State of the State address (WI)

[alph]

so I'm watching the governor address the state regarding the fiscal progress of the state of Wisconsin, and in the last three years since he was elected, and after the failed recall, Wisconsin now has nearly a billion dollars in surplus cash!  in three years, he erased a billion dollars of deficiet, then created nearly a billion in surplus!!  in three years!! 

so, my question is; what the hell is wrong with those governors of NY and CA?  why do you people put up with that kind of spending? 

I remember listening to people protest Scott Walker.  how they'd march on the capital, all the death threats he received, people getting ticked off at ME 'cause I voted for him!! not only did I vote for him, so did my daughter, and wife!! 

my brother in law works for the state, and even he said that the things he was bringing about were needed, and that there was way too much waist in the system.  thankfully Walker put an end to most of it. 

what was truly amazing was that Scott Walker won more votes on his recall than he did on his actual election!!  what disgusted me was watching the democrats sitting on their hands when everyone else was clapping!  talk about sore losers!! 

he's got one more year, hopefully he cements in some voter identification requirements, then maybe, just maybe Wisconsin will become a "red" state!!

[ptgb]

Yea, but on whose backs?

Ohio is pretty much in the same situation. The state had a 8 billion dollar hole in their budget in 2009. Our illustrious, Lehman Brothers bred, crook of a governor - John Kasich balanced the budget too. Right now the Ohio "Rainy Day Fund" stands at 1.48 billion (with a "b"). Great job right?

So how did he do it? On the backs of his own people. You see, he decimated state funds to local governments. Thousands of police officers, fire fighters, and teachers were laid off or had their livelihoods cut by large amounts. Good thing right? They are just money hungry union members who don't earn their living like the private sector employees out there.

But guess what? Crime continued (in fact got worse due to the economy), people still called 911 for ambulances and still got sick and hurt, people still had crashes and house fires, and students still needed to meet ever increasing state/federal mandates for education. Oh, yeah, and darn it, they want their streets plowed too.... those needy, whiny, bastages. All that and unemployment is still going up.

Local government still had to meet these demands. The State doesn't police here, they have a highway patrol that only handles traffic enforcement. Ohio doesn't provide ambulance services or fire trucks when your house is on fire, or put teachers in classrooms. Cutting local funds had no effect on state government, other then to make it appear that suddenly the state was looking upon itself to tighten it's belt. It didn't, their budget continues to go up.

The only choice local government had to continue to provide service was to go to the local taxpayers to increase property tax levies and/or local income tax to continue these services that the public wants, or actually demands. And the citizens responded... they voted to raise their local taxes.

So, at least in Ohio, Kasich's great budget magic was merely a shell game that put it on the locals to continue to provide service. The money has to come from somewhere... unfortunately my greedy ass won't work for free... I'm selfish like that ( )

As Kasich's rainy day fund continues to grow and it looks like he is doing a great job by it. His magic is merely smoke and mirrors foisted on every citizen to make him look good. It's utter B.S. if you ask me.

I would imagine that Walker is using close to the same playbook.

[alph]

Is your name mike?  You sound just like my brother the sour grape democrat!!  Walker did some things that needed to be done and the end result is the state is doing better than it was before. Democrats call it a "shell game". Calling it that because THEY don't get the credit.

I'd love to see the US economy switch like that, she'll game or not.  Having a surplus is MUCH better than having a deficit.

[musclehead]

I'll tell you how he did it in WI, he picked the low hanging fruit. the teachers union were bankrupting the state through corrupt insurance exchanges. by allowing teachers to shop around for insurance they cut the monopoly out the union had over the rank and file saving millions.

the very thing the left cries the loudest about when it comes to insurance companies(fraud) they were actively participating in and it was sinking the state.

[Varmintmist]

Pete

Don't lay this all on your Gov.

If I remember correctly, he came in with a plan to reduce waste that would not have been as bad on the employees. That was shot down by your legicritters or in referendum in a big way within 3 months of his election, and at that time he stated that the budget will be brought under control, they wanted to keep spending.

Well, in the real world, the fastest way to cut cost is to cut personnel, If you cant cut anywhere else, guess what goes?

[MP]

I believe, ptgb, that the more local control you can get, the better.

I do not think the pay to many gov't workers got cut in WI.  I do not know.

But, in general, the idea is to cut payments.  Even if, as you propose, some things the state was paying for, goes back to local pay, that is better.  The locals can decide.  Walker wants to return the surplus in tax cuts.  So, money would be returning to the locals, so, if they choose, they can use that money to fund those gov't services they desire.

We get about as local as possible at home.  Our township takes care of our roads.  Gravel.  There are 5 families in our township, 6 miles by 6 miles, 36 sq miles. We have an assessor/treasurer who is paid $100 per year, and 3 board members who are paid $0.  We decide what our tax rate is, have a meeting once a year in the late winter to decide what road work needs to be done and the tax rate is voted on each year, and take care of it.

