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

I figure since this is popular here in WisConSin it deserves attention in the irrelevant off topic forum.

Since our gov seems to believe teachers should give up collective bargaining rights and pay 50% toward their pension shouldn't he at the least do the same?

I don't feel he is remotely creditable to not practice what he preaches, I also don't think the roughly 700million plus we pay direct and indirect to management, legislators, governor, superintendants, judges and others should be overlooked. Perhaps stopping the 1million dollar pay positions with pay caps would be a better solution?

He also wants to, in the same bill, take away health care for elderly and poor and the right for state workers to join together to object to any unfair treatment that they might receive, this right is why we have safe working conditions in everyones work place, why we have minimum wage, pensions and in turn social security, weekends, 40 hour work weeks, most of these were started in Wisconsin by unions, the things that you think of when you think of America we have because of Unions, they are not written in to our bill of rights or anything else, they are here because they were fought and died for and they can dissipater on a whim, just like some states are talking about cutting back or repealing child labor laws (another law that was created because of unions), nothing is set in stone and it can all dissapear before your very eyes if you aren't paying attention, it makes me glad that my state has had 100,000's of people show up in the last week to fill our capital and that some of our senators had enough sense to leave so the rest of us would have more then a few days to read the 140 pages that were being asked to be signed in to law, most people who were supposed to vote on this bill didn't have enough notice to read it fully before it was supposed to be voted on so how could they fully understand what was in it!

People get the govt they deserve. Sometimes I think Americans have forgotten, don't appreciate, and no longer deserve what our forefathers built.

You forgot the part where he removes the ability of people (relatives) to intervene or even sue Nursing homes for abuse. You would no longer be able to remove them from the homes either. Nice touch

My statements were short and glazing but yes indeed this bill is a stinking republican jizz fest. All the things the republican party has been dreaming of since the 40's.

If they voted republican certainly.

But... They really don't deserve the current government, they have been dumbed down to the point they can't know any better, the authority figures that should be role models are all corrupt and useless. And further the system is rigged, your vote really doesn't count as the current system works, unless of coarse you could motivate a mass of people so large as to overcome it which is very difficult indeed.

We would need someone to be able to stand up with truth and integrity against the current system and stand against what we are being told is the truth, and win a position of some significance in government. Then procede to clean house. Sadly people like that don't run and probably couldn't run do to the very high monetary requirements imposed on the system to keep outsiders out where they belong. The first fed reserve and fed income tax was thrown down by one determined man, Andrew Jackson, not a perfect or even very good person but he did what was right in that regard and was a hero for his time.

All this said, I think he should still give up his income and pension if he truly believes in all this garbage as should all those in the Wisconsin Legislature who believe in this thing.

Cheers
Ryan

But you need to remember those other things we have because of unions. Like for instance the right to have your pay docked so the union bosses can contribute to their political buddies. Or (going back to the days when I worked union construction jobs) the right to sit around after you've done the union-sanctioned amount of work for the day, 'cause doing more would make your less-skilled union brothers look bad, or the right to sit on your butt waiting for a union electrician to run an extension cord...

As for those guaranteed wages & pensions, I work for myself. When times are bad, as they are now, my income is significantly less than it was a few years ago. Why should state/union workers go on getting the same high wages? (And likewise, why don't the union bosses insist that they get profit sharing when times are good?)

I'm sorry, but in my experience most union bosses (like most corporate CEOs, with whom they have more in common than with the rank-and-file membership), only care about increasing their own power. If they need to screw over their membership or the country in the process, they won't hesitate one heartbeat.

I learned a trade at 18 that made me a valuable commodity, and I was very good at my trade. I didn't need anything but a bent car and an air compressor and electricity. When I started working for someone else, they got half of the labor I produced and all of the parts profit. No benefits whatsoever.

They raised the labor rate but did not want to give us our half so everyone walked out of the job. There was no union, it was just a spontaneous reaction to getting screwed. They gave in that time but eventually they stopped paying us 50% of the labor charge.

I built cars on my own and started my own business. Learned a lot about running a business and got my arse kicked the first time. The second time I did better and my employees got a salary, full medical benefits and a 15% matching retirement contribution to their individual retirement accounts. Paid vacations and sick leave, as long as it was reasonable.

I understand the reason why unions were an essential part of the labor movement in the early 20th century. Management considered people as expendable tools of capital production. Use em up and let them go.

I also understand the problems involved with running a business and how unfair it is to work 60 hours a week for less than 70 cents and hour, living in an unheated building, with no hot water, so you can become debt free and financially strong, conditions no employee would tolerate for any length of time these days compared to 100 years ago.

To attribute the value of happy employees to the union movement demonstrates a biased attitude. In general this form of character assassination is used by both parties to get people to hate someone because they are a despicable tyrant or control the money supply, or control the job market. Maybe this was the case in the era of the giant monopolies of the early industrial era in the US but it is certainly not the case today.

