Where were those jobs lost Bert? Was it MPS and kenosha? Was it public workers rushing for retirement before ACT 10? Was it just cutting the fat and saving taxpayers unneeded expenses?

Where did the 1 billion go? How did it just disappear into thin air?

Bert:

Your 'BLS statistics' don't tell the whole story. More than 18,000 public sector jobs would have been eliminated over the past 12 months had Act 10 not been implemented. Fact is, Act 10 has actually saved many jobs. Look at the layoffs that MPS is planning because they didn't implement Act 10...

Once again, where did the $1B+ that Walker allegedly 'sucked out of the economy' go? Does the money no longer exist?

BTW--the "Walker economy" hasn't even been in effect for 12 months yet...

Bert keeps claiming 18,000 public sector jobs were eliminated by Walker. (He is like Bren with the ALEC thing, no brains, no proof, just yap-yap-yap). And Bert states it as FACT.
Well it's time to put-up or shut-up, I call BS. Bert let's have some proof. No reply will be accepted as proof that you are dead wrong and that you lie.

Greg - the net loss of 18,000 public sector jobs over the period from March 2011 to March 2012 is reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the primary source of jobs figures for the country. But keep on believing in whatever noises come out of your radio.

Steve - There are 18,000 fewer public sector jobs now than there were a year ago. At a time when we are in a jobs crisis, we're not going to improve the situation by putting ourselves further in the hole. As evidenced by the simultaneous loss of 4,500 PRIVATE sector jobs, the idiotic notion that slashing money out of the economy would spur growth has also not worked.

Cow - I just LOVE right wingers who want to claim that Obama has seen a net loss of jobs (only possible by including Jan. 2009, during which he was in office only the final 10 days), and then turn around and make your argument that you can't count the entire first year of Walker's term. Nothing like intellectual integrity!

Here's the problem. The BEST month for jobs growth during Walker's administration, to date, is January 2011. Almost all of the months with positive jobs gains occurred early on, before his policies were enacted. By moving the clock forward, you only make things worse for him. If you want something truly shocking, just look at the net jobs under Walker beginning in June 2011, when Act 10 finally made it through the courts. Using THAT timeline, we're BY FAR the worst state for job creation. Thus, the best thing we can do right now is end this disaster as soon as possible.

Fact : DOYLE and the Lib control was a complete disaster. Deficits, loans, fees and stealing money from trust funds.
Fact: Barret is one of the worst Mayors in the country. By any standard.
Fact: Falk didnt work with unions she just raised taxes and bought swamp land. Now she completely sold out for more of that insanity.
FACT : WALKER WINS! :)

Bert:

I don't recall making any claims about Obama.

You keep repeating this 18,000 jobs lost mantra and claiming that those jobs would not have been lost if Walker was not in office. What basis are you using to make that claim? It's pretty clear that districts like Kenosha and MPS are planning layoffs while other districts are not. The big difference is that MPS and Kenosha are not able to use Act 10 to improve their budget shortfalls. I'd say that would be evidence that Walker's policies are saving and/or creating jobs rather than losing jobs...

BTW Bert:

I'm still looking for an answer on how the $1B+ was removed from the economy by Walker...

I'll try again. Bert can I get proof? The BLS has a big site and I could not find anything on your claim.

Bert keeps claiming 18,000 public sector jobs were eliminated by Walker. (He is like Bren with the ALEC thing, no brains, no proof, just yap-yap-yap). And Bert states it as FACT.
Well it's time to put-up or shut-up, I call BS. Bert let's have some proof. No reply will be accepted as proof that you are dead wrong and that you lie.
...

@Bert: Rumer has it that you work for the Falls school system, is that true?
How Shocking!

Craig - I work in the private sector, have never been a public sector worker, and have never been a union member. My only affiliation with the school system is that my kids are students, so I am definitely biased when it comes to cuts in school funding that will inevitably damage educational opportunities and quality.

Greg - you're an idiot. I know five-year-olds with better computer skills. But, if you must have your nose rubbed in it before you believe anything, here's the link:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/state-posts-largest-percentage-job-loss-in-us-over-past-year-report-shows-ib54utt-148694855.html
I assume you're at least smart enough to google the source report from there.

►Steve - There are 18,000 fewer public sector jobs now than there were a year ago. At a time when we are in a jobs crisis, we're not going to improve the situation by putting ourselves further in the hole.◄

This is improvement. A hole would be continue to run deficits to keep all of those employees. Now a chunk of that is a rush of retirements and some districts not following ACT 10, which would have save those jobs and filled a budget deficit.
The state is 4 years behind the real world. I watched as 20% of my fellow employees were laid off in 2008-early 2009. This was needed to save the company from total collapse ie 100% layoffs.
Same thing here.
Saved a collapse
Saved lots of jobs
In a few years if this right way of thinking keeps up the state will live once again in the real world. That is if the fed doesn't crash first in it's pile of debt.

