• 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

AdamT said:
Source for that assertion?
Click to expand...

I picked that up a while ago. Sometimes you just accumulate knoweldge, and don't exactly recall what the source was. I live right across the border (5 minutes) from WI, so I hear a lot about what's occuring up there on TV and radio and news papers.

For example, if you asked me for a source confirming that Walker gave less money to the locals, which is what necessitated Act 10 - so they could make due with less funding - I would have a hard time providing. It's just info I picked up a long the way.

I'll see if I can find it again, but I can not promise. However, it you are fair you should be able to acknowledge that it's at least reasonable, since the state itself is spending about 60% of the money they actually use on PS employee compensation. 50.0% at the local level, is in the same ballpark.

When a local government (dem or republican) has to fix a budget, think of the first things they do on the spending side. They request furlough days or layoffs of PS union employees. It must be an awfully big slice of their spending if that is almost always the fall back position -such as just happened in Cook County (Chicago) yesterday. 775 employees laid off to meet budget. Just read it today, so I can provide a link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/cook-county-budget-approv_n_1102374.html
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Source for that assertion?
Click to expand...

I can not vouch for this source. It is not the source I got the infomation from originally and there is info in here that I disagree with. Additionally, it has "Christian" in the name, so prepare yourself for that, it could be painful for one such as yourself. :)
Lastly, this seems to be talking about state spending overall, and is not WI specific.

In 2007-2008 (the most current year data is available) wages and salaries–excluding pension contributions and other benefits– made up 38 percent of state and local current spending. For local governments, wages and salaries represent 46 percent of current spending.
Click to expand...

Is public employee compensation really causing Wisconsin's budget woes? - CSMonitor.com
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
UP With Unions, Down with the PEOPLE! **** balanced budgets, responsible spending and fiscal sovereignty! Unions gots to be PAID YO.
Click to expand...

Care to explain what you are trying to say in your little rant here?
 
buck said:
I can not vouch for this source. It is not the source I got the infomation from originally and there is info in here that I disagree with. Additionally, it has "Christian" in the name, so prepare yourself for that, it could be painful for one such as yourself. :)
Lastly, this seems to be talking about state spending overall, and is not WI specific.

Is public employee compensation really causing Wisconsin's budget woes? - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

I consider the CSMonitor to be a very good source, although I don't know anything about the guest blogger who authored the piece. In any case, the author states that, "[f]or states, salaries and wages account for 26 percent" which is a lot closer to 18% than 60%.
 
AdamT said:
I consider the CSMonitor to be a very good source, although I don't know anything about the guest blogger who authored the piece. In any case, the author states that, "[f]or states, salaries and wages account for 26 percent" which is a lot closer to 18% than 60%.
Click to expand...

Please note, as bolded in what I copied, that excludes PS union employee's pension and other benefits. Additionally, we already know that in WI, the state allocates 60% of their spending - minus what they send to local governments - to state union employees wage and benefits. Let's not go backwards, now. The above link indicates that the local governments spend roughly 46% just on wages/salary.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Please note, as bolded in what I copied, that excludes PS union employee's pension and other benefits. Additionally, we already know that in WI, the state allocates 60% of their spending - minus what they send to local governments - to state union employees wage and benefits. Let's not go backwards, now. The above link indicates that the local governments spend roughly 46% just on wages/salary.
Click to expand...

OK, granted that unions were costing the state money, but that is where Walker's honesty ended, and his dishonesty began. The public sector unions agreed with every single cut that was demanded of them, yet Walker chose to bust the union anyways, even though Walker did not make unions an issue during his campaign. If he had, he would not have been elected in the first place. Walker's dishonesty is the single biggest factor in what led to the popular revolt against him.
 
danarhea said:
OK, granted that unions were costing the state money, but that is where Walker's honesty ended, and his dishonesty began. The public sector unions agreed with every single cut that was demanded of them, yet Walker chose to bust the union anyways, even though Walker did not make unions an issue during his campaign. If he had, he would not have been elected in the first place. Walker's dishonesty is the single biggest factor in what led to the popular revolt against him.
Click to expand...

