Madison protests

[smackaholic]

Assuming the statement that texas' deficit is twice as a % of budget, the deficit in wisconsin, i am gonna go way out on a limb and say that texas' being chock full of illegals might enter into this.

Also, since wisconsin does infact have a deficit, regardless of cause, is not reducing gubmint pay/bennies not a proper way to address it? when the smackaholic household hits a recession, aka, losses a yob, it sure the fukk gets it's pay cut.

[Goober McTuber]

One of the most pernicious myths...is Gov. Scott Walker's claim that the state is "broke,"...

This is nonsense. Wisconsin has not gone into the red because of excessively generous pay and benefits negotiated by unions for state and local employees. Our deficit has grown because the Great Recession blew a hole in the state budget, as it did in virtually every state in the country.

That stupid clown did a fine job kicking his own ass in his first two paragraphs. So which is it, asshat? The state isn't broke or it's broke because of declining revenues caused by the recession?

A deficit is not "broke" as long as you can raise revenues or decrease costs, you bitter little bot.

[mvscal]

When you have spent more money than you have you are broke. Period. EOS.

The remedy to be applied to correct the situation is the root of the controversy here. Walker, and the majority of people who voted for him, believe the proper thing to do is reduce expenditures.

Morons like you prefer to pretend that there isn't a problem and keep on spending other peoples money until nothing is left.

[Goober McTuber]

Assuming the statement that texas' deficit is twice as a % of budget, the deficit in wisconsin, i am gonna go way out on a limb and say that texas' being chock full of illegals might enter into this.

Also, since wisconsin does infact have a deficit, regardless of cause, is not reducing gubmint pay/bennies not a proper way to address it? when the smackaholic household hits a recession, aka, losses a yob, it sure the fukk gets it's pay cut.

Or suckaholic could go out and get a second job (read: increase revenue). One of the causes was Governor Wanker handing out $140 million in tax cuts to his corporate supporters. That makes as much sense as reducing Social Security withholding while claiming the money is going to run out. Whose brilliant idea was that? Obama's, I'm guessing.

[Goober McTuber]

When you have spent more money than you have you are broke. Period. EOS.

And you have done nothing to refute the writer's main points. We weren't broke when Walker took office.

[mvscal]

It was only a few weeks ago that whimpering, twatlipped dipshits such as yourself were whining that Walker's tax cuts were symbolic and wouldn't have any real impact.

Did you lose your place on your script or something or are we just supposed to forget what you pussies said a month ago?

[mvscal]

We weren't broke when Walker took office.

Yes, you were. Of course, idiots like you are the first ones to believe that the piss dripping down your face is rain.

Your so-called surplus was a gimmick of the out going administration.

[Goober McTuber]

When you have spent more money than you have you are broke. Period. EOS.

The remedy to be applied to correct the situation is the root of the controversy here. Walker, and the majority of people who voted for him, believe the proper thing to do is reduce expenditures.

Keep talking out of your ass, moron. I'm sure some of the fools believe you. Walker won on a single issue. Killing the high speed rail project. He got huge support outside of Madison and Milwaukee because of it.

His approval ratings are dropping as we speak. He did not run on a platform of gutting the educational system. What he is proposing goes way beyond teacher salaries and benefits, which of course the teachers had already agreed to adjust.

[Goober McTuber]

It was only a few weeks ago that whimpering, twatlipped dipshits such as yourself were whining that Walker's tax cuts were symbolic and wouldn't have any real impact.

Feel free to link where I ever said that, you lying bag of dickheads.

[Mace]

Also, since wisconsin does infact have a deficit, regardless of cause, is not reducing gubmint pay/bennies not a proper way to address it?

Well, it's certainly ONE way to reduce the deficit, but probably not the best way, and certainly not the only way. Reducing the pay also reduces the amount of income taxes paid by those employees, and laying off employees throws them into the unemployment line to collect unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. I'd rather pay them for doing their jobs and, despite what some of the morons here think, public employees and teachers are not overpaid and do not have Cadillac benefits....at least not in Iowa. State government in Iowa is top heavy in middle management positions, for sure, but they've made reductions over the past few years in an attempt to remedy that problem. Anyone who thinks public employees don't deserve the pay they receive should get an education by taking a public service job.....then get back to me. If you're living in a state where employees don't contribute into their own pension plans (as dins claims is the case in Oregon) then your state deserves to go broke for being so fucking stupid to set up such a plan. You can blame the union all you want, but it's your state government who writes the checks, not the union, and if you're electing morons into office, then you also get what you deserve.

Our newly elected old Governor is trying to reopen the union contract signed by the former Governor and is also talking about taking some benefits off of the collective bargaining table. Doubtful he'll have any luck with that but he's asshole enough to push for it. For the 4-5 years prior to my retirement, all departments went through layoffs and furloughs, pay freezes and minimal raises, and picking up more of our medical insurance and pension contributions in an attempt to do our part in reducing the deficit spending, which we did in other years when times got tough. Iowa is also a "right to work" state which means an employee is not required to join the union even though their position is considered a union job.

[mvscal]

It was only a few weeks ago that whimpering, twatlipped dipshits such as yourself were whining that Walker's tax cuts were symbolic and wouldn't have any real impact.

Feel free to link where I ever said that, you lying bag of dickheads.

Struggling with reading comprehension? I guess your teachers must have spending too much time protesting and too little in the classroom.

Even though the tax cut bill he signed Monday and other agenda have garnered bipartisan support, Democratic critics say much of what Walker is doing is more symbolic than substantive.
For example, only $1 million in tax breaks is expected to be distributed to qualifying businesses that relocate to Wisconsin under the bill Walker signed Monday. Another tax cut Walker is backing that's tied to every new job created would come with a tax benefit of only between $90 and $315 per job.
But Walker argues the changes will improve the state's business climate.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/201 ... l-into-law

Two weeks later and his formerly symbolic gestures are now alleged to be ripping gaping holes in the budget despite the fact that none of them have yet taken effect.

Are you really so stupid and gullible? A rhetorical question, naturally. Obviously you are and that, after all, is the true goal of public education: the mass production of gullible idiots who are incapable of independent thought or reason. Morons like you are taught what to think not how to think.

