The Obama Tax Cuts?

[DTower5]

eliminating foreign military presence and slashing medicare and social security would eliminate the need for higher tax rates. you're 75% sitting on ron paul territory here. welcome to the fold. don't worry, it took me a while to realize that my views were more in line with the stereotypically evil republicans, too. i once voted for nader!

You ARE fucking evil - you have no concept of the commons even though you take and take and take and give nothing back - just like rich corporatists - you are being like slime, if that wasn't so damn offensive to slime.

[DTower5]

That's the reason I've gone over to democrat party.. The stuff that republicans tell you the democrats will do (raise taxes and take away guns) typically never happens.

yeah, see, you're a dumbass though. raising taxes is exactly what happened.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -form-tax/

but shit, that doesn't even matter since there's two sides to the equation. if you don't raise taxes, but massively raise spending, well then fuck, all you've done is passed the buck so someone further down the line has to raise taxes to pay for the shit you just threw into the deficit. sorry if i can't get all excited when taxes stay the same but spending increases by trillions of dollars. knowing basic math sucks.

So, have at it, what would you prefer, cut out 1.5 trillion, or raise taxes? What is your solution?

[DTower5]

democratic control of presidency and congress: end-of-days level wtf holy shit bad
republican control of presidency and congress: pretty goddam bad
opposing control of presidency and congress: not so bad

So much for your 'enlightened' anti-extremest positions

[MarcusAurelius]

That's fine, but what would you do to solve these issues?

it's a very complicated problem and i'm less than an armchair economist, so naturally i can't provide much for answers. though with some basic arithmetic skills, i can say that quadrupling the deficit is a bad way to reduce the deficit. how about an analogy?

say you or your family is having trouble making ends meet, budget-wise. you've been running a deficit month after month. there are obviously three options for you to balance your budget: (a) you can make more money, (b) you can spend less money, or (c) a combination of the two. this problem faces many (most?) people in the world. how do you think they deal with it?

the blame-everything-on-bush strategy won the democrats the 2006 congress and 2008 presidency. you don't get to use it anymore.

Do Repub's get to wait until they get the presidency back before their argument is invalid?

they get to do the same thing the dems did during the last two years of dubya. right now they're just yelling and screaming, and seem to be at least pushing in the right direction (although with the constant threat of an obama veto for things like health care.)

don't worry, if the repubs magically get the presidency in 2012, and still have some congressional control, and they haven't drastically reduced this obama deficit, i'll be right on board with calling them out.

[MarcusAurelius]

democratic control of presidency and congress: end-of-days level wtf holy shit bad
republican control of presidency and congress: pretty goddam bad
opposing control of presidency and congress: not so bad

So much for your 'enlightened' anti-extremest positions

i was trying to make a point... obviously i haven't converted all my material possessions to gold bouillon yet

So, have at it, what would you prefer, cut out 1.5 trillion, or raise taxes? What is your solution?

sure, i'll have at that one. saying "cut out 1.5 trillion" is rather disingenuous, since around 1 trillion of that is new spending courtesy of obama and friends. i'd start by "cutting" (or preferably never implementing) that. i certainly wouldn't have the balls to pass a trillion in new spending, *and then* call for a "spending freeze."

[MarcusAurelius]

eliminating foreign military presence and slashing medicare and social security would eliminate the need for higher tax rates. you're 75% sitting on ron paul territory here. welcome to the fold. don't worry, it took me a while to realize that my views were more in line with the stereotypically evil republicans, too. i once voted for nader!

You ARE fucking evil - you have no concept of the commons even though you take and take and take and give nothing back - just like rich corporatists - you are being like slime, if that wasn't so damn offensive to slime.

non sequitur? he was the one calling for a slash to medicare and social security, and the point remains that such a slash would drastically reduce the need for higher taxes.

if you think medicare and social security are the epitome of helping "the commons", you're delusional. i consider medicaid, public education, and unemployment benefits to be the epitome of helping "the commons." i even support universal health care. these things benefit the entire commons, regardless of age.

[Thinine]

So your problem with SS and Medicare is that only old people (and the disabled) can use it? And how can you be for universal health care, education, or unemployment benefits when you're so butthurt over government spending?

Oh, and once again we're back to the fact that the stimulus, TARP, and the auto bailout were all undesired by the Obama administration but were necessary to avoid total economic collapse. And even with those programs this recession has been worse than predicted and the worst since the Great Depression. NOBODY wanted to spend that money but the alternative was worse. Now, beyond those one time expenditures, what about Obama's spending do you have issue with? He's increased funding for all sorts of science and research projects, including NASA. His health legislation is projected to save over $200B in the coming decade. Oh, but I forget, the CBO is stupid and wrong and you, despite being "less than an armchair economist", must be correct.

Does Obama's budget eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop? Of course not. Is it a significant departure from budgets, Republican and Democrat, over the last decade? Obviously. Is there more to do? Always. But at a certain point the administration realized that the easiest way to get something passed is not to heavily back it, for fear of Republican opposition, but to leave the issue open and let Congress come to a plan themselves. Does Obama want SS reform? Yes, it's just too volatile for him to do by himself. If Congress comes up the the plan first, it has a much better chance of passing.

[Pesto]

like many divisive issues, i see valid arguments on both sides and don't have strong opinions one way or the other. except for the strong opinion that anyone on one side that will totally discount/ignore/belittle arguments from the other side is a moron.

Well, what's important is that you've found a way to feel superior to everyone else.

[Gretyl]

Oh gnoes, MA has the intellect of a 19-year-old! Tell me something new.

[MarcusAurelius]

sure looks better than most on here.

[MarcusAurelius]

Now, beyond those one time expenditures, what about Obama's spending do you have issue with?

"one time expenditures"?

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling lower below $607 billion, a figure that would still exceed the previous deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.

Does Obama's budget eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop?

eliminate? WTF??? by his own numbers, it's absolutely crushed historical debt numbers.

