"Somehow I don't think you were screaming for...Obama after his community organized ACORN group broke the law for various things."

Nothing like starting off being wrong. ACORN turned in the people who submitted fraudulent signatures. By your standards Gingrich should be swinging in Virginia for the fraudulent signatures his hired circulator turned in.

How long are you going to beat the ACORN dead horse. Now let's be honest for a moment will ya? The right had ACORN in its sights because it was helping out poor people, and from what I understand doing a damned good job of it.

It's actually by Jason's standards that Newt would be swinging. He's the one who's claiming guilt by association...

Cow, I found a PolitiFact report about the Medicaid funding. Apparently total funding was up but there were also cuts. To continue Medicaid as it was required a $1.8 - $2billion increase but only $1.2b was budgeted. Scott Walker then has to find another $400+million over the next two years to fully fund WI Medicaid without change. (There is much more information in the article, apologies if I have left out salient data.) Therefore Politifact rates his claim as "Half True."
Link: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jun/24/scott-walker/governor-scott-walker-says-critics-are-wrong-he-cu/

Concerning cuts to education, here is a link to a WI Dept. of Public Instruction report from November 2011 that sheds light on the cuts to public education. Page 2 specifically indicates that the 2011-13 budget cut general school aids by $749m over 2 years, and also reduces per-student funding by 5.5% in FY12, "which translates to $1.6 billion in lost revenue authority from prior statute for the state’s 424 school districts.." Link: http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpinr2011_127.pdf

I am trying to relocate an article I linked a week or two ago that placed total education cuts, including the UW system at $1.8 billion.

As usual, politicians parce the information to suit their own purpose. I think the DPI report may be believed? Others may have a differing opinion.

I'm doing nothing worse than what Jason has made a habit of doing. The $1.8 billion shortfall was due to an end to federal stimulus funds. Do you really think it is fair to criticize Walker for coming up $500 million short in replacing those funds from state revenues?

Yes, the $800 million cut I stated would translate to $1.6 billion over two years. It still doesn't match the number Jason stated, and you haven't made any clarifications on his other claims about the 'greedy, wealthy big business owners' pocketing that cash...

Cow, Jason does use a $1.2billion figure for K-12 education cuts, which is lower than the amount cited in the DPI report if you agree that's an unbiased source. I have also seen that $1.2 billion figure and assume that it is a segment of the overall cut.

I cannot speak to Jason's assertions about the "greedy big business owners." I can only point out that 16 years of data (Reagan/GW Bush) show that corporate tax cuts do not trickle down the way we all wish they would, in the creation of jobs. That's why I believe that Walker's 2011-13 round of corporate tax cuts (approx. $117 million) will not be effective in creating jobs.

The second $800 million comes from the DPI counting the loss of revenue they could have realized from local tax revenues.

Part of Walker's tax cuts ($335 million over 10 years) is going to be given to businesses that hire new full-time employees. If they don't hire new employees, they aren't going to get the tax cut. This directly contradicts Jason's claim that they are getting the tax cuts without creating jobs.

So based on what you have written, the actual cuts to education will amount to $1.6 billion, which is very discouraging. I know Scott Walker tends to take a literal view of these things, but I think you'll agree that the one action is directly responsible for the other (cascade effect). Walker did something similar to Milwaukee county arts funding as CE, cutting the program below the amount needed for state fund-matching, which effectively increased the amount of the program cut.

What you write about the corporate tax cuts is not what I read/understood and I have to look further into this. The public employee financial concessions fund the corporate tax cuts over the next two years, so there was no deficit relief involved. If as you say the corporate tax cuts are conditional, should the the public workers have been asked to make financial concessions in FY11 or should Walker have waited until the new jobs are created, especially since they had already come off a round of furloughs in FY10, I believe. An acquaintance who is a public employee just had $9,000 shaved off their salary because of this. That's a lot of money.

What I wrote about the tax cuts came directly from Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/06/one-wisconsin-now/group-says-gov-scott-walkers-budget-has-tax-breaks/

"Tax deduction: For hiring new full-time employees. Ross argued that regardless of the size of a company, the money from the tax deduction "is not going to average individual taxpayers." The new-hire deduction is the third-largest tax break, with an estimated loss in revenue of $335 million over 10 years."

Doyle's cuts to education were far worse than Walker's. Walker did what long needed to be done, and addressed the stranglehold that the public unions had on many localities. We found that WEA Trust was overcharging many communities for their health benefit coverage. Now municipalities have the ability to shop around for the best providers.

Yes, that $9,000 is a lot of money, but if that figure represents 8% of their salary, they are well above average in compensation. Don't you agree with making 'the rich' pay their fair share?

Lets also take a look at the math--the Walker tax cuts amount to $2.3 billion over the next 10 years. Doesn't that come out to be an average $230 million per year? It's hardly a matter of stealing $1.2 billion from the kids and giving it to the 'greedy, wealthy big business owners'. The math just doesn't add up to support the claim that Jason has made.

I don't think he is overpaid--he has to drive all over the state as part of his job and has a very responsible job in charge of serving multiple counties in his department. And compared to a Wall Street CEO he makes peanuts.

Well it still seems that the tax cuts are a big unknown. I still don't see how Wisconsin can compete with Mexico or Manila in terms of wages or health insurance expenses. If there are no takers, at least the public worker's concessions might actually go toward budget relief.

@Bren -

So, let me get this straight. For months now, you've been thumping on Patch about how Walker was giving the state away to the Koch Bros and his corporate crony pals while claiming to be well informed and independently researched on the matter.

However, when it comes to the $2.3B corporate tax credit over 10 years that make up the crux of your argument against Walker's budget, you now claim that such cuts are "not what I read/understood and I have to look further into this matter." In fact, where you ask "[i]f as you say the corporate tax cuts are conditional, …," you admit to not even realizing that in order to qualify for such credits, a corporation must hire a certain amount of long term employees.

So all that hot air from you before about claiming to know how Walker was giving the state away to his corporate masters was all just a mega load of crap and mere perpetuation of the lefty talking points if you didn't even realize how the corporate tax credit worked until now.

I guess that the lefty liberal blogs that you get your 'facts' from never took the time to explain how the corporate tax credits work, did they Bren? It's not a free handout for doing nothing, as you seem to have thought it was, but rather a program to entice and encourage businesses to give long term jobs to people. In fact, if the businesses later fire the people or layoff more people than they hire in claiming the credit, they have to return their tax savings under the credit to the state in their next fiscal year.

So much for your credibility, eh Bren?

@J.B. Schmidt -- No one, Republican or Democrat -- favors abortion. What we favor is keeping the government out of our private medical and moral decisions.

Why is it that some conservatives favor the government being intrusive in the area of sexual morality and nothing else?

Since when is abortion an issue of sexual morality? It is an issue concerning the life of the unborn child.

@Cow Dung -- It's an issue of sexual morality only to the extent that one often conceives an unwanted pregnancy through unsanctioned sexual activity. The attitude seems to be, "Honey, you played, now you should pay."

The other side of it is the medical side -- a very high risk pregnancy or a fetus with severe abnormalities.

In both cases, the people involved are faced with a moral decision. Neither science nor religion can agree on when 'human' life begins. Major religions differ on this issue. And this is why the government should stay out of it.

Then if one were truly enforcing sexual morality, they would be working to outlaw 'unsanctioned' sex instead of abortion, wouldn't they?

It's pretty obvious from the way that expectant mothers monitor their diet and avoid smoking, drinking and other things that can harm their developing baby that life begins months before a baby is born. Why should the government stay out of it? Aren't they supposed to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

I'd have no issue with abortion if it was actually done as a medical procedure that were only used to treat those with high risk pregnancies or fetal abnormalies. Unfortunately, those cases make up a very tiny number of abortions performed in the US.

@Cow Dung -- Give the conservative element enough time and they will work to reinstate the laws against unsanctioned sexual intercourse. You probably aren't old enough to remember when adultery and fornication were against the law in Wisconsin, but I am. I remember when unmarried people couldn't purchase contraceptives.

I hear the Scott Walker favors a Mississippi type Human life Amendment that would outlaw every form of hormonal contraception and IUDs. I'm past the point in my marriage of worrying about that, but I wonder if the rest of you are willing to go back barrier methods.

There you go with the 'doom and gloom' predictions of what the 'conservative element' is headed for...

Yes, Bren, the Lord expects us to help the poor. When He said to visit the sick, feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned...He meant US, not the government. I haven't a problem with programs in the government that help those that need it, but it's getting to be a very expensive and a very complex beaurocracy to handle it. When St Bens downtown feeds the homeless, they do so economically. If the government was involved, they'd have to hire untold hundreds of people to manage it.

Yeah, ok, so if you believe abortion is murder, and jesus said not to murder, he didn't tell the government not to murder...he told you. So, ergo, we should make abortion legal? Just checking on how freedom, religion, and the such should collide and combine.

J.B., I completely agree with the "teach people how to fish" scenario. But I do believe that there should be systems in place to help those in need, in those times of circumstance beyond one's control (layoffs, skin color, disabilities, etc.). I know there are complaints about more people being on food stamps right now but that's also because we lost 8 million jobs in the recession. What would those people do without that aid? And people may say what they wish, I personally know that racism continues to flourish in our community, keeping many people from earning a wage. We have deadbeat spouses who rack up tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid child support, and single parents who cannot make up for the loss in income. Then we have the under-employed, who work multiple part-time jobs and have no health insurance, which is where BadgerCare comes in.

Until we figure out how to make a society and economy that allows everyone an equal opportunity, these issues will continue. In the meantime, should we put people into food insecurity and even risk of starvation in the greatest country in the world? Because that's what it would mean if aid programs go away. Non-profit agencies alone cannot meet the need. Letting people suffer is not my America and I'm sure it's not yours, either.

@J.B. Schmidt -- S.I. Hayakawa had an allegory about that: A Conservative and Liberal are walking along the beach and spy a man struggling in the water fifty feet out. "Help me!" the man pleads.

The Conservative replies, "Swim to shore, it will build your character!"

The Liberal throws him a lifeline that lands one hundred feet out (fifty feet past his reach) and walks on congratulating himself.

We have to find that fifty foot lifeline.

You know JB, I was homeless, addicted to drugs and not being a productive member of society. I went to a Christian based drug rehab center. After getting myself straightened out, I stayed at the center as staff helping others. The point was that they, in addition to getting you clean, taught you how to work, support yourself, gave you work chores to do in the couple of businesses they had like a thrift store and a gas station and driving the center truck. I remember the Director of the center turning down an opportunity to get a grant from the state of California to infuse money into the program. He would rather be a bit short on funds and running it right than having to follow rules that came with the money. Anyway, when I left after eight years of staff work, I was well equipped to find my way in the world and work and stay clean. I've been needy, now I am a conservative!

Jesus would not be happy with your name calling...

CD: You're right. I asked Him and He said, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
He also said, Give a hungry man a fish and you feed him for one day, he will return hungry and shameful tomorrow. But teach him to fish and he will eat for life, and feel a whole helluva lot better about himself. :-p

LIKE

@Craig -- want to quote me the verse from the New Testament where Jesus says that second thing?

The one that sticks with me is the one about doing it unto the least of these and doing it unto Him.

He didn't write it down, He spoke it to me.

About Nate
I'm ultra conservative and proud of it. I believe in free speech no matter what little feelings you liberals have. I love our country and work hard without feeling the need to cry out and recall our officials.
Most likely you're just one of the sheep that follows your union boss, likes to smoke weed and get welfare. You often protest by yelling your dumb childish chants and pooping all over the place. You're a communist and want all the rich people to give you what they worked hard to achieve.
You will burn in hell one day and I'll be roasting

@J.B.Schmidt -- I'm sorry, but there are some things that can't be left up to the states. Civil Rights was one. Slavery was another. And so is the right to privacy arising out of Griswold v. Connecticut.

Democrats do not support the use of abortion. They support the right to chose it. There's a difference.

How can you, as a Christian, protect a fetus but say it's 'on its own' once born?

Let's cut the bull. "Leaving it up to the states" is another way to say we don't want to solve the problem.

Pat Robertson

Joel Osteen

John Fugelsang.

You're assuming we are all into Doyle?

Pretty much was you are sputtering about Doyle applies to Walker. Just what sort of beneficent thing do the people giving Walker millions of dollars want for Wisconsin.

And no, electing Walker is not one of them.

True about Griswold. I'd have argued that case on the Establishment clause in the First Amendement rather than as a right to privacy. But do you really think a state has the right to enact a law based on the religious/moral views of the majority? In the case of Connecticut it was the majority Catholics calling the shots. Would you really want to risk Muslims becoming the majority and requiring burquas?

It was _southern_ Democrats who opposed Civil Rights.

In your case, you can choose not to terminate a pregnancy if you consider it to be killing a baby. But you can't impose that on everyone else who doesn't share your views.

I don't think there was any question about slaves being human beings.

If Doyle was so horrible, how come the Republican attorney general in office for two of those years never launched an investigation?

This was exactly what people thought might have happened with the Laughtenslauger debacle, but notice, never happened.

@J.B.Schmidt --What is anti-religious about leaving religions completely out of it? No one is forcing you to abort a pregnancy or use contraception if that's against your beliefs.

'Pro-choice' people did not decide the status of an unborn child. The Roe v. Wade ruling said that since various religions differed on the definition of when 'human' life begins and science has not yet provided an answer, the power of the state to interfere in a private medical decision was limited. Roe v. Wade does allow states to outlaw elective abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, when a fetus becomes viable, except when the life or health of the mother is at stake. Few states have availed themselves of this option -- or else they overreach and pass unconstitutional legislation.

JB I am sure your views on abortion are sincere, but the politicians you support are not. If you are going to attack Democrats based on their support for choice, then you have a question to ask yourself.

Bush was a staunch opponent of abortion, so he says. If that was the case, bear in mind that for a number of years, he had a Republican Congress.

Could you cite for me the date when this Congress voted out an anti-abortion amendment to make it's way around the states?

Get the feeling you've been used?

@Keith Schmitz
Your comment has no basis in reality. As you know, I said that abortion is a states rights issue. (I know you saw it because you stated that the states were too stupid to handle that themselves) Therefore, I would not want the national government to handle it. Bush's hand-off approach as you stated fits directly into my belief and the belief of most conservatives.

How abortion fits into our current political climate is not the reason abortion is referenced in this thread. It is to prove that Jason is incapable of righting a blog that contains logic. If he claims I vote for the evil Scott Walker because he is anti-christian; how then can I vote for a democrat that is pro-choice (ie pro abortion).

It's one thing to question Walker's judgement based on what he may have/should have known about the criminal history of some of his staff, but it's another thing entirely to speculate that "it is only a matter of time before the FBI John Doe investigation reels in it's big fish - Scotty himself. "...

@Bren -

Ummm yeah, there's a pretty simple, cheap, logical, sound, and fair to all involved, including the state (people), solution. Don't have intercourse unless you're in the position to live with the possible natural outcomes of such activity! Duh!

Is it really that difficult to understand? I believe it's called abstinence. You may want to research it sometime, as the theory states that if one doesn't engage in sexual activity with a partner of the opposite gender, then they won't become pregnant! I know, it's a pretty revolutionary idea, but I've heard it works 100% of the time and has no negative effects what-so-ever!

Incredible, right? Be sure to spread the word to everyone you know!

You are correct on this point about social, financial, mental stress involved with child rearing and the possibility of doing that without the father. I have spoken to many women who went through an abortion and their stress can be as great after the procedure. I was the product of pre marital sex and thankful my dad did marry my mom.

Gregory Kluck, thank you for sharing your story, and I'm so glad your situation had the best possible outcome!

No, I think the venting is good for you, Keith. Purging of the nonsense is healthy. Have a lovely evening!

Way to see the future, Keith. Must have been that magic 8-ball. I got a kick out of it, and agree. Personal freedoms!, well, unless I disagree.

Reading the Cuban newspaper, Keith?

I've seen enough, that's for sure. Maybe a little extra fiber in your diet would help.

Say what say what? sounds like a tune I should right. As for what I wrote, it all makes sense.

I'm pretty sure that Schmitz, just like most lefty liberals, constantly turns to the magic 8-ball in coming up with their political/ideological platform and policy decisions.

However, I'm pretty sure that even their magic 8-ball's must be rigged though, as every time a liberal asks the 8-ball "should we raise taxes," it seems to always reveal the "without a doubt" response.

And yet when conservatives ask their 8-ball this same question, it always says "outlook not so good."

Go figure, right?

Pretty funny Jimmy. On the other hand, you guys are like Rainman. "What's the solution to creating more jobs?" "Uh, cut taxes." "What will we do about the deficit?" "Un cut taxes." "How do we fix education?" "Uh cut taxes." "What will that cost?" "Uh, about hundred dollars, yeah."

Good thing our friends on the right wing constantly tells us they are Christian, otherwise we'd never know.

@Jason Patzfahl -- I apologize for taking that up. Because I understand what your article was about. That is, if you, as a politician, wear your religion on your sleeve, you need ot make sure you're following ALL the tenets of that religion.

What politician is 'wearing his/her religion on their sleeve'?

Um, practically every single one of them in the GOP.

Then what religious beliefs was Walker using to defend his new policies for public unions?

Walker can't really be showing his religion all that much--if he were, Jason would have known better than to quote Bishop Listecki and the Pope when criticizing the non-Catholic for having policies that apparently aren't favored by the Catholic church...

