Washington next?

From Comcast.....



States About to Go Boom
With Wisconsin locked in a union battle, The Daily Beast looks at the states that could blow up next and crunches the numbers to find whether they're really on shaky financial footing—or playing politics.



Looking solely at the states that have proposed or are considering laws to trim union rights, the Daily Beast first accounted for 2009 debt-to-GDP ratios, using Census numbers and data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Then they accounted for the percent of pension and health-care liabilities that are unfunded for each state, based on a study by the Pew Center on the States. Finally, because not all workers would be affected by proposed legislation, they accounted for the percent of people in public-sector unions out of total government workers in each state, with data from Unionstats. The average was taken for each category and each state's data were compared to the average, with equal weighting for each of the three categories.






10. Washington
Union Share of Public Workforce: 61.2%

Debt 2009: $24.6 billion

GDP 2009: $338.3 billion

Debt/GDP Ratio: 7.3%

Unfunded Pension Liabilities: -$179 million (0%)

But just look at how the last round of "Collective Bargaining" was handled.

The Gov negotiated pay raises and such. The unions agreed. The Gov simply canceled them. No need to change the bargaining laws as they apparently don't mean much.

I'm starting to think Hankster was kicked out of a union and is still bitter.

Yeah, CB exists but to what purpose? WA state employees had CB for non-wage/bennie issues. They gave away a bunch of Civil Service protections for CB for wages and bennies. Since we have now seen how well that worked....................

And this was done by the Dems, who are supposed to blindly support their Union Masters.

Hank the Hypocrite - anti-Union but was a Teamster and has no qualms about collecting his retirement earned as a union worker.

Doofus, Unions don't discriminate between private sector and public sector, they represent both.

Like I stated before you are taking union money Spankey. Bad try at spinning taxpayer for union. Also if you were in the US military, like you have claimed before, then you were taking taxpayer's money. What degree did you get in school Hankey? Underwater Basket Weaving or Liberal Arts?

Unions that represent Federal employees do not get to bargain for wages, or benefits so why should state employees?

Federal employees wages and benefits are set by Congress.

From WSJ Op/Ed:

"In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support. "

WSJ Op/Ed

Then of course their is the KK!!!PEACE

I tortured bugs.

That is, if you consider burning with a magnifying glass or a spray can with a lighter "torture".

I'd toss ants and earwigs into spiders' webs, too.



I haven't tortured any people...................yet.

Pussy. Get with the program, life won't last forever.

Fish on...

Todd

There is no correlation between states budget shortfalls and public employee's unions.

Here's proof that the wing-nuts are are mental midgets:

no correlation

Nevertheless, the results above certainly suggest that the animus toward public sector unions is misplaced: There seems to be no strong relationship between the existence or strength of public sector unions and budget shortfalls. Attempts to blame public employee unions – or public employees in general – for states’ fiscal woes are monumentally simplistic and, usually, have more to do with politics than parsimony.

KK everytime you post it removes all dout..

What's your point, Hanky? These governors you speak of aren't trying to break unions. They're actually trying to fix deficits, unlike Walker. He had his budget woes fixed, but he lied to make it seem like it was worse than it actually was so he could fuk over union members.

McMahon, here is some light reading for you. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau letter lays it all out for yah. There is no surplus in WI and before you spout off about the Gov giving his buddies tax breaks, the tax breaks don't go into effect until the next budget cycle, July 2011 to June 2013 so they are not currently part of the calculation.

Leg Fiscal Bureau

Now, not one of you guys who support the public unions has made any kind of case as to why it is good practice for Unions to endorse and support a candidate and then be able to sit down across the table and "negotiate" wages and benefits with the politician that they supported. I have seen a lot of union busting claims but not even FDR or Jimmy Carter, the godfather and 1st lieutenant of progressives, thought that public unions have a place at the table negotiating for wages and benefits.

DB, with all due respect, I'm not suggesting that the governor is giving his buddies tax breaks. What I am suggesting is that the Wisconsin fiscal budget was in fact fine until the governor suggested otherwise.

I can't find anything in your PDF file that suggests that the state of Wisconsin is in any peril. In contrary, the authors of said PDF suggest otherwise.

"Business Investment. The two major categories of business investment took divergent paths in 2010. Investment in business equipment and software (nearly 60% of which relates to
information processing) rebounded sharply from the year before, and was in fact one of the principal areas of strength in the U.S. economy. Measured in current dollars, investment in business equipment and software increased 12.6% in 2010, as strong corporate balance sheets and gradually improving business conditions fueled demand for new equipment. Aided by the depreciation incentives in the Tax Relief Act of 2010, this growth is expected to continue in
2011 and 2012, with annual gains of 15.1% and 9.8%, respectively."

I hate to use business profits as a measure of economic health. Unfortunately much of this article is based upon business health, and not average American economic health. Overall, it shows an increase in GDP and a drop in unemployment through 2013. How is this a problem?

One of the first sections in the report shows a 121.4 general fund gross balance as of 6/30/2011 and a net balance of 56.4 million. These are the figures that are typically quoted by many in saying that there is a government fund surplus. But when one starts reading the entire document there are unpaid amounts that are not part of the gross or net balance and will have to be dealt with, which is where the deficit issues arise. There is an expected minimum amount of 315 million from Medicaid shortfalls, the public defenders office and corrections. There is an additional 58 million owed to Minn. for a state income tax deal, and finally there is about 200 million owed to something called the "injured Patients and Families Compensation fund". So, WI owes a lot more money than what is coming in and there is no surplus.

Does Charlie Sheen post here?

just askin'

Hey Short Pants, it is you who should be a little bit more knowledgeble, The Hatch Act provides the protection from Pols comingt in and hiring all their inbred relatives (ala Chicago/Cook County/Illinois, i.e., Democrats!!!!). The Hatch Act also goes further in that it also precludes Federal Employees from almost all levels of partisan politics. Couple that with the Civil Service Act (originally enacted in 1938), the need for any Unionism/CBU is moot. In 42 years of Federal Civil Service, I did not feel the need for a Union, and to be perfectly frank, the Union could not provide a single argument for me joining. That "Balance" of protection versus the CBU is what ALL Civil Services should be striving to achieve.

Now go pull up your short pants and clean off your MaryJanes