Doyle and Four Other Governors Can’t Manage Own States
Doyle is embarrassing Wisconsin in grand fashion.
Gov. Jim Doyle joined four other Democratic governors today to call for a $1 trillion federal economic stimulus package that would include $250 billion for education.
Doyle and the others - Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, New York Gov. David Paterson and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick - said in a conference call with reporters that federal assistance for education was essential to avoiding deep cuts in cash-strapped states.
Specifically, they wanted a $1 trillion, two-year package to include:
• $350 billion for road and other infrastructure projects that could quickly put thousands of people to work.
• $250 billion to cover education costs - from preschool through college - that are currently covered by states.
• $250 billion for Medicaid, unemployment insurance, welfare and other assistance programs.
• $150 billion - or more - for middle-income tax breaks.
“The assistance would be manna for us,” said Paterson.
These five governors should all be impeached for their blatant inability to do their jobs. Perhaps if they actually knew how to manage a budget, they wouldn’t be standing in the welfare line in Washington.
I am so glad you posted this article… When I read it on JSonline this morning it made me sick.
Do your f’ing job Doyle. Your job isn’t to be a beggar and to ask someone else to fix the states problems. You’re the damn governor. Stop passing the buck and manage the state.
Times are tough stop crying and deal with it. Its time to make some cuts. I know its not going to please your big campaign supporters (weac and other unions) but we can’t have a government that is immune to making the tough choices the rest of the populace does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1533 hrs
What a great point.
Other bloggers I’ve read have criticized each one—but as their own governor. You are the only one I’ve seen who has lumped them all together as equally incompetent and identified it as a national problem.
And what a problem they are if each of them ranks below Blagojevich of Illinois as a governor ....
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1535 hrs
Zzzzzzzzz… there’s news on the Friday between a holiday and a weekend? Sorry, I didn’t notice.
I suppose they can always raise your state taxes instead. Then you can pay a dollar on each dollar instead of a fraction thereof.
I’ll jump on your bandwagon when Wisconsin starts getting more of its own federal contributions back. Until then, back up the wagon and load ‘er up!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 02, 2009 at 1544 hrs
From the assholes own website:
By making deep and often difficult cuts in state government, he was able to balance the budget without hurting priorities like education and without raising taxes.
What deep cuts? How can you balance a budget and incur a $5+Billion deficit in two years?
I’m really tired of being stroked by politicians while our media looks the other way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1607 hrs
All this whining about Diamond Jim! Didn’t we bring this all up BEFORE he was elected & re-elected? A known liar, scumbucket and all-round sleezeball; you get the government you vote for.
p.s. Don’t blame me…I voted for Mark Green.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1648 hrs
I really can’t work up any outrage about how this stimulus request embarrases the state.
The time for feeling humiliated was the day after Gov. Doyle was overwhelmingly re-elected to office by our fellow state citizens. Wisconsin is simply getting the government it deserves. Bend over and enjoy the sensation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1701 hrs
Are there any states with a positive balance sheet? Are there any states whose budgets would survive without Federal dollars already?
It was hilarious when Obama went to the Governor’s convention. There he was essentially saying, “We"ll save all of you.”
Think of the logic: collect a bunch of money from all 50 states, take a vig to keep for the Fed’s, and then dole the remainder back out. And that will “help”.
One could argue that the wealthiest states should pay for the poorest. But it’s the wealthiest that are in even deeper shit than the rest. CA and NY are broke.
This bailout will make Wall St. look like petty cash.
Time to change the law and allow states to create their own currencies for international exchange. I bet some states would be better off.
Posted by David on January 02, 2009 at 1729 hrs
I’m ok with the infrastructure project spending to get the construction industry going. But not spending to keep a bloated public employee system along with benefits funded.
Tell WEAC they can take a 25% cut in retirement and health benefits and then we’ll talk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1732 hrs
It would be nice to see CRG get all the state’s spending posted online so we can all see where spending “can’t be cut.” If it is anything like the MPS spending, I think an top to bottom audit is more than in order.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 02, 2009 at 1813 hrs
I suppose they can always raise your state taxes instead. Then you can pay a dollar on each dollar instead of a fraction thereof.
Gee RS instead of raising our Federal Taxes to pay for all this?
And you don’t think that Doyle and the Dems are going to raise State Taxes too?
So far we have bailed out the Auto Makers, Banks, Mortgage companies, The Newspapers now want a cut because they are losing money, pretty soon I am sure the oil companies will want a bailout, and where exactly is all this money coming from? (Well where it be coming from?)