Like all entities, unions must evolve into a useful partnership with the corporations and govt agencies they interact with or they risk obsolescence, especially if they act like a virus and kill the host that provides the essential capital supply for existence.

The northern states are seeing the results of the last 50 years of union dominance of industrial operations. The pendulum has swung towards the left this time and the CEOs and owners of the large manufacturing companies are looking elsewhere for profitable operations. If you were them you would do the same, when you are facing bankruptcy if you allow the status quo to continue.

Now the US faces its greatest threat of all the time since our existence. National bankruptcy is not a joke, or some empty threat. There are many examples to study in history. Khrushchev said "we will bury you". he didn't say how it would be done. but the US in its self righteous arrogance is now fighting the perpetual conflict in Afghanistan that bankrupted the old Soviet Union, and we are headed in the same direction form my perspective.

If you hate Democrats or Republicans, the problem is between your ears, and you have been programmed by propaganda as effectively as the Germans were in the 1930s.

WE have maxed out the US credit card, most of it was on the Democrats watch, so spare me the hypocrisy of trying to blame the Republicans, as that act renders your point as worthless.

If the govt of Wisconsin as well as the govts of many other states continue to allow a small percentage of their citizens to force them to continue on this course of financial disaster then every citizen in the US will suffer when the US dollar ponzi scheme dies and even those who were fiscally responsible loose their savings and retirement security.

WE don't have the national cojones to even decide to change the retirement age for Social Security for gods sake. Life expectancy in 1900 was 43 years. When SS passed in the 30s it was 62. Guess what, that was the retirement age. That meant half of the people paying into the system never saw a dime. Of course when you pay out benefits it's hard to complain about not living long enough to get your dime back when you did not pay in for 30 years.

My grandmother paid in 40 quarters. She paid in at 1%, a total of about $375 over 10 years. She got about $100 a month for 28 years from age 62 to age 90.

I would have to live to the age of 545 (no misprint) to receive the same benefit to money paid in ratio that she did.

If you want to look at govt gone wild, study the history of FDR's presidency.

Study the history of federal income taxes and the max rates at 90% + in the early 1950s when they actually tried to pay back the war debts from WW2.

Can you honestly tell me that inflation is as low as the govt tells us. Its only because housing values have collapsed.

Many of the northern states jacked up peoples property tax rates when times were "good". I read about a city bus driver making 100k a year in some north central city. Include benefits like retirement and medical insurance and he is making several times more money than I ever made in my lifetime, for driving a bus.

The localities in Michigan where the auto manufacturing companies were a significant part of the industrial base raised their property taxes to rates I have seen as high as 6% per year. Our local rate is .685% about 11% of their rate.

How can you pay 6% property taxes and 93% federal income taxes and stay alive, unless you are making many millions of dollars a year.

Do some research and see how many people actually make that much money a year. Let them pay the 70 trillion this country owes now and they will leave the country instead of paying the bill.

Go ahead, slap Bill Gates and Warren Buffet with a 99% pre death inheritance tax and see how much they spend on attorneys to prove its unconstitutional, while the rest of us poor citizens are sent a bill to pay for the govt's continued stupidity since they don't have the money to pay their attorneys.

regards
Mech

When Harry Truman left the presidency, his only pension was from military duty in WW1. He sold his memoirs and paid over 90% income taxes on the proceeds from that sale.

All he could afford to do was walk down the streets of Independence Missouri for the rest of his long life.

Maybe you should get all politicians to follow Harry's example, instead of trying to assault the reputation of the current governor of Wisconsin, who inherited the issue from his predecessors. You know like Obama is still blaming Bush for all the problems, even those created by the democratic controlled congress after 06.

regards
Mech

My father was a Teamster til he retired recently - the union ran almost every company he worked for into the ground, one trucking company after another. Much like jamesqf's experience, my father had no choice but to slow down and take unneeded breaks or risk making the slackers look bad. Thats not efficiency, and thats not republicans fault. The reason my father's companies, the state budgets, and taxpayers are in the woes they are in is because democrats got in bed with the unions years ago buying votes by giving the unions whatever they wanted. Every Teamsters magazine my father ever got was gung-ho for democrats, republicans were the devil on wheels... with the rampant corruption, backroom political deals, and laziness from Jimmy Hoffa (former Teamsters boss) on down, its amazing that any party would set up laws to benefit these bullies

Too bad the same sentiment for reading bills and understanding them didn't exist in D.C., the health care(less) bill was 2000+ pages. They're all politicians, its just a game they play to win your heart.

