Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

[WeWantMore]

Apparently not. It's called capitalism. The Koch Brothers AND the state workers can't both win, so the governor is choosing the Koch brothers.

The evil, scary Koch brothers gave Scott Walker $43,000. Or, a whopping .5% of his campaign contributions.
Contrast that with the 13 of the fleeing Democrats (one took no money) that got anywhere from 24-73% of their campaign contributions from labor unions.
As an aside, how come no one ever mentions the $20million the Koch brothers gave to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act. Next bogeyman please.

Actually, if Walker repeals the tax cuts he enacted days before this whole mess started the state would magically have the money.

Strange how that happens.

Nope. This delightful Rachel Maddow reporting has been declared false by the non-partisan Politifact organization.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Education is the single most important controllable factor in American citizens ability to be productive...and worker productivity happens to pay directly or indirectly for most of the rest of our public services. Therefore government intervention is needed to ensure that everyone in the lower half of society gets a good education. And yes, ensuring quality delivery via teachers is among the most critical components of this strategy. So we need to ensure we install quality via evalution and performance requirements...but no, we should absolutely not leave the talent of our teaching pool up to market forces.

What does that last bit mean? Pick a salary - any salary - and people who can make more money elsewhere will do so. The talent of the teaching pool will always be subject to market forces.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

What does that last bit mean? Pick a salary - any salary - and people who can make more money elsewhere will do so. The talent of the teaching pool will always be subject to market forces.

I have no idea because I didn't write it. You'll have to ask the person who did.

The evil, scary Koch brothers gave Scott Walker $43,000. Or, a whopping .5% of his campaign contributions.

And just how much did the Koch brothers funnel to Walker's campaign through the RGA?

Walker was elected just over three months ago on the heels of an exceptionally expensive gubernatorial race in the Badger State, fueled by groups funded by the Koch brothers, David and Charles. David Koch, the son of a radical founding member of the John Birch Society, which has long been obsessed with claims about socialism and advocated the repeal of civil rights laws, personally donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) in June of last year. This was the most he had ever personally given to that group. (Fellow billionaire Rupert Murdoch matched Koch's donation to the RGA with a $1 million donation from his company News Corporation, parent company of FOX "News" Channel.)

The RGA in turn spent $5 million in the race, mostly on TV ads attacking Walker's political opponent, Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett. As this photo shows, the RGA described itself as a "key investor" in Walker's victory. In its congratulations, the RGA notes that it "ran a comprehensive campaign including TV and internet ads and direct mail. The series of ads were devastating to Tom Barrett ... All told, RGA ran 8 TV ads and sent 8 pieces of mail for absentee, early voting, and GOTV, totaling 2.9 million pieces."

The Center for Media and Democracy reported on some of the RGA's spin-filled ads last November, including the ads against Barrett, and filed a snapshot report this week. As the RGA takes credit, its multi-million dollar negative ad campaign probably did help make the difference between the 1.1 million votes cast for Walker against Barrett's 1 million votes. According to Open Secrets, Koch Industries was one of the top ten donors to the RGA in 2010, giving $1,050,450 to help with governors' races, like Walker's.

As Mother Jones has noted, the Koch Industries' political action committee, KochPAC, gave Walker's campaign $43,000 directly (according to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board). It may seem like a small amount compared with the millions the Kochs are spending funding the RGA and other groups, but that donation was one of the larger individual donations to Walker not from an expressly-named partisan PAC. It is, however, a drop in the bucket compared with the impact of a million-dollar negative ad campaign, especially because the candidate promoted by the mud-slingers does not have to get his hands dirty.

Or other shadow groups?

The laundering of Koch dollars through the RGA dwarfs the Kochs' direct donations to Walker, and it also does not tell the whole story. As the Center for Media and Democracy has been documenting on its SourceWatch site for several years, David Koch was the founder and chairman of a front group called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which received at least $12 million from the Koch Family Foundations and which is the predecessor of the group Americans for Prosperity.

Notably, Americans for Prosperity bragged that it was going to spend nearly $50 million across the country in the November elections. As one of the groups exploiting the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to allow unlimited spending by corporations to influence election outcomes, it does not disclose its donors and it does not report its expenditures on so-called "issue ads." It did run such ads in Wisconsin last fall.

Americans for Prosperity has actively supported and promoted Scott Walker in a variety of ways. It featured him at its tea party rally in Wisconsin in September 2009, when he was running for the Republican nomination for governor. Americans for Prosperity also ran millions of dollars in ads on a "spending crisis" (a crisis it did not run ads against when Republicans were spending the multi-billion dollar budget surplus into a multi-trillion dollar deficit), and it selected Wisconsin as one of the states for those ads in the months before the election. It also funded a "spending revolt" tour in Wisconsin last fall through its state "chapter."

Just how much money has Americans for Prosperity and its Wisconsin counterpart spent on issue ads or promoting Walker over the past two years is one of the questions for this weekend's orchestrated "Stand with Walker" event.

