Stanek Sunday Funnies: “These children that you spit on” edition
David Bowie fans will recognize the line in my subject heading from his classic song, Changes:
And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They’re quite aware of what they’re going through
I thought of that line when viewing the following political cartoon by Jack Ohman at GoComics.com. Ohman is a liberal pro-choicer no less, who I’m sure doesn’t realize the tragic irony of his attempted wit…
Those children that baby boomers spit upon by promoting their abortions if inconvenient should not now be expected to give up their lifestyles for those same inconvenient baby boomers. Ohman’s cartoon signals the coming unrest.
Here’s another along the same lines, by conservative Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com. The tiny safety net is thanks to abortion…
More tragic irony abounds in pro-abortion/infanticide President Barack Obama. It should come as no surprise that he considers inconvenient old people no differently than inconvenient babies, despite his attempted cover-up, which he was outed on this week. From the Wall Street Journal:
ObamaCare slashes about $145 billion from Medicare Advantage, the program that allows one of four seniors to escape the traditional entitlement and choose commercial plans….
Medicare’s budget counters estimate that ObamaCare’s cuts in the Advantage program will result in enrollment falling by half. The cuts were scheduled to begin this year. But someone from the Obama campaign in Chicago must have conducted a poll in Tampa Bay or Scottsdale.
So in November 2010 Mr. Obama’s Medicare team announced a nationwide Medicare Advantage “demonstration project” that would test if paying insurers bonus subsidies would improve quality over the next two years. Lo and behold, according to a new investigation by the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, the $8.35 billion pilot program is just enough to reverse 71% of the Advantage cuts that would have hit seniors in the runup to November. And behold again, the demonstration project turns into a pumpkin in 2013.
Hence, astute political cartoons like this one by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
This was quite the ironic week for cartoons. When I speak to young people I point to empty bleacher sections and say they represent their aborted friends. I was reminded of that section of my speech when viewing this cartoon by Eric Allie at Townhall.com. I realize Allie didn’t intend for it to mean as I took it. He intended to point out the flagging youth support for Obama, which to me was ironic to begin with, since Obama so strongly advocated their deaths…
Final irony, by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
keep up the great work :D
That last one is hilarious.
Some good comics. Mind you, Obama makes it as easy as possible to make fun of him.
An “astute” political cartoon?
Maybe somebody would make that observation if they’ve been living under a rock the last few years.
The GOP just voted on a budget to eliminate medicare. And it is “astute” to talk about cuts? If Obama’s cuts are a ramp, the GOP’s are a flippin’ cliff.
And the last cartoon actually concedes a false point. Obama was born with just as much of a silver spoon in his mouth as Romney.
His “rich 1% banker” grandmother sent him to the most expensive boarding school in Hawaii. He is the third generation in his family to graduate college. His lackluster grades mysteriously led to ivy league shools and here we are.
Romney’s father was a self-made millionaire, as was Romney, who was the first to graduate college in his family and didn’t inherit his father’s money. His is a positive succes story. No idle blue-blood is he.
Obama, however was a slacker drug-using student turned “community organizer /agitator, turned faculty lounge pontificator. He currently agitates by dividing people in his every speech.
Obama/Dems pushing granny over the side and telling her not to worry because of the speed bump is a near perfect rejoinder to the pathetic lie told by the left about Paul Ryan’s proposal. I wonder if they suggested to granny that she simply take an aspirin?
Hans-
I think Romney is a great moderate choice – heck, he’s even fine by Jimmy Carter. I actually have agreed with him on most policies – though he’s got two of three positions on every policy, so it is easy to find something to agree with…
Jerry – and what is that pathetic lie told by the left about Ryan’s proposal?
Ex-GOP,
Well, at least Romney keeps on ticking. Obama, however, is a stopped clock who is wrong 10 out of 12 times.
A stopped clock is right only once in 12 hours. Your reference is not only odd, but it is wrong.
I was never good at math. However, I go mostly by digital clocks that differetiate a.m. and p.m. Does that make me half right?
Especially since I originally wrote 22 out of 24. I was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt either way.
Ex-GOP: “The GOP just voted on a budget to eliminate medicare.”
Please illustrate, through a more accurate description, that you understand the plan.
Optionally, illustrate how the status quo is sustainable.
Rasqual -
The Ryan plan swaps traditional Medicare for a voucher program – seniors get vouchers, and can choose to buy insurance with it. Now, we could argue about how well this would work (especially in a world where the term pre-existing conditions is back) – but the Ryan voucher plan is pretty well known, and has been voted on by the house.
In regards to the status quo being sustainable – when did I argue that the status quo is what we should do?
Rasqual – just a bit more on it – the plan was passed late March by the Republicans…228-191. The Catholic Bishops have since come out and blasted the plan.
I will say – I probably should have used the phrase “eliminate Medicare as we know it”. The vouchers would be part of a larger system called Medicare still – but the cost put on seniors would be much, much higher (according to the CBO).
Of course, it doesn’t phase in for decades, because people like to pass laws that affect others more than themselves…(see polls on raising taxes on the rich).
Ex-GOP:
“but the cost put on seniors would be much, much higher (according to the CBO). Of course, it doesn’t phase in for decades, because people like to pass laws that affect others more than themselves…(see polls on raising taxes on the rich).”
Much better said, thank you.
If you quadrupled any serious taxing proposal on the rich, would it close the deficit gap even 20%?
Rhetorical question.
The problem is spending, not revenue. Ludicrously, the most serious problem we could face is increased federal revenue procurement. Then we’ll just have two kinds of problems. Well, three, since the economy will tank even worse.
Here we go again.
The problem is spending and revenue. On this board, I’ve challenged many people to present a balanced budget without raising taxes as well. You can’t do it without completely gutting things like social security or medicare, or without getting rid of most of our military.
Just like any other recession and economic downturn, you stimulate the economy with deficit spending until things are chugging, and then adjust taxes to make up for it. If we hack spending and think we won’t affect the GDP…well, look at Europe and how their austerity programs have affected growth.
Maybe Europe waited too long to actually cut spending…..sound familiar….they kept kicking the can down the road toward insolvency. Ryan’s plan moves everybody onto a sustainable path “gradually”and seniors pay more cause they are given their own money to spend instead of government control. It is Obamacare that is destroying Medicare by cutiing the Medicare Advantage program some 40% to the tune of $140 billion. Obamacare also cuts $500 billion from Medicaid; not to make it more solvent;but to spend on other Obamacare programs. Who is pushing Grandma over a cliff? Oh, and did I mention that the federal government shifts the burden of paying additional Medicaid costs onto the states without compensating them.It not nly pushes grandma off a cliff but it pushes entire states off the cliff.
For Pete’s sake, the whole U.S. is rushing off the fiscal cliff!
Ex-GOP: When I said that “If you quadrupled any serious taxing proposal on the rich, would it close the deficit gap even 20%?” was a rhetorical question, I wasn’t implying that you should be oblivious to the point of said question.
This is what I don’t understand about folks who nod contentedly at the idea that taxing the rich will solve our problem — they never do the freaking math.
http://goo.gl/PdtN1
It wont. work. We can’t tax our way out of this. Something has to fail.
What should it be, EG?
Anyone care to know why Keynesian economics is so ubiquitously applied by politicians? The answer’s no mystery. It’s not because it’s best. It’s because it best supports their own political hopes.
http://goo.gl/pdXks
The way you BLITHELY say “Just like any other recession and economic downturn, you stimulate the economy with deficit spending until things are chugging, and then adjust taxes to make up for it.” is just Orwellian. It’s not even Keynesian thinking, actually. It’s accepting the political perversion of Keynes as if it’s so obvious that if others don’t recognize the simple way it must be done, they’re clueless.
http://goo.gl/gqDlL
It’s not just Hayek who’d be rolling over in his grave lately — Keynes himself would be aghast at what’s done in his name.
Oh but that’s the way we do it, don’tcha know. Everyone knows you stimulate with deficit spending, then tax! Never mind that the government that does so doesn’t follow Keynesian economic sense in non-recessions by NOT deficit spending. What hope has this vunderful, conventional approach you cite, EG, if it’s done in a context where all the other sensible economic counsel of sane economists isn’t heeded at all? Why don’t I hear your type during non-recessions, giving Keyne’s counsel for what we should be doing at THOSE times? But y’all think you can pull miracles out of a hat when people are shooting at the magician?
The classic.
“Party at the Fed!”
“Already?”
LOL
I’d really like to see someone try to refute Hayek’s points in this vid. Or support Keynes’.
Aging America is a slow-motion trainwreck, out in the open and even studied and commented on in public. However, nobody cares enough to look at it though, including the people on the train and the conductors leading them head-on into it. What’s more, it’s entirely man-made and the fruit of several separate but interlinked views and choices. Will America have the courage to choose to live on a firmer footing? Or, will mortgaging the future for the benefit of the present continue to be Western Civilization’s modus operandi and will reality shock us into dealing with it later?
I love David Bowie.
Ex:
To answer your question: The pathetic lie is that Ryan wants to push granny over the cliff.
