Looks like Walker will be keeping his job based on current projections (roughly 60-40 with 30%+ reporting).

IMO the voters made the right decision here. As much as people liked to scream about extreme union busting tactics, he basically enacted what a lot of other states had in place and managed to balance the budget. I'm sorry that teachers didn't like it, but it was the right move. At least the guy did what he said he would do when he ran for office.

6/5/2012 10:48:39 PM

First guy to balance the budget in 30 years in Wisconsin

6/5/2012 11:21:33 PM

Quote :

"At least the guy did what he said he would do when he ran for office."

He promised something during the campaign.
He was elected.
He did it.

What a novel idea!



[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 11:29 PM. Reason : betta]

6/5/2012 11:29:11 PM

^^ link?

I can't find anything to corroborate that, and this seems to outright disprove your post:
http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/imgLib/20111006_Wisconsin.jpg

^ that's a pretty weak argument in favor of Walker really. Obama promised health reform, but you still see conservatives outraged about that. The bill we got was even far milder than what Obama said he wanted.

If Obama used underhanded tactics to get the more extreme bill passed, you wouldn't just be dismissing it as him doing what he said.

I think a lot of the anger against Walker isn't what he did, it's how he did it. He used subterfuge and misdirection to avoid having to compromise or negotiate a bipartisan option.

He would with 52% of the vote, not 90% of the vote, he's obligated to have at least SOME consideration for the 48% that didn't vote for him, and he doesn't appear to have done this.

In any case, it's not like Walker being a scumbag politician was entirely unknown before his election. The people got what they deserved in this case, and only time will tell what the true effect of the policies will be. Maybe it turns out unilateralism IS the best policy. This is certainly what the left has been asking Obama to do.

6/5/2012 11:43:14 PM

He also promised jobs

There are more unemployed people in Wisconsin now.

6/5/2012 11:55:11 PM

Quote :

"As much as people liked to scream about extreme union busting tactics, he basically enacted what a lot of other states had in place and managed to balance the budget."

From my understanding, his union-busting tactics didn't help to balance Wisconsin's budget.

6/5/2012 11:59:41 PM

^you sir deserve an Internet

anyway what's worse than Walker merely being retained, by a bigger margin (looks like 54-45.4 with 93.7% reporting), is that it looks like all the Rethugs helping him in the state Senate got to stay too, when we needed only one loss to slow the dumbass down

6/6/2012 12:21:20 AM

I have the internets; I'm not sure that they agree with you.

Wisconsin Governor Walker took his union-busting tactics far beyond balancing his state's budget, but I'm sure that all of his tax cuts helped a whole bunch!

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 12:34:22 AM

Walker laying off 17,000 state workers helped balance the budget. His union-busting ensured that labor costs wouldn't spiral even more out of control as a result of unconstrained benefits packages. The tax cuts helped the state create 40,000+ private sector jobs in Waker's first year in office, ensuring that the unemployment rate went down despite the cuts in the public sector.

6/6/2012 12:59:15 AM

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/526/create-250000-new-jobs/

Quote :

" The new report puts state private-sector employment at 2,329,500, compared with 2,323,600 when Walker took office -- an increase of 5,900 jobs. That leaves the governor with 244,100 jobs left to reach 250,000."

[Did you just make up 35k+ jobs or has he been on a roll in the month since that was released?

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:15 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 1:06:43 AM

That article is over a month old. Politifact has more recent articles on the job claims, if you care to look them up.

Federal job statistics released in May showed that a net 23,608 jobs were added in 2010-11, Walker's first year in office. considering that 17k state workers have been laid off, and you get 40,000+ private sector jobs created.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:27 AM. Reason : 2]

6/6/2012 1:24:51 AM

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:48 AM. Reason : i glossed over net. durp]

6/6/2012 1:26:22 AM

It doesn't look like Wi is doing particularly good or bad in terms of jobs. Their economic growth potential ranks particularly low.

There is merit in having a balanced budget, but Walker has curtailed womens rights, workers rights, and made higher education more expensive in his state, while setting a precedent of using underhanded-politics for the next administration.

It seems like largely a wash, in terms of the grander political scheme.

When the democrats regain power, they're just going to have to be more extreme to feel like they're "undoing" the Walker changes.

6/6/2012 1:27:43 AM

The Dems started the underhanded tactics when they ran away from the state in order to block legislation.

6/6/2012 1:30:46 AM

I'll look when aim not about to pass out, but are those numbers really 23k net jobs?

