If 50% (which is pretty typical) of a states budget is spent on PS employees - pension, compensation and healthcare - you'll have a much easier time finding savings in that bucket then trying to save a comparitively few pennies on what the government spends on a company's widget. Reducing the price of a company's possibly inflated widget is not going to close and did not create a 3.x billion dollar deficit that had to be dealt with. Reducing a PS union's employee's inflated benefits and the union's archaic and costly work place rules, on the other hand, suceeded greatly.
Edit and P.S.
Indiana removed CB for PS unions in 2005. THey are not a state facing huge budget issues. There are of course a lot of reasons for that. However, ending PS union CB absoluetly helped greatly.
Last edited by buck; 11-18-11 at 03:22 PM.
Let me guess, the books presented by the local and national news media.
The only possible way that the public employees in the State of Wisconsins can represent 40% of the state's budget is if the state is paying about ten times fair market value for public employee health benefits. While I have no doubt that the state is paying considerably more for health insurance for its employees compared to the same exact health insurance package offered to employees in the private sector by their employers, I seriously doubt it amounts TEN times fair market value.
You need to clear your mind of all the propaganda that has been spoon-fed into your credulous mind and start using a bit of common sense. How many public employees do you know that so much as rise to the level of upper middle class, let alone come anywhere close to the sort of wealth enjoyed by the upper class?
BTW: Most public sector "union bosses" make an absolute pittance compared to private sector "lobbying bosses." You want to know where all your tax dollars really go, you might want to start with the lobbying firms.
Let me tell you how it works, BUCK: Company X wants to win a sweet public works contract to build a tunnel, or a bridge, or a freeway, or a whatever. It hires a lobbying firm to do its dirty work in procuring the contract. This is expensive because there are risks involved, namely the risk of criminal prosecution and serious jail time. The lobbyist has a sit down with the local party boss. There is no direct quid pro quo stated and nothing is signed, but by the end of the meeting both parties understand that Company X will make a considerable donation to the political party which will be split between the local party boss, and the elected public officials who will ultimately steer this very lucrative contract to Company X.
Now, in order to make all this corruption economically sensible for Company X, and worth the risk of criminal prosecution and public disgrace for both the lobbying firm, the political party boss, and the elected public officials, the state MUST overpay Company X for whatever goods and services it provides. This way, everyone gets paid---everyone but the middle class tax payer who unwittingly pays through the nose for the very political corruption and grand larceny that is waged against him and his family.
Last edited by buck; 11-18-11 at 08:31 PM.
Please, try to use some degree of common sense.
Wisconsin's operations budget is 3.67 billion dollars. The state's employee compensation costs 2.11 billion.
The reason to use the operations budget is that it is the budget for the services that the state provides. Most of the rest of the budget is distributed down the chain, where it also goes to public sector employees in the form of salary/wages for teachers, etc.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...s-and-benefit/The memo said employee compensation costs were $2.11 billion, nearly the same as Knapp’s $2.22 billion. However, the memo compared the employee costs to the "state operations" budget, which is only $3.67 billion, to conclude that employee costs make up 60 percent of that budget.
State operations covers only the UW System, corrections, the courts and other state departments -- in other words, direct services provided by state employees. The overall budget includes some $9 billion more that the state takes in and distributes to local governments, schools and individuals.
We asked two other government finance experts for guidance.
Milwaukee County Auditor Jerome Heer said the method used to calculate the 17 percent figure is reliable because it takes into account not only what the state spends to provide direct services but also what it sends to local governments and to individuals.
City of Milwaukee Deputy Comptroller Mike Daun said there is value in the method used to calculate the 60 percent figure in that it relates only to the employee costs as a percentage of direct services.
The biggest increase in spending is in the area of health care ... to make up for the expiration of those stimulus funds which we all know had no effect.
"•The biggest increase in funding by far, in percentage terms, is for health services. Most of this 45% increase is replacement funds for lost federal stimulus dollars. Those stimulus dollars for Medicaid, the heathcare program for the poor, ended in June. Rising enrollments for programs such as BadgerCare Plus also drive the increase."
Wisconsin’s 2011-2013 State Budget | BadgerStat