Actually, he did make unions an issue in his campaign. He may not have mentioned every single thing that would take place - as few, if any, campaign ever does - but he did mention some specific items, such as freeing local governments from arbitration and mediation, voiding parts of union contracts, increasing the benefit contributions. The unions knew this, and ran campaign advertisements against him with this specifc information. I can probably find that again, if you need to see it (see link below).

Lastly, the union's supposed agreement to contribute more was never in writing. They were using that as a talking point, IMO, in order to appear to be wililng to help and try to stop Walker's other reforms, but no actual agreement ever occured. In fact, many of the unions, the ones still under contract, refuse to contribute anymore to benefits.

http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Walker+ATF.pdf
 
buck said:
Please note, as bolded in what I copied, that excludes PS union employee's pension and other benefits. Additionally, we already know that in WI, the state allocates 60% of their spending - minus what they send to local governments - to state union employees wage and benefits. Let's not go backwards, now. The above link indicates that the local governments spend roughly 46% just on wages/salary.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, I think you are jumping to several conclusions. The article you quoted says that the salaries and wages account for 26% of the state's budget, period. My assumption is that that includes state monies allocated to local government. Local government spends 46% of its monies on payroll, but all local revenue doesn't come directly from the state.
 
buck said:
Actually, he did make unions an issue in his campaign. He may not have mentioned every single thing that would take place - as few, if any, campaign ever does - but he did mention some specific items, such as freeing local governments from arbitration and mediation, voiding parts of union contracts, increasing the benefit contributions. The unions knew this, and ran campaign advertisements against him with this specifc information. I can probably find that again, if you need to see it (see link below).

Lastly, the union's supposed agreement to contribute more was never in writing. They were using that as a talking point, IMO, in order to appear to be wililng to help and try to stop Walker's other reforms, but no actual agreement ever occured. In fact, many of the unions, the ones still under contract, refuse to contribute anymore to benefits.

http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Walker+ATF.pdf
Click to expand...

Come on now, don't be ridiculous. He never suggested in any way shape or form that he intended to eliminate public workers' collective bargaining rights, and that is one of the first things he tried to do when he took office. Obviously it was a huge priority for him and one that he chose to keep hidden during the election.
 
AdamT said:
Mmmm, I think you are jumping to several conclusions. The article you quoted says that the salaries and wages account for 26% of the state's budget, period. My assumption is that that includes state monies allocated to local government. Local government spends 46% of its monies on payroll, but all local revenue doesn't come directly from the state.
Click to expand...

For someone that likes to be snarky and pretend others can't read, you sure have some issues.

According to the CS article:
1) Wages and salaries (excluding benefits) made up 38 percent of state and local spending
2) Wages and salaries (excluding benefits) made up 46 percent of only the local's spending
3) Wages and salaries (excluding benefits)account for 26 percent of only the state's spending

Add benefits in, and you are well over 40 percent of the state and local spending going to PS union employees.

For your review, I have copied the relevent piece of the article. You may want to note that wages and salaries are clearly defined in the first line as "exluding pension contributions and other benefits" (Bold). They then say just salary and wages are taking up 38% of state and local spending (underlined). They then break the total (state and local) spending down by local spending (46%)and by state spending (26%). Keep in mind, all of those percentages, do not include pension and other beneifts - strictly salary and wages.

In 2007-2008 (the most current year data is available) wages and salaries–excluding pension contributions and other benefits– made up 38 percent of state and local current spending. For local governments, wages and salaries represent 46 percent of current spending. For states, salaries and wages account for 26 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Come on now, don't be ridiculous. He never suggested in any way shape or form that he intended to eliminate public workers' collective bargaining rights, and that is one of the first things he tried to do when he took office. Obviously it was a huge priority for him and one that he chose to keep hidden during the election.
Click to expand...

I specifically mentioned in my reply that he didn't give every specific item. I don't recall Obama campaining that he was going to go forth with TARPII and all kinds of other things. However, Walker did say that there would be changes to mediation with unions, voiding contracts with unions, and requiring additional funding. So, when Dan indicated that Walker did not make unions an issue during his campaign, he was wrong.
 
buck said:
For someone that likes to be snarky and pretend others can't read, you sure have some issues.