Is it a significant departure from budgets, Republican and Democrat, over the last decade? Obviously.

yeah, i'll give you that. this level of spending is a serious departure.

But at a certain point the administration realized that the easiest way to get something passed is not to heavily back it, for fear of Republican opposition, but to leave the issue open and let Congress come to a plan themselves.

was that before or after he rammed home an unpopular, massively expensive health care bill that ended up with his party get rolled over in the midterm elections? gee whiz, what gutsy determination!

And how can you be for universal health care, education, or unemployment benefits when you're so butthurt over government spending?

HURRR DURRR I OPPOSE ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING OF ALL KINDS BECAUSE I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH SO THEY SHOULD SPEND ZERO HURR DURRR HURRRR MY MACBOOK CAPSLOCK IS STUCK DOWN

[Gretyl]

sure looks better than most on here.

Especially from your perspective!

[Thinine]

Now, beyond those one time expenditures, what about Obama's spending do you have issue with?

"one time expenditures"?

The president's 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling lower below $607 billion, a figure that would still exceed the previous deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office.

Does Obama's budget eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop?

eliminate? WTF??? by his own numbers, it's absolutely crushed historical debt numbers.

Is it a significant departure from budgets, Republican and Democrat, over the last decade? Obviously.

yeah, i'll give you that. this level of spending is a serious departure.

But at a certain point the administration realized that the easiest way to get something passed is not to heavily back it, for fear of Republican opposition, but to leave the issue open and let Congress come to a plan themselves.

was that before or after he rammed home an unpopular, massively expensive health care bill that ended up with his party get rolled over in the midterm elections? gee whiz, what gutsy determination!

And how can you be for universal health care, education, or unemployment benefits when you're so butthurt over government spending?

HURRR DURRR I OPPOSE ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING OF ALL KINDS BECAUSE I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH SO THEY SHOULD SPEND ZERO HURR DURRR HURRRR MY MACBOOK CAPSLOCK IS STUCK DOWN

I know you'll just dismiss it as flawed, biased, and inaccurate, but this infographic summarizes the causes of the deficit pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009 ... aphic.html

[Gretyl]

Why should knowing the causes of our deficit change anyone's belief in the need for a fiscally conservative budget?

[Thinine]

Why should that be the reason I posted that response? I was just pointing out how unreasonable he's being in blaming Obama for the entirety of the deficit and his mistaken notion that he's single handedly increased it four fold since taking office. I doubt anyone thinks we should be running a deficit, merely that it was a necessary evil to stave off economic collapse.

[WrenchHead]

This is for Macrus Aurlieus

[Thinine]

lulz

[MarcusAurelius]

I know you'll just dismiss it as flawed, biased, and inaccurate, but this infographic summarizes the causes of the deficit pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009 ... aphic.html

from the nytimes? yes, yes i will dismiss their graphic that conveniently starts it's x-axis with "the bush years." you're a fuckin dumbass.

Why should that be the reason I posted that response? I was just pointing out how unreasonable he's being in blaming Obama for the entirety of the deficit and his mistaken notion that he's single handedly increased it four fold since taking office. I doubt anyone thinks we should be running a deficit, merely that it was a necessary evil to stave off economic collapse.

actually right now i'm blaming obama for the next 10 years of deficit, not the last 10 years. and it's a lot fucking bigger. try to keep up?

how unreasonable he's being in blaming Obama for the entirety of the deficit

i have never once done that. i'm fully aware that obama and friends inherited a deficit and a shaky economy. that doesn't give them free reign to do whatever the fuck they please, and you sure as shit don't get to make this absurd claim that quadrupling the deficit is justified DURRR BECAUSE BUSH DURRRR. if running a deficit is a necessary evil to stave off economic collapse, quadrupling the deficit must therefor be necessarily awesome!

lulz

yeah, you would "lulz". did you get it? cause of the treadmill thing? oh man!! so funny and witty! i love it when wrenchhead posts in PCE!

[WrenchHead]

What do you have to say about Obama only marginally increasing the deficit to prevent complete economic collapse? As opposed to some other political party making these sort of decisions?

[MarcusAurelius]

What do you have to say about Obama only marginally increasing the deficit to prevent complete economic collapse?

i dunno, did that ever happen? did the actual spending "prevent complete economic collapse?" yeah, that line was sold to you, same as iraqi WMDs. the insane level of spending has obviously underperformed obama's own stated expectations.

so you want to know what i have to say about a purely hypothetical obama hypothetically only marginally increasing the deficit to prevent hypothetical complete economic collapse? i guess i'm for it? good plan, you master thinker. you sure got me there! all this time i just thought that i hated obama and all democrats and no matter what they did i'd oppose it. but turns out that they could've fixed everything and then i would've looked the fool when i opposed their plans to have me judge the playmate blowjob olympics. i learned my lesson.

[Thinine]

Why should that be the reason I posted that response? I was just pointing out how unreasonable he's being in blaming Obama for the entirety of the deficit and his mistaken notion that he's single handedly increased it four fold since taking office. I doubt anyone thinks we should be running a deficit, merely that it was a necessary evil to stave off economic collapse.

actually right now i'm blaming obama for the next 10 years of deficit, not the last 10 years. and it's a lot fucking bigger. try to keep up?E!

So you're blaming him for a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet and has no real meaning until it does? That's it, I'm blaming you for a hypothetical terrorist attack sometime within the next 10 years. MA, why do you hate America? How could you kill all those people? Why did you attack that treadmill factory?

Yet more absurdity from MA. That NYT graphic is based on CBO data you twit, which you claim to respect. As is the savings generated by the health care reform and the number of jobs saved or created by ARRA. The potential deficits are bad, no doubt. It would stupid not to do anything. But those horrible deficits you hate have already been reduced by $1.1T in his latest budget. As tax revenue increases due to economic recovery, tax reform, and hopefully the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, it will be reduced further. As will be with every new budget Obama introduces.

