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.
It should be illegal for them to skip out n a vote. Its their most important function. Derailing governmental process because they're going to lose should be at the very least cause for immediate termination but IMO criminal penalties would be more appropriate. Whats ridiculous is people support them.
I was reading a legal briefing earlier today that indicates that they can be removed from office but no criminal penalties, but first they have be be brought back to their offices.. If I can find it again, I'll post the link..
If the stubborn fool of a gov. actually cared about the budget, he would have taken collective bargaining off the table by now and everything would be back to normal.
How far do you think $5M will go ? hint.. not very far.. The governor is doing whats best for his state, regardless of the popularity of the actions..
These deficits that many states are running up against are only going to get worse, we're only at the tip of the ice berg. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Not necessarily.
The reason these deficits suddenly cropped up over the last couple of year is massive drop-off in revenues because of the poor economy. Once the economy picks up then tax revenues will begin to increase again and the deficits will shrink & eventually disappear. It all depends on the economy.
Again, that is for THIS YEAR'S budget only. See my previous comment, and try again.
And no tax breaks were given to "corporate interests," what he did was try to make this a more business-friendly state so we can take in more tax revenue and not have to cut as much. Derrrrr. Anyway, Doyle has already stated that he left him with a deficit. Do some research.
Do some basic Economics 101 research - tax breaks are a very inefficient way of stimulating economic growth. Companies aren't going to expand their businesses unless the demand warrants it. Taxes don't make much of a difference. Heck, a company will just sit on the extra profit without increasing economic activity.
Cutting taxes to "stimulate more tax revenue"? That was tried with Reaganomics and the biggest effect was that the national debt was increased manyfold. Laffer economics or voodoo economics. And the Reagan job creation record was pretty abysmal.
And trying to blow a hole in the budget, then cutting people's wages and benefits has the effect of decreasing spending in the economy. Not to mention laying off folks.
I've never heard of using austerity to grow an economy.
Well, it seems that throwing people out of jobs isn't going to help recover the economy, unless Walker is thrown out of his job of screwing the people of Wisconsin in favor of the Koch brothers and other corporate interests.
Do some basic Economics 101 research - tax breaks are a very inefficient way of stimulating economic growth. Companies aren't going to expand their businesses unless the demand warrants it. Taxes don't make much of a difference. Heck, a company will just sit on the extra profit without increasing economic activity.
Cutting taxes to "stimulate more tax revenue"? That was tried with Reaganomics and the biggest effect was that the national debt was increased manyfold. Laffer economics or voodoo economics. And the Reagan job creation record was pretty abysmal.
And trying to blow a hole in the budget, then cutting people's wages and benefits has the effect of decreasing spending in the economy. Not to mention laying off folks.
I've never heard of using austerity to grow an economy.
Well, it seems that throwing people out of jobs isn't going to help recover the economy, unless Walker is thrown out of his job of screwing the people of Wisconsin in favor of the Koch brothers and other corporate interests.
Its obvious that its you who needs to do some economic 101 educational training. Tax cuts indeed generate revenue.. Capital gains tax revenues for example DOUBLED when they were cut under Bush..
And a company cant just "sit" on the profits.. sitting on profits = tax liability.. Keyword there PROFITS.
And finally.. they arent cutting ANYONES wages.. Try again...
I don't know about the specifics for Wisconsin but what I do know is here in PA and many other states these public sector unions were given some very lucrative deals when the economy was really good in the last decade. Funding them was going to be an issue even with a good economy. They have been running articles in the local newspaper about this looming issue for years now long before the economy collapsed. The collapse of the economy is one thing but that only exacerbated it, at least in PA a Democratic controlled house and Governor failed to fund any of these things in the last decide but instead spent it and increased spending significantly to boot.
- The State Employees Retirement System (SERS), which now covers some 107,000 retired state workers, currently costs state taxpayers about $226 million a year. This is due to rise sevenfold -- to $1.7 billion -- by fiscal 2012-13.
- The Public School Employees Retirement Fund (PSERS), which covers about 168,000 retired teachers, now costs state and local taxpayers a combined $616 million. This obligation will increase to $3 billion -- nearly five times as much --by fiscal 2012-13.
- There are more than 3,000 municipal pension programs, ranging from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to any rural borough with more than three employees. They cover retired police, firemen and non-uniformed workers (no one really knows how many) and they are already behind in their current obligations by at least $5 billion. That is not a typo. They are behind by $5 billion.
I don't know about the specifics for Wisconsin but what I do know is here in PA and many other states these public sector unions were given some very lucrative deals when the economy was really good in the last decade. Funding them was going to be an issue even with a good economy. They have been running articles in the local newspaper about this looming issue for years now long before the economy collapsed. The collapse of the economy is one thing but that only exacerbated it, at least in PA a Democratic controlled house and Governor failed to fund any of these things in the last decide but instead spent it and increased spending significantly to boot.
Here's PA's situation.
You are right about the pensions. The pensions systems are in bad shape for MANY states (though WI's is actually in pretty good shape) - and also for many PRIVATE companies. To a large degree this is because those states (and companies) have not been fully funding those pensions they way they were supposed to be doing (and this is true of both BLUE & RED states AND private firms).
Overall though the vast bulk of the states fiscal problems are NOT the pensions, it's the massive drop-off in revenue that's occured over the last couple of years. Once the economy picks up & tax revenues increase the pension problem will be able to be better dealt with.
If the stubborn fool of a gov. actually cared about the budget, he would have taken collective bargaining off the table by now and everything would be back to normal.
and back to normal is good??
No he is doing just fine to stand firm and get rid of the huge power the unions have had for so long
I fully support him 100%
all the dems have done is to make themselves look like little whinners instead of state senators
like little babies that can not act grown up....pitiful!!
Here's the thing...Walker had lots of people vote for him as well, as did the Republican state senators. The Dems might be doing what their specific constituency wants, but the will of the people of WI is to do what the Republicans want, since they are the ones with the overall majority.
I disagree completely. If there are 20 representative districts and 11 of them are won by Republicans, that doesn't for one second mean the majority of the state wants what the Republicans support. The election is not a battle between two parties. The polls indicate 2 to 1 support for the Democratic position on collective bargaining. I could not care less about what party is in the majority. Is that how you vote? Do you vote for a party or do you vote for a candidate? Can an election be reduced to pure ideology? I would certainly hope not! I wouldn't want to live in that black and white world.
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.
Anyway, Doyle has already stated that he left him with a deficit. Do some research.