Dung - I apologize, since you were commenting on the topic of the economy, I assumed you had at least an elementary understanding of the topic. Let me try to get this down to the right level for you.
The "Economy" is really the sum total of all of the transactions that take place in a given area. It's measured by things like the "Gross Domestic Product" - which is the sum of all of the goods and services produced by a country. The flip side to production, of course, is consumption. Someone has to BUY all those goods and services.
Looking at consumption, there are three main areas - consumers (who use goods and service for their own enjoyment or need); businesses (who generally consume goods and services in order to produce other goods and services); and government (which consumes goods and services in order to provide the infrastructure and public services that make the first two even possible).
Here's the tricky part. In a RECESSION, the first two categories REDUCE their consumption of goods and services. Fewer consumers consuming means fewer businesses purchasing labor (i.e. HIRING), which tends to make people spend even less. This is a vicious cycle.
Luckily, governments do not need to operate on this same cycle! At times of low economic activity, as the "private sector" are in this downward spiral, the government can decide to INCREASE it's activity...

@Steve...Your fellow employees? I thought you owned your own successful business. What is the truth?

...In this way, the government acts as a countervailing (that means "working against") force to the down cycle in the private sector.
On the other hand, if the government decides to join in the downward cycle, and reduces its consumption of goods and services (a.k.a. the services of teachers, the services of contractors to renovate public buildings, the services of road construction firms to fix crumbling bridges, etc.), then the downward spiral is exacerbated (that means "made worse").
Walker, facing a weak private sector economy, decided to make it worse by reducing the economic activity in the state by an additional $1Bn for 2011-13. That money could have gone to hiring construction firms and keeping 18,000 public sector workers on the payrolls. Instead, by NOT spending, the economy of the state actually shrank by $1Bn (over this year and last). True, $500M per year is not a huge chunk of the economy - the public sector makes up a very small percentage after all - it did serve to further throttle a bad economy.
As opposed to what might come out of your radio or that light-up box in your living room, this is not some whack-o theory I just made up. It's well-understood and observable economic reality. Whether you look at 1920's austerity policies under Hoover, 2010 austerity in Europe, or Walker austerity here, the results are consistent - things get worse instead of better.

Bert:

Let's try this again since you still failed to answer my question (and judging by the level of condescension in your comment, I'm thinking that you don't have an answer).

ALL of the money that the government spends has been taken out of the private sector. Cutting government spending doesn't take money out of the economy like you have been claiming. That money that is not spent by the government is freed up to be spent by the private sector. It isn't removed from the economy, nor does it 'de-stimulate' the economy. Not to mention that there would have been far more jobs lost had Act 10 never been implemented.

Dung, you're a great example of why we need to invest more in education.

The government is spending less than it did, at a time when it should be spending more. That reduces economic activity (the state's GDP, as it were), since ALL transactions are included in this measure.

IF all of that spending had been offset by tax cuts (which is absolutely was NOT), this would still result in a drop in economic activity as some portion of tax cuts inevitably get put into savings, rather than spent. The more those tax cuts shade to the higher earners, the higher the percentage that gets saved rather than spent. While savings is generally a GOOD thing, it does not help the economy grow.

Unfortunately for us, (and for your argument), we did not see a $1B in tax cuts, not even close to that. And, the majority of cuts were aimed at people with higher incomes, meaning the cuts we did have were directed to the worst possible place in terms of economic stimulation. This is basic Econ 101. Actually, not even. You probably should have learned this much in high school, with even a cursory review of the Great Depression. I guess this is why Republicans are anti-education - it's their form of "base-building".

►@Steve...Your fellow employees? I thought you owned your own successful business. What is the truth?◄

In 2008 I worked for a large company and this is the same year that my business started to develop. I didn't put all my eggs in one basket during a recession. I saw a lot of people laid off, stores closed down, and was forced to move from IL back to WI.

►Luckily, governments do not need to operate on this same cycle! At times of low economic activity, as the "private sector" are in this downward spiral, the government can decide to INCREASE it's activity...◄

They can, with borrowed money to make up for the loss of revenue since they decided to go the opposite way.
But the time comes to pay back that debt. That time has come.

Steve - the time to cut spending and/or raise taxes is when the economy is doing well. One good example of such a time would have been the early 2000's, when the Federal Government was running a surplus and the economy was strong. Unfortunately, the Federal Government cut taxes and raised spending.
NOW, in the early stage of economic recovery (at least outside Wisconsin...), now is decidedly not the time to cut spending or raise taxes. Focusing on the deficit NOW is the absolute worst thing we could do, at the state or federal level. That is exactly what Hoover did in the 20's, it's what Roosevelt began to do before the economy was fully recovered in the 30's, and it's what the UK has been doing for the last two years. (The UK, in case you missed it, is officially back in recession now.)