[MarcusAurelius]

That NYT graphic is based on CBO data you twit

very creative use of data! it reads like an onion post. JFC, they even labeled the biggest downward arrow with "BUSH POLICIES". and the smallest with "other obama programs". go new york times!

.... and did you even look at the date on that "infographic"? mid 2009, really?


i prefer a little more honest presentation in numbers.

[WrenchHead]

From factcheck.org, which attempts to not make dramatic charts to prove its point

Promise Kept or Broken?
Obama claimed that his budget proposal fulfills his campaign promise "to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term." The House Budget Committee countered that "instead of fulfilling his campaign promise … the president’s budget doubles the debt over that same period of time." Obama’s claim is closer to reality than the Budget Committee’s.
First, the president and the Budget Committee are talking about two different things. The deficit is the difference between the revenues (receipts) that the government collects and what it spends (outlays) in a given year. The debt is the accumulation of many deficits minus any surpluses. So, even if the debt increases, that doesn’t automatically mean that the president would be breaking his campaign promise to cut the deficit. But let’s look at the numbers anyway.
According to the budget proposal, the deficit at the end of Obama’s first term in fiscal year 2013 would be $768 billion. That’s about a 46 percent decrease from the actual $1.4 trillion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2009. That’s very close to what the president claimed.
As for the debt held by the public, the president’s budget projects that it will reach $12.8 trillion in FY 2013. That’s a nearly 71 percent increase from the $7.5 trillion public debt for fiscal year 2009. That’s a significant increase, but it’s not "double," as the Budget Committee claimed. That would require a 100 percent increase. If you look at the total federal debt, which includes money the government owes itself, it still doesn’t amount to a doubling over the same time period ($11.9 trillion in FY 2009 and $17.8 trillion in FY 2013).
It remains to be seen what the deficit and publicly held debt will total in 2013. But based on current projections, the president is on track to keep his promise.

I suppose factcheck.org is some sort of pinko commie website though...

[MarcusAurelius]

i didn't post a dramatic chart. it's basically the least dramatic thing that could ever be posted.

anyway, that's just cherry picking data. why compare 2013 deficit to 2009 deficit, instead of say, 2008? or 2010? or compare 2012 deficit to 2008? okay great, he can be "technically correct" in "keeping his promise".

if you want to compare single years, the 2011 deficit is $1.65 trillion. his promise could've just as accurately been to "increase the deficit by halfway through my first term."

but it's arbitrary to pick single years and compare them. the total debt really matters. obama could have a $10 trillion deficit in 2011 and a $10 trillion surplus in 2012 and i'd applaud. but going from a total debt of $11.9T in 2009 to $17.8T in 2013 is pretty goddam bad by any metric. a single year of deficit spending is trivial; year after year of deficit spending is trouble. and his projections of new entitlements maintain that deficit level for the next 10 years.

[WrenchHead]

From what I've seen, the Republicans don't have a better answer in terms of reducing the deficit.

Your posts are the equivalent to someone sitting and watching the BP oil leak last year and constantly bitching "This is bad and the people handling it are retards. Someone needs to do something about that. I have no idea how to stop the leak, but someone really needs to do something about that."

[Thinine]

anyway, that's just cherry picking data. why compare 2013 deficit to 2009 deficit, instead of say, 2008? or 2010? or compare 2012 deficit to 2008? okay great, he can be "technically correct" in "keeping his promise".

No, it's a literal interpretation of what he said. His first term began in 2009 and ends in 2013. So there's no other way to evaluate the statement.

[MarcusAurelius]

anyway, that's just cherry picking data. why compare 2013 deficit to 2009 deficit, instead of say, 2008? or 2010? or compare 2012 deficit to 2008? okay great, he can be "technically correct" in "keeping his promise".

No, it's a literal interpretation of what he said. His first term began in 2009 and ends in 2013. So there's no other way to evaluate the statement.

oh okay, so 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014-2020 deficits of a billion trillion gazillion dollars get a pass. glad to see you could throw the blinders on and totally ignore the point (and the rest of the post).

[Uncle Sherm]

From what I've seen, the Republicans don't have a better answer in terms of reducing the deficit.

Your posts are the equivalent to someone sitting and watching the BP oil leak last year and constantly bitching "This is bad and the people handling it are retards. Someone needs to do something about that. I have no idea how to stop the leak, but someone really needs to do something about that."

Some of them do, but nobody wants to enact a solution where someone gets kicked off the gravy train. Visit the Wisconsin statehouse for an example of what happens when you try.

The fact of the matter is that the government is taking in more money today than it was during the Clinton years, even though tax rates are lower. It is also spending a great deal more, which is causing the massive deficits. Raising taxes in this economic climate would kill job creation and you'll find yourself in the same situation as Roosevelt's new deal: nobody is hiring and the government is hemoraging money trying to maintain the safety net. This time around however, our military-industrial complex is already in full swing, so not even another World War will help us get out of this mess.

The solution is to do exactly what Wisconsin and New Jersey are trying to do. Tell the public sector workers to deal with making less money, end foreign aid, stop all discretionary spending, freeze all non-discretionary spending, and stop the creation of any new entitlement programs at the federal level. Shift the burden of new programs on state and local governments, who are in a much better position to monitor them for wasteful and fraudulent spending. All the while, the government needs to start negotiating with our creditors.

[Thinine]

Visit the Wisconsin statehouse for an example of what happens when you try.

