The reforms that Walker has put in place have been characterized as "radical," but are they really? According to an article by jsonline, "Before the Walker reforms, most state employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) contributed only about 0.2% of their wages toward the pension plan. Now that the reform bill has passed, most workers must contribute 5.8% of their wages, lowering the actual taxpayer cost to 23.7% (29.5 - 5.8) of wages." In this light, the private sector seems to be paying more than their fair share.
Since his term began, Wisconsin has eliminated a $3.6 billion budget deficit, introduced much needed pension reforms, and paid down millions of dollars in state debt without raising the tax rate.
One article claims that true progressives should support the governor's measures; "There's something bizarre in all this, a reminder that the once-proud movement of working people has morphed into an upper-middle-class movement of coddled public employees who do not care about debt levels and eroded public services. They have their gold-plated pensions and no one better touch them or else." It is hard to argue with a rebounding economy and receding debt, but that is exactly what is happening in Wisconsin.
The amount of money from union dues pouring into the state is astounding. Many unions, including the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have contributed over 2 million dollars to the recall effort. Additionally, the money spent on the campaigns of Governor Walker and his opponent Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has broken Wisconsin records, at $63.5 million. The recall movement is certainly basing their argument on emotion and not reality.
If Scott Walker is recalled, he would be the third governor in history to be removed from office.
Watch part of a fascinating documentary about the situation in Wisconsin by Ami Horowitz.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 26
Ms. Nal,
I would disagree totally.
The budget was balanced off the bloated wallets of Union leaders, and Union Members, that have no clue how much of an advantage they have had. This is of course because their leaders lie to them, and tell them that EVERY worker contributes (practically) nothing for Employer group health, dental, vision, disability and life insurance, as well as their own pensions.
More jobs, lower unemployment, lowered real extate taxes, no loss of services, reduced deficit, and now has a budget surplus????????
Annie - get the gun!!!!!!! (laugh).
Thank you and I agree on your point that it was already stated in the post.
But I wanted an opportunity to use my “Annie, Get the gun” line (laughs).
When are you going to stop living in the past, that was over 60 years ago, and start looking to the here and now or even better the future.
Just like any business, any governement, any politician, so should we look at any union, what are you doing for us now and what will yo be doing for us in the future if you want us to keep paying you money?
I understand it when wealthy people promote conservatism, but ordinary folks are just dupes when they do it.
You sure that isn't taking us back over two hundred years to the founding of this country or to any other time in recorded history?
How would you decide on who shold have the wealth, should it be the monrachs, the people whose money is used to create the factories and businesses (who take the risk of lossing their money), the people work come up with the ideas that are turned into things that everyone wants, those who own the farmers that supply the food to us all, or are you one that believes it is to those who need provide based on ability and willingness to work? Should it be the baseball player who earns in pay alone half a Billiion dollars over his career?
How would you decide on who should have the money? If not you then who shold decide, some bureaucrat that has never had to risk any of their own money? Who do you think is so smart that they can better decide whose money it is?
I promote personal responsibility, I promote frugality, I promote sacrifice/investment, I promote reward for risk taken, I promote working smart and providing value for what I am paid, because that is what worked for my parents, for my wife and I, and for my kids. I will never be 'weathly' (though I would like to try it), but I do have a modest house (our lot is 99'x52') and at least the 'conservatives' believe it should belong to us and not like the 'liberals' belong to the government to do with what they want when they want. You call me a dupe because I want to let wealthy people own what their money buys them, the truth is when the government can it away from them there is no stopping the governement taking it away from me. You may not need to have anything and trust to the government to provide everything for you, but I don;t like trusting to the whims of others who don;t even live in my neighborhood.
...no Man ever steps into the same River twice...
Recall should have a higher threshold, something for legal concerns, personal ethics, corruption in the administration. It should not simply be used by the losers to punish the winners. When it is used that wasy it is about punishing the voters.
The recall in Wisconsin is reported to cost the State 16-20 Million to hold the election, that seems to be a rather high price for the voters to pay because a small percentage of the population (governement Unions) lost the last election. If you doubt this is about who lost and who won, then try to recall the last Governor Recall and who and why was it made?
If you doubt that this is a new poltical tool for the losers, this year just across the Lake in Michigan the Unions tried a recall, only this time there wasn't the same changes to the State bargaining agreements, it was simply a Republican won.
If it is worth it then why didn't the State set it up for two year terms instead of four?
Do you think we should be able to recall the President just because a few percent of the people don't like him or his policies or how things are going at the time? Do you think the President should only have a two year term?
Do you think every office should havea two year term, then at least we would have to pay for special election in between?
I never said they were doing anything illegal, they are playing by the rules. It is back to the spirit of the rules and the letter of the rules. If it always to the letter then don;t complaint when the opposition starts doing the same thing to your candidates. To the best of my knowledge only three governors have had recall elections, Wisconson is number three. In Michigan we elected a Republican Governor, first in 12 years, and the shortly after his election the Unoins in Michigan began their recall campaign, just after Wisconsin Unions started theirs. You may feel that is good politics, and for Wisconsin we will tomorrow. As for Michigan it has been. But the Unions are onw making it a political tool for when they lose, and I have to say that is not making me a fan of ignoring the spirit and abusing the letter.
If you were trying to get support from the voters, and you have had recalls on every office from the Supreme Court of the State on down that you disagreed with after the voters had elected them properly and by the letter of the law, and had rejected almost all of those recalls, you would height your public esteam? If so, then it is a good political tool, if not then maybe not such a good political tool, even one that may damage your reputation and voter appeal.
What do you think if the recall fails, do you think the Unions risk there own status or just that of the Governor with this recall?
If as many of the pundits are saying that if the recall has made a great divide in Wisconsin setting friends for years against one another, that the whole political atmosphere in Wisconsin has been changed from one of cooperation to one of confrontation, that the unoins reputation and standing will be forever damaged in Wiasonsin and outside? If even a good part of that is true do you think the Unions have responsibility by causing all of the recalls?
Today's vote will surely hinge on the ability to curb voter fraud. And, it will be a barometer for the rest of the Country.