New poll shows majority support Walker recall

buck said:

Yes, I am not in favor of that type of waste either. However, I think that doesn't occur as often as it used to. Or at least i've been led to believe that. Regardless, I seem to recall about 15-20 years ago, David Letterman had someone on his show and while I can't really remember the specifics, I know it had something to do with some largely expensive ashtray (I think) that the government bought. The government had all kinds of special requirements on the ash tray, which was the real reason it was so expensive.

However, while I am against such waste, as a percentage of the budget and what the government will really save total is peanuts compared to other areas of government spending. So, that waste should be eliminated, but that doesn't mean that other spending isn't going to have to be reduced.

Click to expand...

Peanuts?...

The government pays more for everything it purchases from the private sector when it should be getting, at least, fair market value. This does not amount to peanuts by any stretch of the imagination. It is the very cause of state bankruptcy.

BTW: If you are satisfied with the excuse that "government specifications" are the reason for marking up the cost of an ashtray, then you have my sympathies.

Sig said:

Peanuts?...

The government pays more for everything it purchases from the private sector when it should be getting, at least, fair market value. This does not amount to peanuts by any stretch of the imagination. It is the very cause of state bankruptcy.

BTW: If you are satisfied with the excuse that "government specifications" are the reason for marking up the cost of an ashtray, then you have my sympathies.

Click to expand...

I am sure it is a lot of money. I know the government is wasteful. However, it's peanuts when compared to the rest of the budget. I agree, we should stop the wasteful spending. But that won't solve the issue - since it is a small percentage of the total budget.

I found an article about the Letterman segment. Apparently it was Al Gore (and I don't remeber him at all in the segment) who was talking about the ash tray and indicated it was government requirements that drove up the price.

GORE, LETTERMAN TRADE QUIPS, BREAK ASHTRAYS | Deseret News

Gore brought two ashtrays and read the complex federal regulations on how government-purchased ashtrays must break when dropped.

"This is a designer ashtray because the taxpayers have paid lots of people to specify everything about this, including the testing procedure," Gore said.

Click to expand...

Also from that article is the amount that Gore hoped to save from this initiative:

Gore repeated his themes in the program to cut more than $100 billion waste, saying that the government can, like Detroit's auto-makers, transform itself and do a better job.

Click to expand...

$100 bil is a lot of money, but compared to the budget issues in this country, not much.

Sig said:

BTW: If you are satisfied with the excuse that "government specifications" are the reason for marking up the cost of an ashtray, then you have my sympathies.

Click to expand...

After thinking about this a bit more... Yes, the government does create all kinds of additional regulations that result in them paying a lot more then they should or would if not for the requirements. This happend in WI just a few months ago. The state was getting ready to demolish some housing. Because of the requirements they were requiring with disposal, the cost to accomplish the task was extraordinarily high.

buck said:

No, there are studies on the other side. You just aren't interested in them. There are also studies refuting the studies you posted. Again, you aren't interested. You are obviously only looking for evidence that supports your position. It's the only thing that makes sense, since when the most recent study came out it was in all the news and came to the conclusion that PS unions were over paid compared to the private sector counterparts even accounting for education. It's hardly opinion. It's simply things you want to ignore.

However, it is opinion on which study, after reviewing them all, seems the most likely. But at least I reviewed them all, not just the ones that agree with my position.

Lastly, yes. It is simply my opinion that raising taxes in WI, where they are already ranked 4th in tax burden, would not be a good idea.

Click to expand...

As previously noted:

"Most assuredly, Wisconsin isn't "bankrupt" because public-sector unions here have the right to collective bargaining. There are 13 states with no collective bargaining rights for public workers; eight of them have larger budget shortfalls than does Wisconsin. In Texas, for example, a non-collective bargaining state whose low-tax, "open for business" economic policies are vaunted by the right, the state's deficit as a percentage of the total budget is over twice that of Wisconsin's."

Catawba said:

As previously noted:

"Most assuredly, Wisconsin isn't "bankrupt" because public-sector unions here have the right to collective bargaining. There are 13 states with no collective bargaining rights for public workers; eight of them have larger budget shortfalls than does Wisconsin. In Texas, for example, a non-collective bargaining state whose low-tax, "open for business" economic policies are vaunted by the right, the state's deficit as a percentage of the total budget is over twice that of Wisconsin's."

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that texas, for example, didn't save a crap load of money by ending collective bargaining. Politicans just couldn't help increasing spending in other areas, eating up whatever savings created plus a hella lot more. Just because WI saves a crap load of money due to the passage of Act10, doesn't mean that some future politican won't decide to increase spending on other areas of the government.

