Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 3)

UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 5:16 PM I have responses to the points that you all made, but it wouldn't solve anyone's concerns. Fundamentally, one side is saying that they want to support the public sector's rights to bargain collectively, as well as protect their already mediocre paychecks ("if the private sector is so bad, leave it!", to flip the rhetoric I've heard towards public employees) and the other side is saying that they think the solutions to our budget our accomplished by taking away some of their money and the right to bargain collectively. That's fine. We disagree. No amount of arguing about these issues will change anyone's opinion.

HOWEVER, why is it that Republicans do not want to increase taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, but have no problem taking away money from the middle class? That's really the thing that irks me.

bscharff - 2011-02-16 5:39 PM

The private sector isnt so bad, however its becoming broken due to the increasing burden being placed upon it from the public sector...  We obviously can agree to disagree... However you can also turn your last statement around... how come the middle class are so anxious to take money away from everyone else, but when it comes to them ponying up even a small portion of their share they scream bloody murder...??  and raise taxes to what...?!?  100%...?!?  i'm pretty confident that the wealthy and large corporations are paying more than their fair share in taxes...  why not reduce the tax burden for everyone...?!? 

Meulen - 2011-02-16 6:23 PM Atemis Let's not get petty over a typo. There's actually no difference for a 30 plus year employee if you actually understand what pension is. A pension was always an investment. If you read the fine print 99% of pension benefits have no guarantee of any payout or very little payout. How do you think they were going to attempt to pay someones retirement from only 5% contributions? They invest and take on risk! The government pensions were the only ones with guaranteed benefits. There's the scam right there. How can you guarantee an investment? Infact government mandate prohibits investment managers from doing so. But the government can? SCAM!!! Greatest ponzie scheme ever IMO. Plenty people lose money or all of their retirement investing on there own right before retirement. It's all in the risk we take

bscharff - 2011-02-16 4:44 PM

Right here Phil... Why dont you focus your energy on the $862 billion your president pi$$ed away on failed job creation...  or that beautifullty crafted obamacare...

Walker is starting what should have been done long ago...!!! 

Give me your reasons why public employees should be put above and given special treatment over private sector employees....  would love to hear them...!!!

bscharff - 2011-02-16 5:08 PM

I dont mean any personal attacks... as i personally like my attackees... 

obviously no one likes to have their compensation screwed with...  i realize that...  i get it...  however i dont see why we have such a disparity in treatment between public and private employees...  why do we have seperate standards...???  and my comments are geared more towards unions in general than just public employees...  i kind of view the public employment system as one big union...  i have no problem with public (or union) employees making a good wage... however the system is outdated and needs to be fixed... 

i have a lot of family and friends that are public employees... and i love them dearly... but there clearly is this air of 'entitlement' or 'protection' that the rest of us dont have the benefit of...  now i'm in the private sector and do fine... and have no complaints...  however there are a lot in the private sector that struggle as much if not more than their public sector brethren...  and unlike those in the public sector where i often hear "hey, i only have to work XX more years than i can collect my pension and i'm set..."  the response from those in the private sector is more like "hey, the way this market is it looks like i'm going to have to work until they stick me in the ground..."   

level the playing field i say... and i think that there is a huge overreaction going on in madison right now...

bscharff - 2011-02-16 6:43 PM
I would argue that the private sector have dug their own holes with the same poor risk management that has made the public sector in a mess.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Respectfully disagree.

The middle class gets in a tizzy about that because of the tax breaks that get passed along to the wealthy people and corporations. I very much disagree that corporations pay their fair share of taxes...some absolutely do (Walmart, Exxon come to mind in that department), whereas others get away with paying absolutely nothing or even having a net gain at the end of the year. While posting profits! GE is really good at that one.

Simply not true.  Not sure what your definition of wealthy is however all those tax breaks seem to go away real fast as you start making more money...  Not the other way around...  and the general business population is not GE or Walmart or Exxon or these mega companies... its small and medium size entrprenurial businesses that are overly burdened by seemingly ever increasing tax and h/c costs...