All the things republicans have dreamed of since the 40s?
- private-sector jobs going overseas while state unions rake in the raises? (here in NY the teachers were protesting a pay freeze recently, while my father's company went under and laid off hundreds of people)
-private-sector retirement is you saving in a 401k, the state retirees are guaranteed the average of highest 3 years' salary -for life- paid by taxpayers?
-My parents paying $400+/month for COBRA health insurance in retirement, and then forced to pay taxes to keep the union bosses in power?
No those arent republican dreams. Thats the dream of state-employee unions. The governor's dream is merely an attempt to right the ship and make things equitable for all of his consituents - something I'd expect both parties to embrace

Additionally, the new governor here in NY, Andrew Cuomo, is in the process of laying off some of the state workforce, freezing pay and hirings, and cutting state budgets across the board... including (gasp!) healthcare, transportation/construction, and education, all in an effort to keep the state out of bankruptcy (same problem as Wisconsin). Yet theres no national media coverage, no public-employee "riots", no calls for him to surrender his pay. Just a few NY-union TV ads complaining. Why is that? Does the outburst over Gov. Walker have more to do with his party affiliation? NY Gov. Cuomo has a (D) after his name, which apparently is a carte blanche to cut budgets without media coverage and riots (people here generally think he is doing whats best for the state). Gov. Walker is facing the same budget crisis, near-insolvency of the state, and a ballooning deficit, and is approaching the issue in much the same manner (albeit a more permanent solution-cripple the unions), yet gets the opposite reaction. Interesting...

I think ALL government workers should have their pay and benefits cut in order to balance the State and Federal budgets. I agree with the limitations that Walker wants to put on collective bargaining as it is a good way to balance the budget and a government job is not an entitlement. It's a job and should be subject to market forces and the health of the employer just like any other job. That being said, I also want to see pensions and benefits for out of office elected officials eliminated entirely. There is no reason a 1 term Congressman should get paid for life for 2 years of work. Retirement should be their responsibility to take care of just like anyone else. After we tackle that then maybe we can start cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits too. If we fail to do so the country will go broke and the benefits will disappear anyhow. It is better to do it now and limit the people affected to the recipients instead of letting it destroy everyone.

Let's just cut to the chase.
Why the hxxx do state workers need a union to get paid tax dollars??????
And when the ability to pay taxes dries up....who in the Hxxx do these state workers think they are to demand they get to keep all the goodys they stole from the tax payor all these years? Who said that a govt worker should get 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 70% of their pay for the rest of their lives???
Whining pigs.

SO your stupid onesided union poll.......
WHINING CUT THEIR PAY!!!!!!
instead of getting a high paying cush job that you can't get fired from, why don't you get of your axx and run for office. Take a risk (oh sorry, your union) spend a crapload of your own time and money and risk losing an election.
When you can make a real life fair comparison. call me.

Well said Tim.
The double standard is sicking.

There is no comparision between public(union)sector jobs and private sector jobs
1. all public sector jobs -100% so even the worst employee get benefits
inthe private sector only about 10% get an equal benefit.
2. the govtmnt employee has a higher total package than the private sector.
3. government jobs DO NOT flow with the existing economic conditions. They get to keep everything the ever bargined for. Not so in the private sector.

When you peel the layers away, you find uot what leaches the govnmt unions have been.

One reason Cuomo is getting a different reception is that the first thing he cut was his own pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/ny.../04unions.html

What the Democrats need to remember is that the income of the individual does not exist for them to redistribute it. It exists for the benefit of the individual. Higher and higher taxes just take away the incentive to work or to live in a certain place. For example, I would love to live in New York again but there is no way I could afford the taxes. Property and school taxes for me would be about 10X what I pay in Florida and don't even get into the state income tax and sales tax rates there. I am not a wealthy person either. I am working class and make less than $30k a year. However, the taxes would keep me from realizing my dreams and improving my life so I am forced to live in Florida. This is also why the wealthy are fleeing states like New York and New Jersey in droves. The states therefore receive NO taxes from these people and they are losing the very people their social system relies on to pay for all of their social programs. Cities like Detroit also suffer under the weight of excessive taxation where the only people left are those that cannot afford to flee. Government can and must do less if we want any hope of saving our country. We cannot afford to keep adding to it's responsibilities anymore and paying for them by saddling future generations with debt. The free ride is over. Now it is time to pay the piper and start living within our means.

From a friend's Facebook note, "Only 5 states don't have collective bargaining for educators. Those states rank as follows, re: avg. SAT+ACT scores: South Carolina 50th, North Carolina 49th, Georg...ia 48th, Texas 47th, Virginia 44th. Wisconsin is 2nd. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...SCHARTsat.html

Numbers are a bit old (1999), but interesting."

You get what you pay for. Go cheap on teachers & public services, and your children & state will suffer.

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 wonder where all this concern for thrift was when we were nation building all over the globe? :confused:

It's short-sighted and will cause more unemployment. You're absolutely right about getting the government you deserve, and those who elected leaders to be thrifty in this way will soon regret their choices.

