That should read “Fiscal conservative, but in a way that still keeps me from being anything like Rand Rover in any way”.
This specific attack that Rachel Maddow and others have been making is false. Ie. The claim that there is no budget deficit in Wisconsin this year, and/or that it’s been caused by $140bn of tax cuts given away by Walker. Politifact analyzed this exact question here and concluded Rachel Maddow’s statement that “Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year” was false. Wisconsin really does have a $137bn deficit this year, and neither Walker nor the Republicans can really be held responsible for it. Kevin Drum, a leading liberal commenter who is very pro-Union, admits the same point here: there really is a budget deficit this year and Walker didn’t cause it.
However, the key element of that statement is “this year”. Walker passed a number of measures recently including tax cuts which will significantly reduce revenue not this year but over the next couple of years, so Walker has made the projected deficits for 2012 and 2013 worse. Drum goes on to say - and this seems to be the conclusion I’ve read across a lot of the liberal blogosphere - that while Walker does have a problem with the deficit, which he didn’t cause, he’s passed measures that will make it worse over the coming years and then used it as an excuse to pass an anti-Union bill which is overboard and unnecessary; that its main aim is to rip the heart out of Democrat-leaning public sector unions in Wisconsin for ideological reasons rather than fiscal ones (Politifact also found, for instance, that Walker’s claim that he was “leaving collective bargaining intact” was wildly false: the entire point of his bill is to get rid of collective bargaining for the targeted unions). They also argue it’s impossible to argue Walker’s move is in good faith because he’s not pushing for the same measures for policemen or firefighters, only for unions that strongly lean Democrat like teachers.
There’s a simple, useful Q&A article from Andy Kroll in Madison, for Mother Jones, here if you want more detailed information. (Bear in mind that while Mother Jones is trustworthy on its facts, it does very much write from a liberal perspective). He also summarizes the viewpoints that have been given from most of the leading liberal bloggers and pundits: Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, etc.
Isn’t there a sense of frustration right here on the SDMB when Prez Obama pushes his agenda along like little wuss? I believe there is. Ergo, yap yer heads off about the policies, but don’t be a hypocrite if you scold the tough approach the Gov has taken. Do you secretly wish the Prez had a pair as big as the Gov? I believe you do.
Further, I see all the condemnation of conflict. Conflict can be good. The whole thing is a festering boil coming to a head. So be it.
Let’s see who can bolster their argument, get what they deserve… and we’ll see what happens when the dust settles. I need to think more about the collective bargaining issue, but the Gov might be using that as a tactic to make the pension and health care issue look more realistic.
.
Walker’s union busting measure has nothing to do with the budget and wasn’t something he campaigned on, so it can’t be defended as anything he was elected on. The fact that he’s caused police and firefighters to turn on him should tell you that.
Incidentally, Obama never had the votes to just push something through like this or he would have. The situations are not really comparable.
Ezra Klein offers a simple but good breakdown of what the bill actually does here:
**
Personally I agree with the liberal commentators: I’m not naturally a huge fan of public sector unions. But I think it seems very unfair for Walker to cite a budget deficit which unions didn’t cause, and which his own measures will exacerbate starting next year, as a reason to strip them completely of the collective bargaining rights that sustain them. Moreover, the fact that he’s targeted only Democrat-leaning unions, and exempted the ones like police and firefighters who supported him, suggests that this is primarily a political measure aimed at damaging labor and Wisconisn Democrats rather than being a necessary means of closing the deficit (the measures that are causing so much controversy won’t necessarily have much effect on the deficit in the short term anyway). But that’s just my own opinion. 
You must lean right. Only a wingnut would use “tough” to mean “blatantly hypocritical.”
The measures themselves are “tough”, but I wouldn’t say the governor has been particularly, certainly in terms of owning up to his proposals. He didn’t campaign on these measures and when he’s been asked about them he’s denied them: he specifically denied, for instance, that his bill takes away collective bargaining from any of the Unions. Politifact found that claim was wildly false: “Pants on Fire” as they call it. Walker claims workers can indeed continue to negotiate their wages; but his bill would put an upper cap on wages against inflation, making it impossible to ever negotiate a real-terms pay rise. Essentially they’re allowed to negotiate pay cuts if they want, and that’s it.
He’s also been misleading about why the bill is necessary, implying that Unions have been responsible for the current deficit and that the complete bill is necessary for reducing that deficit, even though some of the controversial provisions aren’t fiscal at all: there are measures that require Unions to renew themselves by vote every year for instance, making it more likely they’ll collapse after any bad year.
Tough measures, yes. And he’s entitled to propose them given he won his election. But does it really take “a big pair” to propose controversial measures that you didn’t mention during your election campaign, then deny you’ve proposed those measures when you’re asked about it?
I’ll retract my definition of “tough” upthread and change it to “prepared to win at any cost to one’s consituency or one’s character.”
Actually, they very much don’t affect Walker’s constituency (if by that you mean the people who voted for him), which is one of the reasons he’s been accused of arguing in bad faith. His measures are brutal when it comes to public sector unions that lean left - teachers among others - but completely exempt the public sector unions that lean right, like the police and firefighters. Your definition of “tough” should be something along the lines of “partisan”: essentially the primary aim of the bill - the controversial elements, anyway - is to gut power from political institutions that support Democrats. That’s something Republicans will like and Democrats will hate.
Like I said though, rhetorically I don’t think he’s been tough at all: he didn’t campaign on these measures and when he’s been asked about them he’s specifically denied the controversial ones.
Just to go back to the original question, Ezra Klein (who’s really getting stuck into the details of this one at the moment, I really recommend his blog if you’re interested in the issue, his entries are short and written very clearly but they’re very informative) has gone into some more details of the state’s budget situation. The basic conclusion is the same as I outlined above: the state does have a significant deficit this year, and neither Walker nor Republicans can really be held responsible for it, but Walker has passed measures that will increase the deficit in 2012-2013. Further details though: his article has all the links to his citations, so I’d recommend clicking here to read it, but I’ll quote it anyway:
:rolleyes:
Your loss.
Obviously, there is no possible way Wisconsin has a deficit of $137 billion.
Wisconsin has a deficit of about $137 MILLION, which is nothing to panic about. **As the unions have completely capitulated on the issue of money, this movie is obviously about punishing pro-Democratic unions. ** The issue has nothing to do with this year’s budget.
You’re right, I meant $137 million. I’m used to talking about the federal government where it’s always billions.
The reason this is generating controversy is because of the anti-Union elements, not because of the budgetary elements. But the budget part is important because liberal commentators have made an issue out of it: they claim that Walker is essentially lying that there’s a deficit at all, or that if there is a $137m deficit, it’s only because he himself created it. As far as the 2011 budget goes, those accusations are false: there really is a $137m deficit, that is a significant deficit for Wisconsin that does need to be dealt with over the next few years, and Walker had no role in creating that $137m deficit (although he has passed measures that will increase the deficit from next year onwards).
Yes the real issue that’s causing controversy here is a Republican governor trying to gut power from the Democratic-supporting Unions. But that’s not what the thread starter asked about: he asked about the conflicting claims concerning the state’s budget.
rich?
If the New York Times said it, than you know it’s a pack of lies. They are the rag that published false accusations about John McCain having an affair but ignoring John Edwards, leaving that to serious magazines like National enquirer. Is Walker also the governor of Illinois, New York, California and a slew of other states that have fiscal problems due to unions electing legislators that raise taxes on the private sector to make them rich.
Yep, this is the paragraph of the NY Times editorial that claims Walker’s decisions contributed to the $137m deficit in 2011. It’s wrong. Walker has passed tax cuts and other measures that will increase the deficit, but they won’t kick in until 2012, so the 2011 deficit is nothing to do with him.
I understand Walker’s bill will also change Medicaid administrative procedures. To wit:
Cite to Walker’s own summary of the bill. But it’s just a “sneaky provision that paves the way for him to cut, or eliminate, Medicaid and BadgerCare healthcare benefits for low-income people.” Cite.
That part’s fact. This part is my opinion: He’s declaring war on the poor (and the working class) and has hidden it pretty well behind the budget “fix”. Clever, if by “clever” I mean evil.
Everyone’s looking at the budget and/or unions and ignoring a huge and bad part of the bill.
Well, there’s also the “fire sale” aspects of the budget repair bill…
In other words, not only can the state sell off its heating/cooling plants without bids, those sales will be automatically considered “in the public interest” and “to comply with the criteria for certification of a project” under state law. In other words, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain! No looting of the state’s assets going on here!