• 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!

Wisconsin governor gives Democrats ultimatum

haymarket said:
What can? Who is kicking it? Down what road?

Because it is their right under the law.
Click to expand...


Define "right" and tell me where it appears in either the state or nations constitutions.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So IOW, just reshuffle the deck? Kick the can down the road AGAIN? people are tired of this. Tell me why Public Sectors get to unionize in the first place?


j-mac
Click to expand...

That's what refinancing is. Whether its a home mortgage, corporate debt, or public sector debt. Refinancing is used to take advantage of lower interest rates.

Refinancing, of course, is not a solution for Wisconsin's debt problem and I am not arguing that refinancing solves everything. My point is that there is nothing special about today when it comes to the opportunity to refinance. Indeed, if refinancing were the only strategy being considered, it would be little more than a cheap political gimmick. The savings that can be realized from refinancing are miniscule compared to the state's long-term imbalances.

A credible budget that begins to tackle the structural imbalances (particularly health/pension-related costs) will be required. A two-year budget that does not touch either program is also a punt on the long-term fiscal issue, even if it creates transient balanced budgets.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The political rhetoric is wrong. The so-called drop dead date was first touted as last Friday. Now it is today. No one has shown covenants or other terms that preclude restructuring at a later date. Indeed, even the political rhetoric is very inconsistent on the expected benefits of refinancing. Some have argued that refinancing would actually cost the state $42 million. The governor has argued that it would save the state $165 million. Neither side has actually provided the underlying assumptions for their estimates. Barring provisions that would preclude refinancing at a later date--provisions that would be extremely rare for public debt--the risks associated with later date would be interest rate and credit risks. The former being that rates could rise from current levels. The latter being that the state's financial outlook could deteriorate further leading to a greater risk premium.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the Non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (think CBO) in WI who indicated that it must be completed by March 16th to meet deadlines and it will take 2 -3 weeks to authorize (putting the deadline to right about now.
 
j-mac said:
Define "right" and tell me where it appears in either the state or nations constitutions.


j-mac
Click to expand...
go to 5 United States Code and read chapter 71
 
j-mac said:
Define "right" and tell me where it appears in either the state or nations constitutions.


j-mac
Click to expand...
Wikipedia

United States Constitution
Main article: United States Constitution
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others
 
If the state is in breach of contract, why are there protests and not lawsuits?
 
apdst said:
If the state is in breach of contract, why are there protests and not lawsuits?
Click to expand...

there is litigation. an unfair labor practice charge has been filed for the state's failure to bargain in good faith on these matters
instead the state wants to deprive the state employees of the right to collectively bargain
 
haymarket said:
In many of the 842 threads on this topic the same questions has come up again and again and has been answered again and again.

Labor rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Just as I thought. It really isn't a "right" but rather actually an executive order under JFK that brought us to this point. To claim it as a "right" shows how little liberals actually understand about rights.

Just remember, what government giveth government taketh away.


j-mac
 
haymarket said:
Wikipedia

United States Constitution
Main article: United States Constitution
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others
Click to expand...


Nothing Wisconsin is doing will end an individual’s right to associate with who they choose, or to petition the government.

In fact, this strengthens it. Individuals will get to decide if they want to associate with the union, ending the public sector monopoly on collective bargaining.
 
ARealConservative said:
Nothing Wisconsin is doing will end an individual’s right to associate with who they choose, or to petition the government.

In fact, this strengthens it. Individuals will get to decide if they want to associate with the union, ending the public sector monopoly on collective bargaining.
Click to expand...

sure thing. You keep telling yourself that. Whats next? I can see it right now........

"everyone has natural rights and they exist regardless of the government of law"....

okay. ;)
 
j-mac said:
And you clearly don't understand what makes up a "right".


j-mac
Click to expand...

It seems the Supreme Court does and that pretty much renders you and me impotent on the issue.
 
j-mac said:
Laws change. laws are not rights.


j-mac
Click to expand...

until the law changes, you are entitled to the rights they provide
you confuse legal rights with Constitutional rights
i look forward to our resident 'labor lawyer' chiming in on this
please don't disappoint me turtle
 
haymarket said:
sure thing. You keep telling yourself that. Whats next? I can see it right now........

"everyone has natural rights and they exist regardless of the government of law"....

okay. ;)
Click to expand...

what a sophomoric reply!

This isn’t a debate on natural rights. From a practical perspective, the only rights that exist are the rights that people have an interest in protecting. Nobody wants to protect the public sector unions “right” to a monopoly. The game is up. Go cry to mommy about it, because the first state to implement this “right” realized the error of their ways and is putting an end to it.
 
justabubba said:
thanks. can't wait to see what our resident "labor lawyer" makes of it
Click to expand...