[Goober McTuber]

It was only a few weeks ago that whimpering, twatlipped dipshits such as yourself were whining that Walker's tax cuts were symbolic and wouldn't have any real impact.

Feel free to link where I ever said that, you lying bag of dickheads.

Struggling with reading comprehension? I guess your teachers must have spending too much time protesting and too little in the classroom.

Struggling with reading comprehension? I don’t write for the Post-Crescent, you babbling retard.

[Mace]

It's difficult to compare private sector jobs to public jobs when there are no similar jobs to compare. Many public sector jobs have no comparative counterpart in the private sector...unless you want to compare a police officer to a security guard. I will agree that many lower echelon jobs in the public sector might receive more money than a similar job in the private sector....ie, secretaries, custodial staff, etc....but those public sector jobs requiring a college degree probably pay less than a similar job in the private sector, if there even are similar jobs. Feel free to become a public defender if you don't believe me.....or maybe you can remember why you didn't become a public defender or prosecutor. Yeah, you know.....because you wanted to make more money. If you have a successful practice, that public defender's salary and benefits don't come close to equaling your annual income. Do they?

Many people in the public sector get automatic bumps in pay for acquiring post-graduate degrees. For example, my neighbor's wife, who is a teacher in the Cleveland Public School District, gets an extra $10K per year to do the exact same job she had previously been doing for the prior 10 years because she now has a masters degree.

True, the job didn't change but, quite possibly, that teacher may have picked up a little knowledge from that education that will make him/her a better teacher which will, in turn, benefit the students they teach. Yes, she's doing the same job, but maybe she's doing it better.

There are very few, if any, private sector equivalents to this. If you work for a company (or for yourself, for that matter) and get paid a certain salary for a particular job, you rarely (if ever) get a bump in your salary just because you obtained a masters degree or a PhD.

True, but a number of people I know working in the private sector had their employers pay for furthering their degrees, or getting a 4 year degree....all at company expense....with the agreement that they would remain with the company for an agreed to number of years after getting the degree that also makes them eligible for promotions and a higher salary.

You're comparing apples and oranges when you compare private sector to public sector unless you can come up with some very specific examples of comparable jobs.

[Sirfindafold]

Apparently all teachers are public employees.

liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Mace]

I agree with you on many things, Mace. The comparisons are very difficult.

No one has, as yet, explained why public sector employees need collective bargaining.

.

Why? To protect themselves from guys like Walker. That's why. Some governors are union buddies (usually Democrats) but some (usually Republicans) take every opportunity to balance the budget on the backs of public employees because the union rarely supports a Republican candidate, and it's relatively easy to convince an uneducated constituency who are earning minimum wage that public employees are the cause of the budget problem while those same elected officials pass on tax cuts to their business buddies who support their campaigns. Is there waste in government spending at the state level? Absolutely, but a common sense approach to making necessary cuts to weed out non-essential positions/departments is preferable to taking an axe to salaries and benefits of all public employees. I would start by eliminating the "cover your ass" mentality that prevails in all government positions that dumps tons of paperwork and unnecessary procedures on employees in an attempt to avoid lawsuits in our litigation minded society. That, and eliminating at least half of the middle management positions in state agencies where supervisors make enough money to pay for two field staff positions who actually do the work.

Their wages and benefits, if not superior to that being paid in the private sector, are certainly not being suppressed by some profit hoarding tycoon.

No, not some profit hoarding tycoon, but big business politicians who know their bread is buttered by the wealthy and not the middle class public employees represented by the union.

[]quote]Why should the public ever allow public employees to collectively bargain on any of the terms and conditions of public employment?[/quote]

Most of my 34 year public career came under the watch of a Republican Governor who would have had me working for the same wages for all 34 years were it not for collective bargaining. This same Governor who was sued by the union, and lost, when he refused to pay the negotiated wage increases that he himself negotiated. The same Governor who was sued, and lost, for collecting state income tax on retired employees when they relocated to other states. This same Governor who came out of retirement and won the election last November and is now trying to force the union to reopen the contract that was signed by the former Governor and is making an attempt to modify collective bargaining, although not to the extent that's going on in Wisconsin. Public employees need protection from asshole politicians too, and collective bargaining is one way to do it......especially when there's a no-strike clause in Iowa law for public employees (as there should be).

How does that benefit the public?

Despite what you and some others think, publc employees are not overpaid and do not have great bennies, but they are paid enough to make a comfortable living and maintain a middle class lifestyle. If folks in the private sector aren't able to do that, they should get an education and find a better job to improve their lot in life. I think Newt called that "rugged individualism". I made a decent living but certainly didn't get rich and settled on a job with a decent wage and stability as opposed to going to the private sector where I could make more money in good years but suffer financially in the bad ones. That was a choice I made in college....to serve the public and never make a lot of money.....and it benefits the public by having qualified individuals performing their jobs far better than a high school dropout and doing it for less compensation than they would receive in the private sector.....although I'm not sure what private sector job would equate to Probation/Parole Officer.

Just an FYI, I started my career getting $9800 a year, if I remember correctly, and, 34 years later, I was making $63,000. I reached to top end of my pay scale after 7-8 years and the only raises that I received were those negotiated through collective bargaining. The key to making a decent living in the public sector is longevity, as there's little chance for promotion. I could have moved into management but chose to stay in the same position because I didn't want to relocate.

[smackaholic]

Mace,

No one here is arguing your point that high skill positions pay more in the private sector. This is because they are high skill and there is a very limited pool of prospective employees.

What we are bitching about are the low skill positions which often pay twice or better what their private sector equivalents pay.

Yes, a successful private practice lawyer will make a number of times what a public defender will make, as he should. remember, the public defender is basically serving in a charity position, representing broke mofos. Also, just calling yourself a private practice lawyer isn't gonna bring in the money. you actually have to perform.

as for teachers becoming better at teaching by finishing a masters, i tend to doubt it. i think teachers get better at their jobs the same way the rest of us do, by DOING IT.

[Mace]

Apparently all teachers are public employees.