@Sandy and Kim Jacobson...Neither of you have addressed the real issue. What is being played out is a conflict of values. On one side of the issue is the stated concern for members of the community and on the other is the maintenance and sovereignty of individualism. Both sets of values lead to certain moral and ethical structures and understanding. Even religious dogma can not help with this conflict since even within Christianity there are wide divides on moral values. In Catholicism, performing "good works" is an important tenet of the religious dogma. Whereas, protestant dogma inspired by Martin Luther and Jon Calvin focus more on achieving grace of which "good works" is of less or of no importance and the dogma supports individual sovereignty. Now who is right? This is precisely why one cannot call on religious correctness to impel action. Does someone who advocates Christian values really represent anyone? What do Christian values mean? I, as a non Christian, how am I impacted by Christian values? Often I here people use the term Judeo/Christian values or morality, but I as a Jew have values that aren't represented by Christian values and people automatically creating a category of inclusion in such a large group are quite frankly incorrect.

Government at best and politics specifically should limit itself to purely secular issues and values.

That's not what's really happening though, Jason. When one cuts through all the spin you have been applying, one finds that Walker's budget really isn't taking from 'those who have the least' and giving it to 'those who have more'.

Please clarify your claim that only CERTAIN unions and professions were attacked, destroyed, and made separate classes of public workers. Did the law apply differently to the different public employee unions or something? Can you supply any background as to why only CERTAIN unions and professions allegedly suffered such attacks?

If you are trying to claim the left to be the 'moral majority', perhaps you should look at all those on the left that have targeted Walker campaign donors with threats, vandalism and boycotts (by taking advantage of the same public records laws that they now complain about). What about all those who have been harassing various republicans and their families, sometimes with death threats? Are Christians supposed to follow their examples?

I suppose that I should also point out that not all Walker supporters are of the Christian faith, and you probably shouldn't paint with such a broad brush when making statements about how people are 'supposed' to act...

There are 314 fire and police unions in the state. Four of them endorsed Walker, and the rest endorsed Barrett. Walker didn't treat them differently because he had their support during the election.

I'm guessing that the teachers got targeted because the teacher union seemed to react so strongly to Walker's changes. The tales of 'draconian cuts', 'mass layoffs' and 'doubling of class sizes' were such obvious overstatements that the teacher union characterized themselves as being dishonest. The union locked many districts into using WEA Trust to provide their health benefits and were overcharging them. They 'negotiated' unsustainable benefits packages in many districts. The union going to court to keep their Viagra benefit rather than make concessions contributed to the negative image of the teacher's union. The union choosing layoffs over Walker's concessions in Milwaukee contributed to the negative image. As far as the 'paying more and getting less' not being the teacher's fault, it does seem that the teacher union should accept at least some of that blame. Fair or not, when the teacher Union looks bad, the teachers tend to look bad as well...

The EIC was NOT eliminated. This topic has come up multiple times in the thread. Wisconsin's EIC was slightly reduced, but is offset by a Federal EIC as part of Obama's stimulus plan in 2009.

Unless you are talking about the ADVANCED EIC, in which case it is explained here:
http://www.revenue.wi.gov/taxpro/news/100819.html

You do realize that Scott Walker is not Catholic, don't you?

@Jason
You do realize that is not a biblical principal and instead the ramblings of a man that has been given a non biblical title by mortal men?

Christianity spreads out much further then the pope.

@J.B. Schmidt -

As a big Reagan fan, I thought you might be interested in my latest Retro Cinema Club feature, 'Country' (1984), which looks back on the Reagan-era mid-western family farm crisis of the early and mid '80's!

@Jason -

You will probably enjoy 'Country' as well, as it takes a very liberal position towards many of Reagan's policies that effected mid-western family farmers.

It can be found here:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/blog_posts/hoffas-retro-cinema-club-country-1984

Cheers!

Jason:

Interesting you should mention Archbishop Listecki. It seems that he respects Walker for standing up and doing what he believes to be the right thing...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/139393633.html

"“You have a recall when you have corruption, you have clearly something that's done that's illegal," Listecki said. "If there was something which was morally detrimental to society, I think you do that.

"Otherwise," he continued, "you have an election, you live with an election for four years, and you vote the person out of office.”"

Apparently, Jesus is not happy with the recall supporters, and it appears that he isn't happy with Obama either...

"Listecki's praise for Walker comes shortly after the Milwaukee archbishop tore into President Barack Obama over his initial plan to require religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities to pay for employees' birth control."

"not a single cent of income tax to the State of Wisconsin since prior to 1995. Yes, that is over 17 years of paying absolutely nothing."
" Just so happens that Doyle shut that tax loop hole down."
Remind me again- when was Doyle Governor?

Has he ever?

Jesus is smiling...Praise the Lord