According to the CS article:
1) Wages and salaries (excluding benefits) made up 38 percent of state and local spending
2) Wages and salaries (excluding benefits) made up 46 percent of only the local's spending
3) Wages and salaries (excluding benefits)account for 26 percent of only the state's spending

Add benefits in, and you are well over 40 percent of the state and local spending going to PS union employees.

For your review, I have copied the relevent piece of the article. wages and salries is defined in the first line as "pension contributions and other benefits".
Click to expand...

Again, state and local spending are separate items. State revenue sent to local governments is still state spending.

And I haven't seen any figures suggesting how much benefits cost relative to wages and salaries. I'm sure it's a lot, but let's not pull figures from thin air.

We could probably posit a figure somewhere between what I'm suggesting and what you're suggesting and it would be about right.

All of which is really beside the point, which is that Walker is an ass. The unions had already agreed to essentially all of his demands. There was no reason to bust them. Clearly it was a political move more than a fiscal move, and it's one that he chose not to share with the voters when he was running for office. If he had he probably would not have won.
 
AdamT said:
Again, state and local spending are separate items. State revenue sent to local governments is still state spending.

And I haven't seen any figures suggesting how much benefits cost relative to wages and salaries. I'm sure it's a lot, but let's not pull figures from thin air.

We could probably posit a figure somewhere between what I'm suggesting and what you're suggesting and it would be about right..
Click to expand...

No. No, we can't. We can say, based on the CS monitor related to all states, not just WI, that 38% of the state and loca spending is provided to PS union employees. That's not even counting pension and other benefits. If you add benefits in, the state and loca psending is well above 38%. You can't arbitrarily just say let's pick a number between you and me.

Here's another article with much the same numbers. However, this one includes benefits, and the percentage comes out to 44% of state and local spending.

■Total compensation. Spending on benefits such as health insurance and retirement is not reported to the Census but can be estimated using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adding these costs brings the total costs of compensation for state and local workers to about 44 percent of state and local spending. Some 20 percent of state spending is for employee compensation, compared to about 55 percent of local government spending. [6]
Click to expand...
Some Basic Facts on State and Local Government Workers — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
buck said:
No. No, we can't. We can say, based on the CS monitor related to all states, not just WI, that 38% of the state and loca spending is provided to PS union employees. That's not even counting pension and other benefits. If you add benefits in, the state and loca psending is well above 38%. You can't arbitrarily just say let's pick a number between you and me.

Here's another article with much the same numbers. However, this one includes benefits, and the percentage comes out to 44% of state and local spending.


Some Basic Facts on State and Local Government Workers — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...

Seriously? Your own quote says, without qualification, "Some 20 percent of state spending is for employee compensation."

Walker is the governor -- not the mayor of cheesehead springs.
 
AdamT said:
All of which is really beside the point, which is that Walker is an ass. The unions had already agreed to essentially all of his demands. There was no reason to bust them. Clearly it was a political move more than a fiscal move, and it's one that he chose not to share with the voters when he was running for office. If he had he probably would not have won.
Click to expand...

The contributions would have been a short term savings. Ending the collective bargaining of the unions, where they were negotiating with people friendly to their cause (not the tax payers), was to gain long term savings. Without ending CB, the unions would have gained it all back pretty quickly. Wether it be increased wages, reduced contributions, whatever. In order to set things right for the long term, it was necessary.
 
AdamT said:
Seriously? Your own quote says, without qualification, "Some 20 percent of state spending is for employee compensation."

Walker is the governor -- not the mayor of cheesehead springs.
Click to expand...

I can't decide if you are doing this on purpose just to be difficult, or you really don't understand.
The state has their own PS employees, and pay 20% of their spending in PS employee comp.
The local governments have their own PS employees and pay 55% of their budget in PS employee comp
Combined, 44% of the state's and local's spending is on PS employees.

If you are looking at how much PS unions are costing the state, you need to look at expenses from both a state and local level. You can't just take the state's spending on their PS employees and completely ignore the local's spending on their employees.
 
buck said:
The contributions would have been a short term savings. Ending the collective bargaining of the unions, where they were negotiating with people friendly to their cause (not the tax payers), was to gain long term savings. Without ending CB, the unions would have gained it all back pretty quickly. Wether it be increased wages, reduced contributions, whatever. In order to set things right for the long term, it was necessary.
Click to expand...