Your pocket and mine.In the form of higher taxes on both the State and Federal levels. (Nobody can possibly be Stupid enough to think that even if the Feds help the States Jim Doyle will not raise taxes and push MORE money to the Teachers union, Can they?)
This crap has got to stop.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 02, 2009 at 1821 hrs
I’m simply pointing out that Wisconsin doesn’t do such a good job of recapturing federal revenue and that if we were better at it, perhaps we’d be in a bit less of a hole. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Oh, and Mark Green lost because he was a boring candidate with no compelling message. He was the 2008 GOP two years ahead of schedule.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 02, 2009 at 1827 hrs
I’m simply pointing out that Wisconsin doesn’t do such a good job of recapturing federal revenue and that if we were better at it, perhaps we’d be in a bit less of a hole. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I hope I didn’t come across as being to much of an A-Hole, cuz I’m really not I swear. And I do respect you opinions, they seem to be well reasoned and thought out.
You do bring up another interesting point though. Why can’t our Senators seem to figure out that we are sending more money to D.C. than we are getting back?
After all Kohl and Feingold have certainly proven over the years that they aren’t afraid to spend it. Why not send some of it back to Wisconsin? Am I correct when I say that we only get about 25 percent back of what we give?
I believe I read that stat many years ago…
BTW honestly now that we are in Bail out everything mode, I don’t see it stopping anytime soon….
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 02, 2009 at 1850 hrs
$350 billion for road and other infrastructure projects that could quickly put thousands of people to work.
So what happens when these make-work infrastructure projects end? They request more money for other projects?
Here’s a novel concept: how about an actual tax cut or promoting economic policy that allows individuals and the private sector to provide real, long-lasting jobs?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1853 hrs
Talk about media bias. Does the article which party all these governors are from? Of course not. 1 guess as to which party they belong…. that’s correct, they are all Democrats. What a huge surprise!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 1946 hrs
Yeah, and the RGA puts out some empty release about fiscal responsibility while most of its members quietly cheer these Democratic governors on. There’s a real profile in courage for you.
I’ll believe the RGA spin when I see these Republican governors turning down their welfare checks from the feds in a few months. Looking at you, Mark Sanford!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 02, 2009 at 2035 hrs
Well, recess, you can start in Nevada. We have not raised taxes and we have cut our budget by over a billion + dollars. And yes, we have a Republican governor and Democrat legislature. So it can happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2040 hrs
The clueless NC Gov-Elect Bev Perdue (yes, of the chicken Perdue’s, and yes, she’s a D) is already getting her tin cup ready too. Cuz everyone knows that money from the Feds grows on trees for free. Right?
We were thinking of moving another 40 miles further south to SC where their Gov has his s..t together.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2059 hrs
Wow, a post and comment thread with which I must say, I absolutely agree. Complete failure and utter incomptence by all five Democrats. How about setting some priorities and living within their respective states’ means?
Although, as always, it comes with the caveat that Republican governors aren’t a whole lot better. I remember as former Virginian the massive hole one Jim Gilmore left us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 02, 2009 at 2059 hrs
Where the hell are the Doyle supporters/voters??? Do you not care to defend the asshole you elected twice???
Chirp, chirp, chirp….
Honestly, I’d like to know what your reasoning was in the voting booth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0034 hrs
JJ - Like I said, I’ll believe Mark Sanford’s not full of crap when he turns down the check. But if you like a guy who’s a big talker, there you go. I mean, here’s a guy who postured back in ‘06 by vetoing his state’s entire budget, knowing damn well the legislature would override such a move. Why do line item and put leggies on the spot issue-by-issue when you can lazily veto the whole damn thing and go play some golf instead? Also, nice fold a few days ago on that whole unemployment loan. There’s your guy with his s@#$ together, begging the federal government for a $146MM loan. Nice! Tell me again how he’s better than the rest of these crackpots? Tell me how fast you think a state with one of the worst economies in the nation is going to pay back that $146MM? How about we try maybe never?