No, there are private school teachers too. You know, the schools who get to pick and choose who is granted enrollment and don't have to deal with all of the knuckle draggers who make up at least 10% of public school enrollment, and who come from families who can afford to pay the tuition and fees involved with attending a private school. Translated, that means that teachers in private schools don't really have the same job as a teacher in a public school because actually get to teach and don't have to deal with all of the distractions caused by the neanderthals. I've learned this after only 18 months as a substitute teacher in a number of local public schools, the worst of which has just fired their principal (long overdue, imo) and will hopefully have some semblance of discipline next school year.

Oh, and they also get to recruit for athletic purposes, which is why there is always a disproportionate number of private schools in the state finals of every sport in Iowa.

[smackaholic]

Apparently all teachers are public employees.

No, there are private school teachers too. You know, the schools who get to pick and choose who is granted enrollment and don't have to deal with all of the knuckle draggers who make up at least 10% of public school enrollment, and who come from families who can afford to pay the tuition and fees involved with attending a private school. Translated, that means that teachers in private schools don't really have the same job as a teacher in a public school because actually get to teach and don't have to deal with all of the distractions caused by the neanderthals. I've learned this after only 18 months as a substitute teacher in a number of local public schools, the worst of which has just fired their principal (long overdue, imo) and will hopefully have some semblance of discipline next school year.

Oh, and they also get to recruit for athletic purposes, which is why there is always a disproportionate number of private schools in the state finals of every sport in Iowa.

you make very good points mace, however, i believe there is a solution to this problem, but, it will take balls rather than handwringing.

public schools need to make it clear that disinterested shit students not be allowed to drag the rest of the class down. segregate these fukkers and make life tough on them. you could hire retired marine DIs to instruct these fukks. they could prolly unfukk a percentage of them.

[Dinsdale]

Despite what you and some others think, publc employees do not have great bennies

In Wisconsin, it's triple the average benefits of private sector employees, and equal to about 75% of their wages/salaries.

How very clever of you to use a subjective term like "great bennies," since the scant shred of subjectivity is your only defense against complete idiocy here.

:world'sbiggestfuckingrolleyes:

Here in my state, I'd say health care completely covered for many of them, and pay raises upon retirement would certainly meet the definition of "great bennies." (Although it's much harder to become Tier 1 and get the completely free health care and the ridiculous pension nowadays, but it's still unfunded and unsustainable.)

If folks in the private sector aren't able to do that, they should get an education and find a better job to improve their lot in life.

Eat a fucking bullet, traitor. That's the most backasswards bunch of bullshit I've seen here in a while.

Those "folks in the private sector" ARE THE ONES PAYING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

Should I type that 43 more times in bold, with the hope it sinks in?

THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS THE EMPLOYER.

They offer a position, and offer a wage they're willing to pay. Period.

If those folks in the PUBLIC SECTOR don't like it, they should get an education and find a better job.


Where the fuck do you even get off claiming some weird "right" to stake a certain claim (of your choosing, apparently), to other people's money?

If The People say your job is worth $9 an hour, with no benefits... that's what your job is worth. The fucking employee has no fucking say in the fucking matter.

Don't like your pay as a tit-sucker? Propose a ballot measure that grants public employees a X% raise... or better health bennies... or whatever the fuck you want. Make a good case, and people will probably vote for it, since they know those folks are their friends and neighbors.

The ONLY purpose of a public union is to extort money from their fellow man -- money THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM.


And fuck you for your ultra-lefty bullshit that makes you think your opinion of what to do with the money in someone else's pocket is more important than that person themselves' opinion... just jaw-dropping arrogance.

[Dinsdale]

No, there are private school teachers too. You know, the schools who get to pick and choose who is granted enrollment and don't have to deal with all of the knuckle draggers who make up at least 10% of public school enrollment, and who come from families who can afford to pay the tuition and fees involved with attending a private school. Translated, that means that teachers in private schools don't really have the same job as a teacher in a public school because actually get to teach and don't have to deal with all of the distractions caused by the neanderthals.

Are you fucking serious?

So, after having it pointed out to you that there are in fact comparable positions Public vs Private, your rebuttal is "no, OUR jobs are harder"?


I don't think you realize how badly you're clowning here.


Then there's this --

I've learned this after only 18 months as a substitute teacher in a number of local public schools

Since you don't understand basic punctuation of American English (I can cite multiple examples if you like, and save the"I was typing fast on the internet" lie you were about to offer up, since you do it consitently, and it's not due to typos, it's due to poor education/ignorance.

But you think teachers are underpaid, and deserve more than they get. I'll bet those private school teachers probably paid enough attention in class to know which side of the quotation marks periods and commas go on...

which I suppose lends credence that the public teaching gigs are "harder" -- any job becomes harder when you're a fucking undereducated idiot.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Since you don't understand basic punctuation of American English (I can cite multiple examples if you like, and save the"I was typing fast on the internet" lie you were about to offer up, since you do it consitently, and it's not due to typos, it's due to poor education/ignorance.

nice


Go on, Dins. Keep taking Mace out behind the woodshed.

:scs:

[Mace]

Mace,

No one here is arguing your point that high skill positions pay more in the private sector. This is because they are high skill and there is a very limited pool of prospective employees.

What we are bitching about are the low skill positions which often pay twice or better what their private sector equivalents pay.

Okay, what are some of those low skill jobs that are making "twice or better" than those in the private sector?

Yes, a successful private practice lawyer will make a number of times what a public defender will make, as he should. remember, the public defender is basically serving in a charity position, representing broke mofos. Also, just calling yourself a private practice lawyer isn't gonna bring in the money. you actually have to perform.

No disagreement about successful lawyers being able to perform their jobs. That's how it's supposed to be....if you're good, you reap the benefits. That's one thing that I don't like about public employee system....it's hard to get rid of the bad employees. I worked with one P.O. who was about the same age as me with almost the same number of years in the department, who was the dumbest, most incompetent piece of shit I had ever worked with. I hated sending him a case when someone relocated to his jurisdiction because I knew he'd fuck up the case and that person might well end up in jail or prison because of it. I also hated getting a case from him because I knew they'd be fucked up and I'd have to clean them up. Anyway, he was suspended on numerous occasions, fired more than once, but alway appealed and, to everyone's dismay, got his job back. He's still on the job and will eventually get the same pension as me....only he'll have more money in the bank than me because of the settlements he's received from the department for his wrongful terminations. :roll: On top of that, he's the most unprofessional looking individual I know. He has a cheap hairpiece that looks like road kill and is the only P.O. I know that wears a big badge on his belt....trying to impress everyone, I guess, with his wannabe cop appearance. Anyway, he should have been fired long ago but, even though they tried, they couldn't get it done, and he has been a huge waste of tax dollars for years.

as for teachers becoming better at teaching by finishing a masters, i tend to doubt it. i think teachers get better at their jobs the same way the rest of us do, by DOING IT.

