that surplus used to be $700 million two years before.** With perspective, a fairly rosy picture turns into something straight out of an economist's nightmares.
But this is about Wisconsin, so let's do a bit of comparing to its sister state, Minnesota. Both have fairly similar economies, both were facepunched by the 2008 recession. At the time Gov. Dayton (D) and Gov. Walker were sworn in in January 2011, they were expecting a budget deficit for the FY 2014-15 biennium of $4.4 billion (for Minnesota)*** and $3.6 billion (for Wisconsin). Walker, as many have noted in this thread, has dropped that deficit down to approximately $2 billion, which sounds nice at first glance. Then you compare it to Minnesota, who brought theirs down to $627 million in early 2013...and if we're going to be honest, I couldn't find any results for "Minnesota budget deficit" so I assume it's gone at this point. They also slashed their unemployment rate by 1.4% in comparison to Wisconsin's 0.8% since January 2011, and have a budget surplus of over $1 billion dollars.**** Wisconsin has shortfalls and deficits. Minnesota doesn't, and they also have far, far better economic numbers across the board.
In other words, without perspective, Walker's 33% cut to WI's budget deficit and $500 million surplus are good signs. With perspective, they're signs that he and the rest of the state are getting their economic asses kicked up and down the St. Croix River.
California currently is enjoying a budget surplus — on a cash-accounting basis. That surplus was made possible in no small part by putting off payments to the nation’s two largest pension plans, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). Those two pension funds already have something north of $300 billion in unfunded liabilities between the two of them, and they need billions of dollars every year in additional funding just to avoid going even deeper underwater. California is predicting a $3.2 billion surplus for 2014–15, but the state needs to put at least $5 billion into its pensions to stay even. It is not doing so, which means that all Governor Brown has accomplished is to push today’s pain into the future, when it will be endured with interest.
Quote:
(CNN) -- Over the past weekend, Gov. Jerry Brown of California took to the safety of YouTube to reveal that the Golden State's budget deficit is now $15.7 billion, far greater than the original $9.2 billion estimate in January.
California state taxes, already some of the highest in the nation, brought in an anemic 20% less revenue than expected in April, causing California's deficit to nearly double in only four months. On Monday, Brown released a revised budget plan. California Dreamin' it may be better known as.
Brown's budget calls for new spending cuts, to which state workers have yet to agree; even higher taxes, at which voters may balk; and rosy revenue assumptions, which already came up massively short in April.
A Series of Spending Scandals
The summer of 2012 brought the disclosure of pay raises to hundreds of legislative staff members, many already making six figures. In a bigger setback, state parks administrators acknowledged that employees kept a budget surplus of nearly $54 million hidden even as the park system faced cutbacks and dozens of closings.
Such missteps — along with Mr. Brown’s support of a $68 billion high-speed rail project at a time when the state supposedly does not have money for schools — show why democrats are just now up for the job
You mean like how the deficit has been going down year after year for Obama lately? I mentioned that in a thread here, and a ton of Republicans posted about how bad it was.......
Seriously though, compare it to neighboring states. Is it better? Absolutely! Is it better compared to them? uhmmmmmmm...no.
But lets be fair, at least he didnt do what Kansas did....
Quote:
the deficit has been going down year after year for Obama lately
no it hasn't...the deficits have NOT fallen under Obama....he has had trillion dollar deficits every year except one
Quote:
Quote:
LOOK AT THE NUMBERS
10/01/2009................................ 11,920,519,164,319.42
09/30/2010................................ 13,561,623,030,891.79
1,641,103,866,572............................1.6 trillion deficit fy10
10/01/2012.................................16,159,487,01 3,300.35
09/30/2013.................................16,738,183,52 6,697.32
578,696,513,397..............................578 billion deficit fy13......the only year under one trillion
10/01/2013................................. 16,747,478,675,335.18
09/30/2014................................. 17,824,071,380,733.82
1,076,592,705,398..............................1.0 7 trillion deficit fy14 which just ended
1.6 trillion DEFICIT
1.17 trillion DEFICIT
1.27 trillion DEFICIT
578 Billion DEFICIT (the only year under a trillion since fy09)
1.07 Trillion DEFICIT (this last fy that ended 65 days ago )
the fact is the democats have added 10 trillion in debt since they took over in 06..... we are currently at 18 trillion in debt....more than our entire yearly gdp........
no it hasn't...the deficits have NOT fallen under Obama....he has had trillion dollar deficits every year except one
the fact is the democats have added 10 trillion in debt since they took over in 06..... we are currently at 18 trillion in debt....more than our entire yearly gdp........
It's as if the Republicans sent us into a recession or something. Guess we will never know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