Obviously those are on a federal level, but Wisconsin is absolutely well-known for having low corporate taxes, in an effort to draw business to the state. That's a fairly reasonable thing to do...if the revenue that is being attracted by new business exceeds the tax breaks that current businesses pay. We also have these ridiculous tax sheltering loopholes that encourage businesses to hold assets out of state so that they are non-reportable. Coupled with Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce essentially dominating the political conversation and it leads to corporations getting away with more than they should.

Agree on the tax loopholes, however I would disagree on Wisconsin historically being a business friednly state...

So the reason that the middle class gets their arms up in the air when they lose their money is because a small decrease in percentage means a lot to them. Food on the table, roof over a head, etc ad nauseum. A small increase in percentage in the corporate tax will not undermine many companies and will produce far more revenue than this will decrease costs. And if a corporation would be put out of business by this tax, then they should absolutely be exempt. If a corporation would have to lay off hundreds of people, they should also be exempt.

A small decrease means a lot to everyone...!!!!  This is exactly wrong... frankly it sounds like socialism... tax companies and individuals until they can no longer bear it???  and then give them a pass..??  Where is the incentive there???  Who is going to want to risk everything to build a business under that structure...??

The fact of the matter is the wealth is concentrated on the top and once it's up there, it doesn't want to come down. Political furor and action from the wealthy happens behind closed doors and at dinner parties. The middle class has to get 15,000 people to the Capitol building for essentially no change whatsoever.

I think this comment is competely off... look at the middle and lower classes (as typically defined) in our country and compare their lifestyle to that of other countries... does that seem consistent with your comment??  look at the jobs created by all of those 'wealthy' entrepreneurs out there...  look at the philanthropic efforts of those in the upper class... i struggle to find sense in this one...

i have to get back to he badger game now...

1stTimeTri - 2011-02-16 10:19 PM

I have just received a broadcast phone call at home from our school Superintendent stating that many local schools are closing due to teachers calling in sick, including our schools due to a lack of staff.
It appears a mass walkout from around the State with a trip to Madison at the Capitol for a rally.

1stTimeTri - 2011-02-16 9:45 PM

Ben - he's "our" President, and not strictly "your", which I think you're implying that I voted for him, in which, BTW, I didn't support to begin with.

I'm in support of killing the bill because it affects me and my family, not because I think Public Employees are above Private sector employees.  I've worked my azz off for almost 20 years as a Public employee and:
1). I make approx. 10% less than a Private sector employee of the same job field.
2). I haven't had a raise in 3 years.  I'm at the whim of a bargaining unit and the government, not because of job performance, which sucks.
3). I have been forced to take 8 furlough days last year and am taking 8 more this year, chopping another 3% or better from my salary this year.

The compensation of the benefits over salary were worked out with the bargaining units and the legislation in the past.  So, slash the benefits that were provided for lack of a comparable wage is fair due to Government spending and not bringing in business?

Take all the sick people without health care and kick them to the curb. If they die as a result, who cares their fault for not having healthcare. There is no consequence for not buying health insurance as it stands right now. This is the fundamental problem with healthcare in this country. I have health insurance, I pay taxes, so I pay for my healthcare and also for a portion of my lazy sister-inlaw who bought a big screen TV instead of health insurance and instead uses public health systems to pay for her healthcare.

jszat - 2011-02-17 5:35 AM

Can someone clarify if teachers can negotiate on their own or if they are all part of the union?

