Issue of the Week: The City Budget's Open Question
Plus Hero of the Week
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has faced some challenging city budgets. The 2008 financial collapse had a huge negative impact on the city's finances, which forced the city to make a multimillion-dollar contribution to the pension fund as well as cut the budget by $32 million.
The city isn't facing that kind of mess this year. It's facing an entirely different mess—one of Gov. Scott Walker's making.
As we all know, Walker's collective bargaining changes now require public employees to make contributions to their pensions and health care. But not all employees are created equal in Walker's world. Those who are politically favored—the police and firefighters' unions, which supported Walker during his campaign—are exempt from making this sacrifice.
But what about the rest of the city's workforce?
That's still an open question.
Milwaukee City Attorney Grant Langley sent Barrett a letter in February, which Barrett forwarded to Walker, arguing that the governor's collective bargaining changes were unconstitutional and neither Walker nor the state Legislature had that kind of power over Milwaukee, thanks to the Home Rule provision in the state Constitution.
But Barrett heard nothing in response. On Tuesday he said that 18 communications occurred between his staff and the governor's staff, yet nothing has been resolved.
"So here's where we are," Barrett said in his budget address. "I've got a city attorney's opinion and a state law which are in direct conflict."
So until this matter is resolved in the courts, Barrett is requiring city employees—except for fire and police employees—to make the additional health care and pension contributions.
But just in case Walker's bill is unconstitutional, as Langley argues, and employees aren't required to make these additional payments, Barrett is setting aside $8.2 million in a special purpose account for benefits. The city will tap into that fund if it's determined that it will have to cover the contributions.
"I cannot in good conscience propose a budget that has conflicts with state law," Barrett said. "Unless a court has determined that in fact the relevant provisions are unconstitutional, there may be very negative consequences for the city to adopt a budget that conflicts with the statutes."
Hero of the Week: George Wagner, Doors Open Milwaukee Creator
George Wagner is proof that one individual—a volunteer, no less—can shape a city. Wagner, a longtime volunteer for Historic Milwaukee Inc. and a retired librarian for the Milwaukee Public Library, had enjoyed "doors open" events in Toronto and Denver, events that allowed visitors to tour historic buildings in those cities. Wagner knew that this sort of event would flourish in Milwaukee, thanks to our impressive collection of historic buildings. So Wagner, in conjunction with Historic Milwaukee Inc. and hundreds of volunteers, launched Doors Open Milwaukee, which debuted this past weekend with tours of City Hall, the Bradley Center, the Jones Island water treatment center and the 41st-floor observation deck of the U.S. Bank Building, among other of the city's architectural gems. We applaud Wagner's love of Milwaukee and the gift he's given to this city.
So what your saying is that municipal workers excluding firefighters and police should be put on a 10K deductible. Thats a pretty damn big deductible, it's simply catastrophic insurance at that point. I could agree but only if each was given a 10K pay increase. And exactly why should the fire department and police not share in the burden. I don't really see how they are putting more work in than others. And don't give me that crap about putting their lives on the line. They signed up for that just like the office worker signed up for that. If it's cuts, then doggarnit, it should be cuts accross the board. Not based on who through the most money at a crooked politician during his bid for office.
I think everyone should be on$10k deductibles. Thats what I have and am very happy with it. My health care premiums are small. So even if I do need to come up with the $10k, I've bot it banked from all the savings I get. Keep in mind you will still get huge disounts from your doctors and for Rx if you get the right kind of insurance. And no you don't give them a $10k pay increase. That would be stupid. They are city workers!!! That almost like being on welfare. Now if the workers can come up with ideas to make the city a profit center then by all means they deserve some of the action. We could start a city lottery. The city could build a casino to compete with the Indians. The city could farm out workers with idle time to private businesses. We could fire excess workers and lease out their offices. We could use jail inmates to patch roads and shovel snow. Even run the humane society. There are lots of ways to make money for the city. Each department should be converted to a profit center.
As for giving the police and firefighters a break. Well that is their reward for helping the party. A lot of us donated a ton of money to get the republicans in power, we just want our reward. Just like when the Democrats opened up the state treasury to the Teacher's union for their reward.
The reason that Police and Fire has the position of choice is because of thier role in the anticipated change in society may need to go through.
If the class battle plays out as dirty and hard-fought as the extremists want it to, there will be a bloody battle for control. In the ensuing anarchy, we want to make sure the PROTECTORS OF PROPERTY are ready to step up to the task... all to make sure that the present day haves will still have their material wealth when it all shakes out.
Remember that's what the police are, more as protectors of property than protectors of human lives. As in the Animal Farm quote, "some are more equal than others".
They were checking Neumann's math when he claimed that the federal budget can be fixed immediately, by dropping the present day spending for a family of four from 46,000 per year to 30,000 per year. It was simply taking the total federal budget, dividing it up by how many Americans we have (divided into average households of 4 person each). By the way, his numbers were correct. This is where Paul Harvey's "The rest of the story" needs to come in.
1st shocking point is "How can we spend $46,000 per family when the average family doesn't pay near that in taxes?" -- And even if we drop that to $30,000, what family is paying even that amount in taxes?
---------------------------------
This is the BEST propaganda yet on how heavy the wealthy and the businesses are being taxed, and that we need to drop it by HUGE amounts (or shift it to the working class)!! But, that's still not "the rest of the story!"
What I want to know is what portion of that money finds its way into the paychecks of the people that live in America. There are LOTS of government workers who turn around and spend money in the American economy. There are LOTS of private workers who work for companies who have contracts with the government, they also spend money in the American economy. Nearly all that money comes back to us (except for what private investors stash away in foreign bank accounts or foreign infrastructure building).
YES, every government body needs to cut its costs, just like every private business needs to cut its costs, that is unquestioned! But, "Workers" and "Consumers" are NOT two separate, independent pools of money! I think that's what all the analysis is refusing to include. That huge pool of "Consumers" gets the money they spend from where?... From that other side of their life called "Work", that's where!
Inescapable fact... One company's "Consumer" is another company's "Worker" (or even a government worker).
That's my biggest problem with "Capitalism". --- When it works well, a business that provides a product or service takes in MORE than that product or service costs. But, where does that MORE come from? Can't keep getting it from your own people, need to find outsiders to buy those products or services.
Oh we did it before, it was called having these consumers buying on credit! What Reagan and Clinton did was change the system to allow extending more CREDIT to the working class consumers. Yes, the very same "sub-prime" loans that we gave to people who could not pay them back. Business said "I'll take the cash", so long as some future taxpayer or gullible investor was going to be stuck with the loan papers. All business needs to do is "cash out" while they can still find a buyer, means cashing out the day before the buyer cannot buy anymore. -- Others may say that the sub-prime mess was only a small part of the game, that Wall Street and their trading on unregulated, unsustainable securities was the real culprit, that's the real "pyramid scheme".
My answer? There is none! Hit the "reset" button, wipe out all the scores, come away with the experience you learned from the game (Can't carry your winning score to the next game). Can a new system work from the "sweat of your brow", we all play a part to build material possessions and accumulate knowledge, and still stay in balance? Can the new system allow Christian, Muslim, Jew, and "secular humanist" to all play a part that all agree to play? Can the new system allow white, black, brown, yellow, and red to all play and still be happy? Can the new system allow conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist to all fit in happily? Can the new system allow those who have employable skills and those who do not to all stay in the game?