Dan - That’s admirable. But we should both acknowledge, for the sake of those playing along at home, that Nevada has an extremely unusual revenue model. The casino industry in Nevada provides nearly half of the state’s entire general fund. That dependence on tourism also allows Nevada to not impose an income tax on individuals or corporations. I’m all for cutting provided that they are intelligent, well-considered cuts. I will never defend across-the-board cutting because it’s lazy and shows an unwillingness of politicians to prioritize.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2009 at 0036 hrs
Doyle voter here, Terry. My reasoning was simple. The AssGOP was increasingly nuts, the Senate GOP was out to lunch, and there was no way I was going to vote for a Republican for governor when I was uncertain whether the Democrats could pick up either house of the legislature. I happen to like divided government. Accordingly, I wanted to make sure Doyle won.
Also, Mark Green ran an atrocious campaign and didn’t really give me a solid sense of what he wanted to accomplish. I do know, however, that he likes to listen to U2 on his iPod. Very helpful.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2009 at 0039 hrs
Well… as demonstrated in this tread, until you drop the D’s and R’s and agree in principle to what must happen and then find someone who will do it, we’ll just have the na’na’s and the boo’boo’s going at it while nothing happens.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0046 hrs
Unbelievable how these people at higher levels of office just want more money when they can’t balance what they currently have…simply amazing.
Posted by mmo on January 03, 2009 at 0052 hrs
Maybe, just maybe if elected officials were decent, honest people willing to make tough choices and explain why they made the tough choices, we might get somewhere. But no, we get buffoons like Doyle (and many, many, many others) who have spent their entire lives in the fantasy world of government and never had a job or done anything useful in their lives. Honest people no longer run for office because of the kleptocracy we as voters have allowed to become entrenched. Honest, decent people are smart enough not to want to be associated with the sewer that government has become.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0926 hrs
RS - I haven’t seen the “fold” on the unemployment benefits from SC - I just googled it and nothing came up there either - only the articles from mid-December when he was saying “No Thanks!”
While the economy as a whole is suffering - national unemployment now in the 7% range, SC is at 8%. Hardly one of the worst in the nation. Personally, I would think that SC would be in better shape to eventually pay back a loan than say CA - the buffoons in the legislature there can’t find it with both hands. In general, those states that are being led by the Rs (CA is run by a RINO) are in slightly better shape than those being run by Ds. There are a multitude of reasons, but also, in general, those states have a more business-friendly attitude (like TX) and are more inclined to utilize their state’s resources to a greater extent - whether natural (like oil in ND or for tourism in the gulf states) or man-made (like the casinos in NV). Imagine the revenue flow that WI could be getting if Doyle hadn’t flown solo and gotten a crap deal (for the state anyway) with the Indians? I’m just saying….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 0947 hrs
Comment 18 is rediculous.
“Although, as always, it comes with the caveat that Republican governors aren’t a whole lot better. I remember as former Virginian the massive hole one Jim Gilmore left us.”Governor Gilmore left office in January 2002, just months after September 11th, 2001. The budget shortfall that occurred after that was due to the dot com stock market bubble bursting and further deteriaton of the economy after 9-11.
Meanwhile Gov. Gilmore left office with $1 billion dollars in VA’s rainy day fund, which then Gov. Warner used $184 million of it to balance the budget the next year, while spending grew less than 1%
That’s the rub folks, Gov. Gilmore and his car tax gets blamed because VA Govt. could only spend 1% more the following year he left office. Since then spending has more than doubled in VA.
Why is it that tax payers have to deal with the same income or less during a recession, but the govt. never does?
Why do idiots not get the facts before they repeat the media and Democrats lies of Jim Gilmore ‘left Va in a hole’, or the favorite, ‘Gilmore bankrupted VA’?
Posted by Spank That Donkey on January 03, 2009 at 1041 hrs
You can all talk until you’re blue in the face about what a paradise it would be if politicians were only honest and forced government to live within its means. The fact is that voters punish honest politicians who get serious about spending cuts. Everyone wants the government services they personally use to continue to be funded by everyone else. As soon as those in charge identify which “unnecessary” services they will cut, they lose a large number of votes, and the guy (or gal) who is vague and misleading picks them up. The smarmiest panderers are repeatedly rewarded by the voting public.
And don’t just blame the Democrats. Look at the 2008 Michigan Republican primary. McCain was honest about the fact that many manufacturing jobs were gone for good. Romney pretended he could magically bring them back (GM bailout, anyone?). The Republican voters of Michigan went for the panderer rather than the fiscally responsible candidate.
Tommy Thompson was one of the biggest-spending, government-growing Governors our state has ever seen. He was fortunate to preside over a time of economic prosperity (for the whole nation, not just Wisconsin). His last couple budgets had artificial “surpluses” generated by deferring payment on a number of big-ticket items. He knew the bills would be coming due, and the deficits exploding, in a few years, so he bailed and went to Washington, leaving McCallum holding the bag.
