Walker takes broad swipe at public employee unions

Mr. Invisible said:

So in reality, they already had a deficit then.

Edit: And these tax cuts exacerbated the deficit.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the tax cuts. The link didn't address those. But tax cuts have been proven to stimulate business and individual spending. One just can't grab on to tax cuts and say bad-bad-bad. The reality that matters is that Walker didn't take a surplus and turn it into a deficit as has been previously claimed.

TurtleDude said:

you think anyone who doesn't like the current system is "unable to comprehend"

I want the slackers to pay for what they use so they understand the costs. and if they cannot afford it, they should do what most of us responsible citizens do -we don't demand others pay for stuff we ourselves cannot afford

Click to expand...

NO. What I think is that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not know the difference between a retail shopping experience where a consumer fills their shopping cart with only the times they wish to purchase and the far different reality of a citizen and their relationship with their government. Until you accept the fundamental difference between those two radically different things, you will never be able to make any sense on this entire issue of taxation.

Conservative asks

Where do the workers get the money to pay their union dues which fund the unions?

Click to expand...

the mint.

haymarket said:

Conservative asks



the mint.

Click to expand...

Interesting, so the public union employees go to the mint to get their money? Always thought liberals were clueless and simple believe printing money is a good thing.

Mr. Invisible said:

So in reality, they already had a deficit then.

Edit: And these tax cuts exacerbated the deficit.

Click to expand...

The corporate tax cuts do add to the deficit, the same way the Fed's tax cuts were passed and add to the deficit. The purpose and intent of the tax cuts were essentially the same, to stimulate job creation.

Ockham said:

The corporate tax cuts do add to the deficit, the same way the Fed's tax cuts were passed and add to the deficit. The purpose and intent of the tax cuts were essentially the same, to stimulate job creation.

Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that liberals always focus on the revenue side and ignore spending? Job and economic growth never enter the liberal world

Conservative said:

Isn't it amazing that liberals always focus on the revenue side and ignore spending? Job and economic growth never enter the liberal world

Click to expand...

It's a tactic to lend credibility to their argument... I can't really blame them, their arguement is very weak so they have to use what they can to bolster it.

Badmutha said:

You tell me...........

"The Working Union Man of Wisconsin"
]Wisconsin public school employee pay for the 2009-2010 school year - JSOnline

Daniel Nerad District Administrator $198,500 $58,215 100 Madison Metropolitan Sch Dist Madison Metropolitan
Gregory Maass District Administrator $184,000 $55,700 100 Green Bay Area Sch Dist Green Bay Area Sch Dist
James Shaw District Administrator $180,000 $34,193 100 Racine Sch Dist Racine Sch Dist
William Andrekopoulos District Administrator $175,062 $68,303 100 Milwaukee Sch Dist Milwaukee Sch Dist
James Rickabaugh District Administrator $170,850 $42,969 100 Whitefish Bay Sch Dist Whitefish Bay Sch Dist
Paul Kreutzer District Administrator $166,089 $34,660 100 New Berlin Sch Dist New Berlin Sch Dist
Thomas Westerhaus District Administrator $165,626 $42,020 100 River Falls Sch Dist River Falls Sch Dist
Karen Petric District Administrator $164,779 $48,048 100 Whitnall Sch Dist Whitnall Sch Dist
William Hughes District Administrator $163,256 $53,608 100 Greendale Sch Dist Greendale Sch Dist


.....cut from the backs of private workers making much less.
.
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

so...CEO huge salaries = GOOD........educator big salaries = BAD. lol.

liblady said:

so...CEO huge salaries = GOOD........educator big salaries = BAD. lol.

Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY right... the question is, do you know why?

Ockham said:

That is EXACTLY right... the question is, do you know why?

Click to expand...

yeah...no it's certainly not right. a person running a school district should make a decent salary. why do you oppose that?

Mr. Invisible said:

So in reality, they already had a deficit then.

Edit: And these tax cuts exacerbated the deficit.

Click to expand...

The tax cuts don't even go into effect until next year, so they did NOT exacerbate the deficit.

Conservative said:

Earned their money from whom? Where do the Department's get the money to pay these people? No one said they didn't earn the money although some would disagree based upon results. The fact remains the taxpayers pay these employees as I stated.

Click to expand...

As usual, you twist facts to serve your condescending attitude. You implied the taxpayers directly funded the unions by stating: "I know, the truth hurts. Taxpayers fund the public union employees." Are you also going to say that those who pay federal income taxes funded the killing of troops in Iraq? Some people would.

