Should Scott Walker Become creditable & give up his & the legislatures pensions?

[cfg83]

Arragonis -

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I'm an outsider but just to ask a question - how much tax and pension would these guys pay in total from their salary ?

As a rough % even.

I heard this today on the radio, but I only remember that the health care contribution would increase from 6% to 12%. However, the unions have agreed to concessions like this. The real issue is dissolving the collective bargaining agreement and other things like requiring that the unions be recertified every year.

You might enjoy this article on the subject :

Labor's Last Stand | The Nation

CarloSW2

[rmay635703]

Many of you apparantly don't know, I'm not union and have never gotten any benefit of any sort from any company or union, ever. I have receieved moderate pay but never had insurance in my entire life.

My standpoint is if Walker wants one group of COUNTY government employees that are paid via property taxes to give up something, he as a leader must actually lead and be willing to give up the same as those he is asking. The old saying if you want them to go one mile, you better go two is true.

Unless he and the legislature is willing to give up the same, in my mind he has zero creditability and is just a overpaid mouthpiece.

I too don't agree with the pay level or benefits of government employees in the state. I find the $100k+ salaries of state administration and COACHES more sickening, especially when the highest paid tend to also be in the most incompetent of districts.

But since teachers salary (at least in the K-12) is not directly apart of our deficit and is instead related to property taxes why not have the judges, administrators, police, fire, legislature and executive branches give up the same amounts asked for by the teachers, so an EFFECT actually is felt by the budget?

If he actually did that, it would be
1. Fair
2. Effective

As opposed to serving a misguided agenda, with terrible unrelated measures included such as
1. Removing the ability to sue nursing homes or remove relatives to different facilities
2. Forcing people (poor, disabled, elderly) who have no income to pay for their coverage/treatment.

I am all for making government employees benefits at least match the norm, but i am not for focusing on one group that happens to tie into a pollitical group alone and tieing in misguided damaging legislation that will end up being sorted out over a period of years.

And I also agree with Frank, its long since time we get the hell out of everywhere we are posted and focus on fixing our own house and stop making enemies in the outside world.

Cheers
Ryan

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Many of you apparantly don't know, I'm not union and have never gotten any benefit of any sort from any company or union, ever. I have receieved moderate pay but never had insurance in my entire life.

My standpoint is if Walker wants one group of COUNTY government employees that are paid via property taxes to give up something, he as a leader must actually lead and be willing to give up the same as those he is asking. The old saying if you want them to go one mile, you better go two is true.

Unless he and the legislature is willing to give up the same, in my mind he has zero creditability and is just a overpaid mouthpiece.

I too don't agree with the pay level or benefits of government employees in the state. I find the $100k+ salaries of state administration and COACHES more sickening, especially when the highest paid tend to also be in the most incompetent of districts.

But since teachers salary (at least in the K-12) is not directly apart of our deficit and is instead related to property taxes why not have the judges, administrators, police, fire, legislature and executive branches give up the same amounts asked for by the teachers, so an EFFECT actually is felt by the budget?

If he actually did that, it would be
1. Fair
2. Effective

As opposed to serving a misguided agenda, with terrible unrelated measures included such as
1. Removing the ability to sue nursing homes or remove relatives to different facilities
2. Forcing people (poor, disabled, elderly) who have no income to pay for their coverage/treatment.

I am all for making government employees benefits at least match the norm, but i am not for focusing on one group that happens to tie into a pollitical group alone and tieing in misguided damaging legislation that will end up being sorted out over a period of years.

And I also agree with Frank, its long since time we get the hell out of everywhere we are posted and focus on fixing our own house and stop making enemies in the outside world.

Cheers
Ryan

A few other points to consider: did you know that teachers in public schools are not the only ones that have unions? Everyone in the system from administrators to custodians also do. And what if you don't like the lousy, indoctrinating curriculum that your kid is being force fed? Guess who creates it? not the teacher. Guess who orders it for use in the school district? Not the teacher.

So why do the teachers take all the heat? For one thing, no one realizes that the administrators (of whom there are MANY) get paid much more than teachers do; also, everyone including the school custodians are paid royally, compared to what their job skills would be worth in the private sector.