If he were still Governor, Thompson would be following similar policies to Diamond Jim. Doyle is a big-business-loving Democrat. He is hardly a lefty. I voted to re-elect him primarily because I have a uterus, and Mark Green wanted to tell me how I must use it. Before that, I voted for Ed Thompson because I thought he would do less damage than either Doyle or McCallum.
I just hope Doyle doesn’t decide he wants a job in Washington, because then we’d be stuck with Lawton in the Governor’s mansion.
And we’ll see how well Nevada is doing in a year. It turns out that gambling is not recession-proof. Las Vegas has the highest foreclosure rate in the country, and jobs are being slashed, along with hotel room rates.
Posted by Ordinary Jill on January 03, 2009 at 1041 hrs
Wow - voting for a scummy liar that never met a tax he didn’t want to increase or a nanny law he didn’t want to sign because the other guy didn’t like abortion and would have absolutely no power to make you do anything with your uterus.
Interesting reasoning. I guess the voters do get the government they deserve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1056 hrs
Thanks RS - I can see some of your points. When I looked at Doyle’s first term; His mudslinging campaign, his vetos, Troha, “I don’t even know that woman” Georgia Thompson comment…
This confirmed for me Doyle had the ethics of a rat and I knew Wisconsin needed a change in leadership. I happen to like ethics in government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1140 hrs
Ordinary Jill just put the conversation to rest. To all of you that want to piss and moan about Doyle it is clearly not all in his lap. He is the guy who has to live with the decade of Tommy and all the BS he pulled. This is a bipartisan problem and it sits at the feet of the legislature and the governor for the last 15-20 years. this issue was not created by doyle and will not be solved by him.
As I have said before on this blog. Contact your legislators and tell them to grow a spine and make some tough decisions and stop trying to find the easiest ways to get reelected. See: Pandoring to interest groups.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1148 hrs
Kris - the only way to get rid of the “campaigning for life” stuff is to get term limits. Since they have to vote that in for themselves, I won’t hold my breath.
As stated before, Tommy was hardly a conservative. At least he understood that being friendlier to business actually encouraged them to come/stay and create jobs. Which is more than anyone can say for the past 6 years.
Regarding Doyle loving business - that comment is laughable at best. He is a lefty through and through - from the telling parents how to raise their kids with booster seat and hot tub laws or telling people where/when they can smoke nanny-state crap to trying to tax businesses more to vetoing every effort at tax or spending cuts to pandering to WEAC. The only business’ that Doyle loves are road builders and trial lawyers - everyone else can go get screwed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1208 hrs
Spank, you must be a Gilmore hack. Gilmore had to steal money from the very rainy day fund you mention, which he gets no credit for having since Virginia law required its existence anyway. He also ripped off a number of other funds to balance the budget, just like Doyle.
Gilmore was typical of today’s GOP: Sure, I’ll cut your taxes and I won’t cut any programs, and I’ll leave someone else to deal with the effects.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1437 hrs
@JJ: Here, piggy piggy piggy. Look at that principled conservative Sanford digging for those truffles. Why cut spending when you can just borrow the money, right? Isn’t what Sanford is doing the same thing people in this thread pillory Jim Doyle for?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2009 at 1454 hrs
JJ, California enacted term limits for its legislature, and look how well that worked out for them. It gave lobbyists even more influence because they were the only ones with any expertise in state law or the legislative process, and it’s always easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an inexperienced legislator. And it certainly didn’t help California balance a budget, live within their means or manage their cash flows. Why anyone thinks it would be easier to pass a balanced budget in Wisconsin with an amateur or part-time legislature is beyond me—it flies in the face of all logic.
Posted by Ordinary Jill on January 03, 2009 at 1518 hrs
Jill is right. The downside with term limits is that it prevents legislators from ever developing the expertise or experience to deal with institutional forces like state agencies and lobbyists. Now granted, some of them just hang around and get cozy with those elements, and that’s often counterproductive. But a lot of them also figure out how to stand on their own two feet.
First-term leggies basically walk around the halls of the Capitol like deer in headlights, waiting for people to tell them what to do. The easiest way to get their vote, if you’re a lobbyist, is to try and be the last person to talk to them. While I think those who support term limits are generally well-intended, I’m not sure they’re getting what they think they’re getting in terms of reform.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2009 at 1552 hrs
RS - thanks for the link. I am disappointed. Seems most in the government think that we all have money trees in our backyards.