I'd have to think that a teacher who spends the time and money to complete a Masters is bound to pick up on a few things that will make them a better classroom teacher.....and are not doing it solely for the increase in pay. Or maybe they're ambition is to become an administrator. Yes, they get better by "doing it" but they can also learn new teaching methods that can be used in the classroom. It's hard to generalize on the motivation for all teachers who choose to pursue a Masters, imo, but, yes, experience is usually the best teacher......which is why we should pay experienced teachers more to reward their longevity....if they're good teachers. Another HUGE waste of money in the school system is the No Child Left Behind Act, with lots of aides and teachers being hired to babysit kids who are so severely handicapped that they cannot learn to tie their own shoes, let alone anything academic.....all at a very large cost to the taxpayers. Thank you George W. Bush. :roll:

[Mace]

No, there are private school teachers too. You know, the schools who get to pick and choose who is granted enrollment and don't have to deal with all of the knuckle draggers who make up at least 10% of public school enrollment, and who come from families who can afford to pay the tuition and fees involved with attending a private school. Translated, that means that teachers in private schools don't really have the same job as a teacher in a public school because actually get to teach and don't have to deal with all of the distractions caused by the neanderthals.

Are you fucking serious?

So, after having it pointed out to you that there are in fact comparable positions Public vs Private, your rebuttal is "no, OUR jobs are harder"?


I don't think you realize how badly you're clowning here.


Then there's this --

I've learned this after only 18 months as a substitute teacher in a number of local public schools

Since you don't understand basic punctuation of American English (I can cite multiple examples if you like, and save the"I was typing fast on the internet" lie you were about to offer up, since you do it consitently, and it's not due to typos, it's due to poor education/ignorance.

But you think teachers are underpaid, and deserve more than they get. I'll bet those private school teachers probably paid enough attention in class to know which side of the quotation marks periods and commas go on...

which I suppose lends credence that the public teaching gigs are "harder" -- any job becomes harder when you're a fucking undereducated idiot.

Go fuck yourself, you ignorant piece of shit.

There, how was the punctuation in that sentence, moron?

Despite your claims to the contrary, meth did not originate in Oregon....however, you're making a good case that stupidity did.

[smackaholic]

Mace,

No one here is arguing your point that high skill positions pay more in the private sector. This is because they are high skill and there is a very limited pool of prospective employees.

What we are bitching about are the low skill positions which often pay twice or better what their private sector equivalents pay.

Okay, what are some of those low skill jobs that are making "twice or better" than those in the private sector?

Yes, a successful private practice lawyer will make a number of times what a public defender will make, as he should. remember, the public defender is basically serving in a charity position, representing broke mofos. Also, just calling yourself a private practice lawyer isn't gonna bring in the money. you actually have to perform.

No disagreement about successful lawyers being able to perform their jobs. That's how it's supposed to be....if you're good, you reap the benefits. That's one thing that I don't like about public employee system....it's hard to get rid of the bad employees. I worked with one P.O. who was about the same age as me with almost the same number of years in the department, who was the dumbest, most incompetent piece of shit I had ever worked with. I hated sending him a case when someone relocated to his jurisdiction because I knew he'd fuck up the case and that person might well end up in jail or prison because of it. I also hated getting a case from him because I knew they'd be fucked up and I'd have to clean them up. Anyway, he was suspended on numerous occasions, fired more than once, but alway appealed and, to everyone's dismay, got his job back. He's still on the job and will eventually get the same pension as me....only he'll have more money in the bank than me because of the settlements he's received from the department for his wrongful terminations. :roll: On top of that, he's the most unprofessional looking individual I know. He has a cheap hairpiece that looks like road kill and is the only P.O. I know that wears a big badge on his belt....trying to impress everyone, I guess, with his wannabe cop appearance. Anyway, he should have been fired long ago but, even though they tried, they couldn't get it done, and he has been a huge waste of tax dollars for years.

as for teachers becoming better at teaching by finishing a masters, i tend to doubt it. i think teachers get better at their jobs the same way the rest of us do, by DOING IT.

I'd have to think that a teacher who spends the time and money to complete a Masters is bound to pick up on a few things that will make them a better classroom teacher.....and are not doing it solely for the increase in pay. Or maybe they're ambition is to become an administrator. Yes, they get better by "doing it" but they can also learn new teaching methods that can be used in the classroom. It's hard to generalize on the motivation for all teachers who choose to pursue a Masters, imo, but, yes, experience is usually the best teacher......which is why we should pay experienced teachers more to reward their longevity....if they're good teachers. Another HUGE waste of money in the school system is the No Child Left Behind Act, with lots of aides and teachers being hired to babysit kids who are so severely handicapped that they cannot learn to tie their own shoes, let alone anything academic.....all at a very large cost to the taxpayers. Thank you George W. Bush. :roll:

the teachers who get their masters here do it for a few reasons. first off, they get paid. second, they have to. they have X number of years to do it or get shitcanned. i think this is ridiculous. it should not be mandatory. doing it should not mean more pay. doing a good fukking job should mean more pay. works for us private sector slobs. i am for having school systems pay a percentage of the tuition if the teacher decides they would like to pursue a masters. i am even ok with school systems acknowledging the masters as part of their performance review. but to jhust say masters=mo money is stupid.

for an example of a person in the public sector getting big money, i'll go with my best friend who i've mentioned regarding this topic. not much post HS formal educatin', some vocational experience and now he's a state mental health worker. he is not a psych, nor is he responsible for the whack jobs psych treatment in any way. his sole purpose is pretty much to baby sit. he makes 30/hr. gets mandated (mandatory OT) very regularly, every penny of which is double time. averages a bit over 100K a year. not a bad gig for a dude who never saw 15/hr before he picked up this gig. the republican that ran in the recent election for gubner, vowed to privatize this department. had ole jay shaking in his boots. of course dude lost. i suspect that if they did privatize it, he'd be somewhere in the 18-20/hr range and the only double time would be for working 7 days in a row or something along those lines. he'd be lucky to make 50-60 for the same work.

