The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Businesses have other alternatives to obtain money (investment), people normally do not.

 

I just love the liberal mentality we've got right now. Instead of cutting government spending, we should increase taxes on everyone. Instead of actually paying off our debt, we should borrow MORE money to pay it off, the future be damned. Instead of addressing the 800 lb gorilla in the room (entitlements ruining every budget), we should run away to a different state to hide from our responsibilities. Instead of addressing the economy, we should devote a year of the presidency to passing healthcare reform that doesn't do jack s*** to fix the major problems of the system.

 

I don't agree with HOW the governor in Wisconsin came about his mess. BUT, as NSS said, at least he's doing SOMETHING to TRY and address the problems of his state. And i'd argue further that the state unions are a big part of the problem since they've successfully negotiated with moronic politicians to get us to where we're at. Who wants to campaign to take away money from teachers/police/fire/civil workers? No one, but it's gonna have to be done at some point if states are going to fix their budget problems.

 

You've missed the point. Businesses don't create jobs for the hell of it. Demand creates jobs. It's hard to generate demand if your pay is stagnant or shrinking and all of your basic needs costs (housing, food, medical, transportation) keep rising. Cutting corporate taxes won't solve that problem. It won't stem the ever-widening wealth gaps. It won't spur companies to invest some of the estimated $1.3T of money they're collectively sitting on.

 

And, again, Walker created this budget problem and then used it to attack a political enemy and strip away workers rights. That doesn't lend itself to a rational discussion on whether public workers in Wisconsin need to pay more for their benefits (which they accepted in exchange for having lower wages than private sector on average).

 

Democrats in Wisconsin didn't run away to "hide from responsibility." That's a terrible mis-characterization. They are doing this to force a discussion before the vote in response to large public protests.

[Balta1701]

Democrats in Wisconsin didn't run away to "hide from responsibility." That's a terrible mis-characterization. They are doing this to force a discussion before the vote in response to large public protests.

If the WI public winds up deciding this gambit is an inappropriate move, they have every right to throw these Democrats out next election. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the multiple states trying to do this (Ohio and Indiana are next) had candidates campaign on the concept of banning the existence of public-employee unions.

 

Also...if leaving the state to deny quorum is a legal procedural gamble (and it is, at this time in WI law), I really don't think any Republicans get to complain. If it wasn't for another legal procedural move, this walkout never would have happened because the federal government would have had a much stronger health care bill and that would have saved WI so much money that the Gov couldn't even have used that as an excuse.

[Jenksismyhero]

Can't the second graph be explained by a lowered corporate tax rate? I assume since the upper personal income tax bracket in the 40's was like 90% that corporate tax rates were also a lot higher in those days as well, but that's just a guess.

 

And the first graph shows corporate greed, no doubt about that. But that's why the government should be offering incentives to corporate investment moreso than just straight up revenue. Pretty sure I've been calling for massive corporate tax credits for companies that hire new employees/invest in green energy, etc for a long time.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

 

eta: if your reasoning is correct (I haven't looked over those tables very closely), it means we can agree that the "tax cuts always pay for themselves!" line doesn't work.

Edited February 18, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Can't the second graph be explained by a lowered corporate tax rate? I assume since the upper personal income tax bracket in the 40's was like 90% that corporate tax rates were also a lot higher in those days as well, but that's just a guess.

 

And the first graph shows corporate greed, no doubt about that. But that's why the government should be offering incentives to corporate investment moreso than just straight up revenue. Pretty sure I've been calling for massive corporate tax credits for companies that higher new employees/invest in green energy, etc for a long time.

Yes, the nominal corporate tax rate has been cut over the years. The most recent large cut was at the end of the Reagan years. (this is an easy one to find because the anti-tax groups love showing how our nominal corporate tax rate is so stiflingly high)

 

However, as I noted previously...no one pays the nominal corporate tax rate. Everyone pays a lower rate. Everyone takes some deductions or moves money around to avoid paying the nominal rate. The nominal rate itself is a joke. Your actual tax rate is much more strongly tied to the quality of lobbyist you own than it is tied to the nominal rate.

[Jenksismyhero]

You've missed the point. Businesses don't create jobs for the hell of it. Demand creates jobs. It's hard to generate demand if your pay is stagnant or shrinking and all of your basic needs costs (housing, food, medical, transportation) keep rising. Cutting corporate taxes won't solve that problem. It won't stem the ever-widening wealth gaps. It won't spur companies to invest some of the estimated $1.3T of money they're collectively sitting on.