Saving money on ending fraud or wasteful spending, doesn't mean that budgets will be automatically balanced for ever and ever. Some politican will come into office, increase spending and eat up more then was saved. That isn't evidence that fraud and wasteful spending shouldn't be eliminated, though.

buck said:

No, there are studies on the other side. You just aren't interested in them. There are also studies refuting the studies you posted. Again, you aren't interested. You are obviously only looking for evidence that supports your position. It's the only thing that makes sense, since when the most recent study came out it was in all the news and came to the conclusion that PS unions were over paid compared to the private sector counterparts even accounting for education. It's hardly opinion. It's simply things you want to ignore.

However, it is opinion on which study, after reviewing them all, seems the most likely. But at least I reviewed them all, not just the ones that agree with my position.

Lastly, yes. It is simply my opinion that raising taxes in WI, where they are already ranked 4th in tax burden, would not be a good idea.

Click to expand...

From what I have read wages of state and local employees are actually lower than those for private sector when you factor in workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). What I have read is the state employees typically earn 11 percent less.

MaggieD said:

Really?

Click to expand...

Yeah, really.

treedancer said:

From what I have read wages of state and local employees are actually lower than those for private sector when you factor in workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). What I have read is the state employees typically earn 11 percent less.

Click to expand...

That would be the problem. The numbers are all over the place. You can find studies that show that public sector employees are undercompensated from between 4%-26%. You can also find studies showing the opposite. The ones from left leaning groups (i.e. EPI) tend to find one way. The ones from right leaning groups tend to find the other way. You are more then welcome to have an opinion on which study you feel is more accurate. However, when I view public salaries and pensions in my state - and I know the pension my uncle, who retired quite young, recieved from the city - I tend to believe the ones showing that public employees are over compensated.

treedancer said:

From what I have read wages of state and local employees are actually lower than those for private sector when you factor in workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). What I have read is the state employees typically earn 11 percent less.

Click to expand...

As an example, here is Heritage's critique of the studies from left leaning groups. They are basically stating that those prior studies didn't properly calculate retiree health benefits (since public workers tend to retire earlier can be signifcant), some disagreement on how pension should be counted (defined-benefit vs defined-contribution) and job security that publi workers enjoy (which is a benefit).

As someone that already has his mind made up, I hardly expect you to agree with this report. However, I only provide it to show you that it's not quite as black and white as you want to believe. There are studies indicating that public workers are over compensated. Just as there are yet other studies indicating that when public workers leave their jobs and enter private sector they take a cut to compensation and when private sector workers go to the public sector they recieve more compensation.

Are California Public Employees Overpaid?

buck said:

After thinking about this a bit more... Yes, the government does create all kinds of additional regulations that result in them paying a lot more then they should or would if not for the requirements. This happend in WI just a few months ago. The state was getting ready to demolish some housing. Because of the requirements they were requiring with disposal, the cost to accomplish the task was extraordinarily high.

Click to expand...

You're not getting it.

The government's habit (at the federal, state, and local levels) of routinely overpaying for goods and services it obtains from the private sector has NOTHING to do with regulations and EVERYTHING to do with pay-to-play politics. The cost of essentially bribing a party boss and certain elected officials to steer a sweetheart contract to Company X is passed on to the taxpayer. This is how the system works.

Get it now?

Sig said:

You're not getting it.

The government's habit (at the federal, state, and local levels) of routinely overpaying for goods and services it obtains from the private sector has NOTHING to do with regulations and EVERYTHING to do with pay-to-play politics. The cost of essentially bribing a party boss and certain elected officials to steer a sweetheart contract to Company X is passed on to the taxpayer. This is how the system works.

Get it now?

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. You dont seem to be getting that compared to the trillions of dollar deficit, it's peanuts. I am in favor of getting rid of pay to play, but it will not solve the budget issues. I am also in favor of getting rid of the ridiculous government regulations that greatly inflate the cost of goods and services that the government purchases from the private sector. You apparently don't believe this is an issue, but it is. Al Gore, someone that I rarely agree with, even believes it is an issue.

buck said:

Yes, I understand. You dont seem to be getting that compared to the trillions of dollar deficit, it's peanuts. I am in favor of getting rid of pay to play, but it will not solve the budget issues. I am also in favor of getting rid of the ridiculous government regulations that greatly inflate the cost of goods and services that the government purchases from the private sector. You apparently don't believe this is an issue, but it is. Al Gore, someone that I rarely agree with, even believes it is an issue.

Click to expand...