Link

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I have no idea because I didn't write it. You'll have to ask the person who did.
And just how much did the Koch brothers funnel to Walker's campaign through the RGA?
Or other shadow groups?
Link

Right, but $1 million to the RGA (to be spread over a whole host of competitive governors races) is still a pittance. Especially because there's an equal organization, the DGA, also receiving and spending money. Even assuming the whole $1million went to Walker (and that would be silly, because it didn't) it's still a lesser % of money than unions gave to Democrats.

Since the second block quote doesn't give numbers, it's tough to really address. Yes, they ran ads for a spending crisis that ran in Wisconsin, but those ads also benefited Ron Johnson, the Republicans in contested House races, local races, and so on.

I'm not exactly sure about what the point of any of this is. There's money spent in politics- are you surprised?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

The evil, scary Koch brothers gave Scott Walker $43,000. Or, a whopping .5% of his campaign contributions.
Contrast that with the 13 of the fleeing Democrats (one took no money) that got anywhere from 24-73% of their campaign contributions from labor unions.
As an aside, how come no one ever mentions the $20million the Koch brothers gave to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act. Next bogeyman please.



Nope. This delightful Rachel Maddow reporting has been declared false by the non-partisan Politifact organization.

Yes, it's difficult to establish a causal relatonship between the current problems in Wisconsin and taxes that won't take effect until July.

Besides, tax policy can be useful in economic development. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/technology/19bizbriefs-INTELPLANSNE_BRF.html

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Yes, it's difficult to establish a causal relatonship between the current problems in Wisconsin and taxes that won't take effect until July.

Someone should tell the critics of HCR about this insight.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Can't we all just agree that Wisconsin sucks?

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Can't we all just agree that Wisconsin sucks?

Can't we all just agree that **** YOU!!! rabblerabblerabblerabble

On another note, tomorrow the state will probably go about $160 million further into the hole because our entire state governing body- from the governor to every last ****ing state congressman- is run by children.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

What does that last bit mean? Pick a salary - any salary - and people who can make more money elsewhere will do so. The talent of the teaching pool will always be subject to market forces.

So you're agreeing that Walker's basic position is that Wisconsin can no longer afford to have an above-average education system? Given the above, you seem to admit that it's axiomatic that the pool of talented employment candidates will shrink with lower compensation, irrespective of any efforts to measure merit.

There's nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as everyone is honest about it. I don't think I've heard Walker come right out and say "We're so broke, we'd actually be better off with poorer education."

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

There's nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as everyone is honest about it. I don't think I've heard Walker come right out and say "We're so broke, we'd actually be better off with poorer education."

Walker exists for partisan rhetoric. This is a guy whose first act as governor was to throw away a billion dollars of federal stimulus money because he thought it was a waste of taxpayer money- despite the fact that he knew and was explicitly told that that money would just go somewhere else anyway. Wisconsin lost (at a minimum) several hundred jobs, if not potentially thousands because of it. He may have some merit if he had claimed that the money (which was to be used for light rail in Wisconsin) would end up being a liability for the state if Wisconsin took over the rail lines and they didn't make money. He would have had a point if he did that. But he didn't. He rejected that money because he said it should go to the taxpayers... even though it would have never done so.

Walker campaigned on bringing more jobs to Wisconsin by making the state more business friendly. The conservative part of me is cool with it, because lowering business taxes would be good for everyone. But does he do that? No. He gives individualized corporate handouts in the form of targeted tax breaks. He's as crooked as Jim Doyle before him, but he's doing so while pretending to be this pro-business libertarian tea partier's wet dream.

Between all that, and his repeated insistence that the collective bargaining business is about balancing the budget, all you will ever need to know about Walker is that you shouldn't believe a ****ing word he says.

He could say tomorrow that Wisconsin is better off with cash-strapped public education systems, and not only would I not believe him, I wouldn't even think that he agrees with what he's saying.

But, I suppose, at least he's still in Wisconsin right now...

(My state needs a legit third party)

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I have no idea because I didn't write it. You'll have to ask the person who did.

Ooopsie - sorry, that was at the end of a very long day, so getting a quote correct from another thread was too tall of an order for me. My apologies!

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

(my country needs a legit third party)

fyp

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Walker exists for partisan rhetoric. This is a guy whose first act as governor was to throw away a billion dollars of federal stimulus money because he thought it was a waste of taxpayer money- despite the fact that he knew and was explicitly told that that money would just go somewhere else anyway. Wisconsin lost (at a minimum) several hundred jobs, if not potentially thousands because of it. He may have some merit if he had claimed that the money (which was to be used for light rail in Wisconsin) would end up being a liability for the state if Wisconsin took over the rail lines and they didn't make money. He would have had a point if he did that. But he didn't. He rejected that money because he said it should go to the taxpayers... even though it would have never done so.

I don't think that's the full story. He certainly made the liability argument about the train. He made the point many times that the train would have been a waste of money, with Wisconsin on the hook for overruns and anything needed to make the train profitable down the line. Considering 2 high speed trains in the entire world are profitable, I think it's a pretty darn good possibility we would have been on the hook.

He also said he would be happy to spend the money on roads (you know, things people actually use) but the DOT said no. I don't think that's the same thing as demanding it goes to the taxpayers.