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...

Arragonis -

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

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. :(

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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

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.

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.

http://www.zmetro.com/photos/2005/04/d-n-i.jpg

[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

can't anybody think/google.....
 

Well, let's not be calling the kettle black Mr "pot".......

So I read what you wrote and thought....WOW, that is an effective govenor....
1. Repub gov gets elected in the home of unionizem.
2. gets enough other repubs elected in the legislature.
3. that he can run ruffshoud of those pesky little minority voters.
4. Alll that in 2 months.

UPPPPPSSSSSSSSS........
Not so fast.....seems the special session for tax breaks that WAS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE!!!!!!!! NOT THE GOV!!!!!!!! was for the fisical yr 2013!!!!!!!

UPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSS MINOR DETAIL!!!!!!!!!!!
From article by Ezra Klein,
he had to do a pesky little retraction.
Update: I've been persuaded that the surplus-to-deficit picture is more complicated that I initially understood.(DUHHHHH) The budget report is working with two time periods simultaneously: 2010-2011, and then 2011-13. The $130 million deficit now projected for 2011 isn't the fault of the tax breaks passed during Walker's special session, though his special session created about $120 million in deficit spending between 2011 and 2013 -- and perhaps more than that, if his policies are extended. That is to say, the deficit spending he created in his special session is about equal to the deficit Wisconsin faces this year, but it's not technically correct to say that Walker created 2011's deficit. Rather, he added $120 million to the 2011-2013 deficits, and perhaps more in the years after that.

Oh I see.....there REALLY WAS A DEFICIT BEFORE the repub gov got in office.
don't you hate when the facts get in the way of a great story........

you hacked up that quote pretty well any who
lol there is a difference, your first clue should have been the first line "from everything i have read" you have no idea how much or how little I have read haha but from what you said i just didn't read deep enough and that things are a little more complex, Yes he did not create the 130 million dollar deficit but adding 120 mill over the next two years is not the wisest of ideas.

I still think he is a union hating ass hole. :D

Apparently you have no knowledge of what life is like is states other than yours. Here in NY, school administrators have their own union. So do custodians.

I know you'd rather not believe anything I say, so click here.

That's not the point. Every time I'm following a school bus I have to put my ventilation on recirculate because the fumes are so bad.

The same people who claim to want a cleaner environment and supposedly care so much about their children put them on buses that pollute and literally stink. If adults (except the driver, who is undoubtedly also unionized and highly paid, and therefore not about to complain) were subjected to riding on the same buses, they might not tolerate it.

You should begin with basic math. $200 billion/year for 60 years is $12 trillion bucks. Tack on interest and we're well over $14 trillion. The interest starts small, but by the time we hit $10 trillion we're paying another $500 billion/year in interest payments at 5%, which is $5 trillion more over a decade.

$400 billion to $700 billion for 60 years is $24 trillion to $42 trillion, on defense spending. At least with medicare/medicaid/social security we can show that we're caring for people and keeping the elderly out of extreme poverty, but the only thing we have to show for decades of out of control military spending after WWII are a lot of casualties and a lot of well off defense contractors.

Well... it wasn't partisan at first anyway... :rolleyes:

Heh heh... check this out

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/..._budget_unions

That was actually a big republican push around here where you could choose whatever school you wanted whether you were in the district or not, BS I say.

Another irritating trend is that schools strongly work against walking or biking into school over safety and the fact they don't want to pay a crossing guard $8 an hour, in fact the buses are required to pick kids up directly across from the school which is asinine. When I was in school which really wasn't even that long ago, if you lived under a specific distance you had to walk in and obviously if you wanted to ride your bike in, so long as you weren't late no one would brow beat you and your parents over it.

Citation sorely needed.

With the exception of the past two years, when we've been mired in the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression, a collapse which, incidentally, started six years into a Republican's watch, it's been Reagan and two Bushes that have spent like drunken frat boys with dad's credit card.

Yeah, because Bush and his Republican Congress didn't put us into two extremely expensive and unwinnable wars, let Greenspan run roughshod over the markets, and then conveniently blame the incoming Democrats before the seats had even warmed up.

BTW, remember TARP? And the auto industry bailout? And the buy-a-huge-truck-and-get-it-practically-tax-free program? And Afghanistan? And Iraq? Those were Bush-era programs.

Bush vetoed twelve whole bills in eight years. Twelve. That's not the sign of somebody fighting for fiscal conservatism.

Yes, that plants Walker firmly into the union-busting camp, and strips his claims of budget justification to shreds. People like the Kochs and Walker won't be happy until everyone is working at minimum wage, or less, without union rights, for them. Of course, that's just my worthless opinion, but reading what Walker said, substantiates my opinion greatly.

The comment was about busses.