So basically end up like Greece. Borrow, spend, collapse.

The private sector will grow once again if gov would just get out of the way and control it's huge massive debt that lingers over us all. Roosevelt had a world war.

Some real facts for the weekend.
Vast majority of public employe positions lost came out of systems like MPS where they rushed a contract to keep the union safe from the new rules. There were some losses no question, but nowhere near the number it would have been.
There are 36,400 more Wisconsinites in the Civilian workforce this March compared to 2011. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics report. (Same report actually shows 400 more folks hired this year over last in educational services.)
Mr. Devilbiss has it right: should the Cabal which has controlled Wisconsin keep control? Do they deserve the right to do so. This Cabal has many players, including Public Unions which are run very privately and get their multi-million dollar dues from the Taxpayer; elected officials and staff, who kept their jobs by supporting the same unions; universities, think tanks, lobbyists all keeping their toes on the progressive party line; the Left Bank Media, having left the Main Stream Media along time ago when they chose a side--all these groups with detailed designs on how the People should live their lives.
It is really nice to have such a choice. Can't Recall when it has been this simple.

Bert:

You don't seem to be getting it. Government spending doesn't help. When the government is spending more, everyone else has to spend less. Where do you think the money that the government spends comes from?

I plan to cover jobs issue in my next article, so I left that out. The local governments and school districts that were forced to cut employees were the ones that behaved irresponsibly like Kenosha and Milwaukee. If that is your concern then you should be recalling the school boards.

It's one in the same

No I think he has it right. The changes that Walker has made provide for LOCAL CONTROL by the taxpayers. Unless you mean by "big business" the public sector unions, then you are correct. After all they are the biggest business in the state and they are ripping off the "average citizens".

@Greg...Back up your argument with some indisputable facts. The teacher's unions have held considerable power, but the other public sector unions have had virtually no power. The issue with public sector unions for Walker has been their ability to contribute to opposition campaigns. It's always been cutting off the Democratic money. Everything he did to state employees' unions could have been done without ACT-10. Doyle announced a 16 day furlough program and that's what happened. What the conservatives don't want to admit is that they want to make it impossible for the opposition to gain any kind of political power.

Greg - Walker has removed a significant amount of local control over education decisions, as well as other decisions normally made by local municipalities. The state government now dictates far more terms than ever to localities. Even if 100% of the citizens in a town WANTED to increase their property tax levy in order to raise the standard of education in their own school system, Walker bans it. (There were already caps on this before Walker took office, which similarly removed local control.) You can argue that this is a good thing or a bad thing, but you can't argue that there's been an increase in LOCAL control. The opposite has been true.

Bert:

Your claim is untrue. Local residents can indeed increase their property tax levy by referendum vote.

If 100% of the citizens in a town WANTED to send in additional money for their schools and not increase their property tax levy in order to raise the standard of education in their own school system, there is not a thing Walker could do about it. Of course if 100% of the people on earth farted in the same direction, at once, we could speed up the rotation of the earth and the election would be 3 days sooner.

"Greg - Walker has removed a significant amount of local control over education decisions, as well as other decisions normally made by local municipalities. The state government now dictates far more terms than ever to localities."
If this were true, it would be a seperate conversation. Local control = Not having to pay WEA Trust 120% of market value for insurance. That would be enough for me, but it includes much more than that.
And @Lyle...Why do I have to come up with some indisputable facts? You guys get to spew lousy opinions all day and back-up nothing.

Greg - you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you.

Of course, you are the only one that could be correct. Bert has all the facts and he wants us all to know that.

►Doyle announced a 16 day furlough program◄

And we still had a 3.6 billion dollar deficit.

Greg, just because you look like an idiot after your multiple postings challenging me on my facts proved to be ignorant, doesn't mean I'm always right. However, considering your posts here, which rarely contain anything remotely like a fact, I can understand how you might think so.

@Lyle... You're stoned. Bryant Divelbiss hit the center of the ten ring. You are so caught up in the lies that you could only ever see the truth as spin.

That's still 18,000 jobs that no longer exist/aren't being filled. And goodness knows there are people who could use them.

Nobody is disputing the number of jobs lost. There is some dispute over what caused those jobs to be lost and what that number would have been without Walker and his policies.

I'm thinking that it would be much higher...

