GAME OVER: Walker Wins!!!

[D1B]

If the Dem's regain control in 2012 or 2014 and are able to restore collective bargaining then it will be a pyrrhic victory. If they regain control but are unable to restore collective bargaining, many Republicans would consider it a sacrifice worth making.

I for one do not think that teachers, police, fireman, and other government employees make too much money. I do believe that allowing them to strike (especially teachers, police & fireman) is a bad idea. I also question the wisdom of them being able to collectively bargain under rules established by people who they helped (with $ and with volunteer support) get elected. It's an inherent conflict of interest just as there are conflicts of interest between Wall St. and D.C. Just because it is happening somewhere else doesn't make either situation right.

A key element of the fight over union benefits is the type of pension. Many unions have defined benefit plans which many would argue are economically unfeasible especially in a public context. Most people with pensions have defined contribution plans where the employer agrees to contribute so much and upon retirement, the employee gets the dollars contributed plus investment returns. In a defined benefit plan, the employer promises the employee a set amount upon retirement. This type of plan is considered economically unfeasible for a number of reasons including if the market takes a dive the employer is on the hook for the lost returns which undermines their profitability (or in the government's case requires them to find money elsewhere). If the market does well, the plan's trustees have a tendency to improve benefits which puts the plan at greater risk if the market tanks in the future. The other issue with these plans from a public perspective is that governments have had a tendency to underfund them and use the money elsewhere (frequently on union friendly projects and thus with the blessings of union leaders) with the "intention" of making them whole in the future. Well, the piper has come to collect but the government can't afford to make these plans whole without serious cuts elsewhere. Federal regulations require that these plans be funded at 80%. They should be funded at 120% to prevent politicians (Donk & Conk) from raiding the piggy bank to pay for pet projects.



Correct, Wisconsin is a blue state (many consider Madison to be the Berkeley of the Midwest) and was going to return to blue in the future regardless of Walker's actions.

Damn fine post '88.

Agree. Great Post

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? I think that may be what happened here.

If the Dem's regain control in 2012 or 2014 and are able to restore collective bargaining then it will be a pyrrhic victory. If they regain control but are unable to restore collective bargaining, many Republicans would consider it a sacrifice worth making.

I for one do not think that teachers, police, fireman, and other government employees make too much money. I do believe that allowing them to strike (especially teachers, police & fireman) is a bad idea. I also question the wisdom of them being able to collectively bargain under rules established by people who they helped (with $ and with volunteer support) get elected. It's an inherent conflict of interest just as there are conflicts of interest between Wall St. and D.C. Just because it is happening somewhere else doesn't make either situation right.

A key element of the fight over union benefits is the type of pension. Many unions have defined benefit plans which many would argue are economically unfeasible especially in a public context. Most people with pensions have defined contribution plans where the employer agrees to contribute so much and upon retirement, the employee gets the dollars contributed plus investment returns. In a defined benefit plan, the employer promises the employee a set amount upon retirement. This type of plan is considered economically unfeasible for a number of reasons including if the market takes a dive the employer is on the hook for the lost returns which undermines their profitability (or in the government's case requires them to find money elsewhere). If the market does well, the plan's trustees have a tendency to improve benefits which puts the plan at greater risk if the market tanks in the future. The other issue with these plans from a public perspective is that governments have had a tendency to underfund them and use the money elsewhere (frequently on union friendly projects and thus with the blessings of union leaders) with the "intention" of making them whole in the future. Well, the piper has come to collect but the government can't afford to make these plans whole without serious cuts elsewhere. Federal regulations require that these plans be funded at 80%. They should be funded at 120% to prevent politicians (Donk & Conk) from raiding the piggy bank to pay for pet projects.

I agree with all of this... one of the most frustrating things is watching public officials raid these funds (and others) because they're too lazy or scared to make the real decisions that need to be made. (they aren't alone in this, corporate america does the same thing to their pension funds... but the point remains)

[UNI88]

If the Dem's regain control in 2012 or 2014 and are able to restore collective bargaining then it will be a pyrrhic victory. If they regain control but are unable to restore collective bargaining, many Republicans would consider it a sacrifice worth making.

I for one do not think that teachers, police, fireman, and other government employees make too much money. I do believe that allowing them to strike (especially teachers, police & fireman) is a bad idea. I also question the wisdom of them being able to collectively bargain under rules established by people who they helped (with $ and with volunteer support) get elected. It's an inherent conflict of interest just as there are conflicts of interest between Wall St. and D.C. Just because it is happening somewhere else doesn't make either situation right.

