Unions under Attack...

[Lucky]

Uh...I have no idea what you're talking about here, as your statement of Wisconsin having a budget surplus is wholly false. At least if you're going to question Gov. Walker's motives, try and cut it from whole cloth.

Let's review the article, shortly after the election (Nov 19, 2010), by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...109275069.html

Lead paragraph:



So, let's get this straight: the Democratic governor at the time conceded Wisconsin was facing a $3+billion dollar deficit - and just to get a third of that deficit fixed, assumed extensive furloughs without pay, no raises, no hires, and.....what's this....cuts in the state health programs. And even that still left a $2.2 billion dollar deficit for the incoming administration to bridge. Handed to it by a Democratic House, Senate and Governor's chair.

And, reading further down in the article, where did about 10% of this remaining $2.2 billion dollar deficit come?



Yes, indeed, our Dem House, Senate, and Governor approved of a $200 billion dollar transfer from the state Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund to the general fund (on the premise that it would be used for health care) - later found by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to be illegal, with the money to be repaid to the fund. Say whatever you will about Walker, but none of his proposals are even remotely as close to as cold-blooded as cashing in a significant chunk of our state's Injured Patients Fund to balance the budget in 2007.

Moreover, the tax cuts you (and Rachel Maddow) mentioned...don't even take place until the next 2-year budget.

You addressed a lot of issues there, but still missed the main one...why is Governor Walker trying to bust all the public unions except fire and law enforcement?

[heyelander]

completely OT, but I swear I've misread this thread title as Unicorns under attack multiple times now.

[frae]

completely OT, but I swear I've misread this thread title as Unicorns under attack multiple times now.

I have heard Gov. Walker doesn't like Unicorns either

[frae]

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/wisconsin_public_servants_already_face_a_compensation_penalty/

An EPI article showing the difference of total compensation for workers in the private sector vs the public sector.

[chancellor]

You addressed a lot of issues there, but still missed the main one...why is Governor Walker trying to bust all the public unions except fire and law enforcement?

I'll have to ask the Clinton question, and find out what you mean by "bust". If you're defining it as limiting the scope of the public sector unions collective bargaining rights, then , yes, he's trying to bust the unions. However, I don't agree with your definition of "bust" in that case, as public sector unions will still have significant rights (negotiating pay, managing grievances, special credit union privileges, and a number of others). And, yes, eliminating collective bargaining on pensions and benefits will almost certainly reduce the deficit long term - cities have used pensions and health benefits as a tool to work around the QEO in the state (Qualifying Economic Offer, typically limited to somewhere near COLA numbers).

Now, if the claim here is that this is all Walker is doing to lower the deficit, that's also quantifiably false. He's also proposing significant other cuts to dozens of programs.

[Erik]

I'll have to ask the Clinton question, and find out what you mean by "bust".

You should be able to answer the essential point of his question regardless, which is "why is he treating two unions differently from the others"?

[Judge Jude]

Maddow, still being lazy, pwned again as per Jason's link:

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.
............

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.
............

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

[frae]

You should be able to answer the essential point of his question regardless, which is "why is he treating two unions differently from the others"?

Snotty shorty answer...

Because at least some of the police and fire unions backed Walker. Not all of them as there seemed to be a real split especially in MIL where Walker's opponent was from.

I am honestly not sure if this is it, but when I was trying to find an explanation that is something I came across.

[chancellor]

You should be able to answer the essential point of his question regardless, which is "why is he treating two unions differently from the others"?

Probably because the two sets of unions have always been treated differently - the police and firefighters have earlier retirement ages to access pensions, much greater latitude on disability, and completely different work rules. Maybe he's Machiavellian enough to divide and conquer. Maybe he just likes cops and firefighters.

If the implication is because it's political, then someone's pretty ignorant about the Wisconsin political scene. Walker received neither of the state of Wisconsin Police Association or Firefighters Association endorsements. He did receive the Milwaukee Firefighters endorsement, but not a dime from the organization.

[Lucky]

Probably because the two sets of unions have always been treated differently - the police and firefighters have earlier retirement ages to access pensions, much greater latitude on disability, and completely different work rules. Maybe he's Machiavellian enough to divide and conquer. Maybe he just likes cops and firefighters.

If the implication is because it's political, then someone's pretty ignorant about the Wisconsin political scene. Walker received neither of the state of Wisconsin Police Association or Firefighters Association endorsements. He did receive the Milwaukee Firefighters endorsement, but not a dime from the organization.

Was he endorsed by the Wisconsin Troopers Association?

[frae]

Was he endorsed by the Wisconsin Troopers Association?

he was...

http://www.scottwalker.org/press-release/2010/09/case-you-missed-it-wisconsin-troopers%E2%80%99-association-endorses-scott-walker-gover

[chancellor]

Was he endorsed by the Wisconsin Troopers Association?

He was, and I looked further, he was endorsed by the Milwaukee Police Association, and not endorsed by the Dane County Police or Firefighters association (the second largest state Police and Firefighters associations, next to Milwaukee).

[Judge Jude]

"Judge Jude is relentless in his pursuit of Maddow"

It's like spotting an unheralded prospect in AA ball, watching the rise to the big leagues - and then watching the prospect "go Hollywood/get lazy" and quit doing the things that sent them in the right direction originally. They have lot of money, but they've squandered their talent...

[Wonderboy]

They have lot of money, but they've squandered their talent...

Squandered Talent would be a good name for a cable commentator.

[Judge Jude]

So would Wolf Blitzer