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 1:38:42 AM

Quote :

"The tax cuts helped the state create 40,000+ private sector jobs in Waker's first year in office, ensuring that the unemployment rate went down despite the cuts in the public sector."

Please insert jacking_off.gif, and please explain how Governor Walker's tax cuts helped to create 40,000+ private sector jobs in his first year in office.

^^
Bullshit.

Governor Walker started the underhanded tactics by trying to dismantle collective bargaining agreements, despite its impact on the state's budget, after already having worsened the budget by means of unnecessary tax cuts.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 1:55 AM. Reason : Bullshit.]

6/6/2012 1:47:38 AM

^You don't understand how tax cuts could entice businesses to set up shop in a state, or expand operations? Really?

^^I'm looking for the article I read last night, but I remember it was from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and it said that based on surveys, Wisconsin lost jobs last year. The numbers were 17,000 fewer jobs in the public sector and only about 6,000 jobs created in the private sector. In early May, Walker's administration released preliminary, but far more accurate, job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which showed a net gain of 23,608 jobs in 2011. I assumed that the public-sector job losses were accurate (since, after all, Walker did fire quite a few state workers), and that the only way to get a net gain of 23,608 jobs, with 17,000 fewer state workers, would be for the private sector to add 40,000+ jobs. Perhaps this was an incorrect assumption.


[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 2:04 AM. Reason : 2]

6/6/2012 1:57:10 AM

Quote :

"Governor Walker started the underhanded tactics by trying to dismantle collective bargaining agreements, despite its impact on the state's budget, after already having worsened the budget by means of unnecessary tax cuts."

I didn't realize that public sector unions were a wing of the Democratic party. So if Obama goes after big corporations, would that be considered underhanded tactics against the Republicans?

The fact is that Scott Walker was elected along with strong majorities in both houses of the state legislature. They had a voter mandate, and the power to write legislation. There is nothing underhanded about making union membership voluntary, or even exempting benefits packages from negotiations. Wisconsin's state supreme court already ruled as much.

What was underhanded was the Dems running away to try to prevent a vote.

6/6/2012 2:01:16 AM

Yes, really.

I'm only aware of tax cuts resulting in the amassing of personal wealth and savings. Yet, somehow, in the state of Wisconsin, tax cuts result in the increase of job growth - what am I missing?

Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that the wealthy don't spend their savings? They accumulate them.

^
There was a voter mandate, 70% of which was funded by out-of-state donors who didn't vote.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 2:10 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 2:06:31 AM

Walker's tax cuts were on businesses. Lowering business taxes will positively impact employment. This is not a controversial statement; any economist will tell you as much.

It's depressing that we have gotten to the point where smart people on this forum don't understand such basic concepts, because of all the partisan tripe they've been fed. C'mon, man. You're better than this.

6/6/2012 2:14:49 AM

I appreciate the back-handed compliment, but weren't those tax cuts for multinational corporations, not small businesses?

MNCs have demonstrably not created jobs in the past 30 years; they've shipped jobs overseas and their investors have payed less taxes on their anti-American profits.

Not to say that profits, in and of themselves, are anti-American in nature. I only mean to suggest that those tax-free profits don't benefit the American people as a whole.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 2:27 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 2:25:07 AM

Granted, you and I are probably viewing this topic from two different perspectives.

Whereas you probably view unions as all-too-powerful, I would rather see the workers have more power than the owners any day of the week.

I find it rather grotesque, after how hard our forebears struggled, that we would just throw all of their efforts away, as if they were nothing more than a hindrance to our own self-exploitation.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 2:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 2:35:09 AM

Walker passed a series of tax breaks for corporations in his first month, all designed to add jobs. One of them said that any company which opens a shop or factory in WI is exempted from income tax for 2 years. Another one gave tax breaks for every job created. I'm sure you can google the others, but they were targeted for job creation. They didn't go into effect until this year, so despite what Rachel Maddow may have told you, his tax cuts had zero effect on last year's budget and were not the impetus for the public sector union busting.

As for multi-national corporations, American tax rates, and the effects of free trade and neoliberalism, that's a whole other discussion. Wisconsin is competing with other states, not other countries. It does not take a lot of research to see that manufacturers have fled highly-taxed, unionized states for states with lower tax rates and less union participation. Creating a low-tax, low-regulation environment has served many states well. As to whether business-friendly policies create jobs? I didn't think that question needed to be asked. It's like the stimulus; even critics of Keynesian deficit spending should be able to admit that the stimulus created jobs. The debate is whether they were worth the price tag. Likewise, the question for Walker is how many jobs, what kind of jobs, and whether they are worth the cost to the state. It is also worth asking whether we are engaging in a "race to the bottom". But the reality is that Walker is a supply-sider, and his policies reflect that. It should be interesting to see how Wisconsin's economy looks in a few years.