Edit: Here's a JS Online story from as long ago as last February where he talks about why he doesn't want the train. I think he makes some of the same arguments you say he would have had a point with.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

So you're agreeing that Walker's basic position is that Wisconsin can no longer afford to have an above-average education system? Given the above, you seem to admit that it's axiomatic that the pool of talented employment candidates will shrink with lower compensation, irrespective of any efforts to measure merit.

There's nothing wrong with that, per se, as long as everyone is honest about it. I don't think I've heard Walker come right out and say "We're so broke, we'd actually be better off with poorer education."

Why will this make the education poorer? Because it will drive teachers spending all week protesting from the profession? More money and benefits is not always the answer to a problem. There has to be a line drawn at some point where enough is enough and start looking for more realistic soluti9ons.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Why will this make the education poorer? Because it will drive teachers spending all week protesting from the profession? More money and benefits is not always the answer to a problem. There has to be a line drawn at some point where enough is enough and start looking for more realistic soluti9ons.

If you think that Lynah is right, and I think he is, then this is axiomatic. you can't reduce labor market demand for your positions without also reducing the supply of labor. And that reduction is not random. It's composed of people who believe they will do better elsewhere.

This is a clear and obvious way to reduce the quality of your education system. Mass layoffs are another, but Walker's got that contingency covered, too.

Now, you can try to counteract that by enacting other reforms. But the odds are not in your favor. That's if you even have a plan. By all accounts, Walker does not. And what are the odds of him developing one, now that he's poisoned any hope for a decent working relationship? Walker may be a good Republican -- heck, he may be a great one. But that doesn't make him a great leader. If you were on the board of a major corporation, and you had a choice between Walker and, say, Christie for your next CEO, who would you support?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Where is elsewhere though? Budgets are being slashed around the country, by both Republicans and Democrats. It's fine to say that the plan will make teachers decide to leave, but where are they going to go? The two obvious contenders nearby, Minnesota and Illinois, are both facing big deficits as well, with the day of reckoning having to come at some point.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

With changes like this, the biggest effect won't be immediate. Unless he goes the mass layoff route - but that's a different story.

It's not so much that existing labor will move. Those pension plans lock them in. It's that people in high school and college who are watching this are thinking "eff this crap. I don't need that."

Again, I'm not even saying it's wrong to cut education spending. I don't know the situation in WI that well. My basic points are (1) Walker is a much better at self-promotion than leadership, and (2) Wisconsin probably doesn't have it that bad. They should think twice before blowing things up.

Serious question: what's so bad about Wisconsin? All states have had to deal with revenue shortfalls following the '08 crash. Wisconsin still has an unemployment rate that's 20% lower than the national avg. They have better than average primary and secondary education (admittedly, our metrics aren't perfect), and a higher education system that's significantly better than average.

Unless the cheese market is better than I thought, or there's a thriving tourist industry that I don't know about, I'm not sure what Wisconsin has going for it more than their people. From 1500 miles away, the Walker plan seems to be to peg your hopes on agriculture and unskilled labor. Hey -- it's not my place to say whether you should aspire to be North Mississippi.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Serious question: what's so bad about Wisconsin? All states have had to deal with revenue shortfalls following the '08 crash. Wisconsin still has an unemployment rate that's 20% lower than the national avg. They have better than average primary and secondary education (admittedly, our metrics aren't perfect), and a higher education system that's significantly better than average.

Unless the cheese market is better than I thought, or there's a thriving tourist industry that I don't know about, I'm not sure what Wisconsin has going for it more than their people. From 1500 miles away, the Walker plan seems to be to peg your hopes on agriculture and unskilled labor. Hey -- it's not my place to say whether you should aspire to be North Mississippi.

Oh definitely, Wisconsin is in pretty decent shape compared to the rest of the country. Still, the budget needs to be balanced- no bankruptcy or bailouts for the states. The problem of public pensions has to be dealt with, if not now, then sometime in the future. Isn't it better to deal with the problem now?

Edit: Forgot to add, I'm not so sure that it will really drive all that many people in high school or college away. I mean, even with these cuts, it's still a pretty darn good deal to be a teacher, as compared to other professions.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

If you think that Lynah is right, and I think he is, then this is axiomatic. you can't reduce labor market demand for your positions without also reducing the supply of labor. And that reduction is not random. It's composed of people who believe they will do better elsewhere.

Right, but you also have to consider marginal value. Would you get significantly better teachers if you were already paying $1M per year and you bumped it up to $1.1M? Definitely not. The same applies at the other end of the scale - there's probably no significant difference between offering $10K (~minimum wage, considering summers off) and $15K, even though that's a 50% increase. Theoretically, there is one salary number that will maximize performance per dollar, and at the peak of that curve there will be a relatively "flat" area where performance per dollar doesn't change too much.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Walker exists for partisan rhetoric. This is a guy whose first act as governor was to throw away a billion dollars of federal stimulus money because he thought it was a waste of taxpayer money- despite the fact that he knew and was explicitly told that that money would just go somewhere else anyway.

I don't know anything about the railroads in WI, but the argument that someone else will/would have/might do something "anyway" is never a defense of doing something immoral. If you support it, find another argument for it besides "someone else will spend it anyway, might as well be us."