Taking away worker's rights to collective bargaining doesn't save money, it just takes their rights away. If all the Wisconsin governor wanted to do was freeze pay or benefits or even reduce benefits, you wouldn't be seeing this outcry. It's only because he's using the budget problems to try and eliminate unions that makes people angry.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... rights.php

[Thinine]

Tell the public sector workers to deal with making less money

Unless you're talking about actually cutting wages rather than freezing them, this doesn't save much money, and saves nothing immediately.

end foreign aid

Even if we stopped entirely, that would save a whole <$40B.

stop all discretionary spending

Are you talking about setting to 0, or just a freeze? Zeroing out all discretionary funding is insane. A freeze is already happening.

freeze all non-discretionary spending

You can't dumbass, that's why it's non-discretionary. Unless you're seriously suggesting that even as the income and burden on these programs increase the government pays out a constant amount?

and stop the creation of any new entitlement programs at the federal level.

Um, okay. Tell me, how much does the stopping of hypothetical programs hypothetically save us? We should also cancel the mission to launch a trillion dollars worth of gold into the sun. I just saved us a trillion dollars!

Shift the burden of new programs on state and local governments, who are in a much better position to monitor them for wasteful and fraudulent spending.

Sure, and in a much worse position to actually fund them. Plus you turn one national program with a single set of standards and benefits into 50 thereby duplicating all of the state bureaucracy you hate so much.

All the while, the government needs to start negotiating with our creditors.

Yes, I'm sure they'll be will to renegotiate our interest rates.

Frankly, the first thing that should be done is to eliminate all of the tax breaks for specific companies or industries, starting with those that need them the least. Like oil companies, banks and other financial corporations, and defense contractors. Rather than cut funding for things like PBS and Planned Parenthood, which actually benefit the people directly. You want to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending? Then we need to spend money to modernize the infrastructure these programs use.

[Thinine]

Also, it seems quite clear to me that rather than use their new-found power to propose practical cuts, the Republicans are rather using it to produce a budget that panders to their political interests, knowing it has no chance of actually going into affect. They never have to deal with the practical consequences of their views, but get to score political points with their ignorant constituency anyway.

[Uncle Sherm]

Tell the public sector workers to deal with making less money

Unless you're talking about actually cutting wages rather than freezing them, this doesn't save much money, and saves nothing immediately.

Cut their wages.

end foreign aid

Even if we stopped entirely, that would save a whole <$40B.

Expenditures are so spread out, that picking and choosing anything would seem insignificant, which is why so many cuts need to be made. Eventually, they will add up to a substantial amount. And $40 billion is still a pretty hefty chunk of change.

stop all discretionary spending

Are you talking about setting to 0, or just a freeze? Zeroing out all discretionary funding is insane. A freeze is already happening.

Freezing the speed of an out of control train heading for a cliff is insane. It needs to be cut and cut severely.

freeze all non-discretionary spending

You can't dumbass, that's why it's non-discretionary. Unless you're seriously suggesting that even as the income and burden on these programs increase the government pays out a constant amount?

Yes. Stop COLA allowances and pay in absolute 2011 dollars. End Social Security obligations to people that haven't started paying into the system, and use a sliding scale for current workers. Social Security should be completely phased out by 2065

and stop the creation of any new entitlement programs at the federal level.

Um, okay. Tell me, how much does the stopping of hypothetical programs hypothetically save us? We should also cancel the mission to launch a trillion dollars worth of gold into the sun. I just saved us a trillion dollars!

If that was a real plan, then yes, you did. I'm referring to things like Obamacare and this insane high speed rail bullshit that Obama keeps pushing for. The fewer missions to launch gold into the sun, the better.

Shift the burden of new programs on state and local governments, who are in a much better position to monitor them for wasteful and fraudulent spending.

Sure, and in a much worse position to actually fund them. Plus you turn one national program with a single set of standards and benefits into 50 thereby duplicating all of the state bureaucracy you hate so much.

I don't like bureaucracy, but scandals like CTEIC and Movie makers committing tax fraud get caught by the state. Those were millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fraud that the Federal Government wouldn't have even sniffed. The investigations into these sorts of things would cost that much if done at the federal level. State bureaucracy is bad, but in a minor headache vs 12 gauge shotgun in the face sort of way.

All the while, the government needs to start negotiating with our creditors.

Yes, I'm sure they'll be will to renegotiate our interest rates.

I mean negotiating down a settlement for actual debt. Sit down with China and start with 10 cents on the dollar.

Frankly, the first thing that should be done is to eliminate all of the tax breaks for specific companies or industries, starting with those that need them the least. Like oil companies, banks and other financial corporations, and defense contractors. Rather than cut funding for things like PBS and Planned Parenthood, which actually benefit the people directly. You want to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending? Then we need to spend money to modernize the infrastructure these programs use.

If we want to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending, we need to make the very concept of "lucrative government contract" completely obsolete to the point where dealing with the government is left to smaller companies trying to find customers. Fuck PBS and planned parenthood, they have nothing to do with the federal government and there are plenty of alternatives available in the marketplace.

[Uncle Sherm]

Visit the Wisconsin statehouse for an example of what happens when you try.

Taking away worker's rights to collective bargaining doesn't save money, it just takes their rights away. If all the Wisconsin governor wanted to do was freeze pay or benefits or even reduce benefits, you wouldn't be seeing this outcry. It's only because he's using the budget problems to try and eliminate unions that makes people angry.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... rights.php

The only right it takes away is their right to collectively bargain for sweeter deals from the state. That is a perfectly acceptable loss to the taxpayers of a state that is billions of dollars in debt. The amount of money teachers in Wisconsin pay into their pension system is 1000 per year. After 30 years, that's only enough to cover their first year of retirement. The rest is left entirely to the taxpayers.

[Thinine]

Wanting teachers to pay more into the pension plan is one thing. But taking away collective bargaining isn't necessary to do it. It's merely using the economic climate to attack the popular supporters of your opponents. Not to mention that this budget crisis is of the governors own making and his solution targets only the civil and teachers unions, but not the police or firefighters unions.

PBS and PP have alternatives in the marketplace? lol I don't know why I even bother with you.

[Thinine]

I found this USA Today brief informative:

Q: Why are the stakes so high in Wisconsin?
A:. Money and political power. What happens could spread to other states and influence how campaigns are financed nationwide.