No, you do not understand. This is not peanuts. Pay-to-play lies at the very core of the matter. If the government maintains an unofficial policy of paying $5.00 per unit for a widget with a market rate of $3.00 per unit, it does not take a genius to figure out what such a policy will do to the budget and the deficit in the fullness of time.

Sig said:

No, you do not understand. This is not peanuts. Pay-to-play lies at the very core of the matter. If the government maintains an unofficial policy of paying $5.00 per unit for a widget with a market rate of $3.00 per unit, it does not take a genius to figure out what such a policy will do to the budget and the deficit in the fullness of time.

Click to expand...

First, you would have to look to see what additional regulations the government has in place that might be affecting the price of the object. Then you have to look at the difference between the worth and the overpayment. The Government is (apparently) going to have to purchase the item anyway. So a bulk of the budget on that item is legitiamte. There is only a small percentage (the amount of overpayment) that is not. So, as a percentage, the overpayment is insignifcant to the budget as a whole. I agree. We should get rid of the waste you are describing. However, it's not going to balance budgets.

Additionally, just because we get rid of the waste you are describing, does not mean that it's not also a good idea to get rid of the, IMO, over compensation in the public sector. You can do both and doing both is a great idea.

buck said:

First, you would have to look to see what additional regulations the government has in place that might be affecting the price of the object. Then you have to look at the difference between the worth and the overpayment. The Government is (apparently) going to have to purchase the item anyway. So a bulk of the budget on that item is legitiamte. There is only a small percentage (the amount of overpayment) that is not. So, as a percentage, the overpayment is insignifcant to the budget as a whole. I agree. We should get rid of the waste you are describing. However, it's not going to balance budgets.

Additionally, just because we get rid of the waste you are describing, does not mean that it's not also a good idea to get rid of the, IMO, over compensation in the public sector. You can do both and doing both is a great idea.

Click to expand...

Regulation has nothing to do with the problem of government overpaying for goods and services it purchases from the private sector. Don't you get it? This is engrained corruption, plain and simple!

JEESH!!!

In the example given, if you compound that extra $2.00 a billion times over and across contracts for all the various widgets the government purchases, it amounts to a whole lot more than a "small percentage."

The same bunch of upper-class nabobs who get filthy rich off these sweetheart contracts are using their considerable control over mass media to scapegoat the middle class public employee, now that said nabobs have finally emptied the trough and everyone is asking "Where has all our tax revenue gone?"

Sig said:

Regulation has nothing to do with the problem of government overpaying for goods and services it purchases from the private sector. Don't you get it? This is engrained corruption, plain and simple!

JEESH!!!

Click to expand...

Well, Al Gore and I disagree. Regulation absolutely results in the government paying more then what an everyday consumer would. There are many real life examples. I gave 2. Ashtrays at the federal level and housing demolition at the local level.

I am assuming that since you haven't posted, or even hinted at, a study (non partisan preferred) showing that "all our tax revenue" has gone to private companies overcharging the government means you don't have one. If you do, post it. But I find it a rather silly supposition on your part. Yes, there is government waste as you describe. Yes, as real dollars it could be signifcanct. However, the total overpaymets are a small percentage of the overall budget.

buck said:

As an example, here is Heritage's critique of the studies from left leaning groups. They are basically stating that those prior studies didn't properly calculate retiree health benefits (since public workers tend to retire earlier can be signifcant), some disagreement on how pension should be counted (defined-benefit vs defined-contribution) and job security that publi workers enjoy (which is a benefit).

As someone that already has his mind made up, I hardly expect you to agree with this report. However, I only provide it to show you that it's not quite as black and white as you want to believe. There are studies indicating that public workers are over compensated. Just as there are yet other studies indicating that when public workers leave their jobs and enter private sector they take a cut to compensation and when private sector workers go to the public sector they recieve more compensation.

Are California Public Employees Overpaid?

Click to expand...

You gotta be kiddin with this quote” As someone that already has his mind made up “followed by this quote “I hardly expect you to agree with this report “Implying that you’ve taken the high ground in this debate.Whatta hoot.:mrgreen:


The cherry on the cake is your link to a heritage foundation article on “California Public Employees” who can pay police officer John Pike, $106,k a year to do a workmanlike job of pepperspraying peaceful demonstrators setting on a sidewalk.


California has a history of paying the highest wages in the country for its public employees. I notice that they didn’t take on the difference in education between public and private sector. Kinda looks to me that they just choose one of the highest paid public sector states in the union and decided to do a study on it.