Now, I understand that as the population goes up, employees get added.  But, the more local the control, the more the people know what is needed.

We have to start somewhere.  State and Fed gov'ts cannot just keep spending money they do not have.  We cannot aford everything for everybody. Sorry.

MP

[Rams]

Yea, but on whose backs?

Ohio is pretty much in the same situation..............


The only choice local government had to continue to provide service was to go to the local taxpayers to increase property tax levies and/or local income tax to continue these services that the public wants, or actually demands. And the citizens responded... they voted to raise their local taxes.

The money has to come from somewhere... unfortunately my greedy ass won't work for free... I'm selfish like that ( )

It's utter B.S. if you ask me.

I would imagine that Walker is using close to the same playbook.

Let's hope all Governor's follow that play book.   If a locality wants a special service, then the rest of a state should not have to pay for it.   Doesn't matter if it's trash pick up, police or fire protection.   If the locals don't want a service, then they can vote it down.   Who promised anyone a rose garden?   I'll guarantee it was a Democrat.    Promising a gravy train that someone else has to pay for is right out of the Democrat platform.   Don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing Police, Fire Protection or Teachers bearing the brunt of everything but, those are taxpayer funded positions.   Don't like it, go there.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yea, but on whose backs?

Ohio is pretty much in the same situation..............


The only choice local government had to continue to provide service was to go to the local taxpayers to increase property tax levies and/or local income tax to continue these services that the public wants, or actually demands. And the citizens responded... they voted to raise their local taxes.

The money has to come from somewhere... unfortunately my greedy ass won't work for free... I'm selfish like that ( )

It's utter B.S. if you ask me.

I would imagine that Walker is using close to the same playbook.

Let's hope all Governor's follow that play book.   If a locality wants a special service, then the rest of a state should not have to pay for it.   Doesn't matter if it's trash pick up, police or fire protection.   If the locals don't want a service, then they can vote it down.   Who promised anyone a rose garden?   I'll guarantee it was a Democrat.    Promising a gravy train that someone else has to pay for is right out of the Democrat platform.   Don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing Police, Fire Protection or Teachers bearing the brunt of everything but, those are taxpayer funded positions.   Don't like it, go there.  

Education, Police,Fire & Emergency services are considered "special services"? If you have localities that are well off they can afford these extra taxes but communities that aren't so well off end up getting subpar education,police,etc. We are supposed to provide equal services but it doesn't work that way when governors shift the costs to the municipalities .

[solo1]

I think that Indiana is ok on a surplus but I'm not going to look it up.

On a local level, I'm on the Board of Works and we just ok'd the purchase of a badly needed firetruck to replace an old non reliable truck.  Used in Nascar soit has low mileage and is in great shape.  $363,700.00 AND the funds were there in the fire department cumulative account.  No bond needed to be floated. 

Ours is a small city of 17,000 and we are not rich.  However, our elected officials and our staff know how to make the most efficient use of the tax dollars. We have 18 full time LEO's, all with 'take home' patrol cars. The Fire dept. has the necessary staff and trucks to handle most situations. None are 'on the take'  and we don't have any unions.  The service staff is paid good wages.  Our services in general are ok despite a reduction in state and fed money.

SMALL government works best as we are directly responsible to the taxpayer here.

Unlike the mess that we have in DC.

[Rams]

Yea, but on whose backs?

Ohio is pretty much in the same situation..............


The only choice local government had to continue to provide service was to go to the local taxpayers to increase property tax levies and/or local income tax to continue these services that the public wants, or actually demands. And the citizens responded... they voted to raise their local taxes.

The money has to come from somewhere... unfortunately my greedy ass won't work for free... I'm selfish like that ( )

It's utter B.S. if you ask me.

I would imagine that Walker is using close to the same playbook.

Let's hope all Governor's follow that play book.   If a locality wants a special service, then the rest of a state should not have to pay for it.   Doesn't matter if it's trash pick up, police or fire protection.   If the locals don't want a service, then they can vote it down.   Who promised anyone a rose garden?   I'll guarantee it was a Democrat.    Promising a gravy train that someone else has to pay for is right out of the Democrat platform.   Don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing Police, Fire Protection or Teachers bearing the brunt of everything but, those are taxpayer funded positions.   Don't like it, go there.  

Education, Police,Fire & Emergency services are considered "special services"? If you have localities that are well off they can afford these extra taxes but communities that aren't so well off end up getting subpar education,police,etc. We are supposed to provide equal services but it doesn't work that way when governors shift the costs to the municipalities .