Since nobody seems to like the term limit idea. Any suggestions for getting the lifers out?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 1623 hrs
I don’t mean this to sound entirely snarky, JJ, but we have these things for politicians every two, four, or six years in November in which they have to convince their constituents to re-elect them.
We can go on and on about the political advantages of incumbency, and for the sake of argument I will stipulate to all of them. But the fact remains that if enough voters want change, change is easy to get. Vote for the other guy and tell your friends to do the same.
But tell me this JJ: are you willing to vote against your conservative principles (I’m assuming you’re generally conservative) and choose a Democrat over an old, decrepit white southern gentleman (and by southern gentleman I mean racist) like Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond? Because the fact is, people from the southeast seemed to have no problem voting for the old, racist status quo time and time and time again. For generations. Change? No thanks.
Most voters bitch and moan about incumbency, but will never do a damn thing to change their own elected officials. It’s that terrible trap: politicians suck, but the ones I vote for time and again are okay. No, yours probably suck too.
And I’m not suggesting Democrats are necessarily any better. That guys like Ted Kennedy and Gerry Studds had political careers after they were outed as lecherous, drunken losers speaks just as badly of those who continued to elect them.
So my rules are simple. Never be wedded to party affiliation. When you hate both candidates (as is often the case for me), vote for the smartest one, or the one whose party is badly underrepresented, if that happens to apply.
Absolutism does not equal principled, like some around here believe. Glenn Grothman is no more principled than Al Ott, but I can tell you that Ott’s been a hell of a lot more effective as a legislator because he’s willing to take half a loaf instead of rendering himself completely irrelevant like Grothman. These so-called “principled” legislators are usually the most pompous and/or least effective in the lot. Doesn’t matter if it’s town board or President.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 03, 2009 at 1738 hrs
I have no party affiliation and have crossed party lines many times. I look for the candidate that most closely resembles my principles.
Unfortunately, the system seems to be set up to favor the incumbant. Regardless of what kind of hero or idiot he/she may be. Simply because of name recognition or the amount of money they have been able to embezzle from lobbyists, PACs and other entitites for their war chest.
It isn’t just the Southeast that keeps sending idiots back to Washington. David Obey comes to mind for some reason. I completely agree with you about the “It isn’t my guy that is the problem” mentality and ignorance of the voters. Seems to me that the voter sentiment againt the bailout in October was, according to Diane Feinstein, something like 90 to 1 against. They voted for it anyway and almost all of them kept their jobs. Infuriating. Especially for those of us that try their best to be informed and give a damn.
I don’t mind some compromise, I really don’t. However, it seems that for the last couple of decades the conservatives have done all the compromising. I certainly haven’t seen a lot of movement toward fiscal responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 2031 hrs
The astute political observer would notice that this is the second time in the last month that Doyle has played on the national stage on the issue of a state’s package. They would also notice that Doyle was an early and vocal public supporter of the current President-Elect in the Dem primary last winter. Putting these items together one might realize that our Governor is an inside player on the state bailout package President-Elect Obama is putting together, and is probably providing the type of media foundation building work one does before introducing a major state relief package. One would probably conclude from all of this information that Wisconsin likely stands in line to finally gain the type of return on our federal tax dollars that our congressional delegation has been unable to secure over the years as our Governor seems to be an insider with the new admin and Congressman Obey is one of the 5 or 6 most powerful members of congress these days.
While some may advocate for our Governor’s resignation, others think his current standing is a good thing for the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 2041 hrs
Also -
I haven’t been here long enough to have voted for or against Jesse Helms, but if I were in WV, I would have certainly voted against Byrd
My wish (I know, if a frog had wings…..) is that someone truly worth a crap would run for office and/or there was a viable third party. Our choices for Senate this last go-round were a woman who hadn’t been back in the state but 12 times in 6 years or a woman who illegally bankrupted the state budget (she was the chief author) by borrowing almost a Billion to “balance” it. The problem is that to borrow that much, it should have gone to the voters, but nothing happened because the AG is from the same party. No worries though, even though the budget hole is now upwards of $3B - with the state bailouts, we’ll just get the free money from the Feds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2009 at 2041 hrs
One would probably conclude from all of this information that Wisconsin likely stands in line to finally gain the type of return on our federal tax dollars that our congressional delegation has been unable to secure over the years as our Governor seems to be an insider with the new admin and Congressman Obey is one of the 5 or 6 most powerful members of congress these days.