A key element of the fight over union benefits is the type of pension. Many unions have defined benefit plans which many would argue are economically unfeasible especially in a public context. Most people with pensions have defined contribution plans where the employer agrees to contribute so much and upon retirement, the employee gets the dollars contributed plus investment returns. In a defined benefit plan, the employer promises the employee a set amount upon retirement. This type of plan is considered economically unfeasible for a number of reasons including if the market takes a dive the employer is on the hook for the lost returns which undermines their profitability (or in the government's case requires them to find money elsewhere). If the market does well, the plan's trustees have a tendency to improve benefits which puts the plan at greater risk if the market tanks in the future. The other issue with these plans from a public perspective is that governments have had a tendency to underfund them and use the money elsewhere (frequently on union friendly projects and thus with the blessings of union leaders) with the "intention" of making them whole in the future. Well, the piper has come to collect but the government can't afford to make these plans whole without serious cuts elsewhere. Federal regulations require that these plans be funded at 80%. They should be funded at 120% to prevent politicians (Donk & Conk) from raiding the piggy bank to pay for pet projects.

I agree with all of this... one of the most frustrating things is watching public officials raid these funds (and others) because they're too lazy or scared to make the real decisions that need to be made. (they aren't alone in this, corporate america does the same thing to their pension funds... but the point remains)

Can you give me examples of corporate america raiding their pensions on the scale that state and local governments have done it? Corporate pension plans (the few that remain) tend to be defined contribution and I believe it would be illegal for a corporation not to make a scheduled contribution. I'm sure there are corporations that have skipped required contributions but I would think they would be in a definite minority. Besides most corporations have gone to 401(k) plans where the employee makes a 0-17% contribution from pre-tax salary dollars and the employer matches up to 5% based on profitability. If they weren't profitable they aren't required to make a contribution. I don't think employers in general are shirking their responsibilities to 401(k) matches. They do change these programs occasionally but that is their right.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Yeah, I mean CPAs, garbagemen, and lawyers run to danger and put their lives on the line all the time.

As far as the military, it depends on the MOS as to whether they are as self promoting and its harder because there is such a varyance in the jobs the military folks do. But as far as some of the more high speed MOSes, you'll find just as much of a brotherhood mentality.

....and this is news to the fireman or policeman? It's a chosen career path, not mandatory service. While I can appreciate the work they perform, I also appreciate the work an engineer performs. I'll thank a cop & fireman for the service they perform just like I thank a waitress for the service she performs.....

Exactly! (except waitresses dont have that dickhead attitude most of the time)

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I agree with all of this... one of the most frustrating things is watching public officials raid these funds (and others) because they're too lazy or scared to make the real decisions that need to be made. (they aren't alone in this, corporate america does the same thing to their pension funds... but the point remains)

Can you give me examples of corporate america raiding their pensions on the scale that state and local governments have done it? Corporate pension plans (the few that remain) tend to be defined contribution and I believe it would be illegal for a corporation not to make a scheduled contribution. I'm sure there are corporations that have skipped required contributions but I would think they would be in a definite minority. Besides most corporations have gone to 401(k) plans where the employee makes a 0-17% contribution from pre-tax salary dollars and the employer matches up to 5% based on profitability. If they weren't profitable they aren't required to make a contribution. I don't think employers in general are shirking their responsibilities to 401(k) matches. They do change these programs occasionally but that is their right.

on the same level? no. not like that. and yes, they are in the minority... but it occurs.

what baffles me... no, what pisses me off - is that we come down hard (as we should) on companies that do this, and yet continue to do it in the public sector...

[YoUDeeMan]

Can you give me examples of corporate america raiding their pensions on the scale that state and local governments have done it? Corporate pension plans (the few that remain) tend to be defined contribution and I believe it would be illegal for a corporation not to make a scheduled contribution. I'm sure there are corporations that have skipped required contributions but I would think they would be in a definite minority. Besides most corporations have gone to 401(k) plans where the employee makes a 0-17% contribution from pre-tax salary dollars and the employer matches up to 5% based on profitability. If they weren't profitable they aren't required to make a contribution. I don't think employers in general are shirking their responsibilities to 401(k) matches. They do change these programs occasionally but that is their right.

on the same level? no. not like that. and yes, they are in the minority... but it occurs.

what baffles me... no, what pisses me off - is that we come down hard (as we should) on companies that do this, and yet continue to do it in the public sector...

Ummm...Earth to TTBF, the politicians are afraid of the voters. You know, the same voters that you support and say should take their revenge on the politicians that just made a tough decision.

We've met the enemy...and he is you.

[Vidav]

When it comes to Walkers, I'd rather talk about Herschel.

[Rob Iola]

Who cares how it plays out in the future, he did what he was elected to do. That right there DESERVES another term because it doesnt happen often. I am glad he took the fight to them and didnt compromise, thats what leaders do.

Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? I think that may be what happened here.