[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 2:50 AM. Reason : 2]

6/6/2012 2:40:52 AM

Quote :

"I find it rather grotesque, after how hard our forebears struggled, that we would just throw all of their efforts away, as if they were nothing more than a hindrance to our own self-exploitation. "

Quote :

"Wisconsin is competing with other states, not other countries."

yep

time for a 3rd world race to the bottom

Quote :

"Creating a low-tax, low-regulation environment has served many states well."

It's almost like you use neoliberal economic metrics to measure this ... I'm not sure it's serving PA or WI so well right now. PA's getting the living shit polluted out of it by the incredibly lucrative natural gas fracturing, and we're gearing up to lay off a bunch of teachers next year (because natural gas drilling companes pay next to nothing in taxes).

l'austérité pour nous, l'opulence pour les capitalistes!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cL1HisrNc

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2012 8:02:21 AM

Quote :

"PA's getting the living shit polluted out of it by the incredibly lucrative natural gas fracturing, "

Of course if done properly there are no ill effects on the environment

6/6/2012 8:52:14 AM

Quote :

"Of course if done properly there are no ill effects on the environment "

Even if true there's zero legal or financial incentive to do so

Needs to be either profit motive or political will to get something done. Places like PA who are suffering a race to the bottom similar to the 3rd world will gladly exchange their future environment and health for JORBS NOW. The argument is literally "your home state is obama's no job zone" instead of "maybe we can find jobs or sustenance for people that didn't involve streaming waste freely"

6/6/2012 9:48:23 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/opinion/bennett-walker-victory/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Purpose of linking article is Walkers accomplishments, not to argue the impact of national election. From CNN:

Quote :

"Walker took office in 2011 facing a $3.6 billion budget hole. He had few options at his disposal to balance the budget: raise taxes, make draconian cuts or go after the sweetheart public employee pension and health care plans. He bravely chose the latter, requiring public employees to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions (they paid virtually nothing before) and 12.6% of their health care premiums (less than what private and federal employees pay). Furthermore, he ended collective bargaining except for wages and made automatic union dues optional. Before Walker's reforms, Wisconsin state employees enjoyed salary and benefits that were about 28% higher than comparable private sector workers, according to a new study from the American Enterprise Institute. Even after his much decried reforms, Wisconsin public employees' total compensation is still about 22% greater -- $81,637 versus $67,068 -- than similar private sector workers. Yet how were Walker's proposals received? Democratic state senators fled to Illinois to avoid votes; up to 100,000 protesters stormed the state Capitol in Madison, climbing through windows and trashing the building; teachers handed out fake doctors' notes to skip school and protest, some even bringing their students with them; signs and fliers compared Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler; a Democratic state senator cursed out a Republican lawmaker; and lastly, Democrats initiated recall elections on state senators, the lieutenant governor and Walker. In the end, Democrats have little, if anything, to show for it. That's because Walker's reforms have done everything he promised. He recouped the state's budget shortfall without raising taxes. School districts that enacted his reforms were able to meet budgets without firing teachers, enlarging class sizes or cutting programs. In fact, some even reported budget surpluses. Property taxes fell for the first time in 13 years, and Walker cited figures that showed Wisconsin has added 35,000 jobs since he took office."

6/6/2012 9:55:13 AM

i could have totally missed this while i wasn't paying too close attention to WI in the last couple months, but for as much as the media is now talking about how this will affect the presidential election, it doesn't seem like Obama got too involved in the WI recall.

6/6/2012 9:25:57 PM

^i heard among exit polls he fared much better than romney, despite this electorate being prowalker. maybe a good decision not to have weighed into it in the end.

6/6/2012 9:34:29 PM

This is a victory for Citizens United and the plutocracy

6/6/2012 9:40:52 PM

something like 60% of his campaign funding came from out-of-state donors. And some insane percentage of that came from only a few individuals.



LOL....democracy.

6/6/2012 10:01:01 PM

Quote :

"<snip> ...requiring public employees to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions (they paid virtually nothing before) and 12.6% of their health care premiums (less than what private and federal employees pay)"

OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!