Actually the only REALISTIC chance to save Medicare is through a Ryan type of approach. Obama is stealing from Medicare (thus hastening its demise) to pay for Obamacare. Everybody knows it and everybody is becoming more educated at the evil way Obama plans to cut expenses through the reduction of services ala rationing panels and schemes. So what else would we expect from such a person with a cold blooded, monstrous attitude that motivated him to fight tooth and nail against legislation that would have mandated medical care and attention be given to babies born alive during a failed abortion? Obama has yet to express regrets for his position on this, and why should he? He BELIEVES in abortion rights to an extreme degree.
Jerry – The massive KEY to Ryan’s plan working is rationing. The rate of medicare voucher cost inflation is set lower than the rate of expected rising of cost. If somebody can’t afford care, you are certainly not suggesting the government provide that care anyways – to do so would be in the system we have now.
Nope, the answer would be rationing of care – the CBO has said, the Catholic bishops hammered on it.
What is funny, is you (and Truth as well) say with a straight face that rationing will occur under Obama (and I agree with you), while not conceding that more rationing would happen under Ryan’s plan. Dramatically more.
There’s a reason he takes a long time to implement this – if the nation’s seniors really looked at the plan, they’d make it DOA.
rasqual -
Neither of your links worked.
If you honestly thing that you and I, after decades of economic debate, can settle Keynesian economics for good here – well, I applaud your optimism.
All I can say is that Europe fought the recession with austerity, and they’ve gone into a double dip.
Even here – Wisconsin went about their entire budget with spending cuts, and we were 50 out of 50 this last year on jobs – we lost jobs while most of the nation gained them.
EG: “There’s a reason he takes a long time to implement this – if the nation’s seniors really looked at the plan, they’d make it DOA.”
Oh good grief. So phasing in something that is transparently a difficult change is now to be taken not as wise and as good bedside manner when bearing bad news (and no solution will be good news), but rather as disingenuous cloaking of vile consequences? That’s Ryan’s reason?
Please. That’s hysterical. Not to me. On your part.
Weird with the links. The automatically created links fail, but if you cut and paste the text you see as the URL to use, it works fine.
“If you honestly thing that you and I, after decades of economic debate, can settle Keynesian economics for good here – well, I applaud your optimism.”
In other words, advocates of Keynesian solutions — technically, their abuses, since not even Keynes would recognize what’s being done in his name — have a great excuse to bury their heads in the sand, cover their ears and holler lalalalalala, and continue their idiocy. “We’ll never solve our differences.”
It’s not the difficulty of the issues, it’s really not. It’s that, at a popular level, I have yet to meet a single person who’s willing to discuss some of the fatal problems with Keynesian economics — or their abuses. For example, will you be the first willfully oblivious person I’ve met who would be willing to go the distance with me in discussing the knowledge problem, as articulated by Hayek? It’s not complex, really. But no, of course you won’t. Why? I don’t know. It’s as if those who support the worsening status quo are superstitiously paranoid of coming to grips with the actual defects in this status quo — like some kid with a sliver fearing the extraction more than the thing itself.
“Even here – Wisconsin went about their entire budget with spending cuts, and we were 50 out of 50 this last year on jobs – we lost jobs while most of the nation gained them. ”
Where were those jobs lost?
Why?
Does the question matter, or is it one that recall fans are concerned to avoid examining?
“All you can say” is that Europe went into a double dip. Big whoop. What, you’re pining for what might have been — falling into an abyss? I love this crap, I really do — Keynesian economics (and the abuses of those who are taken as Keynesians when they’re just idiots doing whatever) destroys a civilization, then when they wake up with the cosmic hangover everyone acts as if it’s the night’s sleep and morning regret that’s the problem. “See, if we’d just kept the party going 24/7, things’d’ve been awright!”
And you wonder — you just wonder, it’s so mysterious — why some of us hate creeping entitlements. Why it remains a mystery to anyone is a far larger mystery: when it comes time to pay the piper for all that time we were merrily dancing, no one wants to cough up. Instead, they firebomb banks and kill people. Why? Because they’re losing something they came to believe themselves entitled to. One or two generations in, a nanny state has become a norm. And when it becomes evident that no state can long be a nanny, those who’ve taken it for granted lose all civility; viz., civilization collapses.
Seriously, you Wisconsin people are bonkers for going after Walker. All you’ve done is create more uncertainty in your investment class, and among others who are wondering whether you’ll be morons enough to go the way of Illinois (which is desperately engaging in selective corporate welfare in order to avoid the consequence of raising taxes overall — again picking winners because they destroyed an environment where ALL business can thrive without need of cronyism).
I would like to defend Keynes for a second. Keynes advocated spending from savings during times of recession due to market realignments and other cyclical variations that actually could be addressed with investment. This is basically nothing more that spending saved money to convert manufacturing/services to stuff people want from stuff people don’t want. So when workers aren’t needed to do X because no one wants that service/product anymore, you invest previously saved money to retrain/retool so they can build and do stuff people want.
Duh.
These politicians who deficit spend ad infinitum and go hide behind Keynes as though he advocated such are just plain lying.
All this wrangling over health plans Ryan plan or Obama plan, all leads to the same thing, single payer. If we ever get single payer, it will include rationing and the ability of people to go outside the system if they can pay.
It would be most equitable and fair if the single payer system were funded by property taxes instead of income taxes. That way the truly wealthy would be more fairly taxed. Another reasonable funding mechanism would base people’s premiums and deductibles on income. So the premium would be like 6% of earnings and the deductible like 4% of earnings. That would motivate people to shop by cost and would help lower costs.
I wish Aerosmith would write some good songs 4life.
I think admitting you were wrong about something is the first step, but art can be very cathartic, and having the courage to speak out and encourage others to not make the same mistake can prove to be truly healing, especially when you apply God given talents.
What does pro-choice mean? Babies don’t get the choice, and if women could see the ultra sound during the abortion of their babies getting aborted, they would see the babies trying to escape-as in ‘silent scream,’ poor in quality but all we’ve got for now.
Pro-aborts believe in abortion as a positive solution to a negative problem.
They’re called pro-aborts.
Rasqual – Not buying the timing. It wouldn’t take 10 years to implement. Ryan’s doing it because seniors are a big voting block.
Keynes- you can debate hippie if you want – can read the thousands of pages of economic thought on it – do whatever you’d like. But yeah, not going to get into a debate on it.
I’ll go back to my original statement. Ryan’s plan is a train wreck. The CBO has said so. The Bishops have said so. The numbers are fuzzy at best, and even if he were to pull it off with flawless execution, we’d have seniors bypassing care because they can’t afford it. If you have a different assessment, that’s fine – would be interested in reading it. There is a lot of good analysis on it.
I will also state, that I’m not saying Ryan is bad, so therefore, every plan from Obama is good. I was a big fan of the debt committee’s findings. I also feel that the problem takes care of itself (in a big way) if gridlock continues, because taxes will go up in 8 months (too dramatically, but that will make a dent), and spending will go down.
In Wisconsin, we were down both public sector and private sector. Illinois was up. Wisconsin was down. Blame whatever you want – that is what the numbers are.
Hippie -
I think a single payer system is a done deal – will be here sooner than later if health care reform is repealed, but even with reform, it is coming.
Where were the public sector jobs lost, EG? Specifically.
How many teachers’ jobs were lost as a consequence of Walker’s reforms?
How many teachers’ jobs were lost as a consequence of union recalcitrance?
I can’t specifically tell you what organizations – but if I’m reading the numbers right (from the Bereau of Labor).
Jobs lost in total – Lost jobs in construction (7.7%), Information (2.3%), Financial Activities (1.8%), Professional and Business Services (.7%), Leisure and Hospitality (3.2%), and Government (2.7%).
Those percentages were year to year, not of the overall losses – so for Construction, 7.7% down compared to beginning of the year in that specific sector.
Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs. No other state lost more than 3,500.
Public was 17,800
Private was 6,100. Mississippi and Rhode Island were the only two other states to lose private sector jobs last year.
2,300 jobs were education related – teachers were 60%. Not sure where a breakdown could be found of ‘why’.
Since you don’t know why, I reckon you have few convictions about the Walker recall then. Right?
What proportion of the educator losses were in districts that extended union contracts ahead of Act 10’s passage, EG? What proportion were a consequence of new contracts where teachers had to pay slightly less than private workers (on average) toward their own health and pension plans?
I note that Texas leads the country, gaining ten times as many jobs as Wisconsin lost in the same period. I also note that collective bargaining is outlawed for teachers in Texas. The one difference? Stability. Businesses aren’t wondering WTF is coming next. Texas also has no individual or corporate income tax.
So I suppose if you oppose Walker, you’ll be demanding that his replacement in the recall effort will abolish taxes, eliminate any remaining traces of collective bargaining in the schools, and lower teacher salaries dramatically so they’re on a par with Texas teachers. Student grades and graduation rates might suffer, but maybe there’ll be jobs for the young adults.
Replace Walker so Wisconsin can prosper like Texas, a state that looks more like what Walker seems to have wanted than Walker had the courage to do!