Yes, those and lots of other things are "special".   Who says we're supposed to provide equal services?   The Communist Manifesto?    What socialist agenda are we working from.   The previous statements are extreme to some and I realize that but, the facts are clear, no one has a right to something they can't afford.   They may think they have a right but, if you're living off of the generosity of others (whether those others agree with it or not as in taxes) then, you are getting more than you've earned.  Consider this:

Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security will run out of money.
BUT, how come we never hear about WELFARE running out of money?
What's interesting, is the first group "worked for" their money... but the second didn't.

[musclehead]

I also remember how much the left declared these cuts would be a catastrophe.  they have hired more teachers as a result of this.

[Serk]

When you're outta money, you stop spending. You HAVE to cut back, it's very simple...

You can borrow for a while but eventually you HAVE to cut back on the spending.

You can disagree about what is cut, but that cuts must be done is pretty cut and dried...

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yea, but on whose backs?

Ohio is pretty much in the same situation..............


The only choice local government had to continue to provide service was to go to the local taxpayers to increase property tax levies and/or local income tax to continue these services that the public wants, or actually demands. And the citizens responded... they voted to raise their local taxes.

The money has to come from somewhere... unfortunately my greedy ass won't work for free... I'm selfish like that ( )

It's utter B.S. if you ask me.

I would imagine that Walker is using close to the same playbook.

Let's hope all Governor's follow that play book.   If a locality wants a special service, then the rest of a state should not have to pay for it.   Doesn't matter if it's trash pick up, police or fire protection.   If the locals don't want a service, then they can vote it down.   Who promised anyone a rose garden?   I'll guarantee it was a Democrat.    Promising a gravy train that someone else has to pay for is right out of the Democrat platform.   Don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing Police, Fire Protection or Teachers bearing the brunt of everything but, those are taxpayer funded positions.   Don't like it, go there.  

Education, Police,Fire & Emergency services are considered "special services"? If you have localities that are well off they can afford these extra taxes but communities that aren't so well off end up getting subpar education,police,etc. We are supposed to provide equal services but it doesn't work that way when governors shift the costs to the municipalities .

Yes, those and lots of other things are "special".   Who says we're supposed to provide equal services?   The Communist Manifesto?    What socialist agenda are we working from.   The previous statements are extreme to some and I realize that but, the facts are clear, no one has a right to something they can't afford.   They may think they have a right but, if you're living off of the generosity of others (whether those others agree with it or not as in taxes) then, you are getting more than you've earned.  Consider this:

Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security will run out of money.
BUT, how come we never hear about WELFARE running out of money?
What's interesting, is the first group "worked for" their money... but the second didn't.

So you don't think all kids should have equal education,all people should have equal police protection?

[MP]

"So you don't think all kids should have equal education,all people should have equal police protection?"

So you think the Federal gov't should handle ALL programs?  Otherwise, there will be disparity between states.

Do you also believe ALL people should have homes, same income, same benefits?

Hello, communism.

The US USED to be you EARNED what you got.  Now, you are OWED the same.

MP

[The emperor has no clothes]

"So you don't think all kids should have equal education,all people should have equal police protection?"

So you think the Federal gov't should handle ALL programs?  Otherwise, there will be disparity between states.

Do you also believe ALL people should have homes, same income, same benefits?

Hello, communism.

The US USED to be you EARNED what you got.  Now, you are OWED the same.

MP

I didn't say anything about being owed anything. I didn't say anything about the US Gov. Taking over this. I just asked if he thought all kids and people should get equal education, policing. If you don't think they should that's fine you are welcome to think what you want.

[dreamaker]

so I'm watching the governor address the state regarding the fiscal progress of the state of Wisconsin, and in the last three years since he was elected, and after the failed recall, Wisconsin now has nearly a billion dollars in surplus cash!  in three years, he erased a billion dollars of deficiet, then created nearly a billion in surplus!!  in three years!!  

so, my question is; what the hell is wrong with those governors of NY and CA?  why do you people put up with that kind of spending?  

I remember listening to people protest Scott Walker.  how they'd march on the capital, all the death threats he received, people getting ticked off at ME 'cause I voted for him!! not only did I vote for him, so did my daughter, and wife!!  

my brother in law works for the state, and even he said that the things he was bringing about were needed, and that there was way too much waist in the system.  thankfully Walker put an end to most of it.  

what was truly amazing was that Scott Walker won more votes on his recall than he did on his actual election!!  what disgusted me was watching the democrats sitting on their hands when everyone else was clapping!  talk about sore losers!!  

he's got one more year, hopefully he cements in some voter identification requirements, then maybe, just maybe Wisconsin will become a "red" state!!