Q: What are the financial issues?
A: Republican Gov. Scott Walker wants most government workers to pay more for pensions and health care. His proposal requires employees to pay:
•Half the cost of pensions — about 5.8% of pay. They generally pay nothing now.
•12.6% of health care costs, up from about 6% today.
The changes would save taxpayers — and cost employees — about $150 million a year in a $13 billion budget.
The unions have indicated they may accept the financial demands. In return, Walker has promised no layoffs if the cost reductions are accepted.

Q: So why no deal?
A: The power of unions is the sticking point.
Wisconsin was the first state, in 1959, to let government workers unionize. Strong public employee unions are part of the state's heritage and a key source of financial and political support for Democrats.

Q: What limits would be placed on unions?
A: Public employee unions could bargain only on wages. Even pay hikes could not exceed inflation without voter approval. In addition:
•The government would stop deducting union dues from paychecks. Unions would have to collect dues themselves — $400 to $1,400 a year, depending on the union. This practice elsewhere has cut union revenue by about one-third.
•Workers would have to reapprove the union every year, by a majority of all workers, not just those voting.
•Future contracts could not set benefits, work rules or layoff policies. Existing contracts would remain valid until they expire.
Unions say the proposals are an effort to bust union power and weaken their financial support of the Democratic Party.
Police, firefighters and state troopers — whose unions supported Walker in the election — are exempt.

Q: Why does Walker say he wants to limit union power?
A: Walker says the managers of cities and schools need freedom to run their operations more efficiently — like a business — especially because state aid will be cut.
He cites excessively detailed union contracts that, for example, prohibit teacher staff meetings on Monday — to avoid conflicting with union meetings — that hurt government's ability to operate and drive up costs.

Q: What is Walker's background?
A: He was a conservative state legislator who was elected county executive in traditionally Democratic Milwaukee County in 2002.
Walker, now 43, was known for extreme frugality, packing his own lunch and returning more than $300,000 in personal salary during his term.
He also slashed the county workforce by 1,000 to 5,200, privatized some operations and limited government spending. In 2009, the county borrowed $400 million to boost its underfunded pension.

Q: Why does Wisconsin matter elsewhere politically?
A: After big wins in November, Republicans are trying to execute big policy changes in Congress and in the states to reduce the size of government. "Transform the Nation" is the No. 1 priority of the Republican Governors Association.
Republicans took over both legislative chambers and the governor's job in Wisconsin in November. Twenty-one state legislative chambers flipped from Democratic to Republican. A dozen or more states are considering cutting union benefits or power. Wisconsin went first.

Q: What are the politics?
A: Public employee unions are the biggest source of campaign funding for Democrats. If union campaign donations are cut, the political landscape could change in favor of Republicans at the national, state and local level.
A restriction of unions' ability to support candidates could influence a range of seemingly unrelated issues — the environment, abortion, foreign policy — and the 2012 presidential election. The Supreme Court ended limits on corporate political spending in 2010, boosting Republican fundraising in last year's elections and making access to union contributions more important than ever for Democrats.
"This is an effort to silence people who disagree with you. It doesn't have anything to do with jobs," says Kerry Korpi, research director at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Q: What are other states doing?
A: Ohio — under new Republican Gov. John Kasich— could vote on a similar law in two weeks. Protests are scheduled Tuesday. In other states, proposals vary and their chance of success partly depends on what happens in Wisconsin.
Florida's new Republican governor wants workers to contribute to pensions for the first time. A Tennessee Senate committee approved ending collective bargaining for teachers. Iowa's Republicans foresee limits on unions, although less than in Wisconsin.

Q: How does collective bargaining work at the state level?
A: States make their own rules. Rules differ widely among states and even within states for teachers, firefighters or state employees.
Thirty states have collective bargaining laws. Others permit contracts through practice or court decisions.
Twelve states don't allow collective bargaining for state workers. Five states — Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, George and Texas — ban it for teachers.
States differ on what a contract can decide — work rules or pensions, for example — and whether government will deduct union dues.

Q: How many people are affected?
A: Every taxpayer. Governments employs 22 million people — 2.8 million for the federal government, 5 million for states and 14.2 million for cities and schools. About 36% are unionized compared with 7% in the private sector.

Q: How does public pay compare with the private sector?
A: Federal workers make more than private workers in four out of five jobs. However, state and local workers get salaries similar to the private sector's.
The big difference is benefits. State and local workers get a benefit package — pensions, health care, vacations — worth 60% more than in the private sector, about $17,000 a year, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

Q: How do these costs affect taxpayers?
A: Compensation consumed $1.1 trillion of the $2 trillion state and local governments spent in 2009. For cities and school districts, labor costs often account for 80% of costs.
Compensation costs soared in the past decade — 40% above the inflation rate — as workforces grew, benefits became more costly and workers retired. In response, governments raised taxes, cut spending elsewhere and borrowed to finance pensions. Illinois will borrow $3.5 billion Tuesday to make its pension contribution.

Personally the only part I object to is the elimination of union input on work rules, benefits, and layoffs. At that point, what's the point of a union at all? Unions need to be able to negotiate every aspect of the worker's contract. Once that's guaranteed it's up to the other party to decide whether the union demands outweigh the cost of replacing their workforce with non-union labor. And yes, I know that there are laws in some places to prevent that. Eliminating those would certainly level the playing field.

[Uncle Sherm]

Wanting teachers to pay more into the pension plan is one thing. But taking away collective bargaining isn't necessary to do it. It's merely using the economic climate to attack the popular supporters of your opponents. Not to mention that this budget crisis is of the governors own making and his solution targets only the civil and teachers unions, but not the police or firefighters unions.

PBS and PP have alternatives in the marketplace? lol I don't know why I even bother with you.

The guy's been governor for little more than a month. How is this budget crisis his own making? I am going to go out on a limb and say that there are more civil servants and teachers than Policemen or firefighters, and of those, I don't know how many are paid directly by the state.