So the campaign message will be "Elect Me and I'll Vote to Restore Collective Bargaining Rights for Unions"? It's one thing to complain about the Conks rescinding collective bargaining, but I think that voters will think twice before asking for their return. Especially if there's no apparent change in the current teachers/state government workers unions.

[BDKJMU]

Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? I think that may be what happened here.

If the Dem's regain control in 2012 or 2014 and are able to restore collective bargaining then it will be a pyrrhic victory. If they regain control but are unable to restore collective bargaining, many Republicans would consider it a sacrifice worth making.

I for one do not think that teachers, police, fireman, and other government employees make too much money. I do believe that allowing them to strike (especially teachers, police & fireman) is a bad idea. I also question the wisdom of them being able to collectively bargain under rules established by people who they helped (with $ and with volunteer support) get elected. It's an inherent conflict of interest just as there are conflicts of interest between Wall St. and D.C. Just because it is happening somewhere else doesn't make either situation right.

A key element of the fight over union benefits is the type of pension. Many unions have defined benefit plans which many would argue are economically unfeasible especially in a public context. Most people with pensions have defined contribution plans where the employer agrees to contribute so much and upon retirement, the employee gets the dollars contributed plus investment returns. In a defined benefit plan, the employer promises the employee a set amount upon retirement. This type of plan is considered economically unfeasible for a number of reasons including if the market takes a dive the employer is on the hook for the lost returns which undermines their profitability (or in the government's case requires them to find money elsewhere). If the market does well, the plan's trustees have a tendency to improve benefits which puts the plan at greater risk if the market tanks in the future. The other issue with these plans from a public perspective is that governments have had a tendency to underfund them and use the money elsewhere (frequently on union friendly projects and thus with the blessings of union leaders) with the "intention" of making them whole in the future. Well, the piper has come to collect but the government can't afford to make these plans whole without serious cuts elsewhere. Federal regulations require that these plans be funded at 80%. They should be funded at 120% to prevent politicians (Donk & Conk) from raiding the piggy bank to pay for pet projects.

Or serious tax increases on the tapped out taxpayers...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? I think that may be what happened here.

So the campaign message will be "Elect Me and I'll Vote to Restore Collective Bargaining Rights for Unions"? It's one thing to complain about the Conks rescinding collective bargaining, but I think that voters will think twice before asking for their return. Especially if there's no apparent change in the current teachers/state government workers unions.

no... this kind of action doesn't sit well, and the ring leaders, and more vulnerable GOPers will get their races targeted, and the message will be along the lines of "remove walkers lackey's" (off the top of my head... my hunch is that they'll target Walker as a corrupt agent - and that will likely work)

[D1B]

Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? I think that may be what happened here.

So the campaign message will be "Elect Me and I'll Vote to Restore Collective Bargaining Rights for Unions"? It's one thing to complain about the Conks rescinding collective bargaining, but I think that voters will think twice before asking for their return. Especially if there's no apparent change in the current teachers/state government workers unions.

Fair point. We'll see.

[UNI88]

Can you give me examples of corporate america raiding their pensions on the scale that state and local governments have done it? Corporate pension plans (the few that remain) tend to be defined contribution and I believe it would be illegal for a corporation not to make a scheduled contribution. I'm sure there are corporations that have skipped required contributions but I would think they would be in a definite minority. Besides most corporations have gone to 401(k) plans where the employee makes a 0-17% contribution from pre-tax salary dollars and the employer matches up to 5% based on profitability. If they weren't profitable they aren't required to make a contribution. I don't think employers in general are shirking their responsibilities to 401(k) matches. They do change these programs occasionally but that is their right.

on the same level? no. not like that. and yes, they are in the minority... but it occurs.

what baffles me... no, what pisses me off - is that we come down hard (as we should) on companies that do this, and yet continue to do it in the public sector...

It's illegal with defined contribution plans in the private sector so when it does occur I believe it is usually by companies that are in dire straits and likely going out of business.

The rules for defined benefit plans are different. The problem is that the government doesn't hold itself accountable to the same standards that it holds private industry. I'm not even sure the 80% (green status) funding requirement applies to the public pension plans.

[free7694]

Here's a good summary of public sector unions:

[youtube][/youtube]

[Cap'n Cat]

Walker pretty much fucked Republicans in WI for the next decade or so in order to win a petty ideological battle that will end up biting him and his colleagues in the ass.

If Wisconsin's deficit shrinks and Walker is proven right, the Badger State will be red for many more elections to come.

Funny, I heard Rush Limbaugh say just that on Friday!

Damn, Baldy, yer one clair-voy-ant motherfvcker!!!

[Rob Iola]

Here's a good summary of public sector unions:

[youtube][/youtube]

Very nice!