[Goober McTuber]

Mace,

No one here is arguing your point that high skill positions pay more in the private sector. This is because they are high skill and there is a very limited pool of prospective employees.

What we are bitching about are the low skill positions which often pay twice or better what their private sector equivalents pay.

Okay, what are some of those low skill jobs that are making "twice or better" than those in the private sector?

Yes, a successful private practice lawyer will make a number of times what a public defender will make, as he should. remember, the public defender is basically serving in a charity position, representing broke mofos. Also, just calling yourself a private practice lawyer isn't gonna bring in the money. you actually have to perform.

No disagreement about successful lawyers being able to perform their jobs. That's how it's supposed to be....if you're good, you reap the benefits. That's one thing that I don't like about public employee system....it's hard to get rid of the bad employees. I worked with one P.O. who was about the same age as me with almost the same number of years in the department, who was the dumbest, most incompetent piece of shit I had ever worked with. I hated sending him a case when someone relocated to his jurisdiction because I knew he'd fuck up the case and that person might well end up in jail or prison because of it. I also hated getting a case from him because I knew they'd be fucked up and I'd have to clean them up. Anyway, he was suspended on numerous occasions, fired more than once, but alway appealed and, to everyone's dismay, got his job back. He's still on the job and will eventually get the same pension as me....only he'll have more money in the bank than me because of the settlements he's received from the department for his wrongful terminations. :roll: On top of that, he's the most unprofessional looking individual I know. He has a cheap hairpiece that looks like road kill and is the only P.O. I know that wears a big badge on his belt....trying to impress everyone, I guess, with his wannabe cop appearance. Anyway, he should have been fired long ago but, even though they tried, they couldn't get it done, and he has been a huge waste of tax dollars for years.

as for teachers becoming better at teaching by finishing a masters, i tend to doubt it. i think teachers get better at their jobs the same way the rest of us do, by DOING IT.

I'd have to think that a teacher who spends the time and money to complete a Masters is bound to pick up on a few things that will make them a better classroom teacher.....and are not doing it solely for the increase in pay. Or maybe they're ambition is to become an administrator. Yes, they get better by "doing it" but they can also learn new teaching methods that can be used in the classroom. It's hard to generalize on the motivation for all teachers who choose to pursue a Masters, imo, but, yes, experience is usually the best teacher......which is why we should pay experienced teachers more to reward their longevity....if they're good teachers. Another HUGE waste of money in the school system is the No Child Left Behind Act, with lots of aides and teachers being hired to babysit kids who are so severely handicapped that they cannot learn to tie their own shoes, let alone anything academic.....all at a very large cost to the taxpayers. Thank you George W. Bush. :roll:

the teachers who get their masters here do it for a few reasons. first off, they get paid. second, they have to. they have X number of years to do it or get shitcanned. i think this is ridiculous. it should not be mandatory. doing it should not mean more pay. doing a good fukking job should mean more pay. works for us private sector slobs. i am for having school systems pay a percentage of the tuition if the teacher decides they would like to pursue a masters. i am even ok with school systems acknowledging the masters as part of their performance review. but to jhust say masters=mo money is stupid.

for an example of a person in the public sector getting big money, i'll go with my best friend who i've mentioned regarding this topic. not much post HS formal educatin', some vocational experience and now he's a state mental health worker. he is not a psych, nor is he responsible for the whack jobs psych treatment in any way. his sole purpose is pretty much to baby sit. he makes 30/hr. gets mandated (mandatory OT) very regularly, every penny of which is double time. averages a bit over 100K a year. not a bad gig for a dude who never saw 15/hr before he picked up this gig. the republican that ran in the recent election for gubner, vowed to privatize this department. had ole jay shaking in his boots. of course dude lost. i suspect that if they did privatize it, he'd be somewhere in the 18-20/hr range and the only double time would be for working 7 days in a row or something along those lines. he'd be lucky to make 50-60 for the same work.

Jesus Christ. Did you even finish high school? Anything you are paid beyond $8 per hour is a fucking gift.

[Mace]

the teachers who get their masters here do it for a few reasons. first off, they get paid. second, they have to. they have X number of years to do it or get shitcanned. i think this is ridiculous. it should not be mandatory. doing it should not mean more pay. doing a good fukking job should mean more pay. works for us private sector slobs. i am for having school systems pay a percentage of the tuition if the teacher decides they would like to pursue a masters. i am even ok with school systems acknowledging the masters as part of their performance review. but to jhust say masters=mo money is stupid.

Getting a Masters is not mandatory here, only continuing education classes, but I don't have a problem with a teacher getting more pay (within reason) if they take the initiative to spend the time and money to further their education.

for an example of a person in the public sector getting big money, i'll go with my best friend who i've mentioned regarding this topic. not much post HS formal educatin', some vocational experience and now he's a state mental health worker. he is not a psych, nor is he responsible for the whack jobs psych treatment in any way. his sole purpose is pretty much to baby sit. he makes 30/hr. gets mandated (mandatory OT) very regularly, every penny of which is double time. averages a bit over 100K a year. not a bad gig for a dude who never saw 15/hr before he picked up this gig. the republican that ran in the recent election for gubner, vowed to privatize this department. had ole jay shaking in his boots. of course dude lost. i suspect that if they did privatize it, he'd be somewhere in the 18-20/hr range and the only double time would be for working 7 days in a row or something along those lines. he'd be lucky to make 50-60 for the same work.

You've given this example before and I'd have to agree with you. They must be understaffed if the guy is getting that much overtime, which could be cheaper for the state than hiring more employees, but , at $30/hour, he's making the same hourly wage that I made with a college degree....and we never got paid for overtime. Institutional employees like your friend do get paid overtime, but only time and a half unless they have to work a holiday, when they get double time. I don't know the cost of living in your area, or how it compares to here, but it would seem that he is way overpaid.

[Diego in Seattle]

Conservatives love to harp on how much CO's get paid in OT, yet refuse to look at how understaffed the prisons are.