After reading through the first 10 pages of this thread, I'd like to try to address the issue as I am a state employee whose state has just gone through the same thing as Wisconsin has with little fanfare.

Our Teacher's Union also represents a vast majority of State Employees and some of their power was recently striped away since our newly elected Republican governor took office. I am not a union member - never really saw much interest in joining - but I can see the purpose behind them. It's really about having a voice in government whether at the local or state level. The way I see it in every state that is now taking up this fight to "get their financial house in order", state employees are being used as the scapegoats for all things "over budget". To cut costs, I'm seeing that most states are implementing the following tactics:

- freezing pay raises.
- freezing new hiring.
- increasing health insurance premiums while also reducing health benefits (or removing benefits, yet keeping premiums the same).
- limiting the collective bargaining power of state unions
- changing investment strategies for active (and retired) state employee 401(k) plans (in some cases increasing mandatory contribution levels) or proposeing dropping 401(k)'s altogether

In every state I've looked at where state budget woes are a key factor, issues surrounding state employees and their benefits are the focal point. But what cuts have these states actually sought to get their financial houses in order other than attacking the salaries and/or benefits of state employees? Seems to me few states have attempted to truly address the root causes of their financial woes, i.e., their investment strategies, their tax policies, the excesses within their state congressional budgets (i.e., are State Representative's salaries being frozen? Are their benefits being reduced? Are they coming out of pocket to pay more and do with less?)

In every instance, it is the State employees, teachers and public school systems that are being attacked, but it's not these individuals or entities that are the root causes of the State's financial woes. It has been over-spending, lack of proper tax codes, not balancing their own state budgets for years and a host of other problems where the salaries of state employees have very little economic impact as far as state budget shortfalls are concerned.

Now, let me be fair on this matter where the hierarchy of state employees are concerned: the Governor is their boss! As such, he (or she) has every right to direct state matters as he/she sees fit. However, our national Constitution in some ways trump state Constitutions. Therefore, all state employees have the right to peacefully assemble and have their voices heard. To that, Gov. Walker, in attempting to eliminate the collective bargaining power of Wisconsin state employees, is in effect not only trying to silence state employees, he's also trying to destroy their only means of fair representation within their state legislator. That is wrong!! What he and other Governors are attempting to do (or in the case of my own state Governor, has done) is create a dictatorship - the very form of (federal) government many people (Conservatives) claim they themselves despise! It's not enough to reduce or hold wages or cut benefits of state employees. Our voices are also being silenced by state government's quest to remove the only voice state employees have to advocate on their behalf.

Write your Congressman you say? How can I do that when it's the very "representative" who's attempting to take away my income, my benefits and most importantly my voice!!!???

If you support freedom of speech, I really don't see how anyone can be against what's happening not only in Wisconsin, but in other places all across the country. Now, sure as state employees our salaries come from state taxes, but we're people just as anyone in the private sector, and for most of us doing the job of serving the public is personal. Very few of us receive pay equal to what someone in the private sector would receive if we were doing the exact same job. Not only that, but most of the state jobs (atleast in my state) are mandated by state law, i.e., public health departments, state transportation departments, highway patrols (state troopers), tourism departments (which in some states is separate from parks and recreation departments), human resources departments, etc., etc., etc. These agencies do a great service to the "PUBLIC". Without them, a great many things many of us take for granted within our states would fall apart. But for most of us, we do the job at a fraction of the pay we'd otherwise receive in the private sector. However, in many cases there is no competing job for the kind of work performed in state government within the private sector. So, whenever I hear the tired argument that "government (state or federal) can't do this or that better than the private sector," I shrug my shoulders and ask why hasn't the private sector sought to do the work of forrest rangers, state troopers, Boarder Patrol agents, Drug Enforcement agents, and a host of other service related jobs do? It's quite laughable when you really sit down and think about it. But I digress...

Gov. Walker isn't simply trying to "fix" his state's budget problems. He views state employee unions (and in effect, state employees) as the problem when, in fact, the problem within Wisconsin and several other states has been their own policies, taxation issues and over-spending for years. State employees are simply being used as the scapegoats.

pbrauer said:

As usual, you twist facts to serve your condescending attitude. You implied the taxpayers directly funded the unions by stating: "I know, the truth hurts. Taxpayers fund the public union employees." Are you also going to say that those who pay federal income taxes funded the killing of troops in Iraq? Some people would.

Click to expand...