:roll:

6/6/2012 10:20:42 PM

^exactly. Bunch of babies.

6/6/2012 10:29:24 PM

^^ Obama spent a significantly more amount of money in defeating McCain in '08. Was there a problem with democracy then?

6/6/2012 11:04:43 PM

Quote :

"Governor Walker started the underhanded tactics by trying to dismantle collective bargaining agreements, despite its impact on the state's budget, after already having worsened the budget by means of unnecessary tax cuts."

and one could then say that the unions started the underhanded tactics by refusing to negotiate at all. Oh, and that line about "the tax cuts causing the deficit" is a bold-faced lie and has been debunked time and time again, yet idiots like you keep parroting the it, thinking it will somehow be true.

Quote :

"There was a voter mandate, 70% of which was funded by out-of-state donors who didn't vote."

do you apply the same logic to the tons of out of town people the unions bused in to the demonstrations last year? of course not, that would require you to be logically consistent.

Quote :

"Whereas you probably view unions as all-too-powerful, I would rather see the workers have more power than the owners any day of the week."

Who are the owners of the Wisconsin state gov't? are you saying that the public sector unions should be able to hold the people hostage to their demands?

Quote :

"I find it rather grotesque, after how hard our forebears struggled, that we would just throw all of their efforts away, as if they were nothing more than a hindrance to our own self-exploitation."

Sorry, Washington and his buddies weren't fighting for the ability of a special interest group to elect itself into office and then "negotiate" with itself the way public sector unions do. get out of here with that bullshit. you'd gladly wipe your ass with the Constitution any other day of the week, yet now you invoke the founders when you don't even give a damn about the actual document they wrote.

6/6/2012 11:20:20 PM

Quote :

" ^^ Obama spent a significantly more amount of money in defeating McCain in '08. Was there a problem with democracy then?"

If he accepted a ton of money from out of the country you might have a point.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 11:48 PM. Reason : i need a new phone]

6/6/2012 11:47:08 PM

I love how the GOP can always spin something into "THIS TAKES AWAY YOUR FREEDOM!" and have people vote against their own interests.

This time they fooled people into voting against the very groups that were created to protect them.

Hey, you know why we don't have shit working conditions today? Unions. Do you want to know why we get paid good wages? Unions. Do you want to know why children don't have to work in factories anymore? Unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States

6/7/2012 12:15:33 AM

aaronburro, I only mean a little offense, but Prawn Star refuted my arguments far more adequately.

Quote :

"that line about 'the tax cuts causing the deficit' is a bold-faced lie and has been debunked time and time again"

I never said that "the tax cuts [caused] the deficit." I said that the tax cuts worsened the budget. How is that not true? Do tax cuts somehow add revenue to the budget?

Quote :

"do you apply the same logic to the tons of out of town people the unions bused in to the demonstrations last year? of course not, that would require you to be logically consistent."

Was anyone discussing unions being bused into demonstrations? Of course not, that would require that you not rely on red herrings to support your arguments.

Quote :

"Who are the owners of the Wisconsin state gov't?"

I was referring to workers of private companies having more power than the owners of those companies.

Quote :

"you'd gladly wipe your ass with the Constitution any other day of the week, yet now you invoke the founders when you don't even give a damn about the actual document they wrote."

I wasn't referencing the founding fathers; I was referring to those who died fighting for workers' rights at the turn of the 20th century.

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 12:16:44 AM

Quote :

"Walker took office in 2011 facing a $3.6 billion budget hole. He had few options at his disposal to balance the budget: raise taxes, make draconian cuts or go after the sweetheart public employee pension and health care plans. He bravely chose the latter, requiring public employees to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions (they paid virtually nothing before) and 12.6% of their health care premiums (less than what private and federal employees pay). Furthermore, he ended collective bargaining except for wages and made automatic union dues optional."

Ahh yes, instead of, god forbid, making the big rich guy more in taxes, he decided to destroy the little poor guy's only way of standing up to the big rich guy.

And people voted for him. Twice.

You people deserve whatever you get.

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 12:17:21 AM

Walker spent 2x as much as his opponent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-wisconsin-recalls-big-money/2012/06/06/gJQAKAyiJV_graphic.html

In NC, didn't the anti-amendment 1 folks outspend the pro-amendment 1 and still lose?

6/7/2012 12:51:56 AM

Quote :

"You don't understand how tax cuts could entice businesses to set up shop in a state, or expand operations? Really?"