Wait . . . no . . . that can’t be right . . . ;-)
I don’t pin much thoughts on Walker’s recall on the number of teachers employed. But he did say we should judge him on the number of jobs total, and I can’t ignore the fact that we’re one of the few states that lost jobs overall and in the private sector.
I also think Walker’s done a horrible job in some other places we talk about if you’d like…and this is coming from somebody that actually voted for Walker (a dark moment in my political voting record).
Anyways – I don’t think Texas is an overall model – the jobs they are adding haven’t been great ones (statistically), and they lead the nation (or are close the tops) in a lot of categories you don’t want to lead in – but yes, at least they are showing some growth.
I have a very hard time thinking that state employers are sitting on tens of thousands of jobs that they need to prosper as a business, but they can’t pull the trigger because they have uncertainty about their taxes. I suppose it is a theory…just a bit of a weird one if you ask me.
Right, EG — and how often are governors recalled just over failed promises for number of jobs created? If that were some normal behavior, all the union loons in Wisconsin would be calling for Obama’s impeachment for his claims for what the stimulus would have done for job growth.
One difference — Walker’s at least bringing the budget into line, in contrast with Obama and Illinois (and California, who leads the country in emigration to Texas, BTW).
We all know what’s going on in Wisconsin. It’s about the power of public unions to get whatever they damn well want, screw the taxpayer. Just now the public unions still have it better than the majority of private sector workers for benefits — and for the GALL of making it as bad for them as better than everyone else, they’re recalling Walker. And disingenuously — claiming that the loss of teacher jobs is the fault of Act 10, when in fact those jobs were lost in districts where the unions scurried to negotiate new contracts ahead of the act’s passage, thereby forcing layoffs because these contracts didn’t reflect Act 10 changes. It’s only where Act 10 wasn’t in force that teachers lost jobs, and lying unions blamed it on Walker.
Do you follow this stuff in your own state at all, or are you just a mindless political hack? Seriously.
“I have a very hard time thinking that state employers are sitting on tens of thousands of jobs that they need to prosper as a business, but they can’t pull the trigger because they have uncertainty about their taxes. I suppose it is a theory…just a bit of a weird one if you ask me.”
You really, really, really don’t understand small business — heck, large business — at all, do you? I mean, not in the least, if you think it’s a weird “theory.”
And Keynes, in case you were blissfully unaware, wanted stimulus to go to investors — not consumers. Yes — because it’s the investors who are not confident they’ll get a return who are sitting on cash. You KNOW this, EG. You’ve read it in the news. You KNOW there’s plenty of capital about. We don’t need freaking stimulus. Investors need CONFIDENCE. In all seriousness, if you are unaware of the role the soft possession of the mere disposition known as “confidence” plays in an economy… good grief.
Sorry if I sound unduly contemptuous, but I’m more and more freaked out of late that so many people who are putatively so very concerned about how bad things are for people, remain so clueless about the basics of how things work that they’ll support precisely the most destructive notions — often claiming the mantle “progressive” as well. That may not be you, but geez. You seriously don’t think union yahoos going more bonkers in Wisconsin than in any other state — half or more of ’em bused in from out of state as a consequence of national organization of the effort by not only unions but the DNC itself — you seriously think none of that has an effect on business? Whether the biggest mass referendum in the country on a tax/budget reformer such as Walker will result in a government turnover in Wisconsin . . . you call it a “bit of a weird [theory]” that that uncertainty affects businesses who make contracts with each other that make certain financial assumptions about the future? And that many business arrangements depend on regulatory approvals for this or that, which sometimes take YEARS after an application that also requires up-front capital investment with no assurance that by the time approval comes through, the business climate will be what’s needed to make it all work?
Good Lord the ignorance of business in this country by folks who think they’re owed a job by society. Again, not meaning you — you’re just a handy springboard to a rant. ;-)
Rasqual -
A few points – I’m going to ignore most of your economic ramblings…I feel that you just want to get a few things off your chest, and that’s fine. Feel free to post those ramblings at any point..I do it some myself.
1) I didn’t sign the Walker recall (though I never saw one either – but I had decided I was not going to).
2) I will most likely vote against Walker though. It has little to do with the collective bargaining part (though I think it was brought through terribly and with a lot of deception). I have a few issues with him:
a) When given the duty of balancing the budget (which all states have to do – they might just push some decisions down the road, which Walker did – don’t think that he didn’t) – he chose to cut funding to education and health care primarily. The state has thousands more not without insurance, many of them families. The change in insurance also was tough on some schools because the teachers already paid those rates, but the funding got cut anyways and had to make up for it elsewhere.
b) He’s not a good leader – he’s a terrible communicator and has divided the state. He’s the governor – the buck stops with him – he’s not a leader.
c) The voter ID bill is a bad bill – a solution in search of a problem
d) Our state is getting killed in job growth – we’re shrinking, not growing.
My guess is you don’t live in Wisconsin, and get all your news from a couple of sites. Is this correct?
On the rest of it – I’m largely letting you rant – but my question is, all those other 49 states that beat Wisconsin in job growth – are you saying that simply because they have stability in leadership and the future – no matter their tax structure – that it gives them the confidence they need to hire? Kind of a bizarre argument if you ask me. I’ve worked in and for businesses all my life. We hire when we need people and our business is growing. If the taxes change in a way to not be able to afford people, you get rid of them. If you are not hiring because you are guessing what taxes might be in two years…you shouldn’t be in business.
EG: “ The voter ID bill is a bad bill – a solution in search of a problem”
Do people obtaining jobs need to prove their citizenship, or no? Why should anyone be allowed to vote without proving they’re citizens? With as many illegal immigrants as there are in the country, why would you not think it important? Gee, what a coincidence that Democrats are against Voter ID, when illegal immigrants support Democrats.
How many jobs were created in January and February? What multiple was that count of your March to March total? Or is only the March to March total relevant to you?
How many other states showed that dramatic of an improvement in the post-Christmas economy? Wow. Wisconsin anti-Walkerites don’t really want to think about that.
“If you are not hiring because you are guessing what taxes might be in two years…you shouldn’t be in business.”
You really don’t understand business, do you?
Geez you Wisconsinites are insane. Seriously. You want to be just like Illinois. Are you stoned?
No, only Ex-RINO is that insane. The majority of Wisconsinites I’ve seen (and myself as a transplant who will PROUDLY be voting my first time for Walker this year along with my fiance) are quite sane. I’ve noticed this even in the confused city of Milwaukee. Lots of ” Scott Walker for Governor” signs outside the ghettos.
No rational person is going to want to be like Illinois. TRUST ME.
Rasqual -
– Voter ID is a multi-million dollar solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (do any research on voter fraud – especially the Bush crackdown on it and find the results) – and it disenfranchises voters. There are many, many stories (I can post some if you’d like) of elderly folks in the state without proper birth certificates that are caught up in this mess, unsure if they can vote because they can’t get proper ID’s.
– The total job losses I posted were March to March – 23,900 jobs lost March to March. I don’t know if you think that if we keep posting numbers, you’ll find one that looks good? Maybe on some Tuesday, we created a bunch of jobs or something. The numbers are out there – go find them. They aren’t good (January/Feb were good months – but March, we were third highest losses in the nation again)
– Rasqual – where do you live and what kind of industry are you in?
– I don’t want to live in Illinois – but based solely on job creation, Illinois is kicking our butts. Walker mocks them, they add jobs.
Newest polls in Wisconsin put the race in a dead heat – statistical tie.
I believe Walker will win – he’ll have a massive money advantage – with the majority of it coming out of state again. At least this race will be a good stimulus bill for marketing companies in the state.
We probably won’t have majorities for the GOP in both governing bodies though – so the agenda will be a bit more in check. In fact, many bills got blocked this last session and the GOP still had a one vote majority (a few seats had changed in previous recalls).
Sorry – one more thing – in the polls (which also gave Obama a wide lead on Mitt in the state) – it said the majority of people are voting based on the economy in the state – not based on the collective bargaining issue.
EG: “it disenfranchises voters”
Let’s grant that for argument’s sake.
Then so does anything else that requires an ID in this country.
Now let’s apply a categorical imperative.
No ID should be required to purchase a firearm, since citizens have as much right to keep and bear arms as they do to vote.
There, that was simple. I’m sure Democrats who are worried about disenfranchising people — and who are SO concerned about government spending on systems to track gun sales and owners — will be glad there’s no further need to ID gun buyers.
Seems to me if old folks can’t produce enough ID to vote, then expecting ID for the exercise of other enumerated Constitutional rights is onerous as well.
I live in the city and I work in I.T. among K12 educators. And Walker can mock Illinois all he wants. He has the integrity, apparently, to avoid our methods of ludicrous cronyist corporate welfare. The only reason CBOE Holdings, the CME Group and Sears did not leave the state was the legislative extension of (or creation of) new, special deals for them.
Anyone can keep (or create) jobs by cronyist actions. Seriously. The way cook Cook County shed jobs in recent years proved just how unneeded those “friends and family” hires had been in previous years. Touting any positives in Illinois is courting the probability that one is congratulating graft and corruption unbeknownst. And it’s an Illinois mindset that says “doesn’t matter — it’s jobs!”
