Community | February 25, 2011 | 78 comments

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

source: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-co...

Image
toyotabedzrock
Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, has written a brilliant piece for tax.com exposing the truth about who really pays for the pension and benefits for public employees in Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans. Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

Via tax.com

How can this be possible?

Simple. The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future.

Many of us are familiar with the concept of deferred compensation from reading about the latest multi-million dollar deal with some professional athlete. As a means of allowing their ball club to have enough money to operate, lowering their own tax obligations and for other benefits, ball players often defer payment of money they are to be paid to a later date. In the meantime, that money is invested for the ball player’s benefit and then paid over at the time and in the manner agreed to in the contract between the parties.

Does anyone believe that, in the case of the ball player, the deferred money belongs to the club owner rather than the ball player? Is the owner simply providing this money to the athlete as some sort of gift? Of course not. The money is salary to be paid to the ball player, deferred for receipt at a later date.

A review of the state’s collective bargaining agreements – many of which are available for review at the Wisconsin Office of State Employees web site - bears out that it is no different for state employees. The numbers are just lower.

Check out section 13 of the Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors collective bargaining agreement – “For the duration of this Agreement, the Employer will contribute on behalf of the employee five percent (5%) of the employee’s earnings paid by the State. ”

Johnston goes on to point out that Governor Walker has gotten away with this false narrative because journalists have failed to look closely at how employee pension plans work and have simply accepted the Governor’s word for it. Because of this, those who wish the unions ill have been able to seize on that narrative to score points by running ads and spreading the word that state employees pay next to nothing for their pensions and that it is all a big taxpayer give-away.

If it is true that pension and benefit money is money that already belongs to state workers, you might ask why state employees would not just take the cash as direct compensation and do their own investing for their retirement through their own individual retirement plans.

Again, simple.

Mr. Johnston continues-

Expecting individuals to be experts at investing their retirement money in defined contribution plans — instead of pooling the money so professional investors can manage the money as is done in defined benefit plans — is not sound economics. The concept, at its most basic, is buying wholesale instead of retail. Wholesale is cheaper for the buyers. That is, it saves taxpayers money. The Wisconsin State Investment Board manages about $74.5 billion for an all-in cost of $224 million. That is a cost of about 30-cents per $100, which is good but not great. However it is far less than many defined contribution plans, where costs are often $1 or more per $100.”

If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue. They are not, in fact, asking state employees to make a larger contribution to their pension and benefits programs as that would not be possible- the employees are already paying 100% of the contributions.

What they are actually asking is that the employees take a pay cut.

That may or may not be an appropriate request depending on your point of view – but the argument that the taxpayers are providing state workers with some gift is as false as the argument that state workers are paid better than employees with comparable education and skills in private industry.

Maybe state workers need to take pay cut along with so many of their fellow Americans. But let’s, at the least, recognize this sacrifice for what it is rather than pretending they’ve been getting away with some sweet deal that now must be brought to an end.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Current Tonight,   US Politics,   10 more
  2. tags:
    Republican,  GOP,  Lies,  Wisconsin,  3 more
  3.     
    |

78 comments // The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

  • JStation
    • +1
      JStation  

    • Just an idea: Maybe the government should chop down some of those tax cuts to large corporations...? I can't imagine that a budget issue can be fixed when the greatest cause of tax loss is being overlooked. Tell them to reassess exemptions at the state level, or fire them and find people who will.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • daveinLA
    • -8
      daveinLA  
    • Image

    • Maybe the REAL reason union membership is down drastically is because they are out-dated and people don't like the corruption and their strong-arm tactics.

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
  • totally_dilapidated
    • +5
      totally_dilapidated  
    • daveinLA:

      .
      excellent dave in LA
      you hit the nail on the head with your perfect qualification: MAYBE

      maybe you did not see this:

      Rallies in 50 states to support Wis. protesters
      (CBS News)
      CHICAGO - Protests are scheduled around the country today as the
      group moveon.org organizes noontime rallies in all 50 state capitals
      as a sign of solidarity for the workers of Wisconsin.

      maybe you don't understand what is taking place
      maybe you don't see the game plan by the republican/business party
      maybe you're a shill for business
      maybe you are paid to post anti-union messages
      maybe you have a crappy life and like to sling crap for pleasure
      just maybe...
      .
      .

      *i want to be like dave. daveinLA is my teacher. i follow dave*

    • 1 year ago
  • beachbound
  • beachbound
  • chew_chew
    • +5
      chew_chew  

    • In a politician's tool belt, lies are a more often used tool than a hammer in a carpenter's tool belt. The difference is, the carpenter has the correct tool for the job.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
  • kvb1
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • 0
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • kvb1:

      It's not limited to Republicans, and its not just limited to money, government spending and taxes..

      ALL politicians lie as it suits them best.

      The smarter and less arrogant politicians take a good deal of care to ensure that it would be very difficult to find out they are lying.

      But they all lie, and they lie about everything.

    • 1 year ago
  • inesison
    • +3
      inesison  

    • If the shoe was on the other foot (democrat) the republicans would be calling for his head. Why isn't there more outrage? Is it possible to impeach a governer? Let's do it

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • SFirman
  • Schnookums
    • -1
      Schnookums  

    • Deferred compensation or not, all compensation to public employees comes from the taxpayer. Arguments like this really diminish the credibility of those offering it, and those defending it. It can be argued (rightfully) that they earned this money, but not that it didn't originate from taxpayers.

      Secondly, defined benefit plans need to reflect reality. Their 'estimates' for the return rates are preposterous, and it forces the managers of this money to take enormous risks to attempt to match their estimates. I don't think it is right to force any retirement plan into gambling on Wall Street just to meet their return expectations......public employees included. Many of the holes in pension plans across the country can be attributed to stupid investments made over the last 10 years trying to meet return targets, and that's just dumb.

      I buy the argument that expecting individuals to be experts in investing is moving in the wrong direction, but lying to people about what they can expect a professionally managed fund to do is not any better.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
    • +6
      toyotabedzrock  
    • Schnookums:

      When the contract is made they take lower pay to have the pension. The way it is framed is that it is a extra added on.

      Most teachers have 4-6 year degrees they must be treated and paid as such.

    • 1 year ago
  • Schnookums
    • -3
      Schnookums  
    • toyotabedzrock:

      I completely agree they should be paid commiserate to their educations, but the contract negotiates for the contribution. Then the funds themselves provide 'projections' as to how the fund will perform to give guidance as to whether the contributions, both from the employer and from the worker, are adequate for the level of payouts that have been promised. Trouble develops when those 'projections' have been wrong for a decade and nobody's doing anything about it. But first, we have to honestly recognize the problem.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gillian_Marktoo
    • +6
      Gillian_Marktoo  
    • Schnookums:

      by extension the same argument could be made about Boeing employee contributions. That company exists by sales to a) the airline industry - which is almost completely propped up by the American taxpayer, and b) US gov't purchases which the US taxpayers pay for. With that taken into account - a major chunk of the money going into their pensions came from the US taxpayer. Maybe we should go after their pensions next?

    • 1 year ago
  • Gillian_Marktoo
    • +6
      Gillian_Marktoo  
    • Schnookums:

      It's not the teachers fault, nor the union's fault that projections are set and not met. If the states fail to adequately negotiate what they can afford - it's not the union or union members faults. The argument is framed to ignore the most basic understanding of what compensation is, and the major news networks for some strange reason fail to explain it every time they have a chance to inform people.

    • 1 year ago
  • Schnookums
    • -4
      Schnookums  
    • Gillian_Marktoo:

      Sure, it isn't the union's fault. It isn't the taxpayer's fault. It isn't the teacher's fault. It isn't government's fault. It is the investment brokers that compete for pension money by telling them all what they want to hear......and that is that they can beat expectations by getting above average returns. Typically it is the investment house that says they can get the highest return that earns the opportunity to manage the pension funds. Problem is, everybody is just guessing (I prefer to call it lying).

      Now, placing fault where it should be......who's going to fix it?

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
  • katyids
  • SFirman
  • 3reddogs
  • philology
    • +10
      philology  

    • This is something that everyone should intuitively know. It's common knowledge that public sector workers take lower pay for stable employment and better benefits. I mean, everyone knows this. But the Republicans get a talking point in their heads, and WHOOM! Truth? That's just collateral damage....

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • philology
  • samthesixth
    • -5
      samthesixth  
    • philology:

      I meant to say "public unionized workers...."

      I live in the DC area and we hear this all the time on local radio. Here is a link to an article:

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

      Bureau of labor Statistics:
      http://www.bls.gov/eci/

      I don't know if unionized workers in an individualized field make more than their private sector counterparts but I do know that the federal government has to use unionized wage scales for certain jobs and that those jobs cost more than if they paid non-union scale. I do not know but I assume most of that cost difference is in the form of pay and benes. So in that sense private union workers make more than non-unionized private sector workers. If people in a private sector union aren't making more than their non-unionized private sector counterparts, what good is their union?

    • 1 year ago
  • Gillian_Marktoo
  • samthesixth
  • philology
    • +6
      philology  
    • Image
    • samthesixth:

      The red indicates public sector workers, and the blue indicates private sector workers.

      Well, the USA Today article was a horrible analysis using a methodology discredited in 1988; it simply averaged private sector wages and then averaged public sector wages and then compared them, as if education and experience didn't matter. The Cato Institute did the research for this piece. Golly, I wonder why they'd use an apples to oranges comparison like that...it's almost as if they have an agenda....

      No, if you really want to know how Federal employees make in comparison to similar employees in the private sector, the only way you can do this is employee attributes. You can't compare occupations because there are no public sector jobs that compare directly to private sector jobs. By virtue of being a public job, the duties and responsibilities of Federal employment are radically different from what they would be in a private firm. Better, less biased sources on the disparity between public and private employees can be found:

      http://www.opm.gov/oca/fsc/Recommendation09.pdf

      http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf

      http://www.businessinsider.com/wisconsin-public-sector-wages-2011-2

    • 1 year ago
  • Gillian_Marktoo
    • +3
      Gillian_Marktoo  
    • samthesixth:

      Well according to that article, that is true on a federal level. But at a state and local level that is not the case. If this conversation is about a state level compensation - then the math follows the common perception of lower salary/higher benefits. These comparisons also don't take into account the multiple possible carrier choices one can make with a certain degree. A math major could teach and make $35k a year + benifits - or take an actuary exam - no degree or credentialing for 1 year after the degree and make $110k starting out. So sure, maybe a teacher makes more in the public sector than in the same profession in the private sector. How are we as a nation going to really get people to want to teach when they don't have to put themselves into harms way to make less money? Take away compensation?

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • Gillian_Marktoo:

      I get what you are saying but maybe a blue collar comparison will do. Who makes more the unionized cashier at Safeway or the non-unionized cashier at King Soopers?

      As far as teacher compensation I agree with Lee Iacocca who said teachers should be the highest paid among us. How we get there in the current bad economic climate will take some doing.

      Where I live, public workers pension funds have been horribly mismanaged (bad investments) and the state anticipates a shortfall when the "check comes due." The state has few options, raise taxes, reduce benefits, and/or borrow. The problem is no side is willing to give. The corporate taxpayers say our taxes are some of the highest in the nation. Our individual taxpayers say we are paying enough already and it's not our fault a state employee made bad investment choices. Those promised the pension or retirement earned the benefits and don't see a reason to take a cut. Banks don't want to lend. SO how does the problem get resolved? It doesn't unitl someone is willing to go against their self interest and do one of the above things. The problem is that we are all thinking someone else should be altruistic first.

    • 1 year ago
  • philology
    • +5
      philology  
    • samthesixth:

      As a former unionized cashier at Safeway (10 LONG years), I can tell you that every non-unionized comparable workplace, excluding WalMart (basically Costco and Winco) paid higher salaries than did Safeway. They did this because, 1) they didn't want their employees to organize, and 2) their benefits sucked. The UFCW took consistent wage freezes over continuing benefits for the entire time I worked at Safeway. With skyrocketing health insurance premiums, most of the unionized workforce hasn't gotten a decent raise in 30 years. Hence the disappearing middle class.

      Working in a grocery store used to be a solid middle class job, but now it pays a top wage of around 30k/year. That's not good money by any stretch of the imagination.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • philology:

      Lower wages, better benefits. If I understand right, your total compensation package was more.

      I shop at Safeway even though the prices are higher. I think that within the last year they have gotten a raise, but I know the grocery business has extremely low margins (except whole foods but they are not unionized).

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
    • -1
      samthesixth  
    • toyotabedzrock:

      I read the link you provided and I think the headline of the article exaggerates what Krugman is saying. In the opening paragraph he talks about the disparity in pay in CA and GA. With CA being the largest state, that sheds enormous light on the subject. Thank you.

    • 1 year ago
  • philology
    • +1
      philology  
    • samthesixth:

      You might want to try using numbers when you make unsupported statements like, "If I understand right, your total compensation package was more." How much more? How did you get that understanding? Which was actually worth more? How much of a raise did the UFCW Local in your area negotiate? Or did you just make it up because you can't admit that you don't really know what you're talking about? Seriously, your post pretty much said nothing but that you don't like unions and you'll say anything to discredit organized labor. That's just sad.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • philology:

      We have a misunderstanding. I support private unions and go out of my way to shop in places that employ private unions. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous comment. I meant no disrespect nor intended no harm.

      I thought what you were saying is that you all were paid abut the same but that you got benefits and they didn't. Therefore the total compensation package was higher. In the Northern VA area, Safeway employees make slightly more per hour but have better working conditions and benefits than their counterparts (non-union) at the competitor, Giant food. Safeway's prices are at least 10% higher than Giant's. But I shop at Safeway as they are unionized.

    • 1 year ago
  • philology
    • +1
      philology  
    • samthesixth:

      Ah. I apologize. No, union employees in the grocery industry, at least where I worked, did not make more than non-union employees. In fact, to make journeyman at Safeway, it would take 6 years of 40-hour weeks. Since most employees were lucky if they could get 20 hours a week, it would take 12 years to make journeyman. And the benefits were being cut every new contract, so the difference between union and non-union shops was negligible.

      Total compensation for employees at Costco and Winco was higher than at Safeway when I worked there. Every time a new Costco opened up, you'd see tons of the talent we'd built up at Safeway slip away for better wages.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • samthesixth
  • jim_b
    • +9
      jim_b  

    • The terrible problem in this country right now is that this can be shouted from the roof tops and the megaphone blast of the corporate MSM will drown out our voice like it was a fart in a hurricane. At the end of the day, most people still trust NBC/CBS/ABC etc and have little time for rooting out the truth. Couple that with the peer pressure of ignorant rednecks and the constant barrage of outrageous and incendiary babble from the pond scum of the world like Brietbart, Limbaugh, Palin and Beck ... leaves little hope for any improvement in the future.

    • 1 year ago
  • MikeMaddigan
    • +9
      MikeMaddigan  
    • jim_b:

      Why isn't President Obama using the power of the bully pulpit to set the record straight? Every time he fails to combat right wing propaganda he is furthering their agenda. He fails hugely in this regard. This is a man who was elected because of his powers of persuasion and passion for rallying people to his cause. Now I wonder what his cause is anymore. What was his reasoning for enacting a unilateral wage freeze on federal employees? All that did was allow the American public to accept the blame for an economic crisis caused by Wall Street. When will the President ask Wall Street to sacrifice something for the economic recovery? He is always advancing their arguement that we need to cut wages and services to balance the budget. God forbid you raise taxes on those who benefit the most in this failed economy. You think Obama agrees there is a difference between teacher pay cuts and unearned taxpayer funded benefits?

    • 1 year ago
  • jim_b
    • +1
      jim_b  
    • MikeMaddigan:

      Great questions Mike and I don't speak with or for the president but since we are in opinion world, I will give it a shot. I will open by saying that I do believe that President Obama is a centrist and I voted for him knowing that. I believe that compromise is giving up things you want for things you want more. I also believe the President does cast his influence quietly and often behind the scenes, preferring some positive progress over scoring cheap points. I also admit I may be wrong but the reality of his results are quite remarkable for a man that was facing his Waterloo moment only two years ago.

      Why isn't President Obama using the power of the bully pulpit to set the record straight?
      I think he does when he feels it will be effective. Obama usually lets things play out before he weighs in. Every time he does not, he ends up with his foot in his mouth (beer summit, Van Jones etc)

      Now I wonder what his cause is anymore.
      I consider that a healthy concern. I have it too but I am willing to see how it plays out before passing judgment.

      What was his reasoning for enacting a unilateral wage freeze on federal employees?
      An attempt to curb spending and appease the center ... and the right. I think he truly believes in that "President of all the people" stuff and accepts that the American public voted in a republican house and that they should be heard. I agree that we need to curb federal spending, and I agree we need to do it in baby steps with federal employees setting the example.

      All that did was allow the American public to accept the blame for an economic crisis caused by Wall Street.
      The American public must carry a share of the blame, from those who bought houses we could not afford to those who maxed out credit cards without considering the consequences to those who elected George Bush ... twice and allowed him to bury us in debt, war and international shame.

      When will the President ask Wall Street to sacrifice something for the economic recovery?
      My guess will be he is already doing that, one indictment at a time. Meanwhile, he is doing it without shaking a fragile market during a sensitive period.

      God forbid you raise taxes on those who benefit the most in this failed economy.
      He would have raised those taxes had the American people (thanks to astroturf and the five supremes) not chosen to elect a republican house and empowered the wealthy to block what he really wanted to do. He had a choice between losing our tax cuts or accept the republican compromise with wealthy tax breaks. Personally, I am happy he chose the lesser of two evils.

      You think Obama agrees there is a difference between teacher pay cuts and unearned taxpayer funded benefits?
      I think President Obama understands nuances of governance and finance that I don't along with having advisers who are experts in their respective fields. I also think he has and will make some mistakes. Nobody bats 1000. In conclusion however, I believe his heart is good, his intentions honorable the the overall result of his presidency will prove to be a positive for our country.