Or not.

To me the nail in the coffin of this argument is that there are many states that do no allow public employees to bargain collectively, and on the whole they are in no better shape than those that do. Obviously banning collective bargaining is no panacea.

Again, this is pure politics on Walker's part: an attempt to leverage the recession-caused shortfall to win long-term political gain by f*cking the unions. He goes on about how Wisconsin is broke and he really has no choice ... but he's signed over $100 million in tax cuts so far. Hmm.
 
AdamT said:
Or not.

To me the nail in the coffin of this argument is that there are many states that do no allow public employees to bargain collectively, and on the whole they are in no better shape than those that do. Obviously banning collective bargaining is no panacea.
Click to expand...


As I am sure you are aware, there can be a lot of reasons a state is in bad shape beyond just collective barganing. However, the state that has made the change most recently, Indiana, is doing just great with their budget.

But, if you would like to post a link showing which states do not have PS union collective barganing and what their deficits look like compared to state's that do, i'm more then happy to take a look.
 
danarhea said:
Care to explain what you are trying to say in your little rant here?
Click to expand...

It's obvious, you put PS Unions over the Tax Payer. You put their stranglehold on the tax payer, above the needs, the wants, and the desire of the state. You once claimed to be a "Barry Goldwater" conservative, that was you, in a nut shell. Yet since this whole PS Union bit, where I pointed out how anti-Union Mr Goldwater was, going so far as to refuse to allow them in his own businesses... suddenly you've dropped all pretense of "Conservative" thought or theory and instead embrace the unconscionable position that PS Workers should have a right to Unionize. Even FDR saw the danger of such a collusion, even the AFL-CIO used to realize, before greed of $$ and political power trumped principle, the danger, the corruption that would ensue.

Gov Walker has saved towns, cities and counties as well as getting the state on a good footing, but the Union power grab to get back their POLITICAL and MONETARY influence, threatens to undo the changes.

You support bankrupting states in favor of Union power.

Thus, you are laughably, "conservative"
 
buck said:
I picked that up a while ago. Sometimes you just accumulate knoweldge, and don't exactly recall what the source was. I live right across the border (5 minutes) from WI, so I hear a lot about what's occuring up there on TV and radio and news papers.
Click to expand...

In other words. You don't really know what you're talking about, and are on this forum making ridiculous assertions conceivably based upon little more than gossip. Isn't that right?

When a local government (dem or republican) has to fix a budget, think of the first things they do on the spending side. They request furlough days or layoffs of PS union employees. It must be an awfully big slice of their spending if that is almost always the fall back position -such as just happened in Cook County (Chicago) yesterday. 775 employees laid off to meet budget. Just read it today, so I can provide a link.
Click to expand...

This is your line of reasoning? You have got to be kidding me. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the state reneges on its contracts with public employee unions or lays off its employees full stop is because it is the most expedient way of making emergency cuts in its budget, compared to, say... renegeing on a sweetheart contract it has with some entity in the private sector?
 
MrVicchio said:
It's obvious, you put PS Unions over the Tax Payer. You put their stranglehold on the tax payer, above the needs, the wants, and the desire of the state. You once claimed to be a "Barry Goldwater" conservative, that was you, in a nut shell. Yet since this whole PS Union bit, where I pointed out how anti-Union Mr Goldwater was, going so far as to refuse to allow them in his own businesses... suddenly you've dropped all pretense of "Conservative" thought or theory and instead embrace the unconscionable position that PS Workers should have a right to Unionize. Even FDR saw the danger of such a collusion, even the AFL-CIO used to realize, before greed of $$ and political power trumped principle, the danger, the corruption that would ensue.

Gov Walker has saved towns, cities and counties as well as getting the state on a good footing, but the Union power grab to get back their POLITICAL and MONETARY influence, threatens to undo the changes.

You support bankrupting states in favor of Union power.

Thus, you are laughably, "conservative"
Click to expand...

It is obvious that you, sir, have degenerated into a knee-jerk pseudo-conservative who has been spoon-fed so much nabob horseshate that you are no longer able to think straight.

