"Seems to me that Governor Walker is asking for adjustments that are way too modest..." -- Understatement of the year.

>"Please explain to me why it's so important that we do this right now and how it's going to alleviate unemployment."

If not now, when?

Reducing the burden of the state on the private sector should stimulate the economy and lower unemployment, according to economic theory.

Lastly, would you please stop pretending to be a big fan of Reagan while at the same attacking cuts to government spending? The dissonance is just too jarring.

I agree 100%... now is the moment to be bold.

In the immortal words of one Jack Ryan: "We definitely grab the boat."

Goyo: You weren't clear initially that you think the feds should bail out the states. Sorry, but one bailout doesn't justify another. I'm no fan of the financial bailouts, but they really haven't added significantly to the debt/deficit, so there's no connection between them and the need to balance the budget.

I'm really not sure how 'social security retirees' comes up in your rant, unless you're referring to the lack of a price-of-living bump, which has nothing to do with the budget and which was nonetheless more than offset by the $250 checks.

If you think the federal government should keep the wages and staff levels of state/local governments artificially high for the sake of 'lowering unemployment', you clearly have no grasp of basic economics and/or conservative economic philosophy.

-The money has to be repaid eventually. Throwing money at the public sector for the sake of stimulus is a terrible idea when that money will have to be repaid from the private sector at some point. In the myriad ways that gov't could theoretically reduce the current unemployment rate, that would be one of the least efficient ways of doing it.

-We believe gov't should be local wherever possible. The more the cost of gov't is dispersed, the easier it is for waste to crop up. Using the federal gov't to bail out states for their wasteful spending and extravagant promises will only encourage more of that behavior and will punish states that behaved responsibly.

-Debt levels are already high and we're looking at a mountain of SS and Medicare payments coming due. Now is not the time to waste money.

-Conservatives believe there is so much waste that it is possible to balance the budget with minimal harm to the short-term economy. Beyond that, we believe that we simply can't afford current deficit levels *regardless* of the effect on unemployment. Some pain now or Greece-style collapse later; I'll take 'some pain now' any time. Plus, conservatives have plenty of ideas on reducing unemployment that would more than make up for an end to Keynesian deficit spending.

@ DorsaiGuy
As Ronaldus Maximus like to say, "Well…" when I was in Prof. Sowell's economics classes at UCLA one of the things he taught us was to call people on their use of plainly, clearly, obviously and I'll add your "basic" to that. Prof. Sowell said anything really plain, clear and obvious could be explained in so few words as to make the use of plain, clear, obvious and "basic" unnecessary. So I'll take your use of "basic" as an admission that you know not of what you speak.

@Ditch
I'm not sure what you mean by Keynsian deficit financing. I assume you mean printing money. I guess that's true in a sense though the state of California has indeed printed IOUs which are a sort of money. Were they to make them legally acceptable for the payment of State Taxes and fees they would be money.

But even so, the Federal Government can engage in deficit financing and rather than see people fired or wages cut at the State level that is what they should do. The Federal government has spent trillions bailing out banks, foreign banks, investment banks, German banks, Saudi Banks. Now I'm supposed to be offended that the Federal Government spends a couple hundred billion dollars so that working people don't have to lose their jobs or take pay cuts?

My question is why? Why are you asking teachers, firemen, policemen, secretaries, social security retirees, to bail out Deutsche Bank and the Bank of China?

How is balancing the budget going to lower unemployment? Can't any of you answer that question.

@Goyo:

Modern Keynesianism isn't even what Keynes put forth. Keynes advocated short term government investment spending during recessions to make up for lack of private sector investment. Keynes never advocated long term systemic deficit spending. Right now we have long term systemic deficit spending at the local, state, and federal level. This leads to economic collapse whether you talk to Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes.

And states do not have to balance their budget. Issuing debt to fund current expenditures is not balancing the budget. The only difference between states and the federal government is that the states have no way to monetize the debt they issue, ie printing money to buy debt. They can still issue debt and have done so for generations. The problem is that certain states debt burden is forcing ever rising interest rates on their debt, exacerbating already systemic deficits.