 

burhed - 2011-02-17 12:13 AMhttp://www.jsonline.com/business/29181264.htmlDo a search for "Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporatio­ns pay no taxes"I will admit I didn't do a complete search (sorry, don't have the time to look at all the data), but to say that public employees needed to be treated the same as public is ridiculous when the corporations are not paying their fair share. From the bit in the linked article it looks like what they are doing is completely legal of course, but is is right?What's wrong with public workers being allowed to negotiate better pay and benefits? That is what is really being taken away. As UWMadTri mentions they have already taken furloughs and no pay increases over the last few years, they are making sacrifices just the public sector has done.Finally, why does everything have to be a race to the bottom?

burhed - 2011-02-17 1:13 AM http://www.jsonline.com/business/29181264.htmlDo a search for "Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporatio­ns pay no taxes" I will admit I didn't do a complete search (sorry, don't have the time to look at all the data), but to say that public employees needed to be treated the same as public is ridiculous when the corporations are not paying their fair share. From the bit in the linked article it looks like what they are doing is completely legal of course, but is is right? What's wrong with public workers being allowed to negotiate better pay and benefits? That is what is really being taken away. As UWMadTri mentions they have already taken furloughs and no pay increases over the last few years, they are making sacrifices just the public sector has done. Finally, why does everything have to be a race to the bottom?

Artemis - 2011-02-16 6:37 PM



Not getting petty, just pointing out the truth. If I wanted to be petty, I'd be pointing out that you also spelled my name wrong. 

It's truth that a pension is an investment.  I'm not saying that they have to cover it for all people.  I think that if they made concessions for people closer to retirement, people would be less angry about the situation.  And, older people did see pensions as more guaranteed than we do today, regardless of the fine print.  Think about someone who is retiring at 67.  Assuming they started working 40 years ago, that was in 1971.  Pensions were a lot more common for everyone, whether public or private sector.  I'm not saying it is right, but going towards understanding why people are saying concessions should be made.

phoenixazul - 2011-02-17 7:20 AM What about people like me? I have a chronic illness I've had since childhood. Let's say my job gets eliminated tomorrow due to budget cuts (state employee, it could well happen). Now I'm without healthcare and income (except for whatever I may be able to get from unemployment...). Even if I WANTED to buy health insurance, it is likely that no company worth the coverage would pick me up. Would you gamble on a 25 year old type 1 diabetic who had a broken hip? Medications cost somewhere around the neighborhood of $4500 every three months without insurance. I could probably widdle that down to $3800 if I switched treatments to something less effective, but then have to pay for it in the long run with more treatments for DKA, retinopathy, etc. So, I'd say that if I'm sick and without health insurance, I've already been "kicked to the curb". That's the consequence. I'm already down and out. I'm already sicker than I was before (and therefore more expensive). The consequence for me not buying health insurance in your scenario is poverty, or throwing up from DKA, or blindness, or open gaping infected sores on my legs. Or all of the above. How much more "to the curb" would you like people like me to be? Shall I rend my garments as well? What is this crime that I've committed for not being insured? Not being rich enough to purchase coverage for a disease that is not my fault? * Also, let's say your SIL's TV cost $1,500 (I have no idea, I don't own a TV). Sure, that's $1,500 that should have invested elsewhere or put in the bank for a rainy day...but it may not buy decent coverage if she or any of her dependents have any type of illness. It might buy a month for two people if one has a pre-ex. Or not. I'm not excusing the poor decision to buy a TV when you could save, but that's what she did. So saying, "Get rid of the sickies!"...is all well and good...but what would you have us do? It's pretty hard to go on a job interview when you're throwing up from not having your medication. How do you expect us to get back into the workforce and make tax contributions and productivity contributions if we're too sick to work? "Who cares, their fault." That's really really depressing. I thought, as a country, we were in this together? *Before someone pulls out the "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" chorus...really? A 9 year old gets the flu and the immune response causes type 1 diabetes. Sorry my 9 year old self was so irresponsible to get sick and have a reaction I had no control over.

UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 10:19 PM

The financial crisis that we just went through/are still in was entirely fueled by the private sector. People lost their retirements, savings, etc. Poorly managed and overly aggressive fund managers caused millions of people to lose money.

This was not a 'private sector' issue its was a greed in banking issue and that of daft govt oversight... alan greenspan admitted as much - that he dropped the ball in what was going on in the housing market...  as an interesting aside - the 'fund managers' you speak of - the vast, vast majority of the money they manage is from public pension plans and university endowments (look at the LPs of any private equity or hedge fund)...