” in the polls (which also gave Obama a wide lead on Mitt in the state) – it said the majority of people are voting based on the economy in the state – not based on the collective bargaining issue. ”
Recall Walker, but rally for Obama. On economic issues. Wisconsin’s better off than the national average economically, but Walker sucks and Obama rocks.
Yeah, this isn’t tribalism.
Bear in mind that the recall energy came from the union issues. Entirely. That was over a year ago, before the disappointing 2011 jobs numbers. Now, a year later, those numbers make for great appeals to those who couldn’t have cared less about the union histrionics. But let’s not imagine that the recall itself was fundamentally about the economy. Not. a. chance.
EGV,
While we maintain the tete-a-tete on the Santorum thread, I caught your chat with Rasqual, here… and while I’m usually loathe to wade into matters that are purely political, I can offer a few bits… especially since I happen to be a denizen of Wisconsin, as you are.
You wrote:
1) I didn’t sign the Walker recall (though I never saw one either – but I had decided I was not going to).
I’m gratified to hear that.
2) I will most likely vote against Walker though.
I was very dis-edified to hear that.
a) When given the duty of balancing the budget (which all states have to do – they might just push some decisions down the road, which Walker did – don’t think that he didn’t) – he chose to cut funding to education and health care primarily.
I think you know that this is a misrepresentation of the situation, at least as far as “education” is concerned (which is not at all the same as “money for public schools”, mind you). Act 10 required public school teachers to pay a portion(!) of their OWN retirement investments (I believe it was 5.8% of their salary) and to contribute at least 12.6% to their own health insurance premiums (horribile dictu! Many private employers require 35%, and I pay 100%!). Act 10 also forbade the monopoly of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC, the dominant state teachers’ union) over health insurance plans to schools (i.e. the schools were now free to shop around, often at dramatically reduced costs). The net result was, for those who cooperated with Act 10 (and who didn’t enact machinations against it), a far greater freedom to use those new monies where it was needed locally (rather than passing it through the hands of the state, through the hands of the unions, etc.). All talk of the “devastation of education in Wisconsin” is sheer, delusional screed… and as a teacher, I know this to be true.
The state has thousands more not without insurance, many of them families.
(1) Did you reflect further on Rasqual’s comments about “union war zone = hiring uncertainty”? Heavens, man… if the mere headlines of newspapers which comment upon unrest in the middle east can cause the stock market (for example) to plunge, do you seriously find it impossible that a chaos-ridden campaign to undo Act 10 (and to expel the lawmakers who enacted it) would have a detrimental effect on willingness to commit to new jobs?
(2) The teachers, at least, are not being “laid off” (save, perhaps, in the districts which refused to enact Act 10, and who rushed through some union-friendly, money-rich contracts before the deadline… at the cost of many layoffs of young teachers who have insufficient seniority); the “educator job loss” is mostly due to long-time teachers who are electing to take early retirement (complete with the “Cadillac” retirement benefits). Such “empty-nesters” really don’t fall easily into the “families” which you mention with some pathos.
The change in insurance also was tough on some schools because the teachers already paid those rates, but the funding got cut anyways and had to make up for it elsewhere.
It was. It was also a God-send to other schools who turned multi-million-dollar deficits into surpluses, who were then able to avoid laying off teachers (your concern, above), and who were free to shop about for better prices on that insurance. One school, in fact, only needed to “threaten” to shop around, and WEAC dropped its OWN premium rates significantly, to match the competition! Money saved, same insurance. Do you approve?
b) He’s not a good leader – he’s a terrible communicator and has divided the state.
This, coming from one who supports Obama, is a stunning display of irony (if not chutzpah).
He’s the governor – the buck stops with him – he’s not a leader.
Your opinion is noted and logged.
c) The voter ID bill is a bad bill – a solution in search of a problem
This statement of yours is almost completely devoid of substance, and it is incorrect.
d) Our state is getting killed in job growth – we’re shrinking, not growing.
Rasqual addressed this, already: if you seek to attribute “bad job news in Wisconsin” to Act 10, then you’d be hard-pressed to explain the striking success of Texas (and states with similar situations) on the same numbers and by the same standards. Let us run the experiment: keep Scott Walker, strengthen the numbers of those who support Act 10, defeat the unions soundly and utterly so that employers are reasonably assured of the stability of Act 10, and then let us see what happens.
My guess is you don’t live in Wisconsin, and get all your news from a couple of sites. Is this correct?
You are, of course, using a thinly-veiled attempt to suggest that Rasqual is ignorant of some necessary facts (due to his location out-of-state), and that you, as a resident, are in a better and stronger position to opine. Given the fact that I agree with Rasqual wholeheartedly (and see the sense he’s making), and that I am a Wisconsin resident, may we put this particularly silly comment of yours to bed, once and for all?
On the rest of it – I’m largely letting you rant – but my question is, all those other 49 states that beat Wisconsin in job growth – are you saying that simply because they have stability in leadership and the future – no matter their tax structure – that it gives them the confidence they need to hire? Kind of a bizarre argument if you ask me.
My dear fellow: if you don’t think that Wisconsin is not a consummate war-zone (which is firmly in the national spot-light) in the political realm, right now (on many fronts: judicial, legislative, executive, public safety, bullying of local businesses who support the governor, etc,), then you really haven’t been paying attention.
(?) That’s curious… my previous comment is in moderation, without links of any type!
Sheesh, is every regular on this board from Wisconsin besides me? Lol
Don’t worry, Jack. You’ll be here eventually. You’ve started commenting on Jill’s blog. I used live in Colorado/Arkansas when I first came here! I live in Wisconsin now…
one of us….one of us….one of us….
:P
There seem to be a few hot spots for commenters on this blog. Wisconsin, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Then there a few who use British spelling not only from across the Pond and Canada, but I believe Paladin in Wisconsin!
Rasqual – heading off to work, and busy tonight and tomorrow morning – so it might be a bit before more of a reply – but a couple of quick thoughts on your first post:
1) Surely you see a larger issue in your comparison of voting and buying a gun. If a crazy person votes, well, there isn’t a whole lot of harm done. If a crazy person buys a gun, they might just shoot up a school room somewhere.
Hey – on the surface, not that bad of a law – until you realize that we have existing laws to deal with fraud, and that people voting that shouldn’t isn’t much of an issue (there has been studies and focus in the past). And quite frankly (and we hear this argument with guns) – if a person who shouldn’t vote, really wants to vote – is an ID going to stop them? Especially when, at least in my polling location, the generic pollster is an 88 year old volunteer.
2) If Wisconsin should specify what the recall vote is about, and what people can vote on – well, maybe you should float that idea to some politicians. I agree – the recall effort started based on the collective bargaining issue. Statistically, people are judging him based on the economy now. You and Paladin can argue all you want on it and try to spin it – believe me, as somebody who defends Obama, I know that there are a lot more factors in play than the raw numbers. But this is what he’s going to be judged on.
Again though – I think he wins. The money advantage will be huge. I also think that this race mirrors the Presidential race (and the Kerry-Bush race) – you have a vulnerable incumbent, but the other side things that the guy in charge is so hated, that they can just put up anybody to run against them. If Feingold ran, this would be open and shut. But the Dems are going to pull a lackluster candidate out of the hat (a guy who just lost to Walker) – and that just isn’t going to cut it. Kerry = Romney = Barrett (not on political issues – but in the fact that they are subpar, 8th choice type of candidates when something better could definitely win).
Paladin -
So, in the other 49 states – with their union battles, tax uncertainties, and other squabbles – how have their businesses overcome the dark clouds and fear and pushed forward with job growth?
And if Illinois is indeed ahead of us, does that at least mean that their leadership is a calming influence, settling business down so that they can move ahead with what they need to do…hire people?
On Walker’s reforms – sure, it helped some districts. The unions said early in the whole battle that they’d be willing to pay those amounts. To many in the state, the step of breaking unions went too far. As a second issue – though you quickly dismissed it, my kids school, and a lot in this area, already had teachers paying those rates (or close to them), and had to cut in many other places. This was a solution for Milwaukee schools that the rest of the state bore the burden on.
And on the thousands now without insurance, I’m talking about how Walker wrote the feds and said we don’t have a balanced budget (though he tells us we do) – and is hacking thousands off of BadgerCare (I don’t remember the exact number – maybe you’ve got that amount for me).
Off to work – have a great day folks.
EG: “Surely you see a larger issue in your comparison of voting and buying a gun. If a crazy person votes, well, there isn’t a whole lot of harm done.”
You’re disenfranchising the same people that voter ID disenfranchises. You’re willing to acknowledge that 100%, without qualification, correct? You’re simply believing that a greater good warrants this burden; the state has a compelling interest.
But the state has a compelling interest in ensuring electoral integrity as well. It goes beyond Constitutional consistency.
At any rate, ID is required in order to get a job. Which is more important, EG — voting, or getting/holding a job? Why would you want to disenfranchise people needing work?
No one’s really fooled by the Democrats’ faux umbrage.