Think of it this way: When you go to a restaurant and get a bad (and overpriced) meal, who do you blame? You probably might blame the waiter or waitress, because he is the only one you interact with. No one blames the chef. No one blames the janitor. No one blames the restaurant owner. When you go to a bad play or a bad movie do you blame the playwright? The producers? Or only the actors?

The main difference is that you must pay for public schools, even if you don't use them. Unlike bad meals and bad entertainment, you can't opt out of paying school taxes.

[Frank Lee]

School funding shouldn't be linked to property holdings; it should be linked to how many kids you have, proportionally.

There are plenty of strange and expensive things going on in schools now, that weren't when I was in school eons ago. For instance, I notice school buses in my town from several other towns 30 miles away, every day, not for sporting or other special events either. We are trucking kids out of their home districts, into others. Why? I would like to see the bussing statistics- how many miles busses put on in, say, 1975 vs today, and why?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

School funding shouldn't be linked to property holdings; it should be linked to how many kids you have, proportionally.

There are plenty of strange and expensive things going on in schools now, that weren't when I was in school eons ago. For instance, I notice school buses in my town from several other towns 30 miles away, every day, not for sporting or other special events either. We are trucking kids out of their home districts, into others. Why? I would like to see the bussing statistics- how many miles busses put on in, say, 1975 vs today, and why?

Oh, BTW, did you know that school buses have been exempted from federal emissions standards ever since school busing became a 'sacred cow', many decades ago? It makes me laugh that parents appear to be SO concerned and vocal about the environment and the safety of children - yet they put them on state mandated buses that reek of nauseating exhaust fumes and often don't even have seat belts.

[Odin]

I love looking at this-
Only 5 states in the US prohibit collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows. (By the way, Wisconsin is #2.)
South Carolina -50th
North Carolina -49th
Georgia -48th
Texas -47th
......Virginia - 44th.

From everything I have read on the subject Wisconsin had a balanced budget at the start of the year, their gov went and gave massive tax cuts to every company he promised to in the election. Now they are broke. Instead of listening to the people who are VERY willing to take massive cuts he is being a dumb ass and just wants to destroy the unions. He is unwilling to listen because he doesn't care about anyone but those who have money to fund his election.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

A few other points to consider: did you know that teachers in public schools are not the only ones that have unions? Everyone in the system from administrators to custodians also do.

Since when has management (administrators) ever been unionized? Only in wishful dreams and imaginative minds.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Oh, BTW, did you know that school buses have been exempted from federal emissions standards ever since school busing became a 'sacred cow', many decades ago? It makes me laugh that parents appear to be SO concerned and vocal about the environment and the safety of children - yet they put them on state mandated buses that reek of nauseating exhaust fumes and often don't even have seat belts.

This partisan rationalizing ignores the fact that school buses are exempt from federal emissions standards because they're lumped with all vehicles with GVW >8500 lbs, not because they're one of someone's convenient green or civil rights scapegoat targets.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

$775,000,000,000 for Iraq... and counting.
$380,000,000,000 for Afghan... and counting.

$2,700,000,000 Wisconsin's deficit

Let's all go bananas over the littler one...

Exactly! If we had the balls to cut defense spending by measly $200 billion/year the national debt would be pretty much nothing. Hell, we would still probably outspend the next four countries, combined, so it's not like we would be defenseless, we just wouldn't have the money to run around playing world police all the time and buying stuff we'll never use. Defense spending is corporate welfare at it's finest.

[mcrews]

[QUOTE=roflwaffle;221633]Exactly! If we had the balls to cut defense spending by measly $200 billion/year the national debt would be pretty much nothing. Hell, we would still probably outspend the next four countries, combined, so it's not like we would be defenseless, we just wouldn't have the money to run around playing world police all the time and buying stuff we'll never use. Defense spending is corporate welfare at it's finest.

hummmmm, where to begin:

TODAY, the national debt is $14Trillion. tell me how your math works??????
roflwaffle said: "cut defense spending by measly $200 billion/year the national debt would be pretty much nothing. " what are you smoking???
that's not even the interest payment on the debt!!!!! HELLO!

THe Total (including the war funding)Defense Budget is $689.8Billion for 2010. 3/4 the size of the stimulus bill.
THe TOTAL (10 years of the two wars) is $1 Trillion. Obamacare which is underfunded by $ 2-3trillion, is $1 trillion
THe budget for Medicare/medicaid/Social security is $1.494 Trillion