 

And, again, Walker created this budget problem and then used it to attack a political enemy and strip away workers rights. That doesn't lend itself to a rational discussion on whether public workers in Wisconsin need to pay more for their benefits (which they accepted in exchange for having lower wages than private sector on average).

 

Democrats in Wisconsin didn't run away to "hide from responsibility." That's a terrible mis-characterization. They are doing this to force a discussion before the vote in response to large public protests.

 

So, what's your answer? Unless you mandate certain salaries for certain positions (communist!) then the only thing you can do is offer big incentives for companies that spend their profits on their employees (i'd be fine with this) or keep taxes on people as low as possible (ditto). Neither of which the Democrats want to do (or have done), however. Instead it's spend money to help those people, and then tax everyone else, including businesses, to cover those costs. The problem isn't solved. I work for a small law firm. I see first hand how my firm, which is pretty successful, basically can't expand despite the fact that we need more help because the cost of doing business in Illinois just jumped. Stifling growth is what Quinn is doing, and in a couple years after I hopefully get out of this s***hole of a state I'm going to laugh at how Illinois is even worse off than it is now.

 

And yes, they did hide from their responsibility. I thought Walker made an excellent point when he said show up and voice your displeasure, show the people who voted for you where you stand. Instead the did literally hide in Rockford to evade the state troopers. Absolutely comical is what it was. I have a hard time believing that you'd be ok with the Congressional GOP simply walking out of any Senate vote they're opposed to just to make a point.

[Balta1701]

And yes, they did hide from their responsibility. I thought Walker made an excellent point when he said show up and voice your displeasure, show the people who voted for you where you stand. Instead the did literally hide in Rockford to evade the state troopers. Absolutely comical is what it was. I have a hard time believing that you'd be ok with the Congressional GOP simply walking out of any Senate vote they're opposed to just to make a point.

I see. You're in favor of up or down votes on everything. Socialized medicine, here we come!

So, what's your answer? Unless you mandate certain salaries for certain positions (communist!) then the only thing you can do is offer big incentives for companies that spend their profits on their employees (i'd be fine with this) or keep taxes on people as low as possible (ditto). Neither of which the Democrats want to do (or have done), however. Instead it's spend money to help those people, and then tax everyone else, including businesses, to cover those costs. The problem isn't solved. I work for a small law firm. I see first hand how my firm, which is pretty successful, basically can't expand despite the fact that we need more help because the cost of doing business in Illinois just jumped. Stifling growth is what Quinn is doing, and in a couple years after I hopefully get out of this s***hole of a state I'm going to laugh at how Illinois is even worse off than it is now.

There are a couple answers here, none of which you're going to like.

 

First, a lot of these corporate profits are coming about because they're holding these large sums of cash that they're not investing...thus, they have reduced expenditures. They are able to do this because there is zero inflation; the value of their holdings is not declining with time. Sitting on cash is a smart business move right now. How do you end that? Spend at the federal level like a ************, and also increase the Fed's inflation target from 2-3% to 3-4%. Make it abundantly clear that holding cash is a bad investment. The sub-5% interest rate on the 30 year bond is telling you all you need to know about that story.

 

Another way to do it? Tax the bleep out of it. If businesses are sitting there on cash that they won't spend, and wealthy individuals are sitting on money that they're just investing in T-bills...tax it and redistribute it. Create your own demand that way. Your boss can't expand in part because his tax bill just went up...but if his business surged, that would overcome the effect.

 

A third way...create a new bubble. Establish something that business wants to invest in heavily, where they think they are going to realize larger long-term gains than are possible by sitting on funds. This is where my volcano monitoring bubble and my green energy bubble come in.,

 

I'm open to suggestions on others.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm in awe at how Democrats and labor are really coming together to fight for what's right in Wisconsin. Time was, a rally at a state capitol that numbers in the 2 to 3 thousand mark is a big number. Yesterday's protests estimate between 35 and 70 thousand coming out to demand a seat at the table when it comes to issues such as rights within the workplace, safety on the job, and some control over their compensation packages.

 

I just wish there was this excitement over the election in November on their end. If there was, we wouldn't be facing this issue today.

[kapkomet]

It's as pure as the wind driven snow, ivory soap, busloads of "union soldiers" being bussed in, and Tim Kaine funneling in federal funds to get the DNC message out. We get it, everything's all right fight for what's right in Wisconsin!

[Balta1701]

It's as pure as the wind driven snow, ivory soap, busloads of "union soldiers" being bussed in, and Tim Kaine funneling in federal funds to get the DNC message out. We get it, everything's all right fight for what's right in Wisconsin!