[Uncle Sherm]

Personally the only part I object to is the elimination of union input on work rules, benefits, and layoffs. At that point, what's the point of a union at all? Unions need to be able to negotiate every aspect of the worker's contract. Once that's guaranteed it's up to the other party to decide whether the union demands outweigh the cost of replacing their workforce with non-union labor. And yes, I know that there are laws in some places to prevent that. Eliminating those would certainly level the playing field.

Your workforce there is pretty freaking huge, and under present law, mandated to exist by the government. Wisconsin is not a right-to-work state, either.

[Thinine]

Wanting teachers to pay more into the pension plan is one thing. But taking away collective bargaining isn't necessary to do it. It's merely using the economic climate to attack the popular supporters of your opponents. Not to mention that this budget crisis is of the governors own making and his solution targets only the civil and teachers unions, but not the police or firefighters unions.

PBS and PP have alternatives in the marketplace? lol I don't know why I even bother with you.

The guy's been governor for little more than a month. How is this budget crisis his own making? I am going to go out on a limb and say that there are more civil servants and teachers than Policemen or firefighters, and of those, I don't know how many are paid directly by the state.

First thing he did was pass ~$130M in unpaid for tax breaks, taking the state from an expected surplus to a deficit. Sounds familiar...

[MarcusAurelius]

I found this USA Today brief informative:

Q: What limits would be placed on unions?
A: Public employee unions could bargain only on wages. Even pay hikes could not exceed inflation without voter approval. In addition:
•The government would stop deducting union dues from paychecks. Unions would have to collect dues themselves — $400 to $1,400 a year, depending on the union. This practice elsewhere has cut union revenue by about one-third.
•Workers would have to reapprove the union every year, by a majority of all workers, not just those voting.
•Future contracts could not set benefits, work rules or layoff policies. Existing contracts would remain valid until they expire.
Unions say the proposals are an effort to bust union power and weaken their financial support of the Democratic Party.
Police, firefighters and state troopers — whose unions supported Walker in the election — are exempt.

the bolded part is just absurd. not only do the unions have the state's balls in a vice, but the state is obligated to provide the vice?

[MarcusAurelius]

The solution is to do exactly what Wisconsin and New Jersey are trying to do. Tell the public sector workers to deal with making less money, end foreign aid, stop all discretionary spending, freeze all non-discretionary spending, and stop the creation of any new entitlement programs at the federal level. Shift the burden of new programs on state and local governments, who are in a much better position to monitor them for wasteful and fraudulent spending. All the while, the government needs to start negotiating with our creditors.

and don't bail out states that overspent.

[Charlie Foxtrot]

The idea that we need public sector unions is ridiculous.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... ning_power

In any productive joint enterprise, there’s a question of how to split the gains from cooperation. Our native sense of fairness tells us that our shares should be roughly proportional to the value of our contributions. But distributive fairness doesn’t automatically prevail. What we actually get—whether we get a fair share or get used—depends on our bargaining power. Individual workers with few options hardly stand a chance against managers backed by massive capital. Workers are most likely to get a cut that reflects the value of their contributions when they band together and bargain collectively. "To each according to his or her individual bargaining power" is hardly a compelling principle of distributive justice, which is why institutions that equalise bargaining power, such as private-sector labor unions, make moral sense.

The thing is, public-sector unions don't work like this. They aren't bargaining against capitalists for a fair cut of the cooperative surplus. They're bargaining against everybody who pays taxes and/or benefits from government spending. The question of distribution in democratic politics isn't about splitting up jointly-produced profits. It's about interest groups fighting to grab a bigger share of government revenue while sticking competing groups with the tax bill. Because of the sheer size and relatively uniform interests of the group, public employees constitute a politically powerful bloc with or without unions. As the percentage of the labour force employed by the government rises, the heft of this group only increases. Public-employee unions simply consolidate an already impressive concentration of political bargaining power. Moreover, as the Democratic Party comes increasingly to rely on patronage from the public-sector unions, the determination of Democratic politicians to bargain against the unions on behalf of taxpayers and the beneficiaries of competing government programmes necessarily weakens. For Democratic office-seekers, generous union contracts are "willingly given", as the Times put it, in roughly the same sense that unaffiliated private-sector workers "willingly" accept low wages and poor working conditions.

Edit: ugh, please excuse the nasty British mispellings. The Economist hasn't quite caught on to the superiority of Standard American English.

[MarcusAurelius]

They aren't bargaining against capitalists for a fair cut of the cooperative surplus. They're bargaining against everybody who pays taxes and/or benefits from government spending. The question of distribution in democratic politics isn't about splitting up jointly-produced profits. It's about interest groups fighting to grab a bigger share of government revenue while sticking competing groups with the tax bill.

well put.

[Santa]

I found this USA Today brief informative:

Q: What limits would be placed on unions?
A: Public employee unions could bargain only on wages. Even pay hikes could not exceed inflation without voter approval. In addition:
•The government would stop deducting union dues from paychecks. Unions would have to collect dues themselves — $400 to $1,400 a year, depending on the union. This practice elsewhere has cut union revenue by about one-third.
•Workers would have to reapprove the union every year, by a majority of all workers, not just those voting.
•Future contracts could not set benefits, work rules or layoff policies. Existing contracts would remain valid until they expire.
Unions say the proposals are an effort to bust union power and weaken their financial support of the Democratic Party.
Police, firefighters and state troopers — whose unions supported Walker in the election — are exempt.

the bolded parts are just absurd.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

They aren't bargaining against capitalists for a fair cut of the cooperative surplus. They're bargaining against everybody who pays taxes and/or benefits from government spending. The question of distribution in democratic politics isn't about splitting up jointly-produced profits. It's about interest groups fighting to grab a bigger share of government revenue while sticking competing groups with the tax bill.

well put.

I agree with this for the most part. The idea of public sector unions seems to really pervert the idea of unions in the first place. The jobs are required to exist by law and do not make a profit so I'm not sure the purpose of unions in this situation other than to maximize how much tax payers need to pay for public labor.

[Uncle Sherm]

Wanting teachers to pay more into the pension plan is one thing. But taking away collective bargaining isn't necessary to do it. It's merely using the economic climate to attack the popular supporters of your opponents. Not to mention that this budget crisis is of the governors own making and his solution targets only the civil and teachers unions, but not the police or firefighters unions.

PBS and PP have alternatives in the marketplace? lol I don't know why I even bother with you.

The guy's been governor for little more than a month. How is this budget crisis his own making? I am going to go out on a limb and say that there are more civil servants and teachers than Policemen or firefighters, and of those, I don't know how many are paid directly by the state.

First thing he did was pass ~$130M in unpaid for tax breaks, taking the state from an expected surplus to a deficit. Sounds familiar...

Ignoring the absurdity of the phrase "unpaid for tax breaks", Wisconsin has a 7% unemployment rate. Cutting taxes for companies that hire people is the best way to create jobs and expand the tax base. That's why government revenue increased when GWB lowered taxes. The same would hold true for Wisconsin. Look at the previous governor's bungling of government finances if you want to see what created this mess, and why Iowa has the perfect conditions for an even worse situation. We have a higher wage gap between private and public sector employees, and our public sector workers pay even less for their own benefits than Wisconsin. Culver gave the teachers a pay increase to put them at the national average, even though: (1)the Iowa cost of living is significantly below that rate, (2)we couldn't afford it and many state employees are facing layoffs now because of it, and (3)Iowa's education system is underperforming compared to the rest of the country, both before and after the pay raise.

[Pokaris]

Wanting teachers to pay more into the pension plan is one thing. But taking away collective bargaining isn't necessary to do it. It's merely using the economic climate to attack the popular supporters of your opponents. Not to mention that this budget crisis is of the governors own making and his solution targets only the civil and teachers unions, but not the police or firefighters unions.

PBS and PP have alternatives in the marketplace? lol I don't know why I even bother with you.

The guy's been governor for little more than a month. How is this budget crisis his own making? I am going to go out on a limb and say that there are more civil servants and teachers than Policemen or firefighters, and of those, I don't know how many are paid directly by the state.

First thing he did was pass ~$130M in unpaid for tax breaks, taking the state from an expected surplus to a deficit. Sounds familiar...

One slight problem with your theory. Those tax breaks don't do anything until the next budget. There was no surplus. The previous governor (Doyle) was even illegally taking money from a patient care fund ($200 million) to pay the bills.

So to put it bluntly, you are a liar.

[Thinine]

Then I guess the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau is lying too. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/201 ... arling.pdf

[Charlie Foxtrot]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

[Pokaris]

Then I guess the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau is lying too. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/201 ... arling.pdf

Do you seriously need the difference between estimated and actual explained to you? I can do it, but this is an airplane on a treadmill type moment.

[Thinine]

If you go by actual, then Wisconsin isn't even running a deficit yet. So what are you even talking about now?

[Thinine]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

So because they work for the government, they don't have the right to be in a union? What about employees of government contractors, can they be in a union? Or the employees of those contractor's contractor's? How far removed from the sacred tax dollar does one have to be to magically get the right to be in a union?

[Pokaris]

If you go by actual, then Wisconsin isn't even running a deficit yet. So what are you even talking about now?

They aren't? Want to tell me where the $200 Million Doyle illegally took from the Patient Care Fund is?

Do yourself a favor and excuse yourself from the conversation, you have no idea what you are talking about. The good news is you aren't alone, they can find at least 60,000 other idiots to bus into Madison if you want to hang out with your peers.

[Thinine]

If you go by actual, then Wisconsin isn't even running a deficit yet. So what are you even talking about now?

They aren't? Want to tell me where the $200 Million Doyle illegally took from the Patient Care Fund is?

You tell me. Where are you getting this?

[Charlie Foxtrot]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

So because they work for the government, they don't have the right to be in a union? What about employees of government contractors, can they be in a union? Or the employees of those contractor's contractor's? How far removed from the sacred tax dollar does one have to be to magically get the right to be in a union?

No one has a right to mandatory collective bargaining. But if one concedes that private employers must do so, the reasons that justify it simply do not follow for state employees.

[Pokaris]

If you go by actual, then Wisconsin isn't even running a deficit yet. So what are you even talking about now?

They aren't? Want to tell me where the $200 Million Doyle illegally took from the Patient Care Fund is?

You tell me. Where are you getting this?

I'm getting this from reality, when you do that you can cite sources. What do we have here? http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/st ... ily23.html

Now how about you stop talking about things you don't understand?

[Thinine]

If you go by actual, then Wisconsin isn't even running a deficit yet. So what are you even talking about now?

They aren't? Want to tell me where the $200 Million Doyle illegally took from the Patient Care Fund is?

You tell me. Where are you getting this?

I'm getting this from reality, when you do that you can cite sources. What do we have here? http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/st ... ily23.html

Now how about you stop talking about things you don't understand?

Uh, that says the money was moved through a bipartisan vote of the WI legislature, not just by the governor, so it's not as if he packed up the cash and took it with him. Plus it went to healthcare for children rather than staying as part of the liability fund, not hookers and booze. Do you have any information on if it has been paid back? It wasn't mentioned in the previous document, and I'd assume a $200M debt would be when assessing the economic health of the state. From that article it looks like it's just a transfer from one part of the health system to another. Paying it back is just shifting it from one part of the budget back to the other.

Let's assume for the moment that economic situation in Wisconsin is as bad as Walker says it is. How does that justify attacking the unions like this? They've already agreed to contract changes to reduce the financial burden of their benefits. Hell, pretty much everything mentioned in these threads is negotiable, except the elimination of union bargaining rights, which, by themselves, don't cost anything anyway. This is merely another attempt by Walker to eliminate unions, just like he did when he was county commissioner.