Boy are lucky,
Here in Michigan our Governor claim to fame is he is a Nurd, and mentioned how he got bullied in school, so he convinced the voters he was the man for the job.  I seen it as a pile of crap and didn't vote for him. On many occasions on TV stating he was a nerd, The problem with TV media is it type casts people and give false images of what a nerd is like "The Big Bang Theory" I guess that is what nerds look like. What crap, anyway it got our Governor elected and I feel he is not a nerd he is  a capitalist. We just had our State of the State Address and in my opinion our Governor just sold us out by spread our legs to the world, by inviting all immigrants to move and work Michigan. Now my observation are just my opinion!! When you see him on TV, and he speaks, you can tell in his attitude, is, "I don't take no for an answer and My way or the highway and I feel when he talks to the people of Michigan he talks down to them. For instance he is going to take the cigarette settlement money and give a bunch of it to Detroit.  Far as immigrants I have no issues with them, the problem is they don't weed out the criminals, so it is a package deal.  I think Michigan's unemployment is around 8.5% and spreading our legs for these immigrants is not going to make it better. Also on the News they said they just sold the 125 year old Detroit Boat Club to a Hong Kong investor. So the Cancer begins.

[Rams]

Yea, but on whose backs?

Ohio is pretty much in the same situation..............


The only choice local government had to continue to provide service was to go to the local taxpayers to increase property tax levies and/or local income tax to continue these services that the public wants, or actually demands. And the citizens responded... they voted to raise their local taxes.

The money has to come from somewhere... unfortunately my greedy ass won't work for free... I'm selfish like that ( )

It's utter B.S. if you ask me.

I would imagine that Walker is using close to the same playbook.

Let's hope all Governor's follow that play book.   If a locality wants a special service, then the rest of a state should not have to pay for it.   Doesn't matter if it's trash pick up, police or fire protection.   If the locals don't want a service, then they can vote it down.   Who promised anyone a rose garden?   I'll guarantee it was a Democrat.    Promising a gravy train that someone else has to pay for is right out of the Democrat platform.   Don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing Police, Fire Protection or Teachers bearing the brunt of everything but, those are taxpayer funded positions.   Don't like it, go there.  

Education, Police,Fire & Emergency services are considered "special services"? If you have localities that are well off they can afford these extra taxes but communities that aren't so well off end up getting subpar education,police,etc. We are supposed to provide equal services but it doesn't work that way when governors shift the costs to the municipalities .

Yes, those and lots of other things are "special".   Who says we're supposed to provide equal services?   The Communist Manifesto?    What socialist agenda are we working from.   The previous statements are extreme to some and I realize that but, the facts are clear, no one has a right to something they can't afford.   They may think they have a right but, if you're living off of the generosity of others (whether those others agree with it or not as in taxes) then, you are getting more than you've earned.  Consider this:

Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security will run out of money.
BUT, how come we never hear about WELFARE running out of money?
What's interesting, is the first group "worked for" their money... but the second didn't.

So you don't think all kids should have equal education,all people should have equal police protection?

What I think really doesn't matter now, does it?   The constitution does not guarantee any of the above mentioned items.    That I agree with.   I also agree with personal responsibility, parental responsibility and the right to defend one's own self and property.    Apply that as you wish.
Equal Opportunity is never going to be guaranteed but, there is a balance that should be sought.   That doesn't mean my rights outweigh yours and vise versa.    But, if you can afford something I can't, then go for it.    If you can't, don't expect me, my friends and neighbors to get it for you.

In essence, if you can't afford it personally or as an entity, then cut backs are necessary.   If a local election determines that a township, city or county wants to step in and take over services the state can't afford, by all means, go for it.   

[ptgb]

Pete

Don't lay this all on your Gov.

If I remember correctly, he came in with a plan to reduce waste that would not have been as bad on the employees. That was shot down by your legicritters or in referendum in a big way within 3 months of his election, and at that time he stated that the budget will be brought under control, they wanted to keep spending.

Well, in the real world, the fastest way to cut cost is to cut personnel, If you cant cut anywhere else, guess what goes?

Don't think that it got rid of waste. Senate Bill 5 is what it was and what it did was cut my family's livelihood by about 40%-50%. Unless I was considered waste, it took away my livelihood.  Whether somebody didn't care about me really doesn't matter. But I cared about myself (as everyone should)... again, sorry I won't work for free. I actively worked against Senate Bill 5 and was part of the referendum to strike it down. And, I would do it again in a heartbeat.

That being said, don't get me wrong, I agree with the majority here that it is better to let local people decide what type, and how many services they are willing to pay for. But, let's not make it out that good 'ol Kasich was some kind of budget guru that cut, cut, cut State government waste and corruption. He simply put it on the shoulders of Ohio citizens at the local level and then raised the state budget the last two years. No magic there. No state tax cuts, no cutting on the state level.

p.s. - the 911 lines continue to ring and the students still are showing up for school (with ever increasing state education mandates).

[fudgie]

Hell our city of 35,000 folks has a surplus of $1 billion.

solo1 is right, Ind also has a surplus the last 10 yrs or so I believe.