The worst, most wasteful and insidious corruption lies in the pay-to-play sweetheart contracts which the federal, state, and local governments make with upper-class nabobs in the private sector in exchange for their political patronage. If you want to grow up to be a real conservative someday, this is where your prove yourself. Going after middle-class public employees as a diversionary tactic, purposefully designed and implemented by the very upper-class nabobs who are actually looting the treasury, does not make you a conservative. It just makes you a fool on a fool's errand.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's obvious, you put PS Unions over the Tax Payer. You put their stranglehold on the tax payer, above the needs, the wants, and the desire of the state. You once claimed to be a "Barry Goldwater" conservative, that was you, in a nut shell. Yet since this whole PS Union bit, where I pointed out how anti-Union Mr Goldwater was, going so far as to refuse to allow them in his own businesses... suddenly you've dropped all pretense of "Conservative" thought or theory and instead embrace the unconscionable position that PS Workers should have a right to Unionize. Even FDR saw the danger of such a collusion, even the AFL-CIO used to realize, before greed of $$ and political power trumped principle, the danger, the corruption that would ensue.

Gov Walker has saved towns, cities and counties as well as getting the state on a good footing, but the Union power grab to get back their POLITICAL and MONETARY influence, threatens to undo the changes.

You support bankrupting states in favor of Union power.

Thus, you are laughably, "conservative"
Click to expand...

It's not unions that bankrupted the state. It was Governor Walker, who cut the revenue Wisconsin was bringing in to the bone. That might have made the Koch brothers happy, but it created the financial crisis. The public sector unions, by the way, agreed to every single concession that was asked of it, yet Walker still busted the unions.

In addition, to show how unethical and smarmy your little attacks on me are (because I happen to support unions), 40% of union members voted Republican in 2008, but to you they are just dirty liberal hippies. You would rather just put people into boxes and label them, rather than try to figure out that things are a lot more complicated than cubbyholes and labels. To you, unions = dirty hippes, even though 40% of union members voted Republican. And your tactic of attacking the messenger, rather than replying in an intelligent manner to a post, explaining why you disagree, is not worthy of being called debate in the first place. It is just a personal attack, based on your distorted view of people, and really hearkens back to a time, during the Red Scare, when Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, even when they weren't. It's not debate, Nancy. It's disgusting.
 
Sig said:
In other words. You don't really know what you're talking about, and are on this forum making ridiculous assertions conceivably based upon little more than gossip. Isn't that right?
Click to expand...

Well, since i've already provided links to two sites that confirm exactly what I have heard a while ago, I would say not at all. The state and local spending on PS unions is 44% of their budgets. All along I said 40%. I also claimed 50.0% of local budget is spendon PS unions. That turned out to be nearly spot on too.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
It's not unions that bankrupted the state. It was Governor Walker, who cut the revenue Wisconsin was bringing in to the bone. That might have made the Koch brothers happy, but it created the financial crisis. The public sector unions, by the way, agreed to every single concession that was asked of it, yet Walker still busted the unions.
Click to expand...

I don't really care if you support Walker or not, but at least base your argument against Walker on facts. Wisconsin was 3.x billion dollars in the hole even before Walker took office. Doyle's admin projected the deficit. Walker inherited it. His couple of hundred million dollars in tax breaks didn't cause it. Walker feels, and I happen to agree, that just taking concessions wouldn't have solved the issue long term.
 
buck said:
I can not vouch for this source. It is not the source I got the infomation from originally and there is info in here that I disagree with. Additionally, it has "Christian" in the name, so prepare yourself for that, it could be painful for one such as yourself. :)
Lastly, this seems to be talking about state spending overall, and is not WI specific.

Is public employee compensation really causing Wisconsin's budget woes? - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

This article is utter nonsense. The Christian Science Monitor is clearly pulling its data out of their empty medicine cabinet and praying that it's true.

Here's one of the more humorous excerpts:

"What else do states spend money on? Payments for social services/public welfare represent 41 percent of state spending (which does include some salaries and wages) but within this category payments to vendors (largely Medicaid payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and the like) make up 34 percent."

What's missing from this picture (besides a reference) that exposes the fact that these figures are misleading, at best, and have been manufactured out of thin air, at worst?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom