According to David Cay Johnston, the general public has been done a great disservice in terms of the the reporting of FACTS regarding the situation in Wisconsin.After reading his article, it's clear to me that language of douche (spoken frequently in comments here on the subject of Wisconsin) has hijacked this issue and, with the help of Mr. Johnston, needs a little translating.
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
Kindly take a moment and ask the nearest friend to clean up your exploded head.
Done? Now let's continue.
How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.
So, they take less money in order to get the better benefits. Since I don't speak douche, this seems reasonable to me. But why are they all pissed off about Governor Walker's plan then?
State workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.
Perhaps if Governor Walker hadn't cut taxes or reduced audits the budget might be in a better place right now. The article goes on to detail exactly how every reporter (and some of my commenters) are factually wrong when they say, "the state workers are being asked to contribute more." Johnston makes a great argument and is quite detailed in the rest of the piece as to why this is the case. The state is paying their pensions. THE WORKERS ARE!!
And that brings us to the collective bargaining part of the equation. Why is this so important?
The fact is that all of the money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the Wisconsin government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact.
Part of their fee for their service is the collective bargaining for all the benefits. Taking this away diminishes their value of their service...which is EXACTLY the point. The message is clear once you see it. The people that stand against the state workers don't value public employees. It's just that simple.
Witness a fine and shining example of the pathological war on all the things public sector by a group of pissed off and frightened bullies blaming the completely wrong people. It's like I said yesterday...misery loves company. And if you aren't miserable, there's a whole bunch of people that want you right down in the sewage with them.
10 comments:
The spin on this issue amazes me.
Juan Williams and Shepard Smith on FOX decided it was all about campaign finance.
I'm sorry, but it's all about freedom and liberty.
Do you think we'd be in this mess if every state was a "right to work state"? I know I'd like the option of joining the union. I hate the fact that I HAVE to be a member. I hate the fact that my dues go to fund the elections of candidates I fight hard against.
"it's clear to me that language of douche (spoken frequently in comments here on the subject of Wisconsin)"
Which of your faithful readers is the douche?
>The people that stand against the state workers don't value public employees. It's just that simple.
Hmm.. Or, maybe, the people that stand against state workers don't value public employees as much as public employees value themselves. I'm not going to claim to know the ins and outs of Wisconsin's public sector union compensation, but since Wisconsin taxpayers pay the bills, maybe.. Wisconsin taxpayers should be the best judge of whether the unions in Wisconsin are getting a fair shake. Which they are doing, through their elected representatives. Or do elections not have consequences in this case, when you don't like the outcome?
I will agree with you there which is why I put up the post about only having themselves to blame. Perhaps if people actually had voted in Wisconsin (turn out was less than half) we wouldn't be here right now. This is on all the lazy Democrats who didn't vote.
I can't remember if I mentioned this but my mom is a public sector employee (elementary school principal) and has been for 30 years in WI. I'm still not the best judge (she would be though as well as John Waxey) on unions there but I do have a personal stake in all of this and know how hard she has worked in her life
People that don't vote have no right to bitch. Didn't you say that before, Mark? It's true for Wisconsin as well.
>(she would be though as well as John Waxey)
She and John might represent one viewpoint, the pro union one that is. There seems to be other viewpoints in Wisconsin though, specifically those of people who do not belong to unions and yet pay the taxes that public sector unions rely on. I think it's fair to say that regardless of which polls you prefer, the pro union stance is not a slam dunk with Wisconsin's voters.
I agree that if you don't vote you shouldn't bitch, but I'm not seeing how increased voter turnout would necessarily benefit the public sector unions (Democrats). Unless you just mean, "Well, if more D's had showed up, the D's would have done better." Well, yeah. Same is true with R's. Or I's, or L's. Doesn't mean much.
I should clarify this statement:
>the pro union stance is not a slam dunk with Wisconsin's voters.
The reverse doesn't seem obviously true either - that the anti union stance doesn't really seem like a slam dunk either.
Not being an expert on Wisconsin law, far be it for me to speculate on how state employee are compensated by the tax payers, but at the risk of being one of those so-called bullies, perhaps we should just ‘go to the tape,’ as they say.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0040.pdf
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Informationalpapers/84_Wisconsin%20Retirement%20System.pdf
Though what I’m finding may simply be right-wing propaganda (and I’ve not read through the entirety of these links yet), from my brief research it sounds like the Wisconsin Retirement System and deferred compensation are two completely separate things. Employees are participants in the Wisconsin Retirement System, which uses taxpayer money to fund both the state and employee contributions to their pensions. But, on top of that, if they choose, state employees can participate in the deferred-comp plan, where they decide how much of their money to set aside, pre-tax, and a portion is matched by the state. That is in addition to their traditional pension contribution. This is the portion to which Mr. Johnston seems to be referring. A bit deceptive, no?
So just out of curiosity, is David Cay Johnston a CPA? Any kind of certified tax professional?
No, he isn't, but what he said fits your cognitive bias to a "t", so you slurp it up without the slightest hesitation.
Par for the course.
Out here in California even the staunchest liberals are choking on how much it costs to support the public payroll - you see, it costs money they can't spend on other things they value.
Stripping away the douche???
Does that mean you're going to be closing the blog?
Post a Comment