“And if Illinois is indeed ahead of us, does that at least mean that their leadership is a calming influence, settling business down so that they can move ahead with what they need to do…hire people? “
Good grief, EG. Are you at all aware of what’s been going on in Illinois? We lose a net 27,000 residents a year to other states because we suck so bad. Caterpillar — ET AL. — decide not to expand or build new facilities here, opting for more business-friendly states. Sears — ET AL — threaten to pull up stakes, till a panicky Springfield cuts ’em some corporate welfare in keeping with our cronyist traditions. Meanwhile, the Amazon tax fiasco shut down about 3000 affiliates, with another 3000 leaving the state and another 3000 suffering as a consequence. Many of those were not hiring companies, but small proprietorships with few or no employees. Others, like Fatwallet, employed 50. They moved to Wisconsin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckP0HWl_w3c
Two things. How much worse would Wisconsin be if its regulatory/tax environment were as bad as Illinois (not gaining business migration from elsewhere but losing it to elsewhere), and how much better would Illinois be if its regulatory tax burden were not driving companies like Caterpillar to open new plants in other states? We’re ranked 48th for business climate. You’re ranked way above that.
So what’s different between our states? I’m sure there are unknown factors, but one thing is certainly not unknown — the apparent war by the public sector on the private sector (“we deserve benefits — that you pay for — better than yours!”), vociferous enough to occupy the capitol, bus in out-of-state agitators, and cost the state millions in extra security and cleanup. On the latter score, people oblivious to the cost to taxpayers of their protests. People who attempt by mercenary use of non-residents, by intimidation, by general clamor, to subvert the legitimate and proper function of their duly elected officials’ work in the statehouse. By shouting through bullhorns inside the building, just outside legislative sessions, mind you, to subvert the government their fellow-citizens voted into office. “Never mind the rest of you citizens who voted for people we loathe; we’re going to exercise sheer mob power to force them to vote other than what you might want.” Add Obama’s class warfare rhetoric and the actual coming recall to the list and yes, you have a worsening business climate.
I’m stunned by the idiocy of folks on the left side of the aisle, I really am. They make government bigger and increase regulatory burdens on business, increasing their taxes, and then when you point out that momentous crises (by which I mean turning points) in government might affect business, they’re like, “Why? Whatever can you possibly mean?” Talk about obliviousness.
Do you understand, EG, that business sign contracts well into the future? And that they do this ALL THE TIME? And that anything uncertain about that future will reduce the number of risks a company is willing to take — which translates into fewer opportunities taken? This is not theoretical stuff. And the effects are felt both immediately and down the road.
http://www.erica.biz/2011/california-im-leaving-you/
And you wonder why the largest migration between states is from California to Texas.
And you wonder why, with a business climate that’s considered far better than Illinois, some of you folk are envious of Illinois, which sucks. “But the jobs, the jobs!” Yes. So solve that problem instead of having union thug demagoguery masquerading as reasoned analysis.
Geez.
“To many in the state, the step of breaking unions went too far.”
Yes — to selfish layabouts whose vote should be disenfranchised. ;-) Seriously, though, since when is bringing their pension and health care contributions into line with a standard BETTER THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR “going too far?” Why should we NOT view them as selfish layabouts? I for one don’t care if they’re teachers; some of us are utterly deaf to the standard, trotted-out “but the children! we do the children thing! we’re special!” No. You have a job. Everyone’s grateful for teachers who do well. But does merely being a teacher entitle you to being on a pedestal? Nope. Sorry. In a union context that’s just an excuse for holding a sword over everyone’s head when the public’s gullible enough to soak it in.
“my kids school, and a lot in this area, already had teachers paying those rates (or close to them), and had to cut in many other places. ”
Can you cite a source?
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
So, in the other 49 states – with their union battles, tax uncertainties, and other squabbles – how have their businesses overcome the dark clouds and fear and pushed forward with job growth?
Your rhetorical flourish aside: the difference lies in the fact that Wisconsin is now the de facto “ground zero” in the battle between compulsory unionism and its enemies. Again: if you don’t know that, you really haven’t been paying attention to the matter at all. Do you not see that, if (hypothetically) the unions succeed in removing every last opponent, repeal Act 10, and restore all compulsory union power and money, this will have a… (*choosing an understatement carefully*)… rather significant effect on the business land-scape?
And if Illinois is indeed ahead of us, does that at least mean that their leadership is a calming influence, settling business down so that they can move ahead with what they need to do…hire people?
I can understand your personal desire to believe so, since you are sympathetic with the liberal, pro-compulsory union sensibilities currently in possession of the Illinois body politic; but I don’t think that’s a reasonable portrayal, no. See above. (I wonder: would you also say that Gov. Perry has an even greater “stabilising effect” on his state than the Illinois governor has on his, on that basis?)
On Walker’s reforms – sure, it helped some districts. The unions said early in the whole battle that they’d be willing to pay those amounts.
It wasn’t quite so early as that, friend. And even in the face of that offer, part of the problem remained in the fact that unions still had a choke-hold on the local school districts (e.g. only one choice for health insurance, mandatory union contribution of both union-members and non-union-members. It would have been very easy for local unions to offer with one hand, and take away with the other (when the political climate had eased a bit). Until the unions were made incapable of cancelling the reforms with the wave of a hand, the gains would have been fleeting, if not Pyrrhic.
To many in the state, the step of breaking unions went too far.
And to many, the idea of making unions non-compulsory and non-monopoly was not “breaking” the unions, at all. It’s a curious idea: to say that unions are so wonderful and competitive that all teachers are obligated to belong to (or at least pay dues for) them, whether they want to do so or not. It’s also an evil one.
As a second issue – though you quickly dismissed it, my kids school, and a lot in this area, already had teachers paying those rates (or close to them), and had to cut in many other places.
I am aware of that, and I did not dismiss it (why do you say that I did?). But no matter what happened, some districts were going to suffer hardship… and many more were languishing under the monopoly of WEAC. (By your standards, you seem to have “dismissed” them, yes?) In such a situation, one can only hope to maximise harm and hold to right principles when acting; it is not the case that one can always point to a bad effect and say, “See! The original action must have been wrong!”
This was a solution for Milwaukee schools that the rest of the state bore the burden on.
In the interests of generosity and good-will, I’ll give you a “mulligan” on that silly statement, and let you try again.
And on the thousands now without insurance, I’m talking about how Walker wrote the feds and said we don’t have a balanced budget (though he tells us we do) – and is hacking thousands off of BadgerCare (I don’t remember the exact number – maybe you’ve got that amount for me).
I need to dash (I’ll try to get a more fulsome answer to that when I get a moment), but perhaps this “teaser” will give a hint of my reply: would you be so kind as to describe the difference between a “cut” and a “failure to increase as some expect”?
(*haunting, echoing voice*)
Jaaaack…. Jaaaack…. obey the call of the cheese curds! Come! Cooooome!
:)
I was in Milwaukee last weekend, and I’ll be driving past Madison today.
I really should stop and get some cheese for my long drive beyond WI, but I’d want it with some good WI microbrew as well — and that would make me sleepy while driving.
Man, that smoked cheddar rocks…
Rasqual – sure the state wants to uphold election validity, which is why, with great excitement, I can declare a solution that will save Wisconsin millions of dollars – and that is, WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS DONE! Again, have you looked at the data of the Bush administration crack down of people illegally voting? It isn’t something people get super excited to go out and criminally do. It is a multi-million dollar solution begging for a problem.
Now, you and Paladin can argue all you want. You can come up with your theories all you want. All I’m going to say is, the state of Wisconsin is last in job creation for a long time. Other states are adding jobs – we are not. You can say Wisconsin is unique, and Walker will have a lot of money to spend to convince people of this. I will continue to contend that, being in business for many years, I’ve never heard of a hiring decision being based on possible future tax rates. If the economic situation of a company turns sour, they get rid of people. If they need people, they hire. I don’t believe for one second that there are fifty thousand positions, needed, with companies struggling to get by without them….and companies aren’t hiring because taxes might raise in the future. That’s absurd.
You can do the research yourself on the schools Rasqual – Paladin confirmed in his post that this was a reality. These districts got the large cut in funding as well, and had to deal with it.
Paladin
I think your first paragraph is rather silly – almost like the economic realities of companies are just a game. ”Oh, our taxes might go up as well, but we’re not ground zero, so we can move forward”. Really? Come on. So how many jobs do you think companies are struggling to get by without? Maybe these owners just hate Walker and don’t want the numbers to look good? I tell you…of all your theories…
On unions…it is an EVIL one…you love to throw the evil tag around. What’s wrong with policeman, teachers, fire fighters, hotel workers, or anyone else bargaining together? And if Walker was so eager to go that far, why didn’t he run on that? You’ve been in the state and know that this was as big an issue as any – the perceived deceit of the issue, and trying to ram it through in the middle of the night.
On health care – I’m talking about who is eligible for badger care, not total funding of the program. What was the effect for families around the state that were part of badger care?
Last question – do you feel that there was a shared sacrifice for all Wisconsin residents in dealing with the budget balancing?
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
I think your first paragraph is rather silly – almost like the economic realities of companies are just a game.
