Doyle’s Faulty Memory

Governor Doyle had this to say:

In a year-end interview at the governor’s residence, Doyle said the hardest part was meeting with people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

The governor also had to make deep cuts to balance the state budget in 2009 and the difficult decision not to run for a third 4-year term, a choice he says he regrets on some days.

What “deep cuts”?  The budget that he signed included a spending increase in the billions, $2.1 billion in increased taxes and fees, and $2.9 billion in additional debt.  What the hell was cut? 

1. Remeber, in ‘Liberalese’ a cut is not a reduction not in actual expenditures compared to the previous fiscal period, its simply a matter of increasing spending less than you wanted to.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1503 hrs




2. Doyle budget cuts $2.2B in spending

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1508 hrs




3. “What the hell was cut?”

   His integrity.

   Posted by james wigderson on December 23, 2009 at 1514 hrs




4. He never had any…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1543 hrs




5. Yes, a “cut” in liberalese means you didn’t get as much to spend.

   So, if last year you had a budget of $2M for something, and this year you asked for $5M but got $3M, it is a $2M “cut,” rather than the $1M increase that the rest of us in Realityland see it as.

   

   Posted by hsgbdmama on December 23, 2009 at 1558 hrs




6. “and the difficult decision not to run for a third 4-year term”

   yeah - I guess a 28% approval rating forces you into that decision… putz

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1623 hrs




7. Yeah, folks, just keep your anti-liberal bats on auto-whack. No reason to think about the fact that there were service cuts, even while other budget items (debt, payroll) increased. No reason to think about the fact that tax revenues were decreased, even while some tax rates were increased, resulting in service cuts.

   Yeah, no reason to stop and think reasonably about anything here. Much easier just to rant mindlessly.

   Merry Festivus!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1835 hrs




8. George, all that means is Doyle was unable to get $5.8 billion in new spending versus the FY2008-2009 budget through.

   For those playing along at home, the $3.6 billion in new spending Doyle did get is somewhere around a 6.2% 2-year increase (or better than a 3% annual increase).  Now, did anybody outside the City of Oak Creek, the federal government, or your average school district get a 3% raise this year?  Is anybody outside the City of Oak Creek, the federal government, or your average school district looking at a 3% raise next year?

   Posted by steveegg on December 23, 2009 at 1908 hrs




9. I believe he adjusted for QEO in his analysis.

   Posted by Smeety on December 23, 2009 at 2145 hrs




10. Doyle is a lying sack of shit.

    No shock there.

    

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 2306 hrs




11. I rest my case

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 2309 hrs




12. I need some facts to put this in perspective.  How much did the State spend on everything in the budget in FY 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010?

    I’d like to see numbers.  Maybe us conservatives are “hiding the decline”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0032 hrs




13. 2008 total expenditures: $27.365 Billion Dollars
    2009 total expenditures: $29.279 Billion Dollars

    
    2010 Requested : $30.761 Billion Dollars
    2010 Governors Recommendation: $31.579 Billion Dollars

    2011 Requested: $31.645 Billion Dollars
    2011 Governors Recommendation: $31.144 Billion Dollars

    There you go George, Jim sure is a paragon of fiscal restraint. He recommended a cut of $500 million, the year after he leaves office. Wow, those cuts to services are astounding, especially when you take into consideration that they probably will never happen. Next time, at least bother to look up the numbers for yourself, I guess you can just keep your anti-conservative bat on auto whack…. lame.

    
    See the numbers for yourself here:
    http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/pdf_files/statewidetota ls.pdf

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0921 hrs




14. Keep in mind, that even with that cut, it is still an increase over the actual department requests from 2010. This is typical Doyle budgeting shenanigans, and the notion that anyone would accept him at his word rather than looking at the actual budget document typifies liberal naivete.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0940 hrs




15. Great figures Doug.  So what your numbers show is that in 2009 we spent $29.2B and then in 2010 we will spend at least $30.7B.  So much for those “cuts”

    All these dopes from Doyle down to the West Bend School board have been conditioned to always having 5-10% more money around every single year.  So a 1-2% increase causes their constituent groups horrible “pain” and they scream about “draconian cuts” 

    Good luck on that as the tax revenues continue to drop.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1242 hrs




16. I am willing to let the numbers speak for themselves, rather than some article from the business journal from around the time the budget talks were being ramped up. The fact of the matter is that James Doyle has increased State spending every year of every bianium since he took office. To even suggest that there have been draconian cutbacks tells me that someone is either lying or woefully misinformed. Unfortunately for the people of Wisconsin it seems that the former is true most of the time.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1435 hrs




17. Well George,
    If your ‘case’ rests on top of an anvil balanced on a nerf dart, it is as solid as it appears.

    I don’t even get your what point your link was trying to prove unless you are trying to convince us that Walker, the cut king, is just a liar.  We all know that the initially proposed increases were around 6 billion and that Doyle scrimped and sweated to get it down to around a 4 billion increase.  Where have you been?

    I love how so many liberals come to this blog and complain about ‘ranting’ without facts and condemn us all.  Someone (in this case, thank you Doug) gives the facts and links that we have all seen before and you never hear from them again on the subject…

    Damned if George won’t do the same thing on the next topic until he is out of new ones, though.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 0934 hrs