You know… on a selfish level, this arguement might make sense to some people… as long as wisconsin benefits, who cares…
If there was simply a re-allocation of existing federal funds to send more to Wisconsin (which would mean less somewhere else) thats one thing.
But I know that no one else is going to be in line for a cut. The net effect of anyone getting more money is just going to be more taxes. Whatever we end up getting back, is going to come with an additional cost. Lets not forget that there is no magic piggy bank that government can just dip into without either taxing to get the money or destroying the value of our dollar by borrowing to pay out these entitlements.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1257 hrs
xxpilot: Many times these Federal “gifts” are not fully funded or are partially funded for a finite period of time. When the gravey train runs out of gravey the state and locals pay the rest of the way.
This often happens with unneeded programs, but since they are “free” nobody figures there is any harm in accepting the Federal money. Many years later when somone looks at a stupid program and says, “why do we continue to do this?”
The more serious probelem comes when nobody wants to cut that stupid program (nobody ususally means a special interest group of less than 10). So it stays on the budget forever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1336 hrs
A lot of good points here by John, JJ, and as always RS.
Talk about incumbency, look at Sensenbrenner. Guy deserves to be out on his ass for his love of unfunded mandates. Someone fresh challenged him, though weakly, and he got killed because the party hacks would rather back someone like Sensenbrenner merely because of how vociferously he fights with Democrats. Obey, Kohl, Feingold, everyone else is the same. Yeah I know Ryan is the golden boy of the right at this moment, but I remember more than one Ways and Means committee hearing listening to him go on and on about how special tax breaks for businesses in his district were so wonderful.
It’s the two party system, the parties themselves and especially their partisans who are to blame. Every two and four years it’s not so much about ideas, it’s about fighting the “other”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1428 hrs
ATV:
I wasn’t talking about unfunded mandates but it works in the same way, only States and locals “opt in” to FedCash goodies and end up as crack whores.
Unfunded mandates are are used to make pols look good while others (states and consequently locals) pick up the check. You have identified a big flaw in our system.
The mandates are ususally some feel good thing that boys like scott would love because where the money comes from is never his concern. If someone comes out against the mandate he can call them “haters” that lack the Potemkin love he has for his oppressed brothers and sisters. That is why they are like tar on state and locals budgets. Of course the state does stupid unfunded mandates as well as anyone.
Now Milwaukee is trying it’s hand at it with “sick days” and pushing the tab on local business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 1458 hrs
I think the bigger problem is the unfunded mandates. Grant programs and others can be problematic but at least when the spigot is shut off, the state/locals have the option to ditch the program. I know it sounds unlikely but I have worked in places that ditched things attached to funding sources that were shut off.
Unfunded mandates are just pure cowardice and evil. Like you say, a great way for legislators on one level to say they did something while not worrying about the bill (deficit spending being its sinister twin). Real ID was about the most egregious example of this I’ve seen in a long time, with No Child and pretty much everything the State of Wisconsin does tied for a close second.
While MPS has its problems, and I won’t defend it overall, but one of the few things people care to understand is that it faces a crushing burden of unfunded mandates. A lot of people like to say private schools can teach kids for less. Well yeah, but private schools always pick their students. MPS and other public systems don’t have that luxury. A simple comparison of costs per student therefore is never valid, though criticism of teacher benefits overall is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 04, 2009 at 2246 hrs
You know, that’s a great point. Imagine how much further in the hole the state of Wisconsin would be if it actually paid for all the crap it tells local governments to do. And then the bastards have the nerve to also try and limit how much revenue local governments can raise.
Evil. Pure evil. The Wisconsin Legislature is the pretty much the heart of darkness and of complete unaccountability.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 04, 2009 at 2317 hrs
ATV & RS: I agree in totality.
Here is an interesting exercise. Ask a school superintendent if he/she likes unfunded mandates. He/she will loudly proclaim that they hurt education.
Next: Ask the superintendent which ones they would like to see eliminated. Let me know of your results. The two I asked never gave me one example. I even checked back with them several months later to see if they could name one. Nope.
How would you guys explain that? I am asking a serious question and I don’t know the answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0924 hrs
The issue as I see it is that Diamond Jim and the legislature are saying that we have cut to the bone and cannot go any further. But yet we have massive amounts of duplication of services, wasteful spending at all levels and no one willing to do the heavy lifting.
Lets look at examples:
1) The state just spent 1 million dollars on a website for the Government Accountability Board. 1 MILLION DOLLARS. That is ridiculous. I cannot believe that this website could not be made for $10K or less.
2) UW System/2 year colleges/Tech Schools. The state has never lloked at the viability of these systems and whether or not we actually need them as they stand today. Do we truly need 3 full campuses within 90 miles of each other (Stout\BR Falls and Eau Claire) these campuses are not at capacity and could be consolidated. 2 year colleges and the Tech schools are also offering many of the same courses. You can take classes at Waukesha Technical College and they will transfer to the UW system so why do I need UW Waukesha right down the road?
The list goes on and on. We as a state are bloated and fat with beurocrats and wasteful spending yet our governor is running to Washington to ask for more money.Its time someone in this state grows a pair and actully stands up and makes the tough decisions. It is pathetic and embarrising to be a resident of Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1353 hrs
@Galt: My only guess is that they support a lot of the concepts behind the mandate, but just want the funding to accompany it so that they don’t have to find it in their own budgets. But then again, I’m not about to profess any expertise in divining what exactly goes on inside the mind of a school superintendent.
@Irwin: I agree in part, but some of what you suggest poses other difficulties. For instance, I agree that the UW System operates more campuses than it needs. But if you start closing campuses, you’re going to need to add thousands upon thousands of seats at other UW campuses unless your goal is to actually have fewer college graduates in Wisconsin. Most, but not all, UW schools are at or over capacity right now. Even if you were to reassign existing faculty to other campuses, you still need room to host classes and enough dorms for students to live in. It’ll be difficult to sell a UW campus because it’ll be extremely difficult to repurpose. Granted, that’s a sunk cost, just saying that there’s little hope of getting any kind of value for them in return. Going this route would be, I think, I long-term savings but it would also be an enormous short-term expense. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. It’s just not as simple as you suggest.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1428 hrs
Irwin,
Couple of points. One, there is no campus in Black River Falls. It is in River Falls. It is primarily an agriculture campus. Stout has other offerings. Specifically it is known as an excellent school for Tech ed teachers. Eau Claire is known for business and elementary education. Now, you can get a decent quality BS in many other areas at each of those schools. My point here is that some of the facilities needed to provide the top quality programs that are offered would not be easy to duplicate in another setting. Just because they are far away does not make them unimportant. To say that eliminating one and you will save money is shortsighted at best. RS makes that point very well.
Two, it has not always been possible to easily transfer credits from a tech school to the UW system. that is new within the last 10 or so years. Prior to that the tech system was really not a place students went on the way to a four year degree.
What you say about Waukesha may be true but it is not true system wide.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1808 hrs
In response to Rs and KB.
The educational system in WI is one that has no coordination and little vision. As an example. If we are so short of space and the UW 4 year system is in fact booked solid then we should look at how we are utilizing the 2 year campuses and the tech schools.
UW Stout is known for its program in hotel restuarant management, but MATC in Milwaukee also offers classes in the culinary arts and HR Management. MATC would cost alot less and be in the city where students could get better internships and be actually working in the area of their study. While I am sure that Menomonee WI offers a better opportunity than Milwaukee (not) for these types of internships, maybe the program should be moved. I am not in favor of fewer graduates at all, I would like more of them. I would also like these students to be able to leave the UW/MATC system without a life time of debt and the ability to begin their professional lives with the ability to get a job, buy a home, save for retirement from day one. Also as the fiscally challenged UW system continues to raise tuiton, they are forcing more students to leave the system as they cannot afford it or realize that a UW education with a lifetime of debt is not worth it. This will lead to fewer skilled graduates and more potential for cost as people need more social services to get by, cost the taxpayers more in the long run.
My vision is to have a coordianted education system that is efficient from a cost perspective and well organized to allow students to start and finish a 2 or 4 year program and get a job that is needed in todays world.
This would require a set of balls to make tough decisions that no one in Madison seems to have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1020 hrs
Irwin,
I just fell off my chair laughing and then got up and fell back down. That being said i agree that your vision is the correct thing. The deal is though that many people have had that vision over the years and we are where we are. The chance of that happening is almost zero although it is better than it was 20 years ago.
I guess ultimately what will be needed is not a pair of balls, but rather a vision in the governors mansion and on the UW board of regents along with the president of the technical college system. An alignment of those visions and the time to see it through. Sadly it will take more than one election cycle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2152 hrs
Kris,
I am glad that I was able to add humor to your life. It is folks like you that make me want to leave the state as soon as possible. You make excuses for the failure of our state and then sit there and say that their is nothing we can do so just bend over and take it. So I guess we are just screwed and thats the end of the story.