(*shaking head*) You really needn’t keep striving for the title of “irony king”, dear fellow… I’d be happy to nominate you on the basis of your past weeks’ comments, alone!
Phase 1: EGV suggests that (it’s almost like) “economic realities of companies are just a game”.
Phase 2: EGV attributes this bizarre idea to Paladin.
Phase 3: EGV calls “Paladin’s idea” silly.
Phase 4: EGV vacillates between broad-brush statements (no one does it better, I must admit) and extraneous details, and paints a minimalist caricature/straw-man which he then mocks.
One of the reasons why this routine of yours doesn’t annoy me quite so much as it used to do, EGV, is that you use it so very often; I may be getting a bit inured.
Let me try an “EGV-esque broad-brush”, just to give you a sample of what I mean:
“So… you, EGV, are now on the record as saying (in so many words) that the political firestorm in Wisconsin is irrelevant to any and all employers, and that those who find it significant are obviously lying or delusional. Is that truly what you want to suggest?”
”Oh, our taxes might go up as well, but we’re not ground zero, so we can move forward”. Really? Come on.
Translation: there are only two types of companies, in EGV’s world: those who withhold any and all employment opportunities out of fear, and those who courageously “go full-steam ahead” to blaze new employment trails in the face of hardship and uncertainty. Hm… this EGV “broad-brush catastrophic modelling” is rather fun, when one gets into it! Illogical and useless, but amusing, in a banal sort of way…
As a homework exercise, EGV: of all the CEO’s, employers, etc., who are willing to go on the record, how do THEY view Wisconsin’s current trajectory re: jobs, under the leadership of Gov. Walker and colleagues? Is it “gloom and doom”? Despairing and scornful, in the sense of “it’s such a wasteland there, that we might as well move to Illinois, or California!” Links would be helpful for any data you might find. And: as a favour to me, would you please avoid “politifact”, “media matters” and “Daily Kos”?
So how many jobs do you think companies are struggling to get by without?
You honestly think I would know this? Why on earth would you? Save for rhetorical theatre, what purpose did that comment serve?
Maybe these owners just hate Walker and don’t want the numbers to look good?
Hm. Links, please?
I tell you…of all your theories…
(*sigh*) See my first point, above. Are you certain you’re getting enough rest, dear fellow?
EGV wrote, in reply to Rasqual:
You can do the research yourself on the schools Rasqual – Paladin confirmed in his post that this was a reality. These districts got the large cut in funding as well, and had to deal with it.
Er… there’s sloppy, EGV, and then there’s irresponsible. I did not “confirm” any such broad-brush(TM) statement of the sort. The public schools were not given the “raise” they expected (the money going into education increased, in fact), yes… and some school districts were placed in hard positions. Most others were either minimally affected or (quite commonly) benefitted from Act 10, which freed them from compulsory union health insurance contracts, freed them compulsory and hefty raises in property taxes, and allowed them to channel the money gained from the very modest new contributions of teachers to their OWN health insurance and retirement plans to make up (and usually exceed) the difference. If you’d like to spout wild theories, please be good enough not to suggest that I supported you in them, eh?
Links please?
Links please?
Are you kidding me?
So you throw out a theory, that the reason our economy in Wisconsin is so bad is that we are ‘ground zero’ in an epic battle of unions vs business…and though other states are in the same battle and thriving, we are in ‘ground zero’. You throw this out with no substantial evidence, links, thought, history, or common sense attached…and then you have the nerve to ask me for links when I mock your theory with an equally outlandish theory?
Are you serious, or is this a joke? I didn’t take you to be a heavy drinker before posting.
La Crosse school systems -
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_3cd50d3e-52aa-11e0-8763-001cc4c03286.html
“The governor calculates La Crosse can save $4.99 million by making employees pay more for retirement and health care benefits. Actual savings add up to about $3.7 million a year, according to Janet Rosseter, the district’s finance manager.
Most of the discrepancy comes from the governor’s assumptions about health insurance contributions. He says the district can cut $2.1 million by having employees pay 12.6 percent of the premiums.
But because most employees already contribute 10 percent, the savings come to only about $700,000, Rosseter said. And that includes employees paying more for dental coverage.
As for the impact of the budget, Rosseter figures La Crosse schools will have to operate with $4.9 million less in the coming year.”
Onalaska school system -
http://www.onalaska.k12.wi.us/documents/CommunityLetterFinal11.pdf
In March, 2011, when Acts 10 and 32 were passed, the district made an effort to respond to those changes in a manner that would not negatively affect the programs in our schools. As a response to the $1.5 million cut, all district employees began the 2011-2012 school year by contributing 50% of the cost of their Wisconsin Retirement System premiums. In addition, employees, who already were paying 20% of their insurance premiums, agreed to a scaled down health insurance plan, reducing the cost by 17% and resulting in increased employee deductibles and co-pays.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Links please? Links please? Are you kidding me?
:) No more or less than you were, friend. I merely left the option to you: to admit that your comment was a silly rejoinder, or else to give proof of the conspiracy which you mention. No, it wasn’t serious; I do apologise if it was too subtle a humour for your current mood.
So you throw out a theory,
Er… do you not recall throwing out your own theory, first (i.e. that the “terrible straits of Wisconsin” are due to Governor Walker and the GOP and Act 10)?
that the reason our economy in Wisconsin is so bad
“Economy”? You were speaking clearly of “bad job situation”; when, exactly, did you expand it to Wisconsin’s “economy” at large? My dear chap, you do this perennially: you take some more-or-less true (if isolated) bits of data which could support some limited theory or other, and then (with a somewhat clumsy sleight-of-hand) you “fold in” a great many other dynamics/factors, to the extent that you end with such sweeping statements that all necessary distinctions are… pardon the pun… “swept away”. You really do need to cut down on that.
is that we are ‘ground zero’ in an epic battle of unions vs business…
It isn’t quite so cut-and-dried as that (e.g. it’s also a battle between secular unions and tax-payers, etc.), but yes… that is also true.
and though other states are in the same battle and thriving,
Ah. So… which of these “other states in the ‘same’ battle” are having their Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and several political allies suffering a multi-million-dollar recall election, in the middle of the year, preceded by multi-million-dollar damage-inducing protests which came close to shutting down the state capital, etc.? Do tell? Or do you (despite all evidence) find all these to be bits of unimportant trivia? (Honestly: where have you *been*, all this time?)
we are in ‘ground zero’.
Yes. See above.
You throw this out with no substantial evidence,
(!) Please tell me that you’re joking! Or perhaps you might go to a particular crowd and say, “I don’t think the Wisconsin political situation, along with all the happenings since Governor Walker took office, is very distinctive, right now; there isn’t anything of particular note (to distinguish it from other states) about it, is there?” Please do let me know if you try the experiment, so that I can watch, eh? :) You might also go on a union web-site and try to suggest that the protests in Madison were both ineffectual and “too small to be of significance”; I’m sure you’ll get a colourful reaction.
links,
(*sigh*) …says the man who threw a fit when I wryly asked for the same…
thought,
This is simply a gratuitous insult.
history,
…so long as you (EGV) do not acknowledge any “recall turmoil”, numerous protests with tens of thousands of people in Madison (followed by intimidation of any businesses which would not post a “pro-union, anti-Walker sign” in their window), etc., as “history” of any significance. I’m starting to suspect that your accusations against me all have basis in your own actions, friend; what’s in that beverage that you’re drinking, anyway? :)
or common sense attached…
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which position (either “Walker wars” make Wisconsin a “ground-zero” location, or else it’s merely one minor kerfuffle among many) is more in keeping with common sense, friend.
and then you have the nerve to ask me for links when I mock your theory with an equally outlandish theory?
See above. Good heavens, but you do get outraged at some of the most peculiar (non-moral-imperative-related) things…
Are you serious, or is this a joke? I didn’t take you to be a heavy drinker before posting.
:) Sorry, dear fellow: I’m still a teetotaller, as I’ve said repeatedly in your hearing.
EGV,
Re: the two links (trés ironic!) which you sent: I previously mentioned that I knew about (and did not dismiss) the fact that some schools were hard-hit by Act 10. (I do wonder why you send links to the one thing which I already acknowledged as true!) I’ll leave it to you to find the links to the many other schools who benefitted greatly (especially in avoiding layoffs) from Act 10, as well.
Re: the schools which are now struggling: do you not see that they are free to seek local referenda to find remedy (if budget cuts and/or alternate funding are not available)? What do you suppose the now-benefitting schools would have needed to do, WITHOUT Act 10, but that? Under Act 10, the local tax levies dropped almost universally, and the schools were free to negotiate arrangements more suited to the local area (rather than a “one-size-fits-all” method in keeping with union choices). This is in addition to the savings gained from breaking the health insurance monopoly once held by WEAC (did you like that monopoly, by the way?), even to the extent that WEA Trust was forced to lower its prices for those who STAYED with WEA Trust, simply to be competitive with the newly-allowed competition, and so on.