Keep diverting, taxpayers pay for the public union employees, no taxpayers no public union employees. You buy what you are told because you want to believe it. Those paying Federal Income taxes fund the govt. and you believe that is killing people in Iraq so be it. Your President has adopted the Bush Doctrine in Iraq, expanded the war in Afghanistan, and increased the defense budget more than 100 billion dollars over the last Bush budget but Obama spending good, Bush spending bad even though 100 billion less.

Objective Voice said:

After reading through the first 10 pages of this thread, I'd like to try to address the issue as I am a state employee whose state has just gone through the same thing as Wisconsin has with little fanfare.

Our Teacher's Union also represents a vast majority of State Employees and some of their power was recently striped away since our newly elected Republican governor took office. I am not a union member - never really saw much interest in joining - but I can see the purpose behind them. It's really about having a voice in government whether at the local or state level. The way I see it in every state that is now taking up this fight to "get their financial house in order", state employees are being used as the scapegoats for all things "over budget". To cut costs, I've seeing that most states are implementing the following tactics:

- freezing pay raises.
- freezing new hiring.
- increasing health insurance premiums while also reducing health benefits (or removing benefits, yet keeping premiums the same).
- limiting the collective bargaining power of state unions
- changing investment strategies for active (and retired) state employee 401(k) plans (in some cases increasing mandatory contribution levels) or proposeing dropping 401(k)'s altogether

Click to expand...

Join the real world with the rest of us, Objective Voice. This has been going on in the private sector for the past three years. Washington bailout money infused billions into public sector jobs, second only to its bailout of the financial industry. In the past two years, the private sector employment has dropped by 7%. During those same two years, public sector employment has risen by 2%. Cities with job growth favor public sector hiring - Business - Forbes.com - msnbc.com

Objective Voice said:

After reading through the first 10 pages of this thread, I'd like to try to address the issue as I am a state employee whose state has just gone through the same thing as Wisconsin has with little fanfare.

Our Teacher's Union also represents a vast majority of State Employees and some of their power was recently striped away since our newly elected Republican governor took office. I am not a union member - never really saw much interest in joining - but I can see the purpose behind them. It's really about having a voice in government whether at the local or state level. The way I see it in every state that is now taking up this fight to "get their financial house in order", state employees are being used as the scapegoats for all things "over budget". To cut costs, I've seeing that most states are implementing the following tactics:

- freezing pay raises.
- freezing new hiring.
- increasing health insurance premiums while also reducing health benefits (or removing benefits, yet keeping premiums the same).
- limiting the collective bargaining power of state unions
- changing investment strategies for active (and retired) state employee 401(k) plans (in some cases increasing mandatory contribution levels) or proposeing dropping 401(k)'s altogether

In every state I've looked at where state budget woes are a key factor, issues surrounding state employees and their benefits are the focal point. But what cuts have these states actually sought to get their financial houses in order other than attacking the salaries and/or benefits of state employees? Seems to me few states have attempted to truly address the root causes of their financial woes, i.e., their investment strategies, their tax policies, the excesses within their state congressional budgets (i.e., are State Representative's salaries being frozen? Are their benefits being reduced? Are they coming out of pocket to pay more and do with less?)

In every instance, it is the State employees, teachers and public school systems that are being attacked, but it's not these individuals or entities that are the root causes of the State's financial woes. It has been over-spending, lack of proper tax codes, not balancing their own state budgets for years and a host of other problems where the salaries of state employees have very little economic impact as far as state budget shortfalls are concerned.

Now, let me be fair on this matter where the hieracy of state employees are concerned: the Governor is their boss! As such, he (or she) has every right to direct state matters as he/she sees fit. However, our national Constitution in some ways trump state Constitutions. Therefore, all state employees have the right to peacefully assemble and have their voices heard. To that, Gov. Walker, in attempting to eliminate the collective bargaining power of Wisconsin state employees, is in effect not only trying to silence state employees, he's also trying to destroy their only means of fair representation within their state legislator. That is wrong!! What he and other Governors are attempting to do (or in the case of my own state Governor, has done) is create a dictatorship - the very form of (federal) government many people (Conservatives) claim they themselves despise! It's not enough to reduce or hold wages or cut benefits of state employees. Our voices are also being silenced by state government's quest to remove the only voice state employees have to advocate on their behalf.

Write your Congressman you say. How can I do that when it's the very "representative" who's attempting to take away my income, my benefits and most importantly my voice!!!

If you support freedom of speech, I really don't see how anyone can be against what's happening not only in Wisconsin, but in other places all across the country.

Click to expand...