      That's the best I can do Mike.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • hindotka
  • xhuffpo
    • +7
      xhuffpo  
    • hindotka:

      The second word in your diatribe is negotiated. That means it was arrived at by bargaining, if the one side has poor negotiators the other side gets the better deal. Maybe better negotiators are called for. But no, the republicans have a better idea just take the right to negotiate away.
      That is the new American way. Long live the oligarchy

    • 1 year ago
  • jim_b
    • +11
      jim_b  
    • hindotka:

      Clearly you represent Walker's cabal and I suspect you are a minimum wage talking point boy for someone like Dick Armey or the Heritage Foundation, most likely the latter since you seem adept at cutting and pasting their propaganda. Consider yourself exposed and ignored.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • PoliticalAmazon
  • JanforGore
    • +12
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25krugman.html

      This is a good opinion piece by Paul Krugman.

      Excerpt:

      "Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

      What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.

      For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

      And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

      What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

      If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker’s anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?

      The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage — aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum — has slowed the bum’s rush. If Mr. Walker’s plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.

      But don’t expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets."

    • 1 year ago
  • Dusty_King
    • +5
      Dusty_King  
    • JanforGore:

      Paul Krugman always sees through the B.S. and goes right for the throat. Sadly few listen to him and have picked him for advisory boards or teaching positions. He has always been ahead of economic trends also. Never listen to Wall St. or the White House - Krugman is the man.

    • 1 year ago
  • jim_b
  • MikeMaddigan
  • kennymotown
  • hindotka
  • jim_b
    • +3
      jim_b  
    • hindotka:

      And the issue is about the right to organize and bargain collectively. Are you choosing to add to the obfuscation instead of having a little intellectual honesty or am I possibly misunderstanding the intent of your post?

      It seems those who have no position always resort to misdirection combined with untruths. For example, your post suggests that MN public radio reports the figure of 99% by cleverly attaching it to the statement regarding 5.8% (and without showing that as an increase or a hint of a suggestion that this nearly doubling the cost of something that was accepted in good faith by both parties in lieu of salary.

      Heritage foundation my ass.

    • 1 year ago
  • MikeMaddigan
    • +6
      MikeMaddigan  
    • jim_b:

      Informed citizens know all about the Heritage Foundation. If you want to know what is really behind each side's position, ask yourself...who benefits from Governor Walker's policies if he wins? Who benefits if his policies against the public employees are defeated? That's all I need to know. In any political debate you need to ask yourself, who is behind this and why? Who benefits and who loses? Always look for attempts by one side or the other to "scapegoat" a particular group to advance the agenda. Americans can easily be stampeded into going against their own self-interest, and lashing out at people of their own economic station in support of the monied elites, whenever scapegoating is effectively implemented.

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • jim_b
  • Dusty_King
    • +2
      Dusty_King  
    • hindotka:

      So he has a deficit of $137 million AFTER he gave tax breaks to his pimps like the KOCK Bros. and their friends. Before he was sworn in that little $100 million deficit DID NOT EXIST. Like you say "set the record straight".

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
    • +8
      Milieu  

    • Was linked to an earlier post. Glad somebody was able to find it, (I'd lost which one) and bring this out for everyone to see.

      Walker lies like a road-kill skunk.

      But, somehow, you'd think the Media would notice the smell.

      But then they've had their noses up where the sun don't shine of Politicians for so long, the stench is part of their world.[ Corporate bosses killing Research staffs have made them particularly susceptible to dead skunks.]

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • hindotka
  • kennymotown
  • Leen61
    • +9
      Leen61  

    • Once again the lazy, corporate funded media fails to get the story right. Thanks toyotabedzrock for putting this out there! I like your interest in WI.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • twinite
  • kennymotown
  • hindotka
  • kennymotown
  • philology
  • Dusty_King
    • +1
      Dusty_King  
    • hindotka:

      University of Chicago??? Whatever... Chicago has such a ignored little sibling syndrome, they are always trying to prove themselves to the world that they are world class. They have Loyola, cite them. Blah, blah, blah hindo....The reality of the situation is deferred payment, ala pensions, are not a burden on the taxpayers. Talk to a city or state worker and educate yourself.

    • 1 year ago
  • inesison
    • 0
      inesison  
    • Dusty_King:

      why am i getting emails of your response to hindotka? I'm new on this site, but the only post i wrote was about glenn beck yet i got 3 different responses from people talking about education. Just for the record - i'm for the teachets AND unions. Just not sure why i'm getting responses on matters i haven't talked about .

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
more from Community:
from the community

top videos