Small and medium sized businesses are not where my issues lie. I don't have an arbitrary cut-off point for who should be taxed more, as it's not a black and white issue. However, if the good people of this state are helping you create great shareholder equity/profit and those people are hurting, you should be responsible to give some of that back. Yes, I understand business and economics; that's my background. I just believe a lot more in the new models that focus on the three P's rather than just P.

The issue may not lie there but that is who gets penalized by the proposals you make... the majority of private sector employees work for small and medium sized businesses... and they get increasingly penalized by the seemingly constant barrage of tax and healthcare cost increases... these businesses end up shutting down, laying people off or being forced to move operations overseas... 



Definitely not historically, but lately we have been "open for business."



Just because something sounds like Socialism doesn't mean that it is Socialism. :p My goal is to create sustainable (open-source, mind you!) business models that allow everyone to win. Social utility is something that the private sector fails to focus on (probably with good reason...it's not their goal), so my models will tweak traditional revenue streams to encourage businesses to adopt those models. Is it risky? Yes, but I'm wiling to take that risk.

I could be making a lot of money with one of those burn-out jobs right now, but I choose to build businesses with sustainable structures. Will I fail? Who knows?

Would be curious as to what your ideas here.  I'm not sure that there is any pride-of-authorship on good ideas that can help everyone...



You are obviously intelligent and I think you know that that argument is iffy at best. Businesses will cut 2,000 jobs tomorrow if it means they can increase shareholder equity. The lack of business ethics oversight in this country make me completely unsympathetic. The private sector does not incentivize long-term employment the way that the public sector does. Work somewhere for 20 years and have a better opportunity in the private? Sure, move your 401k. Public sector? You're toast.

So no, it's not really the same at all.

unsympathetic to what...?!?  to private sector employees..??  they deserve to be screwed over and public sector employees are untouchable and should be coddled...?!?  and offered insanely lavish retirement programs at the expense of the rest of us...  i must say that you really do not have a proper concept on how the private sector works... some companies are forced to lay people off - that is true...  they have to make the tough decision to let some people go to save the jobs off many...  a discipline that would serve the govt well...  almost all companies though - large and small - are incredibly good stewards of the well being of their employees... and to suggest otherwise is just blatantly inaccurate...  i think your cynical view of the private sector is rather misplaced...  



I don't really know what you're saying here. It's absolute fact that the bottom 40% of income earners control 1% of income in this country and the top 1% control 38% of all income. There's really no argument when it comes to income disparity.

The argument that "our" poor have it better than "the other" poor is specious. If that's what you're saying, then there is absolutely no reason that the wealthy shouldn't have huge tax increases. If we're comparing across income levels, the wealthy have it just great, so they should redistribute their wealth down.

So how much tax should one pay...??  and for what...??  to fatten govt programs...??  to creat a totally govt dependent welfare state...?!?  this again reeks of socialism... which i think has been proven to be a rather ineffective form of govt...

Maybe some of these public employees should stop all their bickering...  go up to someone in the private sector and say 'thank you'...  thank you for the risks you take... thank you for the insane amount of taxes you are forced to pay... thank you for doing so without the safety net that i enjoy...   thank you businesses for all that you do to help fund all of these public programs...  i'm sure you've heard the term 'pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered...'  well i think that govt has long since passed the stage of just being piggy...  its time for real reform... not just at the state level... but at the national level...   

again, i have no problem with public employees making a good wage...  but its time they stop burying their head in the sand and saying 'hey, its not my problem...'

Go Badgers!

UWMadTri - 2011-02-16 5:16 PM HOWEVER, why is it that Republicans do not want to increase taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, but have no problem taking away money from the middle class? That's really the thing that irks me.

1stTimeTri - 2011-02-17 7:52 AM

As per a friend of mine who was a schoolteacher out of McFarland - when hired as a Wisconsin public schoolteacher, one automatically becomes a member of the represented teacher's union and mandatory dues are taken out of one's pay.  However, each district has slightly different benefits provided within their contract.

I heard that UW 2-year campus professors/instructors do not have a union representative, though.