States and municipalities also create off the book vehicles to issue even more debt. See transit authorities as a huge way to hide debt from the official books. State finances smell and look like Enron in so many ways. The special finance vehiclees just have names like the Metro Transit Authority or the Timbuktu Sewage Commission.

Walker's bill exempts local police, firefighters and the State Patrol. Don't all of the arguments against public sector unions and collective bargaining apply to them as well? .... or is it just the idea of going after teachers that lights your fire?

Goyo is a classic case of functional illiteracy. "I'm still waiting to hear the economic theory behind focusing on balancing budgets in the midst of 10% unemployment."

Do you know anything about state laws?

I have served as a state-level public employee for just short of a quarter-century - through times remarkably good and distressingly bad.

I support the Wisconsin governor's stance on collective bargaining. I don't think it's right to resort to taking additional taxpayers' revenue during these tough times (and no, I'm not buying the rhetoric peddled by the SEIU and AFSCME organizers). I also don't think it's appropriate for any one group to skew the revenue vs. compensation relationship. Also, if my work area hadn't shown any tangible productivity gains for several decades, I'd expect they would have eliminated our jobs a long time ago (and yes, we do produce tangible engineering products of substantial value)

In our state, public employees have seen modest pay raises in the past - and notable pay cuts (with unpaid furloughs on top of that) in recent years. But we're still employed for now - and yes, it's appreciated. My total compensation package is still substantially less than my private-sector counterparts, but I'm OK with that, as I've also seen entire consultant offices eliminated and liquidated in a few weeks, with experienced and well-regarded staff out of work for years.

My state is one that that has paid attention to public-employee pension funding, and my take-home pay has varied through the years as my substantial contribution percentages have changed based on investment returns. And yet I could see the possibility of raids or default resulting in nothing- or a more likely result where the pension will be delivered as promised, but providing little actual value due to inflation (but hey! we'll all be millionaires!)

I'll be technically eligible to retire in less than five years. But I think I'll likely stick around for a little while longer anyway, as I can still be productive - and more important, I'll still have at least one kid in school for a while.

One last thing: I look at my relationship with the state not as a client, victim, or dependent, but as a partner, shareholder, and producer - and I don't have a lot of patience for those who would seek to change that relationship, either for "my good" or "the public good".

P.S. There is one thing that would induce my departure from government service in a hurry - and that would be mandatory union membership or dues deduction...

Yes, they must act now and do it quickly. Any further delay only gives the opposition hope that their methods are bearing fruit.

The comment by Gabby G. Marquez shows the degree to which vulgar Keynesianism has got hold of the popular imagination (v. Donkey talking points since at least Sept. 08).

Goyo,

what wage cutting are you talking about ? The teachers are not be offered a pay cut ...

Balancing budgets are good economics no matter what the unemployment rate is ... thats why most states are required to do so ...

Please don't ask people here to educate you on basic economics ... thats your job not ours ... and its obvious that you haven't done that job ...

Given the rotten job teachers have done for the last decade I say why not cut their pay ...

and by the way, lowering tax rates are completely different than reducing expenses ...

GoyoMarquez, I'm just going to point out that *states can't do Keynesian deficit spending* and leave it at that.

Rip it off quick like a bandage. This is the time to destroy this cancer on America that is bankrupting us.

Walker has the votes and the public behind him to deal with this problem once and for all.

eloris: you're right about the forced collection of dues, as to abolished public sector unionism (which is a critical distinction) there are states which do not currently allow public sector employees to be unionized, so clearly it can be worked.

It amazes me that private sector unions are throwing in with the public ones. At some point the citizenry will understand the threat of the public ones and move to outlaw them. By then the private ones will have so made the case that they are the same thing they will go down with them. Huge strategic error.

There's no way to fix this at the margins. The whole system needs to be rebuilt. Teachers are great but the local politicians had no business promising them income for life -- unless they were paying out of their own pockets.