I guess Jayme Biendl was making too much money, too.

[Diego in Seattle]

Conservatives love to harp on how much CO's get paid in OT, yet refuse to look at how understaffed the prisons are.

So what you're saying is that we ought to cut their pay in half so we can put twice as many people to work?

I don't know what the exact amount would be, but the paychecks CO's get would be greatly reduced if they simply worked their normal shifts.

[LTS TRN 2]

TIME OUT!!

Let's see, the inane right-wing "American Thinker" piece gets immediately refuted--and Avi desperately goes into an Abortion evasion tact?

And the stooges all fall in line and start arguing about a woman's right to choose? Oh, that's right...just like the soldiers were not factored into the "cost" of the Iraq invasion, so too the WOMEN are never mentioned in the fake bluster about Roe V Wade and the Sanctity of life.

Pathetic.

You said the money that was spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could fund some sort of Medicare/Social Security nirvana. The American Thinker article showed that the money spent on the wars was not a substantial increase in the deficits and in the growth of the national debt, which has exploded since Obama came into office. It further showed that such moneies would not have had a significant impact or fixed the structural problems with Medicare/Social Security. How has any of that "inane" truth been refuted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_ ... e_Iraq_War

You--or your right-wing hack site--are trying to spin the cost of the Iraq war as being somewhat negligible? Seriously?

What, $700 billion in basic outlay plus anther $700 billion for medical treatment of the hundreds of thousands of ruined young men is not a significant amount? Not enough to EASILY fund Social Security and Medicare for many years? Bullshit.

As for the fake deficit crisis in Wisconsin, no one has refuted the basic fact that the real deficits being faced by every state are the direct cause of the financial meltdown--that is, the massive criminal actions enabled--legally--by the neo-liberal "deregulation" agenda that you and similar Limpdickians blindly parrot.

As for the "overpaid" public employees in Wisconsin, who's going to acknowledge the FACT that they are much more educated and possessed of higher degrees, etc. That is, they are in fact the "best and brightest" that higher wages and benefits are designed to attract. Yeah, you forgot that in your tedious broad smears and denigrations.

The fact is that the GOP majority in Wisconsin is RAZOR THIN, and this childish immediate draconian break of cover--in some desperate Tea Bagger-like move of an ignorant riled-up mob--is going to backfire.

[indyfrisco]

Mace, you almost make me feel sorry for public employees...almost.

[Mace]

Mace, you almost make me feel sorry for public employees...almost.

Indy, I'm not asking you or anyone else to "feel sorry" (gee, I hope the quotation marks are okay for dins) for public employees, but there seems to be a number of conflicting allegations by all of the public employee haters on here. So far on these 12 pages I've been told that the problem isn't with high skilled (college educated) public jobs, it's the low skill jobs where public employees make "three times" that of public sector employees in similar positions. Then I read that it's the teachers making too much money, followed by public employees having benefits equal to 75% of their big salaries that's the problem. I've asked for examples of the "low skill" jobs that can be compared to the private sector, but have yet to see any examples.....or maybe I've missed them in this conglomerate of a thread.

All of my statements in this thread are based on my 34 years as a public servant in Iowa, not Wisconsin or Oregon, and it would appear to me that Iowa has taken a much more common sense approach to dealing with the union and public employees, and that the public employees in Iowa have been more than willing to make sacrifices by giving up pay raises and benefits. First of all, Iowa public employees have always contributed to their pension plans at a percentage that has kept the plan solvent. They have raised the rate of the contribution on occasion when the economy took a turn for the worst but, over the past few years, the pension plan took a hit because the politicians demanded a 7% return on the money and, because of that, they made some risky investments that didn't pan out. Consequently, the percent of contribution by the employees was increased through no fault of their own, or that of the union. At any rate, the plan is still solvent and I received a $400 dividend in January. Next year I'll receive $800, followed by $1200 in 2013. That dividend is guaranteed for the next two years but may end following 2013 unless they get a higher return on their/my investment.

As for insurance, the state of Iowa paid about $390 a month for my insurance (Blue Access, an HMO) and paid $36 a month for my dental plan (I also paid $36/month) that, since retirement, I now pay the full amount of $72/month. The state also paid for a $20,000 term life insurance policy during my employment that ended at retirement. The state pays retiring employees for their unused sick leave by using those paid sick leave hours to pay for health insurance until the money runs out. If you had 750 hours of unused sick leave at retirement, they paid your hourly wage for each of those hours and half of it would be used to pay for insurance. If you had 1000 hours of sick leave, 85% of that money would be used to pay for insurance. If you had 1500 hours, 100% of the money would be used for insurance. Obviously, this was a perk to reward employees for not using/abusing sick leave which, for me, wasn't much of an incentive because I rarely missed a day of work.

One area that I thought was ridiculous was the amount of vacation time we received. I got 5 weeks of vacation a year plus an additional week for being classified as professional field staff who were on call 24/7 and couldn't be paid overtime. We could accrue the vacation up to 640 hours (16 weeks), which is where mine was at most of the time because I rarely took vacation, and I was paid for my vacation hours at retirement. I never thought I could do my job by taking 5 weeks of vacation a year and didn't like falling behind when I did take a couple of days off. Anyway, I think most private sector jobs comparable to mine also pay for unused vacation.....although they may not accrue as many hours.

Anyway, those were my benefits as a public employee and I don't think there's any way they add up to anything close to $45,000 a year (75% of my salary). The state paid for my insurance (about $5000/year), paid their share of my pension, and paid $75/month in matching funds to my deferred compensation.....plus vacation and sick leave time. I haven't intentionally left out any benefits I received during my employment or retirement but I don't think we receive anything extravagant in the way of benefits when compared to a similar job in the private sector. I saw where almost 60% of Wisconsin public employees have college degrees, and I suspect that percentage is similar to that in Iowa. Public employees perform a service for the communities where they live and, if the job requires a college education, they should be compensated accordingly. If not, they will not attract college grads to those jobs. The higher the educational qualifications for the job, the more you'll pay for their services.