Public sector jobs are a drain on our economy. We want only the minimum number of public employees that required to do the public work. If 18,000 public sector jobs are eliminated and our state is still functioning, it is a great thing. It may be a good idea to eliminate a few thousand more jobs and see how that goes. It is not the responsibility of government to employ people, if it were they should employ us all, but that would hardly work because then our tax rate would be well over 100%.
When you say lost or shed public sector jobs it does not mean that a job was taken from someone, it means that job is not sitting out there to be filled. The people that did actually lose their jobs can thank their community leaders and unions for bypassing the Act 10 reforms.

Dung - Greg has been disputing the 18,000 job figure all over this board. He apparently gets his news exclusively from the voices in his head.

As for the "it would have been higher" argument, Act 10 was accompanied by a $1B budget cut. I think we can easily account for the 18,000 jobs lost within that budget cut, as well as a huge number of potential private sector job GAINS that didn't happen.

Regardless of whether these 18,000 jobs were "dead weight", slashing them at a time of high unemployment and a nascent recovery is plain stupidity. This is why we are now in reverse, while the rest of the country is growing.

The unemployment rate is down and our budget is ballanced. I don't want to be like some of the rest of the country, broke. I guess you think our national debt is a good thing too.

Bert:

Consider the fact that if Doyle's budget were to have been continued without the BRB, we'd have a $3+ billion deficit. Walker had to cut spending and/or raise taxes in order to balance the budget. It was a given that some jobs were going to be lost. Act 10 saved jobs in almost every school district in the state.

Greg - you're insane. Reading your last comment, I felt rather like the AFLAC goose tying to make sense of Yogi Berra.
We could cut many more public workers. We would hardly notice, for example, if class sizes doubled, since we're not in the schools every day. Wouldn't show up in test scores for at least a year. We wouldn't notice if we just quit repairing roads and bridges. At least, not until one of the bridges collapses or the roads get so bad we can't use them anymore. We wouldn't notice a few thousand fewer fireman, at least not until OUR house was on fire. Cops? Never need to think about them (until we need one). We surely don't need so many courts, at least not until we need to settle a dispute. County clerks, another joke! I mean, really, how important are good property records anyway?
You have absolutely NO IDEA how much public service you consume every day. Not a clue. As your multiple calls for me to "prove" the 18,000 number shows, you're not all that in touch with what's actually happening at all. Unfortunately, it's the horde of uninformed ditto-heads like you who 'stand' with the idiot in the governor's office that has brought us to dead last in jobs creation. Hopefully, enough of you will sprout a few new brain cells in the next weeks to correct this mess now.

I don't want to double class size or have houses burn. I know that public employees are needed. And I even want them paid well.
But Bert, I'm not a moron like you, that would want 18,000 more people on the payroll than what is needed to get these jobs done. Do you even listen to what you are saying?
If X work takes Y employees, then Y+18,000 is good? I think not.
By your thinking, we should double the public sector employment and we would be better off. Well I can't afford it, maybe smart guys like you can, but I can't.

►goodness knows there are people who could use them.◄
And the consequence to this sentiment is bankruptcy. In 2008 you really think business owners wanted to lay off huge numbers of employees? No. But it had to be done to save all the rest as demand dropped, fast. You can govern by emotion or you can govern by long term stability.

And what was this 18K number really made up of? Retirements and districts that did not follow ACT 10, reduction in demand and need. How many more would have been laid off with loss of services to the citizens without ACT 10?

Doyle had a chance to do the same in 08,09,10 but kept passing the buck and running up the debt stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Greg, there are two points I'm making here. First, X work may not require Y+18,000, but it surely does require more than Y. Walker didn't just cut health costs, he cut services. The effect of these cuts won't be evident right away. Whether its a reduction in the quality of education, increase in response times for fire departments, or neglected infrastructure, we will see those effects. He's mortgaging our kids' future in a far more insidious way than simply borrowing money would do.
The SECOND point is that eliminating 18,000 jobs in the middle of a jobs crisis WILL NOT FIX THE JOBS PROBLEM. It will, in fact, make it worse. (It has, in fact, made it worse.)
Two separate points, both of which point to the idiocy of eliminating 18,000 jobs. Oh, and welcome to the small group of people who actually KNOW that we eliminated 18,000 public sector jobs in the last year. One small step...

lol awesome

Not so much angry, just sad to see how little independent thought some people are capable of. On the flip side, it must make life so much less complicated, to never have to actually think about things.

Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean they do not think. But I am glad that I do not think of thoughts as being such a burden as you do.

I think that most taxes are actually a "minimun" required. If people think that taxes should be higher or that more needs to be spent on public sector employees, then they should send in more money. Bert thinks his kid's teachers deserve more, he should send it in or hand it to them under the table. Feel free, make it rain. Just don't spend my money. I expect value. Throwing money at a problem is not a solution, look at Barrett and MPS.

@Greg...What is the connection between Barrett and MPS? He has nothing to do with the school district.