PolitiFact: "There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 8:02 PM GMT
    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

    Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

    Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

    The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

    Here’s the bottom line:

    There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

    We rate Maddow’s take False.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 8:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

    Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

    Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

    The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

    Here’s the bottom line:

    There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

    We rate Maddow’s take False.
    he's a smoothtalker and a slimy liar...

    "Walker won the office on a platform of fiscal conservatism, promising, among other things, to give back part of his own salary, and criticizing the salaries of other county workers as excessive. He said his voluntary give-back gave him the moral authority to make cuts in the county budget. He continued returning $60,000 annually, (slightly less than half of his salary), for several years, but by 2008, he cut his give-back to $10,000 per year. During his seven years in office, he never submitted a budget with a higher property tax levy than the county board had approved, he cut the number of county employees by 20 percent, and reduced the county's debt by ten percent. However, according to The Associated Press, "overall county spending ... increased 35 percent over his tenure"
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Feb 19, 2011 8:27 PM GMT
    he's "screwed the pooch" early in his "carrer" as govenor in WI.

    the best thing this slime ball could do is to resign and quietly slither away into the political sunset.

    the backlash concerning his early in office stupidity-in-action will be H U G E.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    rnch saidhe's "screwed the pooch" early in his "carrer" as govenor in WI.

    the best thing this slime ball could do is to resign and quietly slither away into the political sunset.

    the backlash concerning his early in office stupidity-in-action will be H U G E.


    How do you figure?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Feb 19, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    Why should the governor of Wisconsin resign, because he is taking on these greedy mooches in the public employee unions. The state cannot afford all these outrageous demands from these unionized government workers because the money is just not there period. Why should Wisconsin tax and spend just like the financial basketcases of Illinois, New York, and California and go deeper into debt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2011 10:17 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidWhy should the governor of Wisconsin resign, because he is taking on these greedy mooches in the public employee unions. The state cannot afford all these outrageous demands from these unionized government workers because the money is just not there period. Why should Wisconsin tax and spend just like the financial basketcases of Illinois, New York, and California and go deeper into debt.


    The unions are willing to make concessions on pension, healthcare and pay. In fact, the unions already took a 5% pay cut in their last contract. So much for your "greedy mooches" theory.

    What is it you do again? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Feb 19, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
    It's funny, I have a friend who is a teacher here in TN who surprisingly supports bill in Wisc. Her view was from the fiscal side stating that she would rather opt out of the Union dues and could use that money to put towards her retirement. She has a family of two children but feels that at this moment she gets a great deal on Healthcare but also acknowledged that the 12% being asked for in Wisc is not unreasonable.

    Out of all the people I have talked to in and out of my state, Lib and Conserv, most support the bill and wish the Federal Gov't would work harder at decreasing the deficit.