Since I started this thread, I guess I should finish it by posting what I found out.
I'll start by quoting the guy I was responding too and what I say in return...
Ahh You're sweet too. I am glad you went right to the troll portion of the conversation so quickly.
Anywho, I did indeed inform myself, something I could not have done on this topic without you for as I had said before I had no idea what you were talking about. And after asking others, they didn't know either. You giving me something with on which to base a search was really helpful.
Here's what i found...
Well a 3 billion dollar deficit is not a good thing for one's budget. But two problems.
First, as I said, there is no reason to believe that this shortfall was due to collective bargaining. In fact, the state's legislative Fiscal bureau did a report on exactly why there was a short fall..
"
More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees)."
legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdfSounds like at least 2 out of that 3 are about taxes.
Indeed as you link (the third one above) says, state employees under Doyle were already taking 8 unpaid days off and had seen raises frozen. The reason it was assumed the deficit would grow larger was in part there was no assurance Walker would continue this cut or not.
So if state workers were already cutting back WITH collective bargaining, how was collective bargaining the problem?
Your links don't say.
Another problem is Walker apparently got rid of the 2 billion in taxes that would have helped off set this, making the situation even worse.
or as your link (3rd one again) says, "I
n one sense, the state's two-year budget can make shortfall figures seem larger than they are. If state leaders enact a permanent spending cut or tax increase in the first year of the budget it will help reduce the deficit in the second year as well, meaning a $3 billion shortfall could be solved with $1.5 billion in permanent cuts and tax increases."
But what's really interesting is that running deficits is normal in Wisconsin . It's actually quite bi-partisan. The largest was under a Republican predecessor of Doyle's, Scott McCallum
www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/03/scott-walker/gov-walker-says-2-years-ago-we-had-largest-deficit/So the problem wasn't as bad as Walker or you claimed, it had nothing to do with Unions right to collectively bargain and it could have been fixed without taking that right away.
I will not deny that. It is true that Walker and the republican controlled legislature put forth a balanced budget.
However, so did Walker's Democratic predecessor Doyle. As did Doyle's predecessor.
Wisconsin has a balanced budget amendment to it's constitution. ALL budgets have to be balanced. Yet they still end up having deficits.
www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/primer_balancedbudget.htmlAs I told you earlier, it's far too early to know if Walker balanced the budget the way you're implying.
Indeed Walker's budget may not only not "repair" the budget but hurt Wisconsin's economy in the end...
host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8c50dc92-52f7-11e0-993d-001cc4c03286.htmlwww.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/budget_adjustment_bill_comparisons.pdfNow lots of governors get out of these short falls by using one time revenues and this seems to be exactly what Walker is doing by selling off public assets for very little money.
www.jsonline.com/business/116965798.html OF course that begs the question what happens when Wisconsin runs out of stuff to sell off and utility costs go up (since private companies have to make a profit on top of cost)?
Not sure what "tools" you are referring too. The only tool seemed to be breaking the teacher's union. And as I said, that wasn't really the problem to begin with.
What Walker did do however was over see cuts to education funding by almost 400 million dollars.
dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpinr2011_78_district_estimates.pdf410 districts saw a decrease. Only 13 saw an increase and that was only because of population growth.
So how powerful could the teacher's unions be if their members can still be laid off?
Every teacher not working weakens the Union over all. Can't pay dues if you're not getting a pay check.
And wouldn't the 400 million cuts by the state gov be a bit more influential on school districts cutting back?
Not to mention that Walker put limits on property taxes making them essentially flat across the board. (so much for local control). Since districts that lose state money have to make it up typically through property taxes, this probably was a far greater factor then teacher's contracts.
Its like me challenging you to a race and then before we start, I club you in the knee caps.
Anyway....
Ok first lets be clear. You don't mean districtS. You mean district. Just One. Kaukauna.
One district out of 424 isnt' really enough to say there' s a causal relationship.
However Kaukauna did say explicitly that they were in a hole and are in a surplus because teachers couldn't collectively bargain.
Let me repeat "THEY SAID".
Here's a funny story.
In their 09-10 budget, Kaukauna began including future fixed costs to their current budget. This caused them to go into deficit on paper, even though it really didn't effect their current costs.
And with Walker's "balanced budget" Kaukauna lost 2.7 million in state aid which probably really did put them into the red. (not that you will probably hear this from the Kaukauna school board)
But the school board said "Oh my we are in a huge hole" and began negotiating with the teacher's Union to get a better deal.
The teacher's Unions said in exchange for a 2 year extension of the current contracts, they would agree to pay 12% of health insurance premiums, 5.8% of pensions (the same required by act 10). Also teachers would accept a salary freeze for 2 years and be flexible on half days counting as full days among other concessions.
Remember, when this negotiating happened Act 10 had not yet passed.
The union was informed that the school board had voted unanimously to not accept the Union's offer. However there is no public record of such a vote. (possibly violating open meetings laws)
One school board official said in anonymity it was because of the imminent passage of Act 10, that the school board president held off until after act 10 was law. And then they not only got what the Union offered but far more.
Because remember, collective bargaining isn't just about benefits. It's also used for things like working conditions.
bdgrdemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/kaukauna-school-board-and-scott-walker-have-something-in-common-budgeting-is-not-about-the-money-its-about-union-busting/Since one of your sources was a blog, I don't feel bad about posting this. Especially since this guy already did the research and went through Kaukauna's public records.
As I said before, when I heard about this neither I nor any of the others I talked too had heard of this.
But once I had a google search words, one of the most popular sites were all right wing blogs, extolling this example as vindication for all they had claimed about Walker and teachers and Unions in general.
You know what's interesting? For all the right's claims that there are more examples and that somehow the media is just hiding it (but then why not hide Kaukauna?) the ONLY example any of you can come up with is Kaukauna, which so far looks not the norm and very suspect.
So Yes, knowing what I know now I think I can very reasonably deny what you claim.
Not that I blame you for accepting it blindly though. You heard what you wanted to hear and this stuff took some digging before it became clear. The way it was presented on the surface, it would seem as if what you said might be true if one hadn't dug around into the details.
Which is why I want to thank you for helping me counter this right wing propaganda.