Yes, it’s lamentable when a school is hard-hit by financial dire straits; but as I said before, there was no realistic way to avoid having schools suffer; it was simply a matter of “how many schools, how much burden, and do they have flexible and local tools necessary to try to remedy the situation without having their hands tied by state lock-step regulations”? It’s hardly reasonable for you to yelp about the need for referenda in these particular schools you mention (La Crosse, etc.), while ignoring the fact that numerous other schools who are benefitting from Act 10 (sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars) would have been in the very same (or worse) position, were the tables turned! (Or do you think that the La Crosse-area schools should have preferential treatment?)
Paladin
Starting with the second of the messages…I posted that because Rasqual asked for links – and after trying to simply tell him that it was an issue, you posted a dodging little message about how most had benefited greatly. I don’t care about most – I care about the schools in my area – the ones my kids go to – the ones near and dear to me.
And yes – schools can go for supplemental funding via referendums and such. We’ll get to the terrible world of Minnesota (where I moved from), where schools campaigned yearly for funding because after Ventura screwed with the formula, most districts required referendums to fix the problems caused. Rich areas benefited greatly – poor areas did not.
But I’ll agree – the act did allow many districts to swap out insurance companies or bring in worse insurance for teachers, but insurance that was cheaper for the district.
On your first post – so let me sum up -
You continue to claim that Wisconsin is last in the country on job creation because we have a unique economic storm here, being in ground zero, so we have thousands, or tens of thousands of needed jobs just waiting to be hired, but the business owners are scared because of our being in ground zero?
And to prove that, you really have nothing of substance – not on the jobs that might be hired or anything else.
Great.
So back to the starting point of this all. Walker came in promising 250,000 jobs in four years. I believe the total is about 6,000 so far. We’re also last in the country in job creation. Walker wants to be judged on job creation. Polls say he’s going to be judged in job creation. I will judge him on job creation (along with a few other things…next post). You are find in explaining away job creation, which is your right. I just don’t agree with your theories on it. I believe we’ve balanced the budget by taking a lot of spending dollars out of the hands of people who spend dollars, and that impacts the whole economy.
Two more things – and I might have just missed your comments on them – but I think we’ve extended each other the courtesy of assuming questions are missed, not dodged.
“On unions…it is an EVIL one…you love to throw the evil tag around. What’s wrong with policeman, teachers, fire fighters, hotel workers, or anyone else bargaining together? And if Walker was so eager to go that far, why didn’t he run on that? ”
Last question – do you feel that there was a shared sacrifice for all Wisconsin residents in dealing with the budget balancing? (this was in combo of my statements on Walker cutting people out of Badgercare)
EGV,
Sorry for the delay; I’ll try to write a bit, tomorrow. My internet access is spotty on the weekends, as of late… and I’m also recovering from a foolish episode with a spiral vegetable-cutter which proves to be able to slice fingernail and flesh as easily as it slices potatoes!
All right… let’s have a go at this! (It’s a bit odd, trying to type with an injured finger, so please excuse any increased frequency of typos, etc….)
EGV wrote, in reply to my post:
Starting with the second of the messages…I posted that because Rasqual asked for links –
All right.
and after trying to simply tell him that it was an issue, you posted a dodging little message
(?) My dear fellow, “dodging” actually does mean something; it’s not simply a handy rhetorical dart to throw at an opponent, irrespective of context! Perhaps, to defend your choice (rather than giving the impression of a mere reflexive use of a word I happened to use against you), you might describe what I might have “dodged”, thereby… or else refrain from the term?
about how most had benefited greatly. I don’t care about most – I care about the schools in my area – the ones my kids go to – the ones near and dear to me.
It’s understandable that your strongest sympathies would lie with them. But you go further, and say that Gov. Walker is (some version of) “doing a bad job, worthy of being voted out” BECAUSE of that condition. Doesn’t it strike you as just a bit provincial and narrow-minded to retaliate (with your vote) against Governor Walker for bad effects in your current area, whereas your words imply that you’d not have that animus if you were, say, living in Marshfield, Kaukauna, or some other system whose improved status would benefit your children? That doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?
And yes – schools can go for supplemental funding via referendums and such.
Just as the other schools needed to do in the pre-act 10 era, for schools which languished under million-dollar deficits (due to union monopolies, union contract intractibility, etc.). You seem to be saying that those other schools (and their children) can go hang, simply because you don’t happen to live there.
We’ll get to the terrible world of Minnesota (where I moved from), where schools campaigned yearly for funding because after Ventura screwed with the formula, most districts required referendums to fix the problems caused. Rich areas benefited greatly – poor areas did not.
Well… I can only speak from my own experience (in a very poor rural county, near some of the poorest school districts in the state), where the school-related tax loads were (and are) driving numerous people off their farms, and where the referenda asked for money on behalf of teachers who were already making twice (if not far more than twice) the yearly income of the average farmer, worker, etc., in the area. I really don’t think that keeping monetary “quests” local, in cases of local monetary needs, is a bad thing; otherwise, the local property tax rates were largely set from Madison, and local people could do nothing but pay, or go bankrupt.
But I’ll agree – the act did allow many districts to swap out insurance companies or bring in worse insurance for teachers, but insurance that was cheaper for the district.
I notice your snide allusion to “worse” insurance… as if that would not have happened in any case, eventually… and as if the teachers did not have health insurance packages which local farmers and workers would kill to have, but do not have. You play the violin of pathos for public school teachers who must settle for “worse” insurance… but do you give even a split-seconds’ thought as to what the cost (to real people) WAS, for that “not-worse” insurance? Perhaps you think it is just to demand tax money from poor farmers (whose net incomes are far below the poverty line, who have no health insurance at all, and who have neither retirement packages nor provisions for acquiring them) in order to pad out the insurance and retirement packages of the teachers who make twice their salary, and who have taxpayer-paid benefits which the tax-payers themselves do not have; but I do not.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
You continue to claim that Wisconsin is last in the country on job creation because we have a unique economic storm here, being in ground zero, so we have thousands, or tens of thousands of needed jobs just waiting to be hired, but the business owners are scared because of our being in ground zero?
I say that this is likely to be one of the most significant factors, yes. (Note: I never said that it was the sole factor; but I deny utterly that it is not critical.) I also say this to refute your baseless idea that “Wisconsin is last because of Governor Walker and the GOP who worked with him on Act 10”. You’ve shown nothing to support your own idea, save for a facile “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy-ridden collection of opinions.
And to prove that, you really have nothing of substance – not on the jobs that might be hired or anything else. Great.
My dear fellow, I can’t supply everything at once! Several earlier commenters already gave you data to that effect, and they had the luxury of time which I didn’t yet have. But to wit:
http://chiefexecutive.net/will-wisconsin-rise-again
http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business-2012
http://www.wmc.org/news/strong-job-creation-predicted-by-wisconsin-employers/
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST550000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=wisconsin+unemployment
(In that last link, do note what happened to the unemployment rate in Wisconsin after Governor Doyle retired, and Governor Walker took office.)
So back to the starting point of this all. Walker came in promising 250,000 jobs in four years. I believe the total is about 6,000 so far. We’re also last in the country in job creation. Walker wants to be judged on job creation. Polls say he’s going to be judged in job creation.
…and your choice of polls seems a bit skewed, by the way. See links above.
I will judge him on job creation (along with a few other things…next post). You are find in explaining away job creation, which is your right.
I did nothing of the sort, friend (though you’re right in presuming that job creation is not my highest concern; I think you can guess what my highest concern might be, yes?); I merely assert that your attribution of “cause and effect” re: job creation and Governor Walker is sloppy at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I just don’t agree with your theories on it.
Obviously.
I believe we’ve balanced the budget by taking a lot of spending dollars out of the hands of people who spend dollars, and that impacts the whole economy.
(*sigh*) Forgive the tangent, but: tell me again why you support Obama, who does exactly what you’re lamenting (without coming close to balancing the budget, or even submitting a serious one), but on a grossly larger scale?
But as to your point: I don’t think I’m understanding you. How, exactly, are lower tax levies (especially re: property taxes), abolition of mandatory union dues, and near abolition of monopoly-rates for school health insurance “taking a lot of spending dollars out of the hands of people who spend dollars”? It seems to be doing precisely the opposite, to me; you’ll need to explain that one, I think.
EGV wrote:
Two more things – and I might have just missed your comments on them – but I think we’ve extended each other the courtesy of assuming questions are missed, not dodged.
(*weary sigh*)
My comments must have some impact on you, EGV, if you are this desperate to use my key terms against me, regardless of context or content! By “dodged”, I refer not to questions you simply omit (that can be explained by lack of time, etc., as you so often lament… which, again, is understandable), but to questions which you addressed at least 3 times (which indicated both attention and availability of time without addressing the main point! (E.g. “The government is wrong to deny Medicaid funds to Texas in order to protect abortionists” was met multiple times with “The government sets standards for grants all the time!” [i.e. begging the question of “SHOULD they?”… a question clearly implied in the word “wrong”.) Does that clarify?
“On unions…it is an EVIL one”…you love to throw the evil tag around.
…and you do love to ignore both context and proportion, when making your comments! Would you be so kind as to consider the context (highlighted below, for you)?