Considering that 50% of California citizens have a college degree as apposed to Wisconsin’s 40.2%. Makes me wonder about the study, then I look where it came from and snicker.:2wave:

treedancer said:

You gotta be kiddin with this quote” As someone that already has his mind made up “followed by this quote “I hardly expect you to agree with this report “Implying that you’ve taken the high ground in this debate.Whatta hoot.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Well, I understand there is all kinds of information out there on the subject. A lot of it conflicting. You have your mind made up without, apparently, having even seen half of the info. I have my mind made up after reviewing pretty much all of it. Am I wrong? Possible. Just as possible that you are wrong. I am not trying to convince you. It won't be possible. I am simply trying to show you that there is a lot of data and things aren't quite as easy as you think. In both of our cases, we are making our opinion based on the report we believe to be most accurate. BTW, you rather confirmed my statement with your last comment - you know the one where you say "then I look where it came from and snicker".

The cherry on the cake is your link to a heritage foundation article on “California Public Employees” who can pay police officer John Pike, $106,k a year to do a workmanlike job of pepperspraying peaceful demonstrators setting on a sidewalk.

Click to expand...

I understand you may not like Heritage. It is a right wing group, afterall. However, EPI, the group whose study you seem to like, is a left wing group. I get why you want to just automatically throw away data from the right wing group and just keep the data from the left wing group. If I could get away with it, I would want to do the same... Well, the opposite.

California has a history of paying the highest wages in the country for its public employees. I notice that they didn’t take on the difference in education between public and private sector. Kinda looks to me that they just choose one of the highest paid public sector states in the union and decided to do a study on it.

Click to expand...

That was just a response to the specific study. They chose CA, because they have more data available, and the report they were responding to included a lot of info on CA. They, IMO and as evidenced by the Heritage report, made some errors in their calculations and assumptions. If that doesn't make you think that it's just possible they did it in other states, I don't know what to tell you.

There are studies that look at other states and even other studies that look at all states and find similar outcomes - that state workers across the country are over compensated when compared to private workers. I simply linked to one of many.

buck said:

That doesn't mean that texas, for example, didn't save a crap load of money by ending collective bargaining. Politicans just couldn't help increasing spending in other areas, eating up whatever savings created plus a hella lot more. Just because WI saves a crap load of money due to the passage of Act10, doesn't mean that some future politican won't decide to increase spending on other areas of the government.

Saving money on ending fraud or wasteful spending, doesn't mean that budgets will be automatically balanced for ever and ever. Some politican will come into office, increase spending and eat up more then was saved. That isn't evidence that fraud and wasteful spending shouldn't be eliminated, though.

Click to expand...

I'm all for cutting fraud and wasteful spending. I am not however for cutting teacher's meager compensation to try to make up for tax cuts to the wealthy for the last 30 years, the Bush Recession, and the rigged prices for widgets.

Catawba said:

I'm all for cutting fraud and wasteful spending. I am not however for cutting teacher's meager compensation to try to make up for tax cuts to the wealthy for the last 30 years, the Bush Recession, and the rigged prices for widgets.

Click to expand...

Great. Another one that hasn't even seen all the data on public vs. private sector compensation but is most willing to just take a biased, left wing group's study as gospel.

buck said:

Great. Another one that hasn't even seen all the data on public vs. private sector compensation but is most willing to just take a biased, left wing group's study as gospel.

Click to expand...

You have cited no studies, I am the one that has actually cited several unbiased studies on this forum that show teacher's total compensation, when considering education levels, age, gender, and race, private sector total compensation is higher then for public teachers.

I have also cited evidence that the biggest financial burden states face is due to low revenues created by the recession and tax cuts for the wealthy.

All you have provided is your opinion.

Catawba said:

I am the one that has actually cited several unbiased studies on this forum

Click to expand...

You cited two studies and both are not unbiased. EPI is a lefty organization just as biased as Heritage is. Take a look at their board of directors then tell me with a straight face they are unbiased. You seem to think that Ezra (who himself is biased) commenting on the EPI study is a whole separate study.

And I have provided a researched and sourced argument to the study you provided. That is more then just my opinion.

The fact that you are unaware of other studies is your fault. Not mine. If I was only looking for studies to confirm my own bias, I would be just as clueless as you of all the studies that refute my position.

buck said:

Well, Al Gore and I disagree. Regulation absolutely results in the government paying more then what an everyday consumer would. There are many real life examples. I gave 2. Ashtrays at the federal level and housing demolition at the local level.

Click to expand...

I can understand Al Gore's motivation for skirting the issue. I do not understand yours.