Just like the Tea Party.

[kapkomet]

Yup, just like the Tea Party - who uses national funds to roll in the brownshirts. Right.

 

Gotta make sure the "FREE" health care and "FREE" retirements continue.

 

(Which, by the way, there's no easy answer here because these people aren't eligible for retirement like the private sector per se... so it's not as easy as turn it on and turn it off... but to ask to pay into the programs isn't too much to ask, either).

[Balta1701]

Yup, just like the Tea Party - who uses national funds to roll in the brownshirts. Right.

 

Gotta make sure the "FREE" health care and "FREE" retirements continue.

 

(Which, by the way, there's no easy answer here because these people aren't eligible for retirement like the private sector per se... so it's not as easy as turn it on and turn it off... but to ask to pay into the programs isn't too much to ask, either).

Yeah, they used enormous amounts of funds to do that. Tens of millions worth of free advertising on newscorp, tens of millions from Koch energy, tens of millions from the Chamber of commerce.

 

And anyway...pretending it's about the budget cuts is either 100% misinformed or 100% dishonest. As our Wisconsinian already said, the unions have already offered the Governor a deal worth the $120 million he needs to pay for his budget-busting taxcuts. The Governor has flat out rejected that deal. It's not about the retirement programs or paying for it, it's about dismantling the public sector unions.

[kapkomet]

I know... wind driven, pure, wholesome Democrats are always right. Right, right, we know. /next

[Soxy]

Yup, just like the Tea Party - who uses national funds to roll in the brownshirts. Right.

 

Gotta make sure the "FREE" health care and "FREE" retirements continue.

 

(Which, by the way, there's no easy answer here because these people aren't eligible for retirement like the private sector per se... so it's not as easy as turn it on and turn it off... but to ask to pay into the programs isn't too much to ask, either).

 

Oh f***ing bite me. If you consider the giant f***ing pay cut many state workers take just for working for the state there is no free. I had a job offer at a private institution for over 10k more than my current job. But I, stupidly, thought it would be a better idea to teach kids that couldn't afford 50k a year in tuition.

 

Like I f***ing said earlier (if you'd read instead of just turned into your typical giant f***ing douchebag) I said I agreed that state workers should pay in. But pay in to the tune of a 14% paycut? f*** off.

 

Jesus f***ing Christ. No wonder I stopped posting here.

[mr_genius]

hey, i was wondering if you guys could update my avatar to say '2012'

[kapkomet]

Oh f***ing bite me. If you consider the giant f***ing pay cut many state workers take just for working for the state there is no free. I had a job offer at a private institution for over 10k more than my current job. But I, stupidly, thought it would be a better idea to teach kids that couldn't afford 50k a year in tuition.

 

Like I f***ing said earlier (if you'd read instead of just turned into your typical giant f***ing douchebag) I said I agreed that state workers should pay in. But pay in to the tune of a 14% paycut? f*** off.

 

Jesus f***ing Christ. No wonder I stopped posting here.

 

Well, it it f***ing makes you feel any better, most people are f***ing having to take a f***ing REAL base pay cut ON TOP OF paying 14 to 20% or even MORE rise in benefits, not just a pseudo paycut just to pay in benefits) to even keep their jobs right f***ing now all over the place. It's either that or turn to every one in three people you work with and kiss their ass goodbye while you're having to take their load. Take your pick.

 

Now, with that out of my system, I never, EVER said I have a problem with the workers trying to hold their BASE pay (but that really isn't what this is about). And if you read (oh the irony) what I said in the parenthesis part the part I have a problem with is the benefits and even that is a sliding scale that should be implemented, not just dropped on them).

[BigSqwert]

I cant speak for all liberals, and im not even sure if I truly am a liberal (depends on who is defining it) but at least this "liberal" (being me) is in favor of cutting govt spending and raising taxes.

 

I can make the same argument about "conservative mentality". Instead of increasing taxes, they just want to cut spending on everything.

 

Both solutions are incomplete, the problem requires BOTH increasing revenue and decreasing expenditures. At least if we want to keep our society at the same level we have had it at for the last 20 or so years.

 

So we can pretend that one side or the other doesnt understand, or we can admit that the problem is that neither side actually cares about fixing the problem, they just care about their own personal agendas being pushed through.

 

If you really cared about balancing the budget, you wouldnt oppose tax increases or budget reductions.

HA on the bolded!

[Soxbadger]

I apologize. I often give conservatives credit that there are a few of them who actually believe in cutting everything.