[Pokaris]

If you go by actual, then Wisconsin isn't even running a deficit yet. So what are you even talking about now?

They aren't? Want to tell me where the $200 Million Doyle illegally took from the Patient Care Fund is?

You tell me. Where are you getting this?

I'm getting this from reality, when you do that you can cite sources. What do we have here? http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/st ... ily23.html

Now how about you stop talking about things you don't understand?

Uh, that says the money was moved through a bipartisan vote of the WI legislature, not just by the governor, so it's not as if he packed up the cash and took it with him. Plus it went to healthcare for children rather than staying as part of the liability fund, not hookers and booze. Do you have any information on if it has been paid back? It wasn't mentioned in the previous document, and I'd assume a $200M debt would be when assessing the economic health of the state. From that article it looks like it's just a transfer from one part of the health system to another. Paying it back is just shifting it from one part of the budget back to the other.

Let's assume for the moment that economic situation in Wisconsin is as bad as Walker says it is. How does that justify attacking the unions like this? They've already agreed to contract changes to reduce the financial burden of their benefits. Hell, pretty much everything mentioned in these threads is negotiable, except the elimination of union bargaining rights, which, by themselves, don't cost anything anyway. This is merely another attempt by Walker to eliminate unions, just like he did when he was county commissioner.

No, it has not been paid back. Do you know why? WI doesn't have the $200 Million to pay it back. The whole issue here is your previous document was trash. It ignored a massive amount of changes that had occurred. That's kind of my point.

It is as bad, next budget is $2-3 Billion short. Is there some some sort of mandatory course in ignoring history to be a liberal? The UAW made concessions in difficult times and then threatened to shut the lines down during the good times to get it all back and more. Union 101. Pensions are slowly becoming an unsupportable burden, they're paying in 5% and getting out 70% of their max 3 years. It's not sustainable. IL and CA are already facing the short falls, doesn't it make sense for other places to see the issue and do something about it before they face the same problems?

[Reagraham Lincool]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

Well then you should be honest about your goal of union-busting (and therefore allow the electorate to evaluate you honestly) instead of dressing up the issue as a budgetary one.

[Reagraham Lincool]

No one has a right to mandatory collective bargaining.

Huh?

What are you saying here? You're coming very close to claiming people don't have a right to associate.

[Gretyl]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

Well then you should be honest about your goal of union-busting (and therefore allow the electorate to evaluate you honestly) instead of dressing up the issue as a budgetary one.

I don't see it as a significant amount of dress-up. Budgetary concerns are the force behind the politics, even if they had a union-busting plan ready to go.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

Well then you should be honest about your goal of union-busting (and therefore allow the electorate to evaluate you honestly) instead of dressing up the issue as a budgetary one.

I don't see it as a significant amount of dress-up. Budgetary concerns are the force behind the politics, even if they had a union-busting plan ready to go.

That doesn't make any sense. They conceded everything that would have helped the budget.

[Pokaris]

I'd be happy to take $130 million from overpaid state union employees and give it back to the taxpayers. Besides, budget crisis or abundant surplus, getting rid of public sector collective bargaining is an awesome cause.

Well then you should be honest about your goal of union-busting (and therefore allow the electorate to evaluate you honestly) instead of dressing up the issue as a budgetary one.

I don't see it as a significant amount of dress-up. Budgetary concerns are the force behind the politics, even if they had a union-busting plan ready to go.

That doesn't make any sense. They conceded everything that would have helped the budget.

In an attempt to maintain the system that would allow them to get it all back. That's not an honest concession to anyone but you.

The rest of us have seen the UAW do this before, and that worked out marvelous with 2/3 of the industry going broke.

[Reagraham Lincool]

In an attempt to maintain the system that would allow them to get it all back. That's not an honest concession to anyone but you.

So if revenue turns around, they shouldn't even have the ability to TRY to bargain for those concessions? NOPE BECAUSE FUCK UNIONS, THAT'S WHY.

The rest of us have seen the UAW do this before, and that worked out marvelous with 2/3 of the industry going broke.

Yeah, we got it. You can figure out a way to blame literally anything on unions. Don't care.

[Pokaris]

In an attempt to maintain the system that would allow them to get it all back. That's not an honest concession to anyone but you.

So if revenue turns around, they shouldn't even have the ability to TRY to bargain for those concessions? NOPE BECAUSE FUCK UNIONS, THAT'S WHY.

The rest of us have seen the UAW do this before, and that worked out marvelous with 2/3 of the industry going broke.

Yeah, we got it. You can figure out a way to blame literally anything on unions. Don't care.

Right, the government should take everything and dole it out evenly but that's not how it works.

The pension costs had absolutely nothing to do with GM and Chrysler's downfall? Do you intentionally ignore history or are you really that stupid? You're doing more to illustrate that public teachers aren't worth what they are paid than making a case for them.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Right, the government should take everything and dole it out evenly but that's not how it works.

What the fuck does this even mean? No wait, let me guess: "dole it out evenly" means that farmers should get even bigger subsidies.

The pension costs had absolutely nothing to do with GM and Chrysler's downfall? Do you intentionally ignore history or are you really that stupid? You're doing more to illustrate that public teachers aren't worth what they are paid than making a case for them.

No more than the costs of management. Again, that's just a given though. Whatever Capital sees fit to allocate itself is, apparently by definition, the right amount and can bear no share of blame for later shortfalls. You notice how this is kind of a theme? It's like you're mentally incapable of taking your claims and seeing if they apply to the capital side of the equation too (here's a hint: they always do).

Of course, there IS a difference. The difference is that while these things are the demands of Labor, the law makes their grant the prerogative of Capital. That prerogative ALSO carries the burden of responsibility (or else you're saying that the people who were NOT in charge of the decision are at fault).