I am assuming that since you haven't posted, or even hinted at, a study (non partisan preferred) showing that "all our tax revenue" has gone to private companies overcharging the government means you don't have one. If you do, post it. But I find it a rather silly supposition on your part. Yes, there is government waste as you describe. Yes, as real dollars it could be signifcanct. However, the total overpaymets are a small percentage of the overall budget.

Click to expand...

As you are well aware, I never suggested all our tax revenues have gone to private companies overcharging the government. Please refrain from assuming such an obtuse pose. It's annoying. I have suggested that private industry's habit of gouging the government is considerably more responsible for our depleted treasuries at the federal, state, and local levels of government than the salaries of public employees.

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign - Serving the Have-Mores

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign - Playing the Policy Market

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign - Buy-Partisan Politics in Wisconsin

Pharmaceutical Industry Is Biggest Defrauder of the Federal Government under the False Claims Act, New Public Citizen Study Finds

Philadelphia Need Ethics Reform | Philadelphia Forward

Former Morris CEO surrenders on charges of overcharging government | Daily Record | dailyrecord.com

How Fair Elections Impact You | Campaign Finance Reform - Common Cause

Leaked Audit: Boeing Overcharged Army Up to 177,000 Percent on Helicopter Spare Parts

Oracle pays $200M settlement for overcharging the U.S. government | VentureBeat

» “Are contractors overcharging the government?” You have to ask, REALLY? Ms Sparky

Verizon To Pay $93M For Overcharging The Government - SlashGear

Sig said:

I can understand Al Gore's motivation for skirting the issue. I do not understand yours.

Click to expand...

The government verpays all the time for goods due to government regulations. I am all for getting rid of the fraud and waste - including overpayment for goodsdue to ridiculous requiremtns the government sets out.

have suggested that private industry's habit of gouging the government is considerably more responsible for our depleted treasuries at the federal, state, and local levels of government than the salaries of public employees.

Click to expand...

I have realized for a long time, and acknowledged a couple of times in this thread, that the government is overcharged and will overpay many times. Despite your insistence it's just not true, the government also overpays due to regulations. Anyway, I do not argue and never have argued that the government does not overpay.

I asked for a study showing that, as you keep contending, that the overcharges are a signifcant percentage of the budget. Instead you provide links showing that companies have overhcharged and a few opinion pieces that are fairly worthless. Now, do you have a study showing what percentage of the budget the overpayments are? Because, as much money as the stuff you posted is, it's still peanuts - actually peanuts is being very generous - when compared to the overal budget.

buck said:

The government verpays all the time for goods due to government regulations. I am all for getting rid of the fraud and waste - including overpayment for goodsdue to ridiculous requiremtns the government sets out.

Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of the time which the government overpays has NOTHING to do with regulations and EVERYTHING to do with pay-to-play politics. Albeit, in many instances, regulations may have been instituted for the very purpose of providing an excuse for overcharging.

I asked for a study showing that, as you keep contending, that the overcharges are a signifcant percentage of the budget. Instead you provide links showing that companies have overhcharged and a few opinion pieces that are fairly worthless. Now, do you have a study showing what percentage of the budget the overpayments are? Because, as much money as the stuff you posted is, it's still peanuts - actually peanuts is being very generous - when compared to the overal budget.

Click to expand...

The stuff I posted is a mere drop in the bucket. Some of these are instances where the vendor merely got exposed. If you want me to provide an item for item list comparing what every state and local government in the land (nevermind the feds) pays for everything from toilet paper to computers to office space--compared to the going market rates for the same items--we could be here a very long time. Suffice to say, that in some instances the overcharge is subtle while in others it is obnoxious. The bottom line is that when you tally it all up, it is astronomically more than mere "peanuts."

If you want to be a crusader for cutting back on government spending, start crusading for state and federal laws making it illegal for any agency of federal, state, and local governments to pay one dime more than fair market value for any goods and services it purchases from the private sector.

Quote buck

That was just a response to the specific study.

Click to expand...

I read the study and I didn’t come to the conclusion that they were responding any specific study. If I were responding to a "specific study " I don’t believe that I would start out asking a question such as “Are California Public Employees Overpaid?”

They chose CA, because they have more data available, and the report they were responding to included a lot of info on CA.

Click to expand...

What report were they responding to? Was it a Ca. specific report?

They, IMO and as evidenced by the Heritage report, made some errors in their calculations and assumptions. If that doesn't make you think that it's just possible they did it in other states, I don't know what to tell you.

Click to expand...

The sure did make errors,its not opinion, its fact.

Fact=more education, more dough, whether its private, of public sector. Fact= 50% of California citizens have a college degree as apposed to Wisconsin’s 40.2%.