Not sure that the FDR paper was in the last ten pages but suggest you find that paper and see what the "Father of liberalism" said about public unions. There is nothing that prevents public unions from being heard but when the leadership of that union demands from elected Representatives of the taxpayer that they provide public unions with better benefits than the private sector and then directs campaign contributions to representatives that support unions, there is something wrong with that picture.

Scott Walker ran on the platform he is implementing in Wisconsin and the election results gave him the authority to do what he said he would do. As we were told by Obama elections have consequences, "we won, you lost" except now when the election results went against the unions in Wisconsin. Public unions have no business having collective bargaining rights and FDR agrees.

Conservative said:

Keep diverting, taxpayers pay for the public union employees, no taxpayers no public union employees. You buy what you are told because you want to believe it. Those paying Federal Income taxes fund the govt.

Click to expand...

I’ll just address the meat of this rambling, almost incoherent post. Taxpayers PAY WAGES of public employees, for services performed. If taxpayers were funding unions,people that had a hard on against unions(such as yourself) would have been lining up for the last hindered years filing court cases against their money funding unions. End of story,have a good day conservative.::2wave:

MaggieD said:

Join the real world with the rest of us, Objective Voice. This has been going on in the private sector for the past three years. Washington bailout money infused billions into public sector jobs, second only to its bailout of the financial industry. In the past two years, the private sector employment has dropped by 7%. During those same two years, public sector employment has risen by 2%. Cities with job growth favor public sector hiring - Business - Forbes.com - msnbc.com

Click to expand...

But was that infusion of federal capital the fault of public workers? We didn't ask for that money. Our state legislator/governor's did. And what did they do with it? Some used it effectively; others squandered it. But that has little to do with what got these states with budget shortfalls in trouble in the first place.

Again, my point is state employee and retiree salaries and benefits are NOT the main cause of these state's budget shortfalls, and the collective bargaining power afforded state employee unions should not be held accountable for any given state's inability to balance their own budgets. The legislators created the mess, but state employees are paying for it. That's wrong.

(BTW, let's not be patronizing here, okay? I may be a state employee, but I pay city, state and federal taxes just as everyone else. I pay my property taxes same as you. I shop at retail stores same as you. I live in much the same way as everybody else. So, let's not attempt to differentiate one world view from another simply because I work in state government. Contrary to popular belief, I live in the exact same world as you do. My association with public (state and federal government) and private sector employment may provide me with a better perspective on these such issues than you may otherwise believe. So, let's first seek to understand one another then be understood, before passing judgment shall we?)

pbrauer said:

As usual, you twist facts to serve your condescending attitude. You implied the taxpayers directly funded the unions by stating: "I know, the truth hurts. Taxpayers fund the public union employees." Are you also going to say that those who pay federal income taxes funded the killing of troops in Iraq? Some people would.

Click to expand...

Non-union taxpayers fund public sector unions in Wisconsin.

Period.

And that is pathetic.

MaggieD said:

Because taxpayers can't afford to pay them an average of $75,000 a year. Because their benefits are totally out of line. Look at the numbers -- if those are even right -- their benefits are damn near as much as their salaries, for heaven's sake. And fighting for Viagra coverage? Really. Give me a break.

Oh, and they got a 4.7% increase last year....in one of the toughest economic climates our country has ever faced. No pity party here...

Click to expand...

I would be interested to see if you have any documentation that shows that $75,000, which includes their benefits, is out of line with the average worker with 4 - 8 years of college.
Or is this just your feeling?

Conservative said:

From private investors

Click to expand...

So private investors give millions to hedge fund managers for what exactly?

liblady said:

yeah...no it's certainly not right. a person running a school district should make a decent salary. why do you oppose that?

Click to expand...

CEO's paychecks are not cut by the government out of tax money, while public employees are paid through tax money, as are union negotiated contracts, benefits, healthcare, etc. Therefore, define "decent salary", and is that the same as "big salaries" as you described or are we talking about two different things?

MaggieD said:

But tax cuts have been proven to stimulate business and individual spending.

Click to expand...

I would like to see your proof?

Because that has not been the case with the tax cuts given to the wealthy and corporations over the last decade in the US as a whole.

Catawba said:

I would like to see your proof?

Because that has not been the case with the tax cuts given to the wealthy and corporations over the last decade in the US as a whole.

Click to expand...

Then your argument isn't with me, it's with the United States Congress.

Catawba said:

So private investors give millions to hedge fund managers for what exactly?

Click to expand...

In hopes of making a better return on their investment than they would get out of a savings account. Where do you think the hedge funds get their money?