To clarify: I understand how that is possible, sure; however, I don't buy into the economic dogma that tax cuts necessitate job growth.

I find it plausible that tax cuts might provide business owners with more funding to make efforts in hiring more employees and expanding operations.

However, I also find it plausible that tax cuts might cause business owners to exploit circumstances that are beneficial to their bottom lines, by maximizing profits through: the layoff or outsourcing of workers; the cutting of wages, benefits and pensions; etc.

What better time to earn maximum profits than when taxes on those profits are at their lowest foreseeable point?

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 2:06 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 2:05:36 AM

^ fair answer. The only clarification I would make is that Waker's ballyhooed business tax cuts were actually targeted tax credits specifically for those companies which hired new workers or newly incorporated in the state of Wisconsin, if I understand correctly.

In terms of macroeconomic strategy in this time of slow growth and stubbornly high unemployment, I will once again attempt a conciliatory approach here. I understand the impetus for stimulus spending as opposed to tax cuts when demand is depressed and money is tight. That said, this stimulus should be done on a federal level, since the federal government can run deficits. At the state level, every governor has a responsibility to balance their budget annually, while encouraging job-creation. I don't buy into all the Koch brothers-inspired supply side policies that Walker espouses, but I certainly understand his rationale, and as I stated before, it should be interesting to see how it plays out for Wisconsin in the years ahead.

6/7/2012 2:30:53 AM

Obama raised an unprecedented amount of money from small donations in 2008. That's the main he reason he outspent McCain. So there's really no comparison between that and Walker receiving ridiculous money from the Koch brothers and other billionaires. This entire election cycle is going to be so ugly. Thank you Citizens United.

And no, the pro-amendment 1 people outspent the against people. Republicans in every election are going to outspend their opponents. That entire party is bought and sold to the highest bidder. Democrats aren't much better, but they are better.

6/7/2012 2:51:55 AM

Quote :

"Ahh yes, instead of, god forbid, making the big rich guy more in taxes, he decided to destroy the little poor guy's only way of standing up to the big rich guy. And people voted for him. Twice. You people deserve whatever you get."

---

Quote :

"And no, the pro-amendment 1 people outspent the against people. Republicans in every election are going to outspend their opponents. That entire party is bought and sold to the highest bidder. Democrats aren't much better, but they are better."

My god. You're halfway there. You realize that democrats are corporate whores just like the republicans...now it's only a matter of time until you realize that it doesn't matter which big interest is behind the giving (corporations, unions, etc.)...they're all fucking lunatics who don't give a shit about what you or I think.

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 6:48 AM. Reason : -]

6/7/2012 6:44:50 AM

Now, If only Walker could get rid of that pesky criminal probe. He better hope his donors keep opening up their wallets for that too.

6/7/2012 7:45:10 AM

Quote :

"<snip> ...requiring public employees to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions (they paid virtually nothing before) and 12.6% of their health care premiums (less than what private and federal employees pay)"

To be fair, you need to check what their salaries are. If they are being paid well compared to comparable private sector people in Wisconsin, we can say they're complaining. If however, their pay is significantly less (based upon the assumption that they'd get these benefits), I would argue that their complaints are very legitimate.

Regarding Walker's fundraising, I saw the Mother Jones numbers, and yes, while it is true that out of state money flooded Walker's campaign, when you look at just the Wisconsin fundraising, Walker still outraised his opponent two to one.

6/7/2012 11:09:45 AM

Quote :

"My god. You're halfway there. You realize that democrats are corporate whores just like the republicans...now it's only a matter of time until you realize that it doesn't matter which big interest is behind the giving (corporations, unions, etc.)...they're all fucking lunatics who don't give a shit about what you or I think."

Only a Republican can equate a union to a corporation. The fact that there are like 30 billionaires financing the majority of all elections for the Republicans in this cycle doesn't worry you?

6/7/2012 11:35:14 AM

Private unions are okay. Public unions aren't.

Peoples' earnings and their unborn children's earnings should not be up for negotiation. Government workers' wages come from taxes, deception, and enforcement of unjust laws.

[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 11:44:44 AM

Yeah, I'm not too crazy about public unions. I can see how those would be abused. Private unions are an important part of workers' rights though and they need a larger role in politics.

6/7/2012 11:50:41 AM

unions are fine as long as no one is forced into the union and/or harassed for not being in the union

6/7/2012 11:59:55 AM