Are you referring to the "labor lawyer" who hates labor?

I guess that is like a gynecologist who hates woman.
 
ARealConservative said:
what a sophomoric reply!

This isn’t a debate on natural rights. From a practical perspective, the only rights that exist are the rights that people have an interest in protecting. Nobody wants to protect the public sector unions “right” to a monopoly. The game is up. Go cry to mommy about it, because the first state to implement this “right” realized the error of their ways and is putting an end to it.
Click to expand...

Please leave my mother out of this.
 
j-mac said:
Just as I thought. It really isn't a "right" but rather actually an executive order under JFK that brought us to this point. To claim it as a "right" shows how little liberals actually understand about rights.

Just remember, what government giveth government taketh away.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Oh brother. Yet again

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
Click to expand...

That was the US Supreme Court. We all can have an opinion of what the Constitution means. Theirs counts.
 
buck said:
Take it up with the Non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (think CBO) in WI who indicated that it must be completed by March 16th to meet deadlines and it will take 2 -3 weeks to authorize (putting the deadline to right about now.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the delayed reply. I got logged out and had to re-type my response.

My larger point is about refinancing in general. Nonetheless, I'll address the specific issue you raised.

First, I have no issues with the opinion issued by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau's Director Bob Lang. It deals with the opportunity to refinance a single tranche of debt, not refinancing in general. My issue is strictly with the attempts to politicize the issue. Friday wasn't the "drop dead" date. Today isn't either. Neither day is the deadline for refinancing a particular class of debt, much less refinancing in general.

March 16 is the date when a transfer payment for a single class of GSR-supported debt is required to be made to the bond security and redemption fund (BSRF) under current law. I was talking about the governor's claim that today is the date for action on that debt. There is nothing special about today, just like there was nothing special about last Friday.

Legislation adopted to execute the refinancing can require that the pre-transfer process be expedited. Hence, even if the law were adopted a week or 10 days from now, there would be sufficient time to wire the funds into the BSRF. Indeed, during the financial crisis, much larger and far more complex financial transactions were negotiated and completed over weekends. Expediting what has historically been a very slow process might actually constitute a beneficial service improvement. Furthermore, if the likelihood of refinancing were high--and a straight refinancing bill would be all but guaranteed to be adopted if the governor and legislature choose to go that route--it would make sense to commence the administrative process in advance. Planning and implementation could be better integrated and that's one situation where certain tasks could be carried out simultaneously when an outcome is for all intents and purposes assured.

My guess is that the governor doesn't want to handle the refinancing separately for obvious political reasons e.g., he would lose some leverage with respect to other aspects of his agenda. But that's a choice he is making. Choices have consequences. And in the whole scheme of things, refinancing offers savings that are miniscule compared to the large fiscal imbalances that confront the state. It's that larger issue that really needs to be addressed.

However, back to my larger point about flexibility in refinancing. The March 16 date applies only to one slice of GSR-supported debt. That is the deadline for restructuring GSR-supported debt for which principal payments are due May 1, 2011. Hence, while opportunity to refinance that particular slice of debt might pass, that development would not preclude restructuring other classes of GSR-supported debt e.g., classes for which principal payments are due farther in the future. So, to suggest that the opportunity for refinancing savings would be lost simply is not the case, unless the debt in question were the only class of debt outstanding, and it isn't. My guess is that adoption of a credible budget would lead to bigger refinancing savings (still abnormally low interest rates and reduced credit risk premia).
 
Last edited:
I dunno.. I side with the tax payers here. If the system were set up in such a way that we could eliminate the circle of corruption I would be all for collective bargaining, but WE ALL KNOW it's a racket, so why is everyone continuing to pretend about public sector unions.

I don't want commie organization by their very existence feeding off the American system any more. Time they all went away, IMO. Privatize it all, teachers, fire, EMT, social work.. Let them eat cake!


Everywhere privatization has been implemented it has been successful. How many lessons do we need to be hit in the head with over this corrupt system we call public unions?


Tim-
 
donsutherland1 said:
First, I have no issues with the opinion issued by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau's Director Bob Lang. It deals with the opportunity to refinance a single tranche of debt, not refinancing in general. My issue is strictly with the attempts to politicize the issue. Friday wasn't the "drop dead" date. Today isn't either. Neither day is the deadline for refinancing a particular class of debt, much less refinancing in general.
Click to expand...

I had not heard that it was only a portion of the debt that had to be refinanced by a certain date. What is the percentage of the total debt they hope to refinance that has to be refinanced by 03/16? Do you have a link on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom