A plan to balance the Federal Budget by 2020

[can't sit still]

Naomi Klein makes the important point. Many of the big corporations are not paying taxes. Cowboy angel has already written about fixing SS by bumping up participation from $ 160,000 to $ 180,000. Corporations paid 30 % of GOV support at one time. This has fallen to about 3 %. I believe that the various state budgets are crashing. I also believe that letting corporate lawyers write tax law for corporations is a bad idea.
As I mentioned on the "winter" thread, the uber-capitalists have withdrawn so much wealth from circulation that the system is starving.

Regulatory-capture of GOV by mega corporations is starving out the populace. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the mega corporations are forced to pay taxes that are commensurate with a small company.
The mega corporations are very short sighted in their refusal. If the legal and regulatory structure of GOV collapses, it will ruin the business of the corporatocracy. GOV is spending $ trillions to keep the party going. The corporatocracy has passed the bill for the party to the middle class. Half of the middle class fell off the balcony and left the party. The other half have their wallets locked away.

I'm speaking more about debt and debt-service than about wages.

[Elderberry]

So you would agree to gouge your customers and go into financial ruin to pay your employees what they want?

No, absolutely not. There's a big difference between being fair and being stupid.

However you used the word "gouge" and that could open up an entire new conversation, as many people feel that charging as much as the market will bear is gouging. I am not of that belief. We provide high quality concierge service and charge appropriately. Those that want less are not our target demographic.

JK

And Wisconsin has already lost 7% of their population,,, you are willing to take that kind of hit in your clientele and still increase fees,,,, right?

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. But to answer your question, my percentage of client base I lose or gain is not important to me. I focus on my percent of profit and the bottom line. Often numbers of low margin clients can hurt both. At least with my business model, which has nothing to do with a wisconsin.

The Unions in Wisconsin are willing to NEGOTIATE ( collective bargaining, remember?) with the state and I am sure they would be willing to accept cuts to their benefits if it were truly proven to be necessary. (I base this on what they have said) Collective bargaining doesn't guarantee unions always come out on top in the negotiations. They try to take what they can get in good times and sacrifice what they have to in bad.

JK

My point is that they are being stripped of their right to collectively bargain. It was through collective bargaining that they gained their benefits, it should be through collective bargaining that they lose them as well.

JK

[Elderberry]

Did you listen to the Governor's news conference today? The state must take this step to prevent counties and municipalities from going broke.

If you believe for one second that stripping workers of their benefits is going to save Wisconsin from going broke, I've got a bridge in NYC to sell you.

It the same false argument the federal government is using to say they need to make all these cuts in discretionary spending to balance the budget, yet you cut cut 100% of discretionary spending and not put a dent in the budget.

What they are doing in Wisconsin is union busting plain and simple, by the republicans, because unions are the largest contributors to the democrats. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget.

JK

[Trishntek]

Did you even read what I wrote? How is asking employees to increase THEIR contribution to THEIR healthcare plan and pension STRIPPING them of THEIR BENEFITS?

[Elderberry]

Did you even read what I wrote? How is asking employees to increase THEIR contribution to THEIR healthcare plan and pension STRIPPING them of THEIR BENEFITS?

I wouldn't have a problem with that if that was what was happening. THEY ARE NOT ASKING. They are TAKING (LEGISLATING) AWAY all of the union's collective bargaining rights. (except for wages)

If they would enter into negotiation and the employees negotiated having to contribute more, I'd be totally fine with that. Most people, when it comes to these sorts of issues can be pretty realistic when presented with facts.

And again, I have to say that the pension thing is a red herring. Union busting is the main intent here.

JK

(damn, I really don't believe I am so strongly defending unions here.)

(oh, and yes I did, every word. I even went back and read it again. Though that is sometimes a valid question to ask, in that I sometimes do fire off a post without thoroughly reading or understand what someone has written.)

[Elderberry]

It's turning out that Wisconsin doesn't even have a budget problem for this fiscal year:

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January.

Easy to see what Gov. Walker's agenda really is.

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

JK

[Trishntek]

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Under current law, municipal employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the Municipal Employment
Relations Act (MERA), and state employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the State Employment
Labor Relations Act (SELRA). This bill changes MERA and SELRA with respect to
all employees except employees who are certain protective occupation participants
under the Wisconsin Retirement System or under a county or city retirement system
(public safety employees). This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any
general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining
over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage
change in the consumer price index. This bill also prohibits municipal employers
from collectively bargaining with municipal general employees in matters that are
not permitted under MERA

.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

[Elderberry]

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Under current law, municipal employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the Municipal Employment
Relations Act (MERA), and state employees have the right to collectively bargain
over wages, hours, and conditions of employment under the State Employment
Labor Relations Act (SELRA). This bill changes MERA and SELRA with respect to
all employees except employees who are certain protective occupation participants
under the Wisconsin Retirement System or under a county or city retirement system
(public safety employees). This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages. In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any
general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining
over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage
change in the consumer price index. This bill also prohibits municipal employers
from collectively bargaining with municipal general employees in matters that are
not permitted under MERA

.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

And you are saying that's a good thing?

JK

[Trishntek]

Quite honestly JK,,,, I couldn't really care one way or another. All of this conversation began with the fact that the President of the United States has no business weighing in on a sovereign state's legislative issues.

I've always believed, as you apparently do, that an employee should be able to go to his or her employer and agree on an acceptable wage for an acceptable offering of time. The origins of collective bargaining for safety issues and reasonable time off versus a reasonable time worked is history. We owe the unions gratitude for those accomplishments.

You mentioned as of January of 2011 Wisconsin seems to be solvent. That is not what is being discussed. The biannual budget effective June of this year is what is on the table and by all indications will be in the hole.

What the Wisconsin legislature does and what the public employee unions do is none of our business. But when school teachers go on strike AND encourage their students to march with them, that is a dereliction of duty. When state senators refuse to show up for debate and vote according to schedule, that is dereliction of duty. When the DNC busses people in to support union activity, that is a manipulation of the debate. I would submit to you if GWB had endorsed such actions there would have been an outcry on every news broadcast across the country.

[Elderberry]

You present a valid well articulated point of view. I don't particularly share that point of view, but certainly can see where you are coming from.

JK

[goathead]

because unions are the largest contributors to the democrats. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget.

JK

just wondering if you would consider unions a special interest group?

[Elderberry]

because unions are the largest contributors to the democrats. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget.

JK

just wondering if you would consider unions a special interest group?

Not in the usual meaning, but when you come down to it, all groups are special interest groups.

JK

[Trishntek]

because unions are the largest contributors to the democrats. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget.

JK

just wondering if you would consider unions a special interest group?

Not in the usual meaning, but when you come down to it, all groups are special interest groups.

JK

Except for taxPAYERS,,,, they are simply taken for granted.

[Elderberry]

just wondering if you would consider unions a special interest group?

Not in the usual meaning, but when you come down to it, all groups are special interest groups.

JK

Except for taxPAYERS,,,, they are simply taken for granted.

That's not exactly true. We have representation. Although most people prefer complaining about the problems rather than getting involved. Not that there is anything wrong with complaining, it can sometimes be cathartic; but other than that, rarely accomplishes much else.

"We the people..." remember? It's our government, we all need to work on fixing it.

JK

[Trishntek]

That's not exactly true. We have representation. Although most people prefer complaining about the problems rather than getting involved. Not that there is anything wrong with complaining, it can sometimes be cathartic; but other than that, rarely accomplishes much else.

"We the people..." remember? It's our government, we all need to work on fixing it.

Interesting you should say that, when in Wisconsin, for instance the majority of the people voted and are represented. Yet a minority of public employees (300,000 showed up for work) and a minority of the representatives, with the good will and support of the President of the United States and his Organizing for America can thwart the will of the people.

[Elderberry]

That's not exactly true. We have representation. Although most people prefer complaining about the problems rather than getting involved. Not that there is anything wrong with complaining, it can sometimes be cathartic; but other than that, rarely accomplishes much else.

"We the people..." remember? It's our government, we all need to work on fixing it.

Interesting you should say that, when in Wisconsin, for instance the majority of the people voted and are represented. Yet a minority of public employees (300,000 showed up for work) and a minority of the representatives, with the good will and support of the President of the United States and his Organizing for America can thwart the will of the people.

That's one way of looking at it. Just not my way!

BTW Enjoyed the Maher/Miller youtube post.

JK

[Elderberry]

It's turning out that Wisconsin doesn't even have a budget problem for this fiscal year:

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January.

Easy to see what Gov. Walker's agenda really is.

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

JK

This post contains information from what I thought was a credible source and I have since discovered to not be true. There is indeed a budget shortfall in Wisconsin and here is a link to the correct information. http://politifact.com/wisconsin/stateme ... udget-sur/

JK

[Trishntek]

Thanks for your honesty and integrity.

That's one way of looking at it. Just not my way!

As I contemplate your response, I'm a bit confused. First you recite the line, "Gov't of the people,,," and when the people vote in a majority of representatives and senators who do not fit in with your opinion, you seem to indicate just the opposite. What is the other way to look at it when representative gov't "of the people" is sabotaged by "special interest" groups?

Are you saying the majority of the legislature in Wisconsin is not of the people?
Are you saying the Governor does not represent the people of Wisconsin?
Are you saying the U.S. President and his political machine are more representative of the people than a sovereign state's legislative body?

This is what I mean by the "statist point of view". As long as organized labor and gov't can collude to undermine the will of the people, you seem to imply it is okay. But when the will of the people threatens the integrity of such collusion, you cry foul,,,, WTF?

[Elderberry]

Thanks for your honesty and integrity.

That's one way of looking at it. Just not my way!

As I contemplate your response, I'm a bit confused. First you recite the line, "Gov't of the people,,," and when the people vote in a majority of representatives and senators who do not fit in with your opinion, you seem to indicate just the opposite. What is the other way to look at it when representative gov't "of the people" is sabotaged by "special interest" groups?

Are you saying the majority of the legislature in Wisconsin is not of the people?
Are you saying the Governor does not represent the people of Wisconsin?
Are you saying the U.S. President and his political machine are more representative of the people than a sovereign state's legislative body?

This is what I mean by the "statist point of view". As long as organized labor and gov't can collude to undermine the will of the people, you seem to imply it is okay. But when the will of the people threatens the integrity of such collusion, you cry foul,,,, WTF?

I don't mean to be ambiguous. Let me try and explain.

It is hard for me to be a will of the people person for many reasons. And I don't really think you are either. If that were the case, no one would have any reason to oppose anything that President Obama wanted to do, as he was elected by a large majority of the people which by your reasoning would give him a mandate to implement his policies.

So, people take to the streets to oppose health care, oppose DADT repeal, etc.

In California for another example, proposition 8 was passed by a majority of the people. But, as the courts will hold, the majority does not have the power to take away rights given to all, including minorities, by a simple majority vote.

So, what I'm saying is that it is complicated and nuanced. Yes, the governor won by a majority, but there are a group of people that do not like what he is doing, and they have the right to make themselves heard and to influence policy if they can.

You and I have pretty thoroughly discussed the topic. I know your thoughts on the issue and you know mine. We don't agree on this issue, and that's all right. It was refreshing to be able to exchange thoughts on the issue and understand each other's positions better. Sort of like the old days of politics. At least when people can talk civilly, compromises can be reached and progress can be made.

It will be interesting to watch things play out in Wisconsin. I'll probably have more comments when the news cycle starts again on Tuesday. (monday will probably be a slow newsday because og the holiday.)

JK

Almost forgot, I wanted to address "special interest groups" again. In general I have no problems with special interest groups to a point. Old people have special interest, I'm for old people getting their opinions heard. Poor people have special interests, business people have their own set of special interests, working people have special interests. I am for all of these "groups" having their interests/needs heard.

The methods they use to accomplish this is often a different story. I am totally against professional lobbyists, and it should be illegal for an ex congressman to ever become a lobbyist. I am against corporations being able to contribute to political campaigns, I am against people running for state office getting funding from other states.

Campaign finance and special interests are closely related and that is a big part of the problem with government today. It should be one person, one voice, one vote. Dollars should have no voting rights and no voice.

Anyway, I'm done rambling now.

JK

[Elderberry]

Some additional information on who is backing the Wisconsin union busting attempt. http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/ ... ic-unions/

JK

[goathead]

I am against corporations being able to contribute to political campaigns,
JK

Do you think unions should be able to?

[Trishntek]

This is perfect example of, "The Government giveth and the Government taketh away." Who gave the public employees the ability to bargain collectively in the first place?

[Elderberry]

I am against corporations being able to contribute to political campaigns,
JK

Do you think unions should be able to?

No.

Though this could make an interesting discussion. For example, what happens when a group of people get together to support a point of view? Should that be illegal? Never said I had all the answers.

But for corporations it is much more cut and dry for me.

JK

[Elderberry]

This is perfect example of, "The Government giveth and the Government taketh away." Who gave the public employees the ability to bargain collectively in the first place?

Good question, I don't know. But I found this on Google:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ublic.html This article indicates that the mayor of NYC gave public workers the right to organize in the 50's in the hopes of winning their votes. It's done in pictures and is an easy read. Heavy slant anti-union/anti-democrat.

So, for balance: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/838 ... -negotiate

JK

[Elderberry]

OK, so the unions in Wisconsin have just told the Governor that they are willing to give give him everything he wants from them in order to balance the budget if he agrees to remove the clause in the bill that would strip the unions of their ability to collectively bargain.

The governor said no.

Sounds to me that the budget really isn't the primary concern of the governor. His primary motivation is busting the union.

JK

[can't sit still]

Can't argue with that !!!

[Trishntek]

Can't argue with that !!!

I can! Because as posted above, it is not just about the State employees! It is also about County and Municipal employees!

[Elderberry]

If there was any doubt that Gov Walker was doing what he was doing strictly to bust the unions and had absolutely nothing to do with balancing the budget, this should convince you.

First, a fact check on the Governors statement that he campaigned on doing this and that everybody voted for him to do this. IT AS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/stateme ... gned-his-/

Second, the governor was punk'd by someone claiming to be David Koch. Interesting that the governor agreed to take a call from who he thought was one of the Koch brothers and wouldn't take or return calls from any of the democratic senators. But, the call was revealing as to the governor's motivation and he was anxious to 'pay back' the Koch's for their generous campaign contributions.
http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2011 ... _viral_hit

JK

[can't sit still]

Can't argue with that !!!

Let me rephrase that. I can't argue with that. To busy

[Elderberry]

Can't argue with that !!!

Let me rephrase that. I can't argue with that. To busy

I'm guessing nobody on this thread hangs with the Koch brothers, so I can't imagine anybody here arguing with that, busy or not.

JK