[Paladin]
It’s a curious idea: to say that unions are so wonderful and competitive that all teachers are obligated to belong to (or at least pay dues for) them, whether they want to do so or not. It’s also an evil one.
Is that a bit more clear?
What’s wrong with policeman, teachers, fire fighters, hotel workers, or anyone else bargaining together?
First things, first: my comment (re: the “evil” idea) was specifically talking about the idea of COMPULSORY union membership and/or compulsory union dues (whether one is a member or not), as the now-restored context should make plain.
Secondly: there is nothing wrong, in principle, with such workers “bargaining together”… but you seem to think that this requires a massive state-level or national organisation, and this is not so (and it is a dangerous idea). The larger and more behemoth-like the organisation, the less likely (and less able) it will be for it to reflect, respond to, or adapt to the true values of each local community. This is why the principle of subsidiarity is to be followed, in all such cases (i.e. restrict decision-making to the lowest possible practical level), rather than be lured away with the pernicious siren call of “more people = more access to redistribution of wealth”.
And if Walker was so eager to go that far, why didn’t he run on that?
I’m really starting to wonder whether you’re pathologically incapable of making distinctions, friend. Why would he have needed to do so? Or are you suggesting that he was being duplicitous? If so, then perhaps you might be straight-forward, and accuse him of it directly, rather than use duck-and-cover insinuation?
Last question – do you feel that there was a shared sacrifice for all Wisconsin residents in dealing with the budget balancing? (this was in combo of my statements on Walker cutting people out of Badgercare).
You’d have to give me more precise categories and definitions than that, for me to make anything of the idea. In what possible circumstance would *anyone* (save as an empty political slogan) have enacted a “shared sacrifice of ALL Wisconsin residents”? Do you mean to suggest that the poorest of the poor should pay more, perhaps? Do you suggest that the teachers were “sharing the sacrifice” under Gov. Doyle’s administration? Please do be a bit more specific.
A few comments on your three posts:
– I didn’t say he should be voted out solely because of the effect on education – I’ve stated many times that there are a number of reasons. I believe teachers needed to pay more of their share, which they agreed to do (after some arm twisting). I don’t believe the whole concepts of unions in the state needed to be thrown aside, and I certainly believe he should have run on the issue (originally) if he was going to attack the budget in that way. Yes, I believe he was deceptive in that manner - http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/
– On the Minnesota thing – I think funding should be more equalized throughout the state to avoid these referendums such as you speak of – the poor districts can’t pass them, and their education suffers.
– On the “taking money out of the hands” – I was not specific enough, I agree – and I’ll combine this with my last thought on shared sacrifice and the balanced budget process (though he didn’t actually balance the budget…). In this state, we have the rich, the middle class, and the poor (and various flavors in between). In his budget cuts, do you feel that the sacrifice (who was affected by the cuts) was shared between the various economic classes within the state? My comment on taking money out of people’s hands is…those school savings didn’t just appear in midair – teachers who one day made X amount of money made less. They then spent less on groceries, cars, and other things. Couple that with the loss of other jobs in the state (mostly public sector) – and you can see how the economy would suffer, and we’ve balanced the budget using a lot of money that would have gone back into the economy. The last part was my explanation…the middle part, the question on shared sacrifice – does that clear it up some?
– Why is it evil to have union dues? The union provides a service in bargaining for employees – that shouldn’t be a free service.
– On the state of Texas, I left the last comments on that and have answered everything you asked for. If you don’t agree with my thoughts, that doesn’t mean I didn’t answer them.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
I didn’t say he should be voted out solely because of the effect on education – I’ve stated many times that there are a number of reasons.
All right; but unless you enumerate them (and you’re under no obligation to do so), I really can’t say much more on that point, since I can only respond to that which you offer. At present, I find the “education” reasons for opposing Governor Walker to range from the exaggerated to the ridiculous.
I believe teachers needed to pay more of their share, which they agreed to do (after some arm twisting).
Mm-hmm… at least you’re gradually starting to admit how hard it was to move the unions in that direction. Don’t you see that, given such an intractable group, the idea of them trying to reclaim these “surrendered goods” at first opportunity (so long as collective bargaining, and the like, were still available in their full form) could become a real threat?
I don’t believe the whole concepts of unions in the state needed to be thrown aside,
Nor do I (and nor does Gov. Walker, as he’s said repeatedly). I simply have no sympathy for compulsory membership in unions, nor for unions who have become so glutted with political power that they’re willing to embrace numerous evil causes (e.g. pro-actively fighting for expanded abortion–which is insane, especially given their clientele(!), etc.) and guard their Cadillac-health/retirement plans mindlessly and greedily. Some unions are quite good (e.g. Christian Educators Association International is one), in fact.
and I certainly believe he should have run on the issue (originally) if he was going to attack the budget in that way.
First, he gave every indication that he was going to address the union-opposed contribution issue. Second, the “attack” against collective bargaining was a means, not the end, and the specifics could easily have been decided afterward… when it became clear that the unions were simply not trustworthy (although I could have told him that, earlier, in the case of WEAC… but I digress); it was meant (and Gov. Walker said so, repeatedly) to safeguard the power of the local school boards to overcome union resistance and set their own standards for taxes-vs.-benefits, and such, without WEAC dictating from on high with a “don’t surrender anything!” type of mentality. Third: you’re welcome to your opinion (that Gov. Walker should have laid out every last detail, reminiscent of “Mein Kampf”, of his “master plan” beforehand; whereas I suggest that, while he may well have had some strong suspicions about using [x], [y] or [z], he didn’t know for certain that they’d be necessary until the time of trial, so to speak. At any rate: I see no clear evidence that he was being deceptive (your liberal news source notwithstanding).
On the Minnesota thing – I think funding should be more equalized throughout the state to avoid these referendums such as you speak of – the poor districts can’t pass them, and their education suffers.
The poor districts don’t have enough liberals to pass them, you mean? But even that is not so; in our area, for example, teachers (to say nothing of principals and superintendents) are some of the highest wage-earners in the area (sometimes surpassing doctors), and they very usually congregate in town with a high enough concentration of votes (along with friends) to overwhelm the votes of the farmers who cannot pay the property taxes NOW. So I’m afraid your portrayal isn’t quite accurate, around here.
In this state, we have the rich, the middle class, and the poor (and various flavors in between). In his budget cuts, do you feel that the sacrifice (who was affected by the cuts) was shared between the various economic classes within the state?
My dear fellow, the entire POINT of Act 10 was to get such budget decisions back to the local level (i.e. individual school boards, municipalities, counties, etc.), and away from the “macro-level” of Madison! Only at the local level can such discrepancies be resolved with the needed efficiency and informed decision-making.
My comment on taking money out of people’s hands is…those school savings didn’t just appear in midair – teachers who one day made X amount of money made less. They then spent less on groceries, cars, and other things.
Perhaps (though not at all certain). How is this bad, so long as the locals (i.e. non-teachers) have more of their tax-money to spend on their own needs (especially if they are, as in my area, much poorer than even the poorest teacher)?
Couple that with the loss of other jobs in the state (mostly public sector) – and you can see how the economy would suffer, and we’ve balanced the budget using a lot of money that would have gone back into the economy.
And you imagine that, unless the teachers (per se) are the ones to spend the money, it will never get back into the economy? Have some sense, friend!
Why is it evil to have union dues?
It is not evil to have union dues. It is evil, however (as you would know, if you’d read that very paragraph with a bit more care), to enforce COMPULSORY union dues, especially given the morally and politically corrupt union(s) in place, now. Does that clarify, at last?
The union provides a service in bargaining for employees – that shouldn’t be a free service.
I agree. But it should also not be obligatory to join and/or contribute, regardless of one’s wishes, views, religious beliefs, etc.
On the state of Texas, I left the last comments on that and have answered everything you asked for. If you don’t agree with my thoughts, that doesn’t mean I didn’t answer them.
Well… yes, and no. Your comment never made it onto the forum, and I was hesitant to start quoting something which might have been deleted/held for some reason. Perhaps you could re-post it, and omit the offending word(s)?
Paladin -
Sorry for the delay – crazy week of work. Hope all is well.
1) Reasons not to vote for Walker – I won’t hit all of them but…I think he’s picked terrible methodology to grow our state economy, and the numbers have reflected that. I think he went too far in the collective bargaining, and the method in which is was passed and the deception in which it was passed did not sit well with me(see recent news of the ‘divide and conquer…so do you believe there was no bigger political motive here?). I believe the voter ID bill is a terrible bill – a multi-million dollar solution in search of a problem. I believe that he had many, many ways to attack a budget, and he decided to cut health care to the poor and take money out of the checks of teachers and other unions.
2) If you are upset about union political spending, how do you feel about big business political spending? At least unions show the money they are taking out of checks. Many big corporations spend millions on political causes and organizations that have very little to do with the business they are involved in. So does that bother you, or does it only bother you when it is on left leaning causes?
3) Face it – you can dance around definitions all you want. The rich in the state of Wisconsin were not hurt in the balancing of the budget. The “sacrifice” was made by the poor and middle class. If you disagree, please let me know where you think the rich were hurt – what specific cut or tax change targeted them?
4) Reposted the Texas thread…