Hey teachers: the unions and the politicians conspired to promise you something they ultimately could not deliver. Stop blaming conservatives; we're not the ones who swindled you.

I agree that government employees' unions should be abolished for the reasons described in this article.

As for Kevin Moriarty's comment about Gov. Walker being duped by the liberal activist posing as David Koch, Governor Walker took this man's call and then chose to not dispute the caller's comments that were designed to elicit a response. The fact is that every politician has to take calls from people who will support them with money. I am surprised that Governor Walker's staff let this liberal activist get through to the governor, but there is nothing scandalous here.

I think actually trying to make a law against unions would:

a) Allow them to pose as victims
b) Be unworkable. How can you make a law against A, B, C, D and E saying "we'll only agree to what F agrees to on our behalf?"

So the real problem is "binding arbitration", that is, where when the union and the employer don't agree, an unelected, anti-democratic official gets to overrule the employer-ie the taxpayers-and confiscate their wealth with government guns.

The other problem as was argued by twmmah7127 is the forced collection of dues.

TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES - PAY CUTS FOR TEACHERS

That, I guess, is the Republicans theory of governance. I was in favor of the tax-cuts or continuing the Bush tax cuts, whatever you want to call it. I'm always in favor of tax cuts. But if you can't see that there is no economic difference between cutting wages in the middle of a recession and raising taxes it's because your partisan blinkers are choking off the supply of blood to your head.

I'm still waiting to hear the economic theory behind focusing on balancing budgets in the midst of 10% unemployment. Balancing budgets only benefits people who own or are owed large quantities of dollars. The budget balancers goal is apparently to preserve the wealth of the Chinese and Saudi governments by cutting the wages of school teachers, firemen, policemen, and no doubt next the military.

Please explain to me why it's so important that we do this right now and how it's going to alleviate unemployment. Balancing budgets in the middle of a recession is the rights equivalent of passing universal healthcare in the middle of a recession, i.e. something done for ideological reasons, the unemployed be damned.

The reason I agree is that I don't know how much more of this our country can take. We on the right know that there are a series of incremental steps that need to happen, and this is the first. We took the incremental approach, I assume, because we figured there would be less pain and suffering that way. But if we are going to be faced with all-out chaos every time any step is taken, then we may have to up the ante.

To borrow a violent metaphor from our ever-so-mild-mannered president, if we bring a knife, and they bring a gun, should we pull out the nuclear warhead?

i'll tell you, in NH we have a much more (supposedly) innocuous budget situation: towns finalized their budgets, assuming that the state would be putting in the customary 35% towards teacher retirement; then our spineless Dem governor announced that, in his budget, he would be dropping that contribution, meaning that towns are mandated to come up with the difference - $1.4 million in one town I know of. Rather than take on the unions and say that retirement contributions were going down, he passed the bill on to already cash-strapped towns.

And how has the teachers union reacted? They've got some experienced organizers from Wisconsin coming to the state to give a talk.

This sort of thing makes me wonder how long we can go on with these conflicts. Perhaps we should rip the Band-Aid off all at once instead of slowly . . .

Andy,
Your rihgt. Go for it. Stop collecting the Union dues and see how many will give the money back once it is in their hands.

Paying their own benefits is not enough, fires some. The Milwaukee school system has 8 student per 1 gvt employee.

Still no comments from NRO bloggers re the "Koch" call yesterday? Anyone who could be duped so easily is, in my opinion, one or more of the following: not too bright, not too competent, and evidently very eager to respond to the money (a failing common to Democrats and Republicans alike).

Not a bad idea. At this point, he could say, hey, I tried to take modest steps, and was met with absolute obstruction. If you guys really want an all-out war [pardon the violent imagery], then we're going to raise the stakes. And introduce a bill to prohibit collective bargaining by any public sector unions for anything.

Maybe you can convince Governor Daniels of that.

But I agree, this is a fight that needs to be addressed and won.