Way to go Kris.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2210 hrs
Clearly irwin you did not read my last paragraph. I told you how it could be fixed. i laughed at your comment because it was so utterly naive. As someone who has seen the resistance to change over the last 25 years from the UW system, the tech school system and the legislature i am all too familiar with just how difficult it will be to accomplish what you so naively propose. Also, I said that your idea was the correct idea. My only point was that it will be incredibly difficult to accomplish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 0810 hrs
Again you’ve made my point. You state that you have seen reistance to change in the UW system but you are willing to just sit by and accept it. I may be naive as you state but at least I am willing to do something. Unlike you who just accept the bullshit and say well thats just the way it is.
The problem here in Wisconsin is that we have way to many Krises in the state. Willing to just bend over and take it instead of trying to change what is a flawed and broken system. Wisconsin is in financial ruin, but the state can spend $1M on a website. We have a K-12 system that does not educate, a UW system that is a mess and Tech School system that is unaccountable to anyone but thats ok because that is the way its been for 25 years, right Kris.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 0906 hrs
atv -
I’m a little late on this response, but in #45 you mention that public schools don’t pick their students and that’s why private schools can educate for less. You are partly correct when it comes to behavioral, attitude and attendance. Private schools can refuse kids with behavior and attitude issues. Both public and private can suspend or expel for the same. Where the difference really comes in is with special needs kids. Some parochial school systems have these services - like the Lutheran Special School located at Milwaukee Lutheran. Most don’t.
BUT….
They also don’t have to deal with a lot of government oversight. The school my kids went to in Meno Falls decided not to be a choice school because the money they would have gotten would have been eaten up by the additional administration and paperwork. Mind you, they used Iowa tests to measure achievement and, overall, the kids that went there were outstanding students with outstanding grades. Because we expected them to be. We had a computer lab, a reading specialist, music, spanish and sports. There were art projects, even if there wasn’t a dedicated teacher. All for the bargain price of $4700 per student.
Which brings me back to the special needs kids. Do you really think there are that many special needs kids in MPS, for example, that require spending per student to be over $14000 as opposed to the $4700 for our old school? Almost $10000 per student is a lot of money. I would bet the last dollar in my 401k that the bulk of that extra $10K is in the central administration and benefits and very little of it is for the special needs kids that the state is required to take.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1859 hrs
Irwin,
Clearly you are not looking to reason this out. I never said I didn’t try to change it I said it was a very difficult thing to do and to just propose nonchalantly that the answer is simple was naive. I have worked in various capacities, as have many others, to try to change the system. it is better than it was before. In fact on a scale of 1 to 10 I would say that 25 years ago it was a 2 it is now a 6/7. So, even with all of the resistance and changes in administrations improvements have been made. Your extreme negativity to the system is one of the reasons that some don’t want to change.
On a seperate note. To say that the K-12 system does not educate is insulting to the thousands of extremely successful students that graduate and go on to have very successful lives.
Besides bitching on a blog what have you done to change the status quo?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1011 hrs
Kris
I have worked with my local school board to examine ways to be more efficient. I have reviewed data on public schools in WI and put proposals together to try to streamline the K-12 and post 12 education duplication and wasteful spending and presented these to my state legislators. Unfortunately, they both did nothing even though they both served on the committees that oversaw these areas. One legislator was more interested in creating the states new tartan plaid design and the other spends more time in Florida on a golf course than doing anything productive in Madison. So I have tried to show the powers that be that WI, a state with 72 counties does not need over 240 school districts and that spending over $50M on the payroll and benefits of superintendants alone is a waste of money. That the majority of school districts in WI are one school school districts and that creating a county superintendent of schools position, similar to other states could save large amounts of money and redirect those resourses to improve facilities or staffing.
So I have done more than bitch on a blog. And YOU?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2009 at 0852 hrs
I have served for four years as a school board member and worked on many of the same things that you talked about. Just did them from different angles. Early in my life i lobbied for legislation that would allow tech school credits to be counted towards graduation in a UW system school. It was a slow process but in the end after I was long gone from the process others finished the job and now it is possible.
So, clearly you know that changing the process is not easy. why then did you not acknowledge that from the outset?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2009 at 0927 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 07:34 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).