Comments on: Scott Walker won because he took action against soaring pension costs http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Elrond http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-46082 Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:01:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-46082 The crux of the matter is the public employee unions had already agreed to Walker’s financial issues. They just didn’t want labor law gutted. The expenditures of the 1% of the 1% will now visit 1913 upon the population of the U.S. No safety net, political corruption, and unregulated outrage. Meanwhile the U.S. will lose its ability to compete as the school systems are allowed to crumble.

]]>
By: Calfri http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45935 Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:53:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45935 I was with the author until he started talking about Simpson-Bowles, which recommends cutting the top tax rate even more.

Also, it isn’t mentioned often enough, Walker’s plan didn’t include police and fire unions, which tend to be Republicans — his political friends.

Also, Walker should have been voted out because he didn’t tell Wisconsinites what he was planning, or if he did he didn’t make sure people heard him loud and clear. That’s a principle. Walker gets an F in statecraft, for all the division he’s caused.

]]>
By: palmer1619 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45880 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:38:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45880 The Wisconsin public union members accepted a much lower salary than they would have gotten in private industry solely because of the benefits that they were promised. Walker is repulsive, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about the sub-human specimen.

]]>
By: UauS http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45879 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 19:16:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45879 Walker won, in part, because American public is brainwashed beyond belief… I’ve dealt with Soviet propaganda, let me tell you it was a lot less sophisticated than the US corporate one.

]]>
By: Sanity-Monger http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45832 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:18:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45832 It’s the same-old refrain — we’re all spoiled and need to face up to paying for our past sins. The Wisconsin unions acceded to all of Walker’s budgetary demands. What they objected to was the reduction in collective bargaining rights, which was a blatant political and ideological move having nothing to do with the fiscal health of the state. But these facts don’t fit well with the narrative that the unions are greedy and out-of-touch.

We have an economy that serves the 1% very well while deserting the rest of us. When it’s in trouble, suddenly we’re all in this together, except that the benefits for the 1% are somehow sacrosanct. Let’s start with a return to the tax rates of the 1990’s. Or better yet, to the Reagan tax rates. And don’t tell me how this won’t really contribute to reducing the deficit. It most certainly will, but that’s not really the point. Talk about shared sacrifice has no legitimacy among us plebes if it doesn’t start with those who have most benefitted.

]]>
By: auger http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45793 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:57:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45793 The author’s statement ‘…against soaring pension costs’ could more forthrightly be stated ‘against soaring healthcare costs’, as we are all aware of the villain’s true title. Not a mention here of healthcare reform, nor the controversial plan in scotus limbo. Eliminating some of the beneficiaries of health coverage is not the answer to reforming the cost of it – we have plenty of part time laborers who will vouch for that

]]>
By: wildbiker http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45780 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:00:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45780 Just a few points. Anyone who points to the comparitive spending level of campaigns or ground game or whatever thinks of this as a lost PR battle in place of a win for the taxpayer. The author fails to complete the thought on Simpson-Bowles, which is the very man who commissioned the effort, President Obama, ditched the recommendation. He lacked the political courage to do the right thing. And, my recollection was their were attempts to work with the unions prior to pushing the legislation. The unions felt they had the upper hand and felt threatened by the legislation, considering it political intimidation. So, they stood pat, daring Walker to go forward with his implementation. They thought they could bully Walker and everyone else into doing it their way. They lost tactically. They lost strategically. They lost politically. Finally, on health care costs. Ask yourself a couple of simple questions. Do you consider yourself as having enough common sense and intelligence to make your own decisions about mitigating your personal health problems? If your answer is yes, ask yourself if you would do all that is done each time you see a doctor or HCP for illness or injury. If the answer comes up no sometimes, speak up. You know what you’ll find? Your out of pocket cost will go down, but your premium cost won’t. Why? It’s determined by the risk of the entire pool of people you’re grouped with to determine premiums and whatever government-mandates have to be satisfied with coverage. That’s why many of us whose doctor encounters in 2010 and 2011 actually went down saw premiums double. Or more. Obamacare.

]]>
By: gordo53 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45776 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:57:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45776 Regardless of your politics, there is no denying that states and municipalities are coming under ever increasing financial pressure. This is a trend that will be with us for many years. We are a nation in economic decline. States and municipalities can not run big deficits or print money like the federal government so budgets must be balanced. We are seeing the beginning of the end of government employee pension plans. Health care costs will soon usher in a dramatic reduction in the number of government employees. More and more of the tasks performed by government will be farmed out to the lowest private bidder. I’m not saying this is a good thing. It is simply inevitable.

]]>
By: pmagellan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45775 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:54:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45775 You say: scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action- against-soaring-pension-costs

Maybe its because he out-spent his opponent 8-to-1…?

Maybe because the pensions are for individuals who need them, not for corporations who count them as expenses and can get rid of them by abusing, or changing, the law.

Wake-up, this is the result of too much money in politics, not reason nor democracy.

]]>
By: Adam_S http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/#comment-45773 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:22:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12996#comment-45773 I’m no Walker fan, and I believe that unions do serve a purpose, but the author is right, in one way: Walker won the battle of implementation. While I think he did it in about the most heavy handed manner imaginable, he did offer a solution, whereas the Democrats, both in WI and elsewhere, seem only able to decry the fact that benefits and compensation are being cut or frozen, and failing to acknowledge the larger problem.

I do though think xit007 is confused…with private sector leadership pay being what it is, the private sector could MORE than afford what the public sector has created. They just don’t want to, hence they did away with the Pension Benefit Guarantee Act in 1974, and since, our govt is increasingly lenient to corporations regarding tax payments and the like.

All this begs the question of healthcare. Without doubt, healthcare is driving the horrendous increase in the cost of public sector pension benefits. Switching those workers to defined contribution plans will do two things without doubt: It will wash states’ hands of the burden of providing these benefits, and it will do NOTHING to solve the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs. This is something which negatively affects all Americans, private sector, public sector, pensioners, retirees, and active workers.

We must remove the profit motive from the healthcare industry, or we will never solve this problem. You can pass the buck a thousand times, the only thing that will change is the size of the buck being passed. Soon, nobody’s going to be able to catch it when it comes their way.

]]>