• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New poll shows majority support Walker recall

buck said:
Please provide a listing of WI's biggest expenses so we can see where all of the tax payer money is really going. That is the only way in which we can all determine what cuts will have the biggest affect. In other words, I'm not sure how you can balance the 3.8 bil. dollar WI shortfall without making cuts to the category that is causing at least 40% of the state's spending and nearly 50% of the local government's spending.

BTW, I would agree in a sense. It really isn't just the public sector employee, it's also the public sector union bosses and the tax payer representitves at the bargaining table that enable them and give away the farm.
Click to expand...

The truth is that it's none of the above. There is NO EVIDENCE that states without collective bargaining for public employees are better off fiscally than states that do allow collective bargaining. The reason that states are suffering now is reduced revenue due to the down economy, along with increased need for services ... due to the down economy. And of course most of these states have balanced budget amendments, so they've prevented themselves from borrowing to get through rough patches. That's all well and good if you maintain a rainy day fund to get you through rough patches, but they haven't done that either.
 
AdamT said:
The truth is that it's none of the above. There is NO EVIDENCE that states without collective bargaining for public employees are better off fiscally than states that do allow collective bargaining. The reason that states are suffering now is reduced revenue due to the down economy, along with increased need for services ... due to the down economy. And of course most of these states have balanced budget amendments, so they've prevented themselves from borrowing to get through rough patches. That's all well and good if you maintain a rainy day fund to get you through rough patches, but they haven't done that either.
Click to expand...

Not quite what I said. Yes, I agree. The recession is a large part of the state's financial woes. However, even without the recession, there would still have been budget holes in WI. If you look at nearly any state's budget, most of their expenses are in PS employees. If you need to balance a budget, that is where the money is going to be able to come from.

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:
buck said:
Please provide a listing of WI's biggest expenses so we can see where all of the tax payer money is really going. That is the only way in which we can all determine what cuts will have the biggest affect. In other words, I'm not sure how you can balance the 3.8 bil. dollar WI shortfall without making cuts to the category that is causing at least 40% of the state's spending and nearly 50% of the local government's spending.

BTW, I would agree in a sense. It really isn't just the public sector employee, it's also the public sector union bosses and the tax payer representitves at the bargaining table that enable them and give away the farm.
Click to expand...

From what books are you gleaning your information?

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.
 
Sig said:
From what books are you gleaning your information?

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, the percentages I provided are accurate. The budget's of the various states will confirm this. Both parties in the state will confirm this. However, you are more then welcome to provide proof that states WI doesn't pay more then 40 percent (I was being on the low-low side of estimates for just salary/wages - not including the rest) of their total budget to PS union employees and the local governments in WI pay roughly 50 percent of their annual budget to PS union employees. I'lll wait patiently.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Actually, the percentages I provided are accurate. The budget's of the various states will confirm this. Both parties in the state will confirm this. However, you are more then welcome to provide proof that states WI doesn't pay more then 40 percent (I was being on the low-low side of estimates for just salary/wages - not including the rest) of their total budget to PS union employees and the local governments in WI pay roughly 50 percent of their annual budget to PS union employees. I'lll wait patiently.
Click to expand...

Dude, if you believe that 40% of the State of Wisconsin's tax revenue goes to paying the salaries and wages of its state workers then you have my sympathies. I don't care where you obtained such information, it is utter nonsense.

Please, try to use some degree of common sense.
 
disneydude said:
What you are failing to recognize is they aren't a "silent majority". You also fail to understand the difference between a statewide seat and district elections.
Even Republicans are turning against this turket. Walker is toast. He made his bed, now its time for him to lie in it.
Click to expand...

Feel free to come back and eat your words in a few months
 
buck said:
Actually, the percentages I provided are accurate. The budget's of the various states will confirm this. Both parties in the state will confirm this. However, you are more then welcome to provide proof that states WI doesn't pay more then 40 percent (I was being on the low-low side of estimates for just salary/wages - not including the rest) of their total budget to PS union employees and the local governments in WI pay roughly 50 percent of their annual budget to PS union employees. I'lll wait patiently.
Click to expand...

Maybe I need new glasses but I'm not seeing any dramatic effect from depriving the public sector workers' bargaining rights. In fact, what I'm seeing is rising spending and deficits.

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2011 - Charts Tables History
 
Sig said:
Dude, if you believe that 40% of the State of Wisconsin's tax revenue goes to paying the salaries and wages of its state workers then you have my sympathies. I don't care where you obtained such information, it is utter nonsense.

Please, try to use some degree of common sense.
Click to expand...

Well, you know. The actual budget figures that the state puts out.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...sin-rep-mark-pocan-says-salaries-and-benefit/
 
AdamT said:
Maybe I need new glasses but I'm not seeing any dramatic effect from depriving the public sector workers' bargaining rights. In fact, what I'm seeing is rising spending and deficits.

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2011 - Charts Tables History
Click to expand...

Seems like Walker has managed to cut the percentage of the total budget dedicated to K12 education by a whopping 2.3%.

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
 
buck said:
Well, you know. The actual budget figures that the state puts out.

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...sin-rep-mark-pocan-says-salaries-and-benefit/
Click to expand...

Did you read the article you linked to? If so, why did you misrepresent what it said?
 
AdamT said:
Did you read the article you linked to? If so, why did you misrepresent what it said?
Click to expand...