 

Then I read a few nonsensical conservative arguments and I realize that I shouldnt give them credit, because they would never give me credit.

 

kap,

 

A lot of people have no jobs and no money. So we can all play the "Some one has it worse then me" game, or we can actually address the point. Do you believe its fair to strip away unions bargaining power?

 

If your answer is yes, that is fine. But its not about money at this point, the unions have given a concession on all monetary issues. They just want the right to bargain collectively.

 

Soxy,

 

Dont give up the good fight. I dont care what people say, this isnt how govt should be run. This is purposefully to piss people off and to make political statements. We fight because there are so many people who only care about themselves, and so few who care about the good of everyone.

 

Its easy to be a Kap, its hard to be a Soxy. Always remember that.

 

Im out.

 

 

[Cknolls]

I think this is a worth-while editorial with an additional note on how the WI situation came about...

 

The programs he established through votes in January were some corporate tax cuts and additional money for Health-Savings accounts. The Governor actually generated his own fiscal imbalance to start this.

 

 

HMMM.

 

Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

 

Share this story:

 

 

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

 

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

 

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

 

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

 

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

 

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

 

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

 

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

 

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

 

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

 

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

 

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

 

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

 

More on that second point in a bit.

 

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

 

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

 

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

 

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

 

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

 

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

 

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

 

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

 

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

 

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

 

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

 

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

 

But it is an inaccurate one.

 

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

 

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

 

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

 

Here’s the bottom line:

 

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

 

We rate Maddow’s take False.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

 

 

About this statement:

Published: Friday, February 18th, 2011 at 5:56 p.m.

 

Subjects: Labor, State Budget

 

Sources:

 

Interview with Robert Lang, director, Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Feb. 18, 2011

 

Legislative Fiscal Bureau, general fund projection (page 2), Jan. 31, 2011

 

Legislative Fiscal Bureau, impact of special session tax cuts (page 11), Jan. 31, 2011

 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel archives

 

Written by: Dave Umhoefer

Researched by: Dave Umhoefer

Edited by: Greg Borowski

 

How to contact us:

We want to hear your suggestions and comments. Email the Wisconsin Truth-O-Meter with feedback and with claims you'd like to see checked. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.

 

Browse the The Wisconsin Truth-O-Meter:

See all rulings in the campaign for governor

See all rulings in the campaign for U.S. Senate

Subscribe:

Keep up to date with Politifact Wisconsin:

Via RSS

On Twitter

On Facebook

To the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

 

Edited February 20, 2011 by Cknolls

[BigSqwert]

I apologize. I often give conservatives credit that there are a few of them who actually believe in cutting everything.

 

Well you partially got it correct. The small fraction of conservatives that are actually Libertarian actually do want to cut everything.

[kapkomet]

I apologize. I often give conservatives credit that there are a few of them who actually believe in cutting everything.

 

Then I read a few nonsensical conservative arguments and I realize that I shouldnt give them credit, because they would never give me credit.

 

kap,

 

A lot of people have no jobs and no money. So we can all play the "Some one has it worse then me" game, or we can actually address the point. Do you believe its fair to strip away unions bargaining power?

 

If your answer is yes, that is fine. But its not about money at this point, the unions have given a concession on all monetary issues. They just want the right to bargain collectively.

 

Soxy,

 

Dont give up the good fight. I dont care what people say, this isnt how govt should be run. This is purposefully to piss people off and to make political statements. We fight because there are so many people who only care about themselves, and so few who care about the good of everyone.

 

Its easy to be a Kap, its hard to be a Soxy. Always remember that.

 

Im out.

 

Awwww. How nice.

 

The funny thing is, re: Soxy's point about paying in on benefits, we're actually at the same point - they should have to pay in a little bit, but they shouldn't have to take a base wage cut to do so. Since I get read with the Kap glasses on, I guess it's a villifying position.

[Soxbadger]

I asked you to clarify your position, if its not about the money do you agree with the govt stripping away the unions power to collectively bargain?

 

As for the last comment I was drunk and thought that was funny. I actually forgot I posted it.

[StrangeSox]

[mr_genius]

 

well that is a very generous offer from Pakistan and Egypt. who would have known they would come through and pay the state workers pensions.

[kapkomet]

I asked you to clarify your position, if its not about the money do you agree with the govt stripping away the unions power to collectively bargain?

 

As for the last comment I was drunk and thought that was funny. I actually forgot I posted it.

 

 

I think if people want to be represented by them, it's their right. For what little it really does them now - and you can say that this is what the union is all about, but do they really give a darn about individuals, or do they care about the money and voting block power?