88, I became a probation/parole officer because I wanted to work with offenders and I wanted to work in the law enforcement/corrections community. I performed a service for my community and was expected to "protect and serve" the community...which I did. There are no public sector jobs that compare to mine, imo, but I think I was fairly compensated for my service...but not overpaid. I averaged about a $1500 yearly raise over 34 years, which included some years with pay freezes and some with minimal raises. When I started the job, there was a large turnover every year with employees routinely leaving for higher paying private sector jobs, and salaries were raised because they realized that they needed experienced employees to do the job and that salaries would have to be higher to retain those employees.

My apologies for the length of this post.

[Mace]

If The People say your job is worth $9 an hour, with no benefits... that's what your job is worth. The fucking employee has no fucking say in the fucking matter.

Don't like your pay as a tit-sucker? Propose a ballot measure that grants public employees a X% raise... or better health bennies... or whatever the fuck you want. Make a good case, and people will probably vote for it, since they know those folks are their friends and neighbors.

I guess that one shouldn't expect anything other than a simplistic response from a simpleton. Not surprising.

[War Wagon]

Q: what is a "sick" day?

A: a day you don't get paid.

At least for the vast majority of working stiffs.

[Goober McTuber]

Q: what is a "sick" day?

A: a day you don't get paid.

At least for the vast majority of working stiffs.

You don't even get sick leave? Missouri = backwater thirld world country.

[LTS TRN 2]

Q: what is a "sick" day?

A: a day you don't get paid.

At least for the vast majority of working stiffs.

You don't even get sick leave? Missouri = backwater thirld world country.

Exactly. Why is it that the "Koched" workers in other states want to drag unionized workers down to their level? This "crab bucket" mentality is just another factor that the rapacious neo liberal agenda seeks to exploit.

C'mon, wags, start demanding that all workers get paid "sick days," and then, gee, health care. :wink:

Step up and WAKEY WAKE!!!

[Mace]

I won't C&P your post but I'll try to hit on what I see as your main points.

Yes, the Feds are way overpaid. I could have easily made an additional $20,000 a year with better benefits if I'd gone into the federal system and done far less work.

My wife has been a teacher for 35 years and makes just under $50,000 a year. I don't know any teacher making $100 thousand a year...or anywhere close to that amount. Their salaries are controlled by the local school board and they have a collective bargaining unit that negotiates with the board to determine what they will receive every year.

Bringing pay raises to a vote of the public would be a ridiculous way to determine salaries/raises for state, county, and municipal employees. Not all county and city employees are covered by a union and they negotiate directly with elected officials and compensation boards to determine if they'll get a raise. If there are corrupt officials involved, arrest them, but I know of no one involved in that type of activity here locally.

I was a member of the union for about 3 months before I realized that I didn't want anything to do with them, and I understand your feelings regarding them. Unions should stay out of politics and the main reason I left was because of union dues being sent to the campaigns of candidates I didn't support and thought it was better for me to send what money I would have paid in union dues to the candidates of my choosing. In Iowa, the legislature determines where and how much each department will receive and, if the union has negotiated for too much to be paid in salaries/benefits, people get laid off or have furlough days where they don't get paid. One of the best things about the union was that it kept management types honest so they couldn't fire someone just because they didn't like them. On the flip side, they often saved the jobs of folks who should have been fired.

I'm not a union guy but I do think that they're needed for collective bargaining purposes so that public employees can get a fair wage for the jobs they perform and to make the jobs somewhat competitive with private sector jobs so they can attract qualified employees and retain them. Without a union, the public employees should be able to form a collective bargaining unit, like teachers, to negotiate their own contracts with the governing body....but not put it up for a public vote and waste money holding a vote. Currently their elected representives do the negotiating, which is probably as good as it's going to get.

[Goober McTuber]

The other day, the office of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker issued an indignant press release, titled "Response to Factual Inaccuracies."

It correctly identified a fundamental difference between two numbers that Walker's critics have linked: the state's $137 million deficit through June 30 and the $140 million in tax breaks for business approved by Walker and the Legislature since he took office in early January.

The tax breaks, it noted, "do not apply to this fiscal year." They merely add to the state's budget hole down the line.

Thanks for the clarification. If there's one thing this heated debate doesn't need, it's factual inaccuracies. To that end, let's turn our attention to some of the things Scott Walker has said:

"If anyone doesn't know what's coming, they've been asleep for the last two years." That's Walker at his Feb. 17 press conference, in which he also insisted that extracting unilateral benefit concessions from some public workers and stripping almost all of them of their collective bargaining rights were "modest, modest requests." At his Feb. 21 media meet-up, Walker even claimed to have "campaigned on this throughout the election."

In fact, not once during the campaign or in the time between the election and his "budget repair bill" unveiling on Feb. 11 did Walker indicate he would refuse to negotiate with public employee unions or seek these radical changes. Walker himself clearly knows this, as shown by his comments to a prankster he thought was billionaire benefactor David Koch. There Walker refers to the time just prior to his budget unveiling as "before we dropped the bomb."

"To protect our schools, to protect our local governments, we need to give them the tools they've been asking for, not just for years but for decades." Walker initially made this point repeatedly, as at his Feb. 18 press conference.

But, as Isthmus reported (Madison.gov., 2/24/11), all four major state associations representing schools and local governments (not their employees) say this isn't true. Walker, at his Feb. 24 press powwow, amended his sound bite, saying he is giving schools and local governments "the tools they need."

"The guys we got left are largely from out of state." This is what Walker told "Koch" about the demonstrations in Madison, adding, "I keep dismissing it in all of my press comments, saying...they're mostly from out of state." He also claims one-third of the 70,000 people who came out to demonstrations on Feb. 19 supported his bill.

The Madison police estimated the total crowd at 68,000, so Walker was in the ballpark here. But even the pro-Walker side's wildly inflated numbers put their totals at 8,000 to 10,000, with more credible estimates being in the 3,000 to 5,000 range. And no sane person believes the protesters that day — or the 70,000 to 100,000 who turned out last Saturday — are "largely" or "mostly" from out of state.

"I have great respect for those who have chosen a career in government. I really do." Walker has trotted out this line repeatedly, including in his Feb. 22 "Fireside Chat." His tone is much different in private, as in his conversation with "Koch."

The mock caller says, "I'll tell you what, Scott, once you crush these bastards, I'll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time." The governor's great respect for public employees is nowhere in evidence as he replies, "All right, that would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support in helping us to move the cause forward."

Besides these demonstrable falsehoods, Walker has made many statements of questionable veracity. Here are a few:

The governor claimed at his Feb. 17 press conference to have gotten "over 8,000 emails" from citizens, most urging him to "stay firm." At his Feb. 18 press conference, exactly 24 hours later, he claimed to have 19,000 emails, again the "majority in favor." On Feb. 23, he said there were 100,000, "obviously some for, some against."

As of press time, the governor and his staff had not responded to open records requests from Isthmus and others for these emails, which would allow his claims to be checked; Isthmus' request was made on Feb. 18.

In a Feb. 23 press release, Walker began asserting his "budget repair bill" would deliver at least $1.44 billion in savings to local school districts and governments. He even gave breakdowns: "chool districts would save $488 million ($976 million over the biennium). Municipalities would save $98 million ($196 million over the biennium). Counties would save $64 million..." and so on.

Wow, those are really great savings. Just one question: How would they be achieved? Walker hasn't been specific, so far as I can find. A Walker staffer passed my inquiry on to press secretary Cullen Werwie, who did not respond.

Walker continues to make this claim but has since altered it. He no longer claims it will deliver these savings; he now says it gives schools and local government "the tools" to make this happen — presumably by following his lead in cutting employee benefits.

Finally, there's this, from Walker's Feb. 21 press conference, about the utter chaos he says is reigning just south of our border because of reckless actions taken there: "[L]ook at what Illinois did a month ago. [It] raised taxes on businesses and individuals and in turn we've seen a massive exodus of employers and jobs and individuals looking to come to places like Wisconsin."

What "massive exodus" is he referring to, and how come no one else seems to have noticed it? Is that even a question worth putting out for Walker aides to ignore? Or can we safely assume, as with so much else, that Scott Walker is lying?

[Kansas City Kid]

Pending Legislation - Americans With No Abilities Act

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans: The Americans With No Abilities Act.

(AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees
lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%).. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (a whopping 83%).

Under The Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most inept employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions,
and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Ken Miller, who lost his position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember 'rightey tightey, lefty loosey.' 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Miller added. With the passage of this bill, Miller and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.'

[Goober McTuber]

When you have spent more money than you have you are broke. Period. EOS.

Wisconsin may not be able to refinance $165 million in debt as planned in the municipal bond market this week or next, but that doesn't mean the state is in any kind of immediate fiscal peril.

Wisconsin has taken center stage this budget season, as Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, has pushed to eliminate most of the collective bargaining rights for the state's 170,000 public employees through a controversial budget "repair bill." Democratic state senators have fled the state to avoid voting on the measure.

Mr. Walker's latest tactic to lure them back has been threatening to make additional cuts or more layoffs, should the state be unable to refinance $165 million in debt for short-term budget relief. Under his plan, the state would issue a 10-year bond to restructure a debt payment that otherwise would be due May 1.

The state had originally planned to do the refinancing deal either this week or next, said Frank Hoadley, the state's capital finance director.

"We are like everyone else ... waiting to see what happens," he said. "As everything stands at the moment, if the legislation is not passed, then the opportunity [to refinance the bonds] would be lost."

According to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, issuing new bonds typically takes at least two weeks, and that process must be complete by March 16. The new financing is projected to add $42 million in interest payments over the next 10 years, said Al Runde, a fiscal analyst with the bureau.

But the notion that the state needs to refinance the debt because it's broke and can't make its debt payments is "completely wrong," said Mr. Hoadley, the state finance director.

"This is about providing relief to the budget situation by rearranging the payments," over a longer period, he said.

However, there are other ways to address Wisconsin's current fiscal year budget deficit of $137 million other than refinancing the debt, said Joshua Zeitz, municipal finance analyst for MF Global.

On Monday, state Sen. Mark Miller, one of the 14 Democrats who fled to Illinois, proposed several accounting changes in the current state budget as an alternative to the bond refinancing.

A memo from the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau has also suggested the governor could use $79 million in surplus funds from various state accounts.

Tax-anticipation notes might be another solution, as would be delaying payments to vendors, Mr. Zeitz said.

The shortfall is about 0.5% of the state's overall budget, a fairly inconsequential amount, he said.

And since unions have already agreed to proposed givebacks on compensation and benefits, "it's becoming increasingly clear that this is a question more of politics than it is of a budget crisis," Mr. Zeitz added.

Indeed, Wisconsin is considered a very creditworthy state, with a double-A credit rating, and compared with some lower-rated states like California and Illinois, its finances are more manageable.

While Wisconsin does face a $3.6 billion deficit in its spending cycle over the next two years, that is equivalent to about 0.75% of its economic output over that time. By comparison, California's $25.4 billion one-year budget gap is equivalent to more than 1.3% of its output and Illinois' $15 billion deficit is equivalent to almost 2.4%.

When looking at the projected budget deficits as a percentage of the current year's budget amount, the comparison becomes even more stark. Wisconsin's $1.8 billion deficit for fiscal 2012 is just 12.8% of its current fiscal year budget, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, California's $25.4 billion shortfall is 29.3% of its current budget, while that figure for Illinois, which faces a $15 billion budget hole, is 44.9%, the nonprofit policy group said.

"There's a good amount of political theater in what you're seeing," said Tom Kozlik, municipal credit analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott. "With any state, I'd really question whether they are going to fall off a cliff over one budget cycle."

That may explain why Wisconsin's bonds have been little changed in the secondary market despite the recent turmoil in the state's capital over the collective bargaining issue.

According to Thomson Reuters Municipal Market Data, 10-year Wisconsin debt trades around 31 basis points, or 0.31 percentage point, over a benchmark scale of top-rated state bonds.

That's compared with 10-year debt from Illinois, which trades around 200 basis points, or 2 percentage points, over the same scale.

That shows that the muni bond market "is confident that the state of Wisconsin, despite the protests and disagreements, will continue to make principal and interest payments [on debt] in a timely fashion. End of story," said Gary Pollack, head of fixed income and research at Deutsche Bank Private Wealth Management.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 80920.html

[Mace]

But...but....but, mvscal said that Wisconsin was "broke." Is he lying...or just plain fucking stupid? I guess the answer could be both.