There are different ways of taking the numbers. The 60% is most accurate, IMO, since it is dealing with the services that the state actually provides. most of the rest of the state's budget is forwarded to the locals. The locals use a percentage of those funds to pay for their local public sector union employees. I've read that 50.0% of the local's budget is used for PS union employee compensation. Which is why I originally indicated 40.0% of the state's topal spending is used for PS union comp and benefits. You are free to disagree with me, but I feel I am in pretty good company with the comptroller of Milwaukee.
 
buck said:
There are different ways of taking the numbers. The 60% is most accurate, IMO, since it is dealing with the services that the state actually provides. most of the rest of the state's budget is forwarded to the locals. The locals use a percentage of those funds to pay for their local public sector union employees. I've read that 50.0% of the local's budget is used for PS union employee compensation. Which is why I originally indicated 40.0% of the state's topal spending is used for PS union comp and benefits. You are free to disagree with me, but I feel I am in pretty good company with the comptroller of Milwaukee.
Click to expand...

I was going to make a similar comment. The majority of the state budget is sent to locals to pay for...........salaries of teachers, health care providers (and their employees), etc.
 
conservativeguy said:
What did he misrepresent?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't get that either. I thought I had copied enough of that article to make it pretty clear. I also thought I was very clear in what I posted. Shrug.
 
buck said:
There are different ways of taking the numbers. The 60% is most accurate, IMO, since it is dealing with the services that the state actually provides. most of the rest of the state's budget is forwarded to the locals. The locals use a percentage of those funds to pay for their local public sector union employees. I've read that 50.0% of the local's budget is used for PS union employee compensation. Which is why I originally indicated 40.0% of the state's topal spending is used for PS union comp and benefits. You are free to disagree with me, but I feel I am in pretty good company with the comptroller of Milwaukee.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing the cost of state services with the cost of public employee salaries.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
 
buck said:
There are different ways of taking the numbers. The 60% is most accurate, IMO, since it is dealing with the services that the state actually provides. most of the rest of the state's budget is forwarded to the locals. The locals use a percentage of those funds to pay for their local public sector union employees. I've read that 50.0% of the local's budget is used for PS union employee compensation. Which is why I originally indicated 40.0% of the state's topal spending is used for PS union comp and benefits. You are free to disagree with me, but I feel I am in pretty good company with the comptroller of Milwaukee.
Click to expand...

There is only one way to take the numbers: the total state expenditure versus the expenditure for employee salaries. The latter constitutes 17.5% of the former.

It makes no sense to use the direct services number because the state is just as capable of cutting payments to local government as it is of cutting direct services. How could it possibly make sense to ignore 2/3 of the state's spending? It doesn't. It's just an obvious attempt to inflate the significance of payroll.
 
buck said:
Yeah, I didn't get that either. I thought I had copied enough of that article to make it pretty clear. I also thought I was very clear in what I posted. Shrug.
Click to expand...

I agree, the article was crystal clear. I don't know how a person could read it and not immediately ask the question "How was the majority of the state budget that was sent to locals spent?"
 
conservativeguy said:
I agree, the article was crystal clear. I don't know how a person could read it and not immediately ask the question "How was the majority of the state budget that was sent to locals spent?"
Click to expand...

Here's an excellent link for you and Uncle Buck:

Reading Is Fundamental
 
AdamT said:
There is only one way to take the numbers: the total state expenditure versus the expenditure for employee salaries. The latter constitutes 17.5% of the former.

It makes no sense to use the direct services number because the state is just as capable of cutting payments to local government as it is of cutting direct services. How could it possibly make sense to ignore 2/3 of the state's spending? It doesn't. It's just an obvious attempt to inflate the significance of payroll.
Click to expand...

The state itself spends about 60.0% of the money they actually use on PS employee compensation. About 50.0% of the money they forward to the locals is used for PS employee compensation at the local level. In order to arrive at the accurate number of what the PS union employee's cost is to the WI taxpayer, you have to include PS employee compensation at both the local and state level. The number quoted in the article, is obviously just the expenses at the state level.

BTW, Walker's budget did provide less to the locals. In order to allow the locals to make due with a smaller budget, he passed Act 10, which saved the local's a bunch of money in PS employee compensation and work rules.
 
Last edited:
conservativeguy said:
I agree, the article was crystal clear. I don't know how a person could read it and not immediately ask the question "How was the majority of the state budget that was sent to locals spent?"
Click to expand...

To ask that question would make them realize they were wrong. Can't have that now...
 
buck said:
About 50.0% of the money they forward to the locals is used for PS employee compensation at the local level.
Click to expand...

Source for that assertion?
 
buck said:
To ask that question would make them realize they were wrong. Can't have that now...
Click to expand...

It would be more convincing if you answered the question, with references, rather than pulling a number out of your a$$ and acting like it didn't smell.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, even a quarter of Wisconsin Republicans are sick of his ass. You didn't think that people, even Republicans, could be tricked into voting against their own interests forever, did you?

I have previously predicted that, although the Senate is going to flip, Walker will survive the recall. I still stick with this prediction, but admittedly, I am out on a limb now, and I am not sure that this will be the result. Governor Walker is extremely vulnerable now. He has sown a lot of douchebaggery, so it is reasonable to expect him to reap a lot of disgust.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

UP With Unions, Down with the PEOPLE! **** balanced budgets, responsible spending and fiscal sovereignty! Unions gots to be PAID YO.
 
buck said:
To ask that question would make them realize they were wrong. Can't have that now...
Click to expand...

You can ask "that question" all you want. What you cannot do is somehow extrapolate from the article, for absolutely no discernable reason, that 40% of Wisconsin's tax revenue is spent on the salaries of public employees.

You have some explaining to do.

This is not some joke. You are messing with the means of people who earn a modest, middle class income. If you are going to make such a reckless assertion, you damn well better put your cards on the table.

Now, where in the world did you come up with that figure? Show us your math or kindly recant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom