Gosh Bren, maybe you guys shouldn't read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and swear by every word?

There are 126 welfare programs that cost taxpayers $688 billion annually and the number of people on food stamps is up 70 percent since 2007. But poverty is going down thanks to income redistribution and food stamps?

After $15 trillion in total welfare spending over the last 48 years the poverty rate is 15 percent, the highest it's been in a decade and perilously close to the 19 percent rate before the war on poverty started in 1964.

There are components of poverty that money cannot fix. Unless we want to be a nation of dependents sitting on the couch waiting for the gubmint check to arrive we're going to need an alternative to government spending, like economic growth.

First we get rid of the Marxist In Chief, then the best welfare program is a job.

You don't seem to realize that when you say "Marxist in Chief" you just sound juvenile. Would you care to do some growing up before trying again?

As if.

We've heard a lot of complaining about the Wisconsin 14 telecommuting from Illinois to shed some sunshine on the "budget repair" bill that wasn't.

Why no complaints about Scott Walker's continuing out-of-state trips to fundraise and preach the ALEC agenda? If he actually cared about this state as more than a stepping-stone to national office he would be on the town hall circuit talking to (not at) Wisconsinites. So it's obvious where his priorities lie.

Bren (D-WEAC) You very well know why Walker is fundraising out of state. Is this just a game, spew garbage and just wait for the corrections?

Where is your outrage for Falk fundraising in Washington DC?
Where is your outrage for out of state unions funding a recall and transplanting agitators to go door to door?

Steve, again, not a Democrat, no connection to WEAC. But if it amuses you...

I do know why Scott Walker is fundraising out of state. That's where the big bucks are. That's where the rich benefactors are who bankroll candidates for national office.

I think the "win at all costs" folks think this situation is a game. It is not. I believe that our democracy and American way of life are under threat by a small group of individuals who put profits before people. Super PACs and ALEC are their vehicles, Scott Walker is one of their puppet governors. We need to reject this radical agenda and return to the values that made this country great. Looking out for each other, helping small business, keeping Big Business and Wall Street clean, educating our children and caring for the elderly and sick. That's my America. What's yours?

Bren (D-ALF/CIO) - So in your non liberal mind it is not OK for Walker to receive out of state funding but it is OK for the other candidates to receive out of state funding and campaign out of the state?

Steve, again, not a Democrat, not a union member. I believe you are attempting to riposte my Scott Walker (R-ALEC) identifier; the difference is of course that Scott Walker is a Republican and he is promoting the ALEC agenda. (Thanks for the opportunity to remind everyone!) ; )

Citizens United has opened the door to unbridled wealth (including corporate dollars) into the political process. It's a fact of life until the Supreme Court reverses its position based on the activist decision of Chief Justice Roberts to re-argue this once state-level case.

That being said, it's unsurprising that out-of-state campaign dollars are entering our state at this pivotal time. What is surprising, and hypocritical, is Scott Walker flying all over the country begging for money by blaming Democrats for receiving out-of-state campaign contributions. The pot calling the kettle black. Not to mention the fact that he is the one who chose to "drop the bomb" instead of following his campaign promise to negotiate with public unions. He's the one who chose to embrace the ALEC agenda. Had he chosen a different path he would not be in the situation he is now.

Bren:

I think that Marty Biel's 'bomb drop' caused the shift in position by Walker. Once Biel stated that there was no way that the union would make any concessions for Walker, it seems rather pointless to even attempt negotiation. Instead, Walker was forced to put restrictions on collective bargaining in order to get the concessions he needed.

Cow, the "bomb" quote was used by Scott Walker during his lengthy (and recorded) conversation with the fake David Koch early in 2011. He was describing a meeting he had had prior to "dropping the bomb" on public unions.

Really stellar from a guy who had just been hired to represent the state.

Bren:

Yes, I am aware of where the 'bomb' quote came from. Not sure why you think it's such a bad statement--certainly seems pretty accurate considering all the 'fallout' that happened afterward...

...are only the Dems allowed to speak metaphorically or something?

Walker just assumes we're all stupid, like his supporters. Yesterday on UpFront Walker said that the people who are giving him money expect nothing for it.

Everybody knows damned well the Democrats are going to be outspent three to one or more. That's big, out of state money trying to buy this state, and any with a spine needs to fight it.

@Alfred -- Anne Romney will be upset that you don't think she works. You are wrong -- the losses were in private sector jobs. Competing with newly laid off public sector workers for a diminishing number of private sector jobs will not help anyone.

You'll be unhappy to know then that Wisconsin also came in 50th place in private sector job losses among the 50 states. Down 6,100.

18,000 of the 23,000 jobs REDUCED in since Walker took office is NOT all lay-offs and firings. It's mostly retirements of Govt. workers cashing in on their Pensions before they have to begin pony up part of the costs themselves! Am I the only one amazed the 18K Govt workers are gone and no one even notices?? I'm betting another 5-20,000 can be trimmed in the next year or 2..as more of our Govt. auto-mates, eliminates or streamlines! Hurray for the taxpayers! Now it would be great if all you newly retired Govt. workers would stick around and keep paying taxes on those sweet pensions we bought you for the past 30 + years, and not run off to Florida and Arizona.

When one person retires and is not replaced, this is called "reducing the number of jobs by 1". Why or how they left is utterly irrelevant to the fact that they were not replaced.

I'll tell you who's noticed the loss of 18k public sector jobs: the private sector, because demand has been successfully reduced though a huge hunk of disposable income being sliced away from the state. Those who are left in the public sector notice, who now have to combine longer hours with their reduced pay to make up the difference. The Walker government's coffers notice, which were anticipating more tax revenue from a higher number of jobs but unfortunately forgot that if you slash people's pay and make retirement their best option, your tax receipts might go down too.

And because you clearly didn't read it, I'll sadly have to repeat it: Wisconsin is #50 in private sector job growth too.

Just because you're incapable of either noticing or deducing the consequences of the Governor's actions does not mean that there are none.

@ Geoff, Yeah I can do the math. If you are now working too hard..or as hard as the job SHOULD have required and you don't believe you are being properly compensated..by all means Geoff please resign, retire or find innovative ways of making your job more efficient. Or help us find ways to eliminate duplicate programs, or programs the Govt. shouldn't even be involved with at all. Geoff if I was the head of a Dept. I woudl in my budget split the saving with creative staff person who could find efficiencies. In fact Geoff that is what I have done in my 30+ years of working. I run a very efficient palce now with one employee that used to require 3-4. i have operated multiple location a=operations that had a combined 30 employees with 18..and the work was better, faster, cleaner and more efficient. (Granted some of that was due to computerization), The technology is out there to make much of State, Local and even Federal Govt. operation with 10-20% less personnel than we have on our books currently. The salary adjustments, and the workload adjustments will improve with time.and Geoff you'll be just fine. But if not take your skills out into the REAL world and see how much work you need to do to make the same value of your current job! BTW in about 60 days the report will be out determining whether Govt employees can be transitioned to 401K plans. I think this would be fantastic for you Geoff..because you could transfer you OWN pension with you into you next job!

Urban Pioneer: all you can go on about is how you've found some efficiencies in an unrelated field, then leap from this to making assertions about how you could do the same in the public sector, entirely predicated on the idea that the public sector is overstaffed 10-20%. You offer zero evidence to support this idea.

It's also frankly pathetic the way you stereotype everyone against Walker as a public employee. The math doesn't even add up: there are less than 400,000 public employees in the state yet more than twice that number signed the recall petition. Given that I'm not fond of the guy, it was less than a 50:50 bet that I'm a public employee, even presuming that every single last one signed.

You lose. I'm not a public employee and I have a full-time job. I pay my taxes. I have a 401(k). I'm (very modestly) financially better off - at least in the short term - under the Walker Administration. I don't have kids whose education can be destroyed by him.

However, I value things like integrity; I value the things about my state embodied by its traditions and Constitution. I value my fellow Wisconsinites and the stability of this great state. There are things more important than the short-term bottom line; and Walker has set himself against all these things.

Sorry Jeff, Your comments "Those who are left in the public sector notice, who now have to combine longer hours with their reduced pay to make up the difference." led me to believe You were one of those directly effected. As for my "unrelated" field..since you have no idea what I do..you don't know how much technology could be applied to more efficiently run Govt. and save the State, City's etc. billions. Reducing the burden for all of us. Remember just a few years ago Jim Doyle had lay-offs, and positions left open for several years, not to mention furlough days. But after all of your anti-Walker rhetoric WHO are you supporting for Governor?

If think there are too many people in government, make sure you bring plenty of reading material next time you have business at the DMV. Fortunately right now we don't have voter ID lengthening the lines.

Wow watching and reading all the emails fly back forth from Geoff..I must say Luke Anti-alinsky and others Bravo! Geoff has the Dem talking points and he's afraid to just pull any sort of BS out of his fingertips. The idea that the State Senators were concerned about the price of Iron ore as the reason Dale Schultz sold out his State and his constituency is laughable! Also the entire premise of of this topic is addressed quite nicely in the article done here by Dr. Tim Nerenz.. he actually took the BLS information and demonstrated that Wisconsin did indeed GROW , not shrink, Jobs in the period from March 2011-March 2012, By 18,400 Jobs.! Read it here:
http://www.timnerenz.com/2012/04/wiscosin-gets-jobbed.html
Geoff really your sounding like the crying kid in the corner who will say anything..rather than examine the actual facts. Job growth and expansion in this state has been stymied because of the Unionista's behaving exactly the way you are. C'mon Wisconsin doesn't need anymore Graeham Zelinski's. It saddens me that one RINO Sen in Richland Ctr could obstruct job opportunity's for people 350 miles away.. I blame Bob Wirch for killing the Mining bill as well. BTW Geoff you have bashed Scott Walker..but you haven't told us which Dem you will support to replace him.. I'm sure that could be an interesting conversation, or rather contortion. Trying to make the case FOR any of them will be your next challenge!

So right, Alfred. Teachers, secretaries, and snowplow drivers have no useful private sector skills. And they won't be trying to find jobs at Walmart just to keep on eating.

yah der, dem DPW workers ar dem useless ones, ana hey der. Us guys can drive dem plow trucks wid our beers in our lap and do a better job den dem der gubmit drivers at 2 am even do wese may be a bit tipsy, eh! Randy, youse needs an edumucation on how dem der gubmit employees gots it so good, yah know what I mean, hey?

Hey, hey hey, Alfie my boy. Like Pol Pots re-education camps, right?

This post is a fine example of right-wing projection, with extra helpings of baseless assertion, rank conjecture, stridency, run-on/fractured sentences and punctuation errors.

I didn't quite understand what I'm supposed to be "all [I'm]..made of" because the sentence sort of lost focus after "Koch brothers-" As far as not "paying to get into a word war with me," I will challenge lies. Otherwise I enjoy discourse (it's why I'm here).

I don't believe Republicans are evil. I do believe there is an extremist faction (Tea/ALEC that embarrasses the rest of the GOP and makes real conservatives look like, what is the acronym--RINOs (Republican in Name Only). The old guard Republicans of my acquaintance are all about common sense, common decency, land conservation, and the empowerment of people. The extremist radical wing is all about imposing subjective morality on others, disempowering people by wanting to cut programs that help the impoverished, ill, and elderly, and aiding corporate interests in picking the bones of democracy for profit and self-reward.

The recall is legal and in place to support state citizens in times like these, when a candidate has lied about goals and values to get into office (Jobs Jobs Jobs, "I will negotiate with public employee unions,"), demonstrates allegiance to benefactors and an extremist special interest group over constituents, hides important facts from constituents (redistricting, mining issues, etc.). Etc.

Jason's articles typically consist of baseless assertion, rank conjecture, and stridency. At least he does a decent job of avoiding run-on/fractured sentences and punctuation errors.

Cow, I found nothing in Jason's post to compare, on the other side of the spectrum, to Tammy's commentary. I also saw nothing unreasonable (other than the bizarre position we have all been placed in because of our ALEC governor).

Jason does have a fairly extensive collection of work--can you really not find the baseless assertions, rank conjecture, and/or stridency in any of them?

Every article he posts is an example of stridency.

Making the claim that women earn 75 cents for every dollar earned by a man seems to be a pretty good example of 'rank conjecture'. While it may be true from an overall standpoint, it is far from true when comparing 'equal work' situations.

Perhaps they heard about the sub sandwich contest, Jay.

Jay, please clarify--it's acceptable for some to continuously post inaccurate talking points, but not for others to counter those points (with documentation as needed)?

A one-sided argument is not a forward-moving conversation.

Kevin Presser, again, please provide your evidence that George Soros/Open Society Foundations is actively supporting a recall challenger or public employee unions. They do fund programs that assist the political research process, etc., which benefits both parties.

Media Matters and MoveOn.org, last I checked, do not compare with the Koch Brothers (I assume you mean Americans for Prosperity or one of their other money funnels).

Let's keep it real.

►They do fund programs that assist the political research process, etc., which benefits both parties.◄

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where does this non democrat come up with this stuff? Golden

Steve, I subscribe to Open Society Foundations because I appreciate the work they do in combating poverty, abuse of girls and women, and empowering people around the globe. If the Foundations had decided to add Wisconsin politics to their global agenda, I'm certain to know about it.

Some people have different ideas about winning. Some believe snatching services from impoverished people is a victory; others believe that successfully empowering people in Third World countries to build healthy societies, which include physical and economic security, respectful treatment of women and girls; alleviating hunger, etc. is the victory. Each of us has to decide what "victory/winning" is for ourselves.

"Tom Barrett," are you asking if it's bad for extremist right-wing organizations to launch phony news and blogsites to mislead low information voters, I would answer yes.

"Tom Barrett," you've posted this link before. It's clever, like gum stuck on the bottom of one's shoe.

Steve, the recall was not 100% about ACT 10. I am not impacted by Act 10 in any way but support the recall. I think it's important to look at the numbers. Approximately 200,000 public workers, 931,000 valid recall signatures. Clearly there's more going on here.

Q: What is the recall about?

A: Whatever you want it to be about.

Bob, I presume you understand your statement... ; )

Of course I do, Bren. It's precisely what has allowed your side to abuse the provision in order to extract political vengeance.

Bob, it's about removing an individual from office who campaigned under false premise, and has revealed himself to be more committed to serving his benefactors and an ideologically extreme special interest group (ALEC). If 13 major corporations can say "no thank you" to ALEC, so can Wisconsin.

Recall Scott Walker (R-ALEC).

Bren, it doesn't matter. Your silly reason for signing onto the recall is equal to, but no better than, recalling him because he's got a friar's bald spot in the works or because his wife is named after a musical instrument utilized by kindergarteners back in the day.

Recall Friar Walker and his musical wife. It doesn't matter why, just do it because you can.

Sorry Bob, but it's a fact that:
- According to Walker, his budget left a $3 billion hole.
- According to his budget, he raised taxes and raided funds.
- According to official government reports, his budget has a hole that he is violating the law by failing to fix.
- He ignored a judge's order that he stop breaking his oath to support the Constitution.
- He has claimed responsibility for jobs numbers, and jobs numbers produced by the Walker Administration show that he is responsible for the worst job performance of any state in the entire nation.
- He repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act of 2009.

If you think these are positive attributes for a Governor to have, please say so.

Geoff,

If you think Scott Walker its unfit to be governor, then you're free to vote against him in the next regular election. If the majority agree with you, he'll be voted out of office. That's the way it's been done around here pretty much forever.

There's nothing Scott Walker has done, or will do, that can't be reversed come next election cycle. Schools are not being shut down, the elderly and infirm are not being tossed out on the streets. Nobody is being denied medical treatment, housing or food to eat. There is no emergency warranting his removal from office prematurely.

This is political gamesmanship via a loophole in our state's constitution. It's an attempt to make up in small part for unexpected losses suffered by the Democrats in 2010, in this state and elsewhere, who mistakenly assumed that the Republican party was DOA due to what happened in 2008 and who were subsequently asleep at the wheel.

I don't have to defend Scott Walker. All I have to do is point out, as I have, that the regular election cycle in place is perfectly capable of handling his ouster should that become the desire of the electorate, and that this maneuver is nothing more than the exploitation of the weak minded utilizing a weakly written provision on the part of opportunists in our State's Democratic party.

Bob, you likely remember the "It's working Wisconsin" advert which found a prime example of a school district that had done well out of Act 10 (http://tinyurl.com/7elzeuu), now having a surplus of $1.5 million.

Unfortunately, back in real life this prime example is barely projected to break even and is closing a school, Close Park Elementary to be precise (http://tinyurl.com/83y4kv3).

So schools have been shut down, even when you look at the most wonderful example the right could come up with to showcase the benefits of Act 10.

As for your opinion that we must at all costs wait until November 2014 to kick the bum out, here is a word from a wise Republican:

"The recall enables the people to dismiss from public service those representatives who dishonor their commissions by betraying the public interest." - Robert M. La Follette Sr., 1914

If you don't care about limiting the extraordinary damage Scott Walker is doing to Wisconsin, then this isn't the state for you. If you want to point to the Constitutionally-mandated quadrennial elections as the correct resolution but pooh-pooh Constitutionally-mandated recall elections, then this isn't the state for you.

Walker has dishonored his commission and betrayed the public interest, and thanks to the foresight of Republicans like Fighting Bob, we don't have to suffer him any more after June 5th.

I'm not a masochist. Are you?

Geoff,

You found one school shutting down. I have no way of knowing if that school would have stayed open with or without Act 10. Regardless, one school shutting down, unless you can demonstrate that no schools were shut down due to budgetary constraints during any previous administration, really doesn't change my argument that this recall is unnecessary.

The rest of your post is opinion (aside from the quote you noted from 1914 - timely and relevant, without a doubt), not fact. Fortunately for you and the rest of the state's sore losers, we have a constitutional provision in place that you can exploit to your advantage as long as there are enough of you folks to do so, or, in lieu of that, you can convince enough weak minded or emotionally driven individuals to go along with you. And you've done so. Which means we need to change that law so that, in the future folks like you or any others (including those who might take it upon themselves to retaliate in kind) don't drag our state through another one of these expensive group temper tantrums. We can't afford to be playing these silly games on a continual basis.

Bob, your claim was that schools are not being shut down. This is false, as I have proven. That school district was specifically highlighted by the Walker campaign as a glowing example of the benefits of Act 10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQQFWS6-8xE) so it has been cherry-picked: just not by me, but by Walker.

You seem to think that the Constitution is just something to be madmouthed if it doesn't let you get what you want.

I've explicitly listed facts in this sub-thread. I will back them up with links if you doubt any of them.

Holding our Governor to account using the provisions in the Constitution that you seem to loathe so much is not being a "sore loser". This "sore loser" hypothesis fails because there has never been a gubernatorial recall in Wisconsin's entire history and every election leaves a good many people disappointed. By proposing it you insult everyone who's been hurt by Walker, everyone who cares about the Constitution, everyone who cares about the state's economy, everyone who cares about the state's budget, everyone who cares about equal pay for equal work.

The phrase you're looking for is "holding him to account for the damage he's done".

No, Geoff, sore loser fits just fine. It indicates the degree to which those who support it can't see beyond their own personal interests, culminating in this insistence that their self interest trumps those of the folks who voted in the last election that put Scott Walker in place. It's exemplified in the fact that they're targeting not only the object of their derision, Scott Walker, but other Republicans as well. Once again, pointing to the purely political nature of this recall. You guys lost. The loss was unexpected and as such is intolerable to you. All the rest of it is just overblown rhetoric designed to get the weakest and most fearful and similarly self-interested amongst us to play along with you. It worked, and it demonstrated the inherent problem in the provision and now that provision needs to change so that it can't be exploited in that fashion again by future groups of sore losers, regardless of which party they may be affiliated with.

Every since Republican Senator treated the Constitution as toilet paper in voting for Senate Resolution 3, which is a blatant and deliberate violation of Article IV Section 15. Every single one (except Fitzgerald, who trusted himself not to blab) signed a confidentiality agreement to keep redistricting firmly behind closed doors. They have all

As for my personal interest, taxes went down and I got a raise. But that's just the financial picture. You see, I have an interest in the rule of law and its embodiment in the Constitution. I've also developed an interest in the well-being of my fellow Wisconsinites. It's terribly self-centered of me I know, but sometimes I just get overwhelmed by it all and can't help myself.

As for "sore losers", that would include the Republicans and the party which backed them who tried to recall 8 Democratic Senators then? Yea or nay? Or is your venom purely partisan?

No, I'd put that in the same category, Geoff.

The provision was not put there for the purposes of political retaliation, which is precisely how it's being used. The ability for it to be used in that fashion needs to change. As I've said, repeatedly, here Geoff (something you've, obviously, chosen to ignore), it's future use in that fashion by either party needs to be prevented - period.

So is there any reason in your mind at all that anyone should ever be recalled? None at all? Elected officials should have carte blanche to ignore the Constitution and do as much damage as they like without question?

If you're fine with elected officials ignoring the Constitution, are you fine with them calling off their next scheduled election too? That's just another part of the Constitution you know.

Given a choice between the current provision, with its ability to be exploited for political gain in the fashion it is now, and having no provision whatsoever, I'd have to go with no ability to recall. Otherwise we're subject to the possibility of an endless series of politically motivated recalls, which certainly is highly more likely (as we've actually seen it happen) than is the suspension of the next election cycle (the suggestion of which fits in perfectly with the kind of rhetoric we've seen driving this particular recall).

Obviously, if we're going to restore the ability to recall, it's use is going to have to be much more restricted so that similar abuses can't occur. That's beyond my pay scale - and yours as well.

Bob, you know full well that I suggested election suspension as a reductio ad absurdum of your position that nothing can possibly justify a recall.

And your "endless series of politically motivated recalls" is simply scaremongering: the total number of times a Wisconsin Governor has had to face a recall election before is zero. This has only happened 3 other times in United States history, and two of those were in states in which it was easier to achieve. The recall provision itself in the Constitution only allows an incumbent to face one recall election per term; it allows them a full year before it kicks in, so that there is due time to judge how they have behaved. The reason why recalls aren't common is because they are incredibly hard to achieve: political sour grapes, as you would have it, cannot account for the complete absence of similar occurrences in Wisconsin history. It must be - it can only be - that Walker has led so badly that he has angered such a large fraction of the citizenry that it has gone further than ever before. Much, much further: the 540,208 signature barrier wasn't just achieved, it was annihilated.

You've made your point very clear: elected officials should be given obedient permission by the people they are meant to represent to do anything and everything they want to, whether it's against the law or against the Constitution. I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Geoff, I might buy that nonsense if it wasn't for the fact that the effort to recall Walker started before he was even sworn into office.

Everything points to political gamesmanship, retribution and sore losers. You've produced nothing that even remotely counters that. Walker is hardly the evil demon you and others make him out to be, nor is our state in the dire straits you claim. However, in order to frighten the weaker elements necessary to accumulate the proper number of signatures, you folks have ramped up the nonsense to a fever pitch that would be laughable if it weren't costing this state dearly both on a monetary and functional level. You really should be ashamed of yourselves.

"Geoff, I might buy that nonsense if it wasn't for the fact that the effort to recall Walker started before he was even sworn into office."

I don't see how that's relevant. 900,000+ people don't just decide to sign a recall petition as soon as the election results are in. If there is any merit to your suggestion that this was entirely a pre-inauguration ploy, every Governor who won with less than 75% of the vote would have faced a recall election 17 months after they were sworn in. Yet every single one avoided that fate. How do you account for that?

I have not called Walker an evil demon; I have stated several facts and offered to back them up with appropriate sources. I know our state is in dire straits, because the government (head: Scott Walker) says so: see the 29,300 jobs losses in the last 12 months. This number comes from the Walker Administration's Department of Workforce Development (http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2012/unemployment/120419_march_state.pdf). Do you think the Walker Administration fabricated this?

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projects a $208.2 million deficit this biennium (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/Revenue-Estimates/Documents/2012_02_09_Darling_Vos_Revenue%20estimates.pdf). This requires by state law a Budget Repair Bill, which Walker has been steadfastly not producing for the last two and a half months. Presumably he might find it politically awkward given his bluster about budgetary balance.

You deny the dwindling job supply, you deny the parlous state of the public finances, you turn a blind eye to the lawbreaking of Walker.

And now Wisconsinites who don't share your dislike of holding him to account are "the [frightened] weaker elements". That's a divisive attitude you have there.

Hold him to account the way we always do and have done si for years. Vote him out of office next election cycle.

There's no emergency. Don't let hurt feelings on the part of a minority in this state over an election loss they feel they wouldn't have experienced if they hadn't been overconfident override the legitimate results of that same regularly scheduled election.

Nobody likes a sore loser.

Bob: "There's no emergency."

When does it become an emergency? What about when the state so drastically underperforms compared to the other 49 that if Walker had merely been an average Governor, we'd have 64,000 more jobs now than we do (http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2841/wiemployment.gif). That's after just 14 months. After 48, that's on course to become a 220,000 jobs shortfall. Should we wait until then to take action?

What about when the budget is heading down the tubes but the Governor wantonly refuses to perform his statutory and Constitutional duties to make necessary changes? Isn't that an emergency?

What about when, in response to the thought of starting violence in a crowd of peaceful people, the Governor pipes up "You know, well, the only problem with that —because we thought about that." (http://buffalobeast.com/?p=5045 - listen to the quote at http://tinyurl.com/725ktng)? Is having a Governor prone to psychopathy not an emergency?

When does it become an emergency, Bob?

Geoff, no, none of those are emergencies. The combination of them does not constitute an emergency. This is political gamesmanship, plain and simple.

You got your way. You're getting your do-over. It's costing this state a bundle. But you're getting your way. Be happy about that. With any luck, this will be the last time anyone will be able to do so utilizing our States's flimsy recall provision. We can't afford to placate a bunch of entitled, sore losers like this on a regular basis.

Well, you heard it here first folks: having a Governor prone to psychopathy who refuses to obey the law and the Constitution is not an emergency. We must wait, watching while the nationwide jobs recovery not only halted here, but reversed direction and continues to decline.

We must wait obediently until the destruction is complete. Anyone disagreeing is a "sore loser".

And Bob, you're so concerned about the amount a recall election is costing this state, a cost that cannot occur more than once every 4 years even in your wildest nightmare scenario, is somehow worthy of your disdain. Yet you can't bring yourself to so much as acknowledge a 2-year $208.2 million deficit or a 2-year $117 million tax giveaway bonanza (which was later greatly expanded) that was part of an utterly failed "jobs" agenda (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/Revenue-Estimates/Documents/2011_01_31Vos_Darling.pdf), items several dozen times larger. This just smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

And Bob, clearly you've never tried to recall anyone. Wisconsin's recall provision is not "flimsy"; it is damn hard work to get it done. This is why it is rare.

Geoff,

You got your sore loser recall and all you can do is complain about how not everyone is embracing it and how much work it was. You must be a public employee of some sort because nobody in the private sector would worry so much about whether or not people embrace their efforts or bitch about actually having to work to achieve something.

Bob, you don't seem to be able to read straight: where did I make any complaint about recall work being hard? Where did I complain that people existed who didn't share my thoughts on Walker?

"You must be a public employee of some sort"

You don't seem to understand how disconnected from reality you sound. 400,000 (the approximate number of Wisconsin public employees) is not greater than 900,000 (the minimum number of Wisconsinites we know for a fact don't care for Walker), no matter how hard you wish it. Hello, I am one among (at least) 500,000. Stereotype is clearly so important to you that you publicly deny simple arithmetic.

Geoff, I'll stick with my analysis. It's dead on.

Steve, story problem: Mr. Clean has a job with employer-paid health benefits. The insurance company raises rates; the employer passes a percentage of the increase to the employee, i.e., higher premium costs. What happens to Mr. Clean's net pay when the rate increase kicks in?

You missed the point as usual. In the private sector we don't cry and moan and recall our boss and make up words like a salary cut. Mr. Clean can go out on his own and purchase a different plan if he chooses. When gasoline goes up why are teachers not complaining about a salary cut?

Recall Walker, gas prices are too damn high

If the private sector were like the public one:

Boss: You know those mandatory contributions that the company doesn't match into the 401(k) that's invested in "special company stock"?
Employee: Er,,, the one that's on course to give me a little retirement income? Like we agreed when I took this job? The one I took a lower than average salary to get?
B: We've decided that you need to contribute 25% more than you are.
E: Why?
B: Budget problems.
E: But all the money there is my deferred compensation plus the investment gains it has made. You want me to put another 25% in so I'll be 25% better off in retirement?
B: Nope. Budget problems. The "special company stock" dividends are going to be cut by 20%, so you'll have to put money in 25% faster in order to get the same amount out. Call it an extra contribution to your benefits. It comes out of your paycheck. Mandatory.
E: So you're saying that I get a pay cut with the same benefits?
B: No, I'm saying you get to contribute more to your own retirement like everyone else does.

E: So as well as making the same benefit contributions as others, I get to keep the lower salary than they have?
B: I prefer the term "fair-share salary".
E: So the company has Budget problems you said? Why?
B: Oh, the guys down a the golf club needed the locker room to be refurbished, so the company paid for it with the savings we're getting from you suckers! Valued employees I mean!
E: Why on earth would you do that?
B: Because it creates business for us of course. With a nicely redone locker room with a "SuperCorp" brass plaque somewhere, they will run out and give us more business because they're just swell guys, I just know it.
E: So have sales gone up amazingly?
B: Actually, no, they've gone down. Which reminds me, I need you to take a pay cut so the company balance sheet will look like I've done a good job...

You're damn right I'd recall that boss.

Geoff Tolley, I salute you!

Steve, you couldn't answer my question? I'll tell you. Mr. Clean's net pay decreases, i.e., a pay cut. A rose by any other name, as the Bard would say.

What does the price of gasoline have to do with teachers or the recall? This wouldn't be an attempt to duck-and-weave off topic, would it? ; )

Pension not equal to 401K and you can not force anyone to contribute more than they wish by law. The rest is liberal gibberish, surprising Bren you would salute that as a non liberal democrat.

►What does the price of gasoline have to do with teachers or the recall? ◄
Teachers drive don't they? More money for gas is more money out of their pocket. Since you relate pension and healthcare as an unrecoverable expense it is exactly the same in your head, a net pay decrease.

The free ride is over with. The pension and healthcare funds are sustainable, problem solved.

Steve, just a reminder that the pension fund we are discussing has "0" liability, which means all the talk about taxpayers paying for public union employees' pensions was just guff (probably penned by ALEC). And public employees did pay for their healthcare as part of their overall compensation. Let's keep it real.

Mr. Tolley laid down the facts of the matter accurately and succinctly. It is not "liberal gibberish," although some would wish it was. It might also be too complicated for some to understand (which is where those catchy slogans come in, "We're broke!").

Teachers drive and buy gas? We all buy gas. All over the planet. It's a speculative commodity and Wall Street drives the price. That's why it's important to support legislation that gives Wall Street even more capacity to impact our lives, retirement funds, etc. (Right...)

Steve, you missed the point, which was "If the private sector were like the public one..."

Now look at http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Trillion_Dollar_Gap_web_FINAL.pdf and the map on page 17 in particular.

Wisconsin public pensions are 100% funded as of February 2010, i.e. even after a rather large stock market dip. Before Walker ever had the chance to salivate at it.

A decade ago, half of the states had fully funded pension programs. Currently, only two states can make that claim. Walker is making sure that Wisconsin can continue to fully fund the pensions...

You won't mind providing a source for that claim then, will you Cow Dung?

Here you go.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/24/States-Short-Change-Pension-Funds.aspx#page1

Thank you for the reference, CowDung; a bit more recent than the Pew Center study.

The Wisconsin Retirement System has been 100% funded leading up to Act 10. Why then did it suddenly need a brand-new new cash infusion from teacher's salaries of "half of all actuarially required contributions" (quoting Act 10 there)?

Geoff, another reason why this current state budget and activities to-date need to be analyzed by professionals. I'm sure you head how Chris Christie in NJ cancelled work on the NJ tunnel project, kept the taxpayer money and used it to shore up part of his state budget? Who knows what else would be revealed by a thorough review of Walker's antics since January 2011? Never mind his antics as CE.

The financial 'model' that the Wisconsin Pension Fund runs on requires that the investments return 7.8% on average, annually. So, yes as of today, the pension is 'fully funded'. However, if the pension does not resume a 7.8% ROI(thats quite high in the present economic environment), then the state taxpayers will be required to fund the shortfall in the pension fund.

@Jay: that argument falls apart though because the 100% funding status of the WRS has not shifted recently despite the biggest recession since the Depression. Clearly it is well-managed and achieves the 7.8% mark over time. The problem simply doesn't exist, despite the worst economic conditions for generations.

In fact looking at the Fund's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, the funded status has only incremented its way upwards or stayed the same every year since at least 2004 (I've not checked any reports further back than that for now).

You seem to be implying that Walker became the most polarizing Governor in history in order to solve a purely hypothetical problem that simply has not occurred despite the worst rigors of reality. That's an appalling failure of leadership in and of itself, let alone anything else he's done.

I am making no argument, just explaining the funding mechanics. The funding/modeling and the adjustments for shortfalls are quite complex. While we should be pleased we are not facing the problems of other states, we are not in great financial shape either. You might read this from the j/s. about the $ reduction that folks getting a WI pension are going through, due to the poor returns in part of the WI pension fund. http://m.jsonline.com/topstories/142281095.htm

Thank you for providing this excellently sourced diary! It paints a sad picture of how much damage one man's poor choices can have on many people.

lol daily kos

Steve, did you check the data sources? Real facts, real numbers.

But there are always those who prefer to parrot slogans than read and/or research.

Rather than rely on Daily Kos for your support "Data". Use the BLS instead:
http://www.timnerenz.com/2012/04/wiscosin-gets-jobbed.html Wisconsin's net job GAIN from March 2011 thru March 2012 18,400 jobs. That after over 10,000 Govt workers left the work force. and BTW UE Rate dropped, and the number of unemployed person dropped as well. It might not be as robust as I would've liked but it is UP not down as Geoff has been screaming about. Sorry Geoff try the War on Women strategy thingy instead..this dog ain't hunting...

Urban Pioneer: Firstly, I linked to Daily Kos because I put all the sources there in one place for your convenience, all the BLS links needed to support the conclusion.

Secondly, your link conflates the number of Wisconsinites employed with the number of jobs in Wisconsin. You can see the definition of employed at the BLS FAQ (http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm#Ques4). For the purposes of illustration, if ten formerly unemployed people start working the same new job for 4 hours each a week, the employment number goes up by 10 and the job number goes up by 1. For the purposes of illustration, if a formerly unemployed Wisconsinite takes a job in Illinois commuting across the state line, the number of employed goes up by 1 and the number of jobs stays the same. Which is why the jobs number is a better indicator of the strength of the Wisconsin economy than the employment number.

I suggest that the authority on which number we should pay the most attention to would be Scott Walker. Who has consistently emphasized the jobs number, not the number of employed.

You sure are pissed off. We must be doing something right.

Luke, actually it was Tammy (see above) who was throwing down insulting remarks and baseless assertions. Jason is just paraphrasing her a bit (except he is employing correct sentence structure).

By doing something "right," do you mean right-wing? Because there's nothing right about being the worst state in the nation for job growth, or cutting tax credits for low income people. Or making the most drastic cut to K-12 education in state history. Or the proud statistic of having the sitting governor be the first in state history to hire a criminal defense team. A whole lot of firsts, and none of them "right" in my estimation.

@Bren

<<<<Luke, actually it was Tammy (see above) who was throwing down insulting remarks and baseless assertions. Jason is just paraphrasing her a bit (except he is employing correct sentence structure).>>>

What does that have do do with what I said?

<<<<By doing something "right," do you mean right-wing?>>>

No, read his first sentence (ignore the rant that follows - I did) and then read my only sentence.

<<<< Because there's nothing right about being the worst state in the nation for job growth, or cutting tax credits for low income people. Or making the most drastic cut to K-12 education in state history. Or the proud statistic of having the sitting governor be the first in state history to hire a criminal defense team. A whole lot of firsts, and none of them "right" in my estimation.>>>

Do you reflexively write things without utilizing the prefrontal lobe?

Wisconsinites taking jobs in other states and removing themselves from the labor force is not the same as creating jobs in Wisconsin.

Geoff, I agree. People who have exhausted unemployment benefits are still unemployed. These facts skew unemployment numbers which was why the MJS likely didn't include them.

Luke would have us believe that Tom Barrett is responsible for the nationwide issue of hyper-segregation, the phenomenon whereby white-collar people move to the suburbs, commute to the city, collect a paycheck and spend their money elsewhere. This reduces the tax rolls. Sprawl and slashed county transit make it harder for people without cars to commute to jobs in the suburbs. This is happening all over the country and it's all Tom Barrett's fault. As is the Great Recession.

And Milwaukee is not a cesspool.

Odd that people dropping out of the work force is counted when the state unemployment figures are used however omitted when the national figures are used.

@Anne L.

Since I'm the one that said, "What a load of crap." perhaps you want to challenge my statistics. The fact is that my comment was followed by specific, empirical measurements. Perhaps you didn't read past the first sentence, but Republicans usually do.

Got anything else besides grandstanding and showboating?

Luke, you sound mad again, like you're itching for a fight or something. I was just making a general observation. But really, if you find Milwaukee to be such a cesspool, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere. "Grandstanding and showboating" was a nice touch, and gave perfect case to my point. Keep up the good work!

Luke, your "specific, empirical measurements" were countered, above.

@Bren

<<<<Luke, your "specific, empirical measurements" were countered, above.>>>>

Your conjecture has no basis in reality. Unless you have some stats that demonstrate a 1:1 positive correlation, you don't have the proof that you seem to imply by your speculation. In fact, I know that there is very little correlation whatsoever.

However, I do know that Barrett has had 8 years to do his best for Milwaukee. Since he took office, the downturn in that city has been dramatic. Barrett and his city are breaking negative records at a neck-breaking speed. Now Milwaukee has become Wisconsin's armpit.....perhaps the armpit of the Midwest, if someone doesn't stop him.

@Anne

<<< But really, if you find Milwaukee to be such a cesspool, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere.>>>

Thanks. If I ever move there, I will remember to leave. As it is, I live in Sussex. Have a great day.

<<< "Grandstanding and showboating" was a nice touch, and gave perfect case to my point. Keep up the good work!>>>

Glad I gave "case to your point."

Oh, you live in Sussex, no wonder you're so angry; living out there in Walker country and believing that everyone who lives in the city is a junkie or a criminal, and that the streets are crawling with rapists. When was the last time you even entered city limits?

AMEN!

@Anne

<<<<When was the last time you even entered city limits?>>>>

You mean Milwaukee? 4 or 5 times a week. I work to help refugees from Laos and Myanmar.

@Rachel Holley Sciortino

When are we going out for coffeee?

It's so great that the State Budget is now $208.2 million in the red (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/Revenue-Estimates/Documents/2012_02_09_Darling_Vos_Revenue%20estimates.pdf) and the jobs decline is the worst in the entire country (and 2nd isn't anywhere close http://tinyurl.com/7xco44).

That's leadership!

"Tom Barrett" has a talent for posting slanted stories from right-wing faux news sources. We know they exist "Tom," no need to wear out your fingers...

Anyone who posts from a fictitious name must not have a lot of faith in their own comments, right "Tom Barrett".
Anyone with half a brain knows that the unemployment rate dropped because many of those people have become ineligible for those benefits.
You CANNOT argue that fact that we have lost over 10,000 total jobs since Walker has taken office. By his own promise he should have created more than 60,000 jobs by now. So if you voted for Walker because he promised to create jobs, well . . .

"Wisconsin has now LOST 10,200 total jobs since Scott Walker took office, but a new yard sign has hit the turf that states "Walker Is Working". Scott Walker may be "Working" as Governor (for now), but since he has taken office, almost 24,000 Wisconsinites are no longer working"

Which is it Jason--did Walker lose Wisconsin 24,000 jobs or did Walker lose Wisconsin 10,200 jobs? Seems like another month like January would be more than enough to put Walker back to the positive side...

Cowdung: unfortunately for your point, you employ a hodgepodge quote that is pathetically inaccurate. That you would put quote marks around such a thing indicates an intent to deceive.

The data series for Wisconsin's total job numbers is at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SMS55000000000000001

In January 2011 Wisconsin had 2,744,800 jobs; in March 2011 2,754,500; we had in March 2012 we now have 2,730,600.

Hence from March 2011 to March 2012 Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs and since Walker took office, Wisconsin has lost 14,200 jobs. I presume that the 10,200 number is just a typo.

I took the quote from Jason's article, and included the entire paragraph, as it was written, in my quote. I assure you that there was no attempt to deceive made on my part.

The fact that it is 'pathetically inaccurate hodgepodge' was actually the point I was trying to make, as it seems that the paragraph was claiming two very different numbers as the number of jobs lost since Walker came in to office.

mea culpa, a brain fart of epic proportion on my part. I apologize.

The numbers are still 14,200 job losses since Walker took office and 23,900 in the last 12 months though.

Geoff we aren't even half way thru the Biennial Budget. The 208 Mil # number can just as easily turn into a surplus before the the cycle is complete. It's also possible to make adjustments to our current spending. At least it's nothing like 3.6 BILLION dollar hole that was left in the budget under Doyle and Dem control of our state congress. Also keep in mind that Walker didn't have phony stimulus money coming in from Wash. D.C., and he had to make reparations to Minnesota and the Medical mal-practice funds that Jimmy Doyle raided. Since it's likely we'll see more Govt workers retiring in the next 12 months I'm sure more than enough too offset any budgetary shortfalls. Simply don't refill the jobs they vacate.

"The 208 Mil # number can just as easily turn into a surplus before the the cycle is complete."

Whether that's the case or not, a significant deficit is projected. The Constitution requires a balanced budget, and the statutes require the Governor to submit a Budget Repair Bill to the legislature, calling it into special session if they're not currently in a floor period. Walker is braking the law.

"At least it's nothing like 3.6 BILLION dollar hole that was left in the budget under Doyle and Dem control of our state congress."

Except that number was predicated upon fulfilling all $3.945 billion agency funding increases and losing $117 million in revenue from the tax cuts already enacted by the GOP, amongst other things. See table 1 on page 7 on Walker's budget proposal (http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/pdf_files/bib1113.pdf)

"Also keep in mind that Walker didn't have phony stimulus money coming in from Wash. D.C., and he had to make reparations to Minnesota and the Medical mal-practice funds that Jimmy Doyle raided."

If you don't like fund raiders, you'll hate Walker. Whatever happened to the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund? What happened to the Democracy Trust Fund? See the 2011-13 Budget: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/32/9218

You would rather see students unemployed? $7/hr is very inaccurate.

All the unemployment/jobs figures you'll ever see in a headline are seasonally-adjusted ones. Temporary summer jobs will only make a positive difference if there are significantly more of them than in the same month in previous years.

This in no way affects your conclusion that those who Stand With Walker will fall for anything: such as claims that he inherited a terrible fiscal situation, had a laser focus on jobs, didn't raise taxes or raid funds in his budget, balanced the budget, created jobs, or doesn't have a criminal defense fund to pay lawyers because he's under investigation for felony campaign finance violations (felony election fraud is a possibility too; that also allows an official to set up a legal defense fund).

These and many more delusions can be yours if you Stand with Walker!

I stand with Walker. I worked to get him elected in the past, he has worked hard for me and held to his word. Just because you cry babies and the public sector unions get your jollys by banging your drums, like a bunch of dirty hippies, does not make me delusioned. I can see the forrest from the trees and being forced to pay WEA Trust millions of xtra tax payer dollars so they can pay off corrupt lefty politicians is no plan for Wisconsins future.

Greg, what has Walker done for you?Truly? Knocked a few bucks off your property taxes? Was that a transformative change in your financial life? The changes that Walker has made to hundreds of thousands in this state have been transformative, and in the wrong direction.

Now, how are recall demonstrators "like dirty hippies," and pro-Walker demonstrators are not? Perhaps this is sour grapes because there are only a fraction of Walker supporters who are willing to stand in public and express their support. Is it embarrassment that keeps them at home? If 95,000 more of them showed up for their next rally we could conduct a side-by-side comparison.

Bren, Walker has done so much for me, I just wish the left could see that most tax payers don't really care that a few public employees have to pay a little for their insurance and pension.
There is enough evidence of how your protesters are like dirty hippies, I didn't think that you and yours would take that as an insult. As for Walker supporters, many of us have real jobs and really do no put the importance, of our support, on banging drums and having a group rant, on the ED Show. You go your way and I'll go mine, but if you ever have a worthwhile cause, I'd love to stand by your side. Then you can look up and make your comparison.

Who exactly is touting these $7/hour temp jobs as job gains? It seems that you are the only one to make that claim. As Geoff pointed out, they apply a 'seasonal adjustment' to the jobs numbers.

Wut are you yamming about now....

College kids have to support a family now too? No more school, sweet even lower taxes.

Because we appreciate teachers (and paid attention to them when we were in school) my family and I are voting to recall.

@doug toader: I'm genuinely interested as to why you are planning to vote for Walker, because I'm incredulous that anyone would. I can imagine that some people who might be in one of the areas of the state where they got a $50 drop in their property taxes and either don't know or don't care about anything else might, but for me it's rather hard to for me to see how anyone could ignore the worst job losses in the entire country, the $208.2 million FY12-FY13 deficit that Walker is violating the law by failing to fix with a Budget Repair Bill, his flaunting of a judicial order to obey the Constitution, his consideration of using violence against peaceful people, his raiding of funds and increased taxes, the destruction of the future of education in the state.

If he'd even been a completely average governor, Wisconsin would now have 64,000 more jobs than it does. That would be enough to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7%.

Hence my curiosity: given all that, why would you give him the time of day, let alone vote for the guy? (If you need any references, I can provide them).

Randy you should really spend more time looking for a job and let go of this hatred of Scott Walker.

Are you hiring, Alfred? You sound like an absolute dream boss.

I'm self-employed, Alfred.

doug, if you had seen what I had seen and heard what I did during CE Walker's budget hearing process you'd be as pro-recall as I am, unless your heart is made of tar.

Ben, the legislation was there to support individuals seeking redress for wage discrimination. Turning your question around, if the law isn't being abused, why repeal it?

This is why some are calling it a "War on Women."

The plural of anecdote is not data. You're clearly confused about the concepts.

Nope, i'm really OK with my data, I lived it. 100% fact, yet hardly original on your part.

Reality is that 23,900 jobs have been lost in this state over the last 12 months. Just because you have trouble imagining it, doesn't make it not data.

You have a single anecdote. Somehow you don't seem to be able to grasp that not every business is in exactly the same position as your own.

How many of that 23,900 happened after Walker's policies were put into effect? His current budget isn't even a year old yet...

Walker's first jobs-enhancing special session dates from January 2011. Act 10 took effect June 29th 2011. The Budget took effect July 1st 2011.

So, in order, through to the March 2012 figures, -13,900, -11,900 or -11,900.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SMS55000000000000001

Geoff, Reality is that if you just parrot some numbers does not make it so. 23,900 really? Or was it 23,852? or 23,906? They have been lost? Where did they go and why?
My single anecdote is factual, like it or not. I really do not need a non-producer like you to approve of my posts.
I do grasp that not every business is the same as mine, but at the same time I never stated that I did. I guess my simple "anecdote" was too complicated for an acedemic such as yourself.

Geo, Here is an article that may help you grasp the concept.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/recovering-businesses-finding-a-dearth-of-skilled-workers/article_c891dbac-a577-50dc-966d-569b12d08e6f.html

"Geoff, Reality is that if you just parrot some numbers does not make it so. 23,900 really? Or was it 23,852? or 23,906?"

If you think the numbers 23,900 number is a distortion or lie, you should first note that it is not my claim: it comes from Walker's own Administration (see http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2012/unemployment/120419_march_state.pdf).

"They have been lost? Where did they go and why?"

Unfortunately there are no laws of the universe that require a job to be created some other place if one disappears from around here.

"My single anecdote is factual, like it or not."

Not once did I ever challenge its accuracy.

"I really do not need a non-producer like you to approve of my posts."

You have no business insulting anyone at all like that.

"I do grasp that not every business is the same as mine, but at the same time I never stated that I did."

Your original post claimed that the numbers produced by the Walker Administration failed to reflect the reality of the job situation in the state nearly as well as your anecdote, i.e. that your experience is the rule, not the exception.

I am a woman who will vote for Walker. I am also in a public sector union. Only a liberal would insult women and tell them how to think. Pitiful and indicative of who really hates women.

I too am a woman that will vote for Walker. Now I only have to fund my own retirement and pay for my own insurance, not anyone elses. I've been working for 35 years and when the pay and benefits didn't work for me anymore I "empowered" myself and got a different job and didn't play the victim. Good old USA, we get to do what we want to do - it's a free country. We all make choices.

Hi Barbara Barnes, hi Sunrocket, glad you're here. I'm curious; would you please share your thoughts on the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act and its recent repeal?

@Geoff - I guess my thoughts on 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act are that I am glad Acts are out there for people that wish to pursue legal action when they think they are being treated unfairly. Personally, I can decide for myself what a fair wage is for me and frankly don't really worry about what other people are being paid be it man or woman I just do my job until I know longer want to do it. In the one instance where I thought I was woefully underpaid based on other people in the firm, I went to my boss, pleaded my case and got a raise. I didn't expect anyone else to do it for me, I am in control of my own life and I have my own voice. In another example, I wanted to increase my pay and potential for advancement so I went back to school on my own dime and got a higher degree. I and I alone am in charge of my own destiny.

Sunrocket, I like your attitude. Geo will never understand that man or woman, white, black or green, some people may be under or over paid. If they are not getting what they are worth, it is not the sole responsibility of the government to make changes. No business wants to be in a state that needlessly holds $300,000 of punitive damages over it's head. Women are protected, this is a smoke and mirrors issue that USES women in a way that I don't really like. In the words of the left, shame, shame, shame.

"Geo will never understand that man or woman, white, black or green, some people may be under or over paid. If they are not getting what they are worth, it is not the sole responsibility of the government to make changes."

Er... no-one, least of all myself, is asking the government to make changes to anyone's paycheck to force equal pay for equal work. The only thing the Equal Pay Enforcement Act did was to all someone who has been discriminated against to sue for restitution. This is called "justice" and the Constitution calls that necessary for the "blessings of a free government".

"No business wants to be in a state that needlessly holds $300,000 of punitive damages over it's head."

Compensatory damages are disposed of too. From a quick look at http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/equal-pay-laws.aspx at least 20 states have some form of club to prevent discrimination, and it's not stopped a single one of them from whupping our asses at job creation.

You seem to be saying that justice - and therefore the blessings of a free government - are to be sacrificed on the alter of hoping that maybe, somebody somewhere will rain jobs down upon the state. The problem is lack of demand, and it cannot be solved by dispensing with the blessings of a free government.

"Women are protected,"

It's still against the law to discriminate, but now you can only sue for the cost of suing in Wisconsin courts. There is now no little to no risk in actively discriminating against on the basis of "age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters"

Sunrocket, from your response it's not clear to me that you understand that Act 219 (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/219) *completely* repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2009/related/acts/20).

People who think they have been treated unfairly cannot now sue in Wisconsin courts for restitution, except in a very theoretical way: it's still against the law, but they can't collect damages, just attorney fees, expert witness fees; if they "win" the best they can hope is to break even.

@Cricket

Not to mention that Jason's comments were, yet again, a load of crap. As long as women take jobs that go 12 months per year, there is little or no difference in pay between men and women when other variables are controlled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiuU1oJYPgU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I should add that when people are reading a book they should read the whole thing. Reading a book is a serious endeavor.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Touchstone-book/dp/0671212095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335504811&sr=8-1

Quotes from your linked video, Luke:

"The report goes on to say that most [n.b. most != all] of that gap can be explained by life choices"

"After all that [college major, occupation, hours worked, taking time off to raise children] is taken into account, women right out of college earn 95% of what men make"

It seems that your best, hyperpartisan, secondary source says that they're a gender pay gap.

But that's not the point of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act of 2009: the point is that if you are subjected to unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing or are discriminated against on the basis of your age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, you could be made whole by Wisconsin courts.

So if you genetically test positive for a higher than average cancer risk, your employer can fire you for that and face no consequences in Wisconsin courts now.

If you enjoy a beer while watching Packers games and your prospective boss is an extremist teetotaler, they can refuse to hire you for that reason.

You have Irish ancestors? You can be fired for that now without recourse.

This is much, much bigger than just gender pay differences.

@Geoff

I appreciate your comments, but you missed my point. There is no gender difference in pay when individual choices are controlled for. I was only addressing gender pay differences.

Likewise, we could study which gender is most likely to die on the job. Studies consistantly show that men are most likely to die on the job. Why? Because of the choice of jobs that they make. They tend to take more risky jobs.

Also, men tend to die more on the job because testosterone makes men more careless and stupid (I threw in this last comment for the entertainment of the gals).

But Luke, about 40 seconds into the video in your own link it says that there *is* a gender pay gap when various confounding factors are accounted for (95%).

It's not as great a difference as that generally used while criticizing the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act (78%, give or take a percentage point), but still fails to be 100%.

You'll need another source if you want to back up your claim that there is no gender pay difference when controlling for such factors.

@Geoff

<<<But Luke, about 40 seconds into the video in your own link it says that there *is* a gender pay gap when various confounding factors are accounted for (95%). It's not as great a difference as that generally used while criticizing the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act (78%, give or take a percentage point), but still fails to be 100%.>>>

A couple of things:

Note the role that the phrase "little or no difference" plays in my initial post.

However, you missed the irony of the video by not paying attention to what immediately follows the part that you mentioned. To get the full affect, you need to have some coffee in your mouth and then spray it all over your computer when you see the image of the book excerpt and hear that the book says that the remaining 5% of the gender gap can be attributed to the fact that women tend to go into lower paid fields like teaching, and men tend to go into higher paid fields like aerospace engineering. Really? Teachers get paid less than the highly competitive and rigorous field of aerospace engineering, which designs the space shuttle and aircraft? LOL!

Continued……

That is actually something that the book says. However, although the example is funny, the general point is worth discussing. So we are back to my original point, and the point of the book, that women are more often likely to go into certain fields, whereas men are more likely to go into others.

There is nothing about genitalia that makes one gender pursue one career over the other. Nor is it a secret what is required to enter any particular field, or how one might benefit from employment in any one field, that is shared with one gender and withheld from the other.

The point that the people at the rally were making was a really odd one. It was that people should not be responsible for their choices if they make if they are women that don't like the consequences of their choices. And if there are men that made equally "bad" (not that I agree that being a teacher is bad) choices, they should be included because women tend to make the same bad choice.

<<<You'll need another source if you want to back up your claim that there is no gender pay difference when controlling for such factors.>>>

My source is the book that the Falk campaign referenced, including all the other pages that they did not pay attention to.

Maybe the Tavern League should lay off of their inventory.

@Keith

LOL!

More booze for Keith? No Keith, I think you've had enough...again.

The reason the Doyle administration passed Act 219 was to reward trial attorneys and lobbyists. Act 219 made it easier to collect minimum threshold monetary punitive rewards (in ADDITION to restitution), rather than equitable punitive (in ADDITION to restitution) rewards that a judge or jury would normally award. Therefore, act 219 promised more money for the attorneys. This is why Doyle received so much money from lawyers and lobbyists, and why Tom Barrett single-handedly received more than 6.8 times the money for his 2010 campaign than the Koch brothers contributed to the campaigns of all politicians in all of Wisconsin in all the prior 8 years combined!

Again, women can still pursue punitive and compensatory damages, just as they have ALWAYS been allowed to do in all the other states. Now the trial attorneys won't get as much money, nor will business have to carry so much insurance. The federal laws are slightly more stringent, so it would behoove both parties to settle out of court.

But guess what!! No woman in the history of Act 219 has even tried to collect damages in its entire history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzLH9qBiGh0

And if you don't want to hear these facts from me, here is a link by an anti-Walker attorney. Read the last two paragraphs.

http://www.michaelbest.com/pubs/pubDetailMB.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=3078

Geoff,

You wanna know what I call it when Dem politicians lie to women about their compensation relative to men, and when Dem politicians lie to women about the law?

I call it a WAR ON WOMEN!!!

Firstly, either I can't quite parse your writing correctly, or else you've mixed a few things: the Doyle-signed Act 20 of 2009 *is* the Equal Pay Enforcement Act; the Walker-signed Act 219 of 2011 repealed it completely.

Act 219 puts simple back pay is now back at the discretion of .... the Walker Administration's Department of Workforce Development (111.39(4)(c)). You can't now sue in Wisconsin court for it. If I'm wrong you should have no problem pointing to the current statutes which allow this.

So before Act 219 you could sue for compensation and punitive damages in court; now you might get back pay and your job back if the Walker Administration agrees.

Your swing to campaign finance is somewhat jarring, but you seem to be conflating direct personal donations with support made via PACs, in the Koch's case principally "Americans for Prosperity". Hiding your support by funneling it through a PAC does not make it any less a contribution.

You're right that women can still pursue punitive and compensatory damages, but I never claimed that: only that they could not longer do so in Wisconsin courts. Federal courts are notoriously less accessible.

The video's quite interesting in that it has Georgia Maxwell offer an opinion in her capacity as Department of Workforce Development Executive Assistant to lend some authority. What it doesn't highlight is that she is an appointee of a Walker appointee, and a former Walker Campaign manager (http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/080125walkercampaign.pdf). It also points to there being 4,000 discrimination complaints each year, then ignores all of them that aren't gender-based, even though Act 219 repeals the ability to sue in court for all 4,000 of them.

The idea that you could call a Michael Best & Friedrich lawyer "anti-Walker" is one of the most staggering claims I have heard, ever. This is the *exact same* law firm that provided Scott Walker's special counsel (Eric McLeod) in the Act 10 case. This is the *exact same* law firm that provided free legal services to Walker's Supreme Court rubber-stamper Gableman. This is the *exact same* law firm that did the behind closed doors redistricting for Walker and the Fitzgeralds. This is the *exact same* law firm that provides counsel for the Walker campaign. Reince Priebus, former chair of the RPW while Walker was running for governor and now chair of the RNC, *is a partner of the firm* (http://www.michaelbest.com/rrpriebus/). They couldn't be more pro-Walker if they were siamese twins with him.

Geoff,

You're right. I reversed the two acts. But that really doesn't affect the rest of my points.

<<<<It also points to there being 4,000 discrimination complaints each year, then ignores all of them that aren't gender-based,>>>

Yes, so it can't possibly be a war on women. In addition, complaints filed are simply that -- complaints. Few go to court. I could file a complaint against you right now, if I wanted. It won't go anywhere.

Anyhow, the ability to go to court has not been removed. We are just like any other state.

<<<Your swing to campaign finance is somewhat jarring, but you seem to be conflating direct personal donations with support made via PACs, in the Koch's case principally "Americans for Prosperity". Hiding your support by funneling it through a PAC does not make it any less a contribution>>>

No. I was quite specific about direct contributions to campaigns. However, I can make the same argument regarding PACs and front groups. Regardless, the contributions from lawyers and lobbyists to Barrett was many times what the Koch brothers contributed to the campaigns (not PACs or front groups) of all politicians in the state of Wisconsin in 8 years.

The repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act is not so specific as a war on women; it's a war on *everyone* who's being discriminated against.

I say again, you can't now sue in Wisconsin court for it. If I'm wrong you should have no problem pointing to the current statutes which allow this.

You can sue in a federal court; I have not disputed that. The point is to make justice less accessible, which calls into question legislators' familiarity with Article I Section 9 of the Constitution ("Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought to obtain justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformably to the laws.").

Act 219 doesn't exactly seem consistent with that.

Geoff

<<<I say again, you can't now sue in Wisconsin court for it. If I'm wrong you should have no problem pointing to the current statutes which allow this.>>>

You CAN sue in Wisconsin court. As I delineated above, you CAN sue for restitution. You cannot sue for punitive damages in Wisconsin court. But you don't need to. In fact, no one, male nor female, has ever needed to, nor have they done so when the option was available.

We are the SAME as all surrounding states.

<<<("Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought to obtain justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformably to the laws."). Act 219 doesn't exactly seem consistent with that.>>>

Sigh...........That's restitution.

I have challenged you to point out where in the Wisconsin statutes - as now amended by Act 219 - the ability remains to sue in Wisconsin courts for restitution. You have put forth the claim that it exists repeatedly but not backed it up except with opinion pieces from the most partisan sources conceivable, even though it should be straightforward to do so (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/prefaces/toc is a good place to start).

I continue to wait.

Geoff,

Here are the relevant laws. You can examine everything that involves settlements and arbitration. If you still need help, let me know.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/111/II/31

Here is exactly what was amended: “An Act to repeal 111.39 (5) (d), 111.397 and 893.995; and to amend 111.39 (4) (d) and 814.04 (intro.) of the statutes; relating to: elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing. (FE)”

The rest remains.

I continue to wait for you to defend your initial claim.

Of and in the subchapter II that you refer to: "111.375  Department to administer.
(1) This subchapter shall be administered by the department." The subchapter lists a lot of discrimination bases that are against the law, but there is no enforcement provision there for suing in Wisconsin courts.

My claim was "people who think they have been treated unfairly cannot now sue in Wisconsin courts for restitution". That stands.

@Geoff

<<<Of and in the subchapter II that you refer to: "111.375  Department to administer.
(1) This subchapter shall be administered by the department." The subchapter lists a lot of discrimination bases that are against the law, but there is no enforcement provision there for suing in Wisconsin courts.>>>

Key word in your last sentence is "there." You are correct that there is no provision in that immediate section. Fortunately the law also prescribes the duities of the Department, which includes inforcment of the law, resulting in restitution.

I will wait for you to denfend your initial claim that the responsibilies of the Department to execute restituion do not exist.

@Geoff

And, considering your claims and my most recent post, the corollary challenge you are faced with is to prove that the Department has no duties to prosecute.

@Geoff

Sorry for the number of posts, but I forgot to tell you to scroll down in that document, since what you are looking for is immediately below.

"I will wait for you to defend your initial claim that the responsibilies of the Department to execute restitution do not exist." - the trouble with this is twofold: firstly you're asking for proof of a negative. Look at chapter 1 of the statutes: nothing there. Look at chapter 2 of the statutes: nope, nothing there. etc etc etc. I can copy and paste them if you really like but that's rather pointless and they take up five or six print volumes. Secondly that was not my initial claim or any subsequent one.

A referencing of the statute (or statutes, since there's generally a lot of cross-references to be had) that shows how people aggrieved by discrimination can sue in Wisconsin courts would be sufficient to refute my claim that "people who think they have been treated unfairly cannot now sue in Wisconsin courts for restitution", but as yet this has not been forthcoming.

The ability to sue in court for damages arising from discrimination was the _entire point_ of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, and that has been repealed in its _entirety_ by Act 219.

(I must give a shout-out here to the designers of the legis.wisconsin.gov web pages: they are really first rate in being able to search and link to any section of the statutes or Acts, having improved greatly over the last year).

@Geoff

<<<The ability to sue in court for damages arising from discrimination was the _entire point_ of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, and that has been repealed in its _entirety_ by Act 219.>>>

On the contrary, the amendents were clearly detailed, and they did not affect the role of the Department to enforce the law. I told you exactly where to find the information. It is a few inches below the section you referneced.

"Powers and Duties of the Department...."

Continued....

"If, after hearing, the examiner finds that the respondent has engaged in discrimination, unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing, the examiner shall make written findings and order such action by the respondent as will effectuate the purpose of this subchapter, with or without back pay. If the examiner awards any payment to an employee because of a violation of s. 111.321 by an individual employed by the employer, under s. 111.32 (6), the employer of that individual is liable for the payment. If the examiner finds a respondent violated s. 111.322 (2m), the examiner shall award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if requested by all parties and may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if requested by any party."

Continued...

"...Compensation in lieu of reinstatement for a violation of s. 111.322 (2m) may not be less than 500 times nor more than 1,000 times the hourly wage of the person discriminated against when the violation occurred. Back pay liability may not accrue from a date more than 2 years prior to the filing of a complaint with the department. Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person discriminated against or subjected to unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing shall operate to reduce back pay otherwise allowable. Amounts received by the person discriminated against or subject to the unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing as unemployment benefits or welfare payments shall not reduce the back pay otherwise allowable, but shall be withheld from the person discriminated against or subject to unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing and immediately paid to the unemployment reserve fund or, in the case of a welfare payment, to the welfare agency making the payment. "

And there's more....!

I will wait for you, Geoff, to defend your position.

(My apology for typos in previous posts. iPad is no longer my friend.)

@Luke & Geoff Tolley... Do you know if there are other states with legislation that mirrors the Federal discrimination laws, as worded in Doyles ACT and Walkers repeal (The notable difference being the $300,000 punitive damages). Please, link us to the studies that show that States with Legislation, in addition to the Federal Legislation, have produced a statistically significant favorable/positive outcome on compensation disparities.

@Jay

I'm sure there are other states somewhere, but I don't have any knowledge of, or stats on, the ones that do. None of our neighboring states has such a law, according to the law-makers I have heard discuss the issue. My opinion is that although the law does give the greater opportunity for more favorable outcomes for plaintiffs that succeed, relatively few such complaints have legal merit, and even fewer actually make it to court. No one in Wisconsin has filed under Doyle's law.

The basic issue is whether or not the federal law is more or less fair to BOTH parties involved in the complaint. Apparently no one is attacking Obama for his war on women due to his lack of criticism of the federal law. No one is attacking the leadership of Iowa or Minnesota either.

My opinion is that the federal law is fine. I would like to see the statute of limitations for discrimination in Wisconsin extended a few more years, however. Perhaps that's the bleeding heart moderate in me. However, even a flaming moderate like myself can see that this is no way a war on women.

The war on women is being waged by those that lie to women. (I'll leave it at that.)

Sorry Luke, but neither the Department of Workforce Development nor its examiners are a court of law. It simply isn't. They are not the same thing.

The best that someone discriminated against can hope for is that a partisan department that doesn't believe that discrimination takes place in Wisconsin (see: the interview in the MacIver video you referenced) will rule in your favor for back pay, and then if they're lucky the offending employer will cut them a check.

People cannot now sue in Wisconsin courts to for restitution from pay discrimination against them. My claim stand unmolested.

(It's now a positive-sum game in Wisconsin for employers to discriminate: you get to keep the difference in pay if your employees don't get as far as a positive judgement from the DWD - that you've established is biased against the idea that discrimination exists - and even if they do, the worst the employer does is break even).

@Geoff,

To avoid further confusion, here is the process according to the Department of Workforce Development, starting at the filing of the claim and culminating at the hearing in front of the administrative law judge.

http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/publication_erd_6160_pweb.htm#9.

@Geoff

<<<Sorry Luke, but neither the Department of Workforce Development nor its examiners are a court of law. It simply isn't. They are not the same thing>>>

After the hearing in front of the Administrative Law Judge, either party has the right to go to circuit court, and eventually appeals court.

@Geoff

<<<People cannot now sue in Wisconsin courts to for restitution from pay discrimination against them. My claim stand unmolested.>>>

Your claim has been molested.

Thanks for the link Luke, that's helpful.

(Bear in mind that it doesn't bear a date, although the .pdf version does, and that's November 2010, which references statutes including some that were affected by Act 219).

So reading the statutes it references, it appears that one can appeal the decision to circuit court as you say. After about a year, that is, and a year not limited by statute. Only the findings and orders can be reviewed by the circuit court, not the failure to come up with them by an examiner employed by a Department that is already established by your MacIver video link as being run by former Walker campaign managers who are against the idea that discrimination takes place in Wisconsin.

Hence complaint/hearing/deposition in circular file leads to no Wisconsin court action for you.

If you do get it then you are still limited to wages lost, interest on them, attorney fees and court costs - so nothing for your time spent trying to get your due, nothing for your future economic losses or noneconomic losses. So the absolute best that someone discriminated against can hope for is that they break even. If you were passed over for hiring solely because of a prohibited form of discrimination, which led subsequently to an underdeveloped career and hence lost lifetime earnings, you get nothing at all for that harm via a DWD ruling or Wisconsin court.

@Geoff,

<<<Thanks for the link Luke, that's helpful.

(Bear in mind that it doesn't bear a date, although the .pdf version does, and that's November 2010, which references statutes including some that were affected by Act 219).>>>

Well, it's almost impossible to imagine that a big portion of the government has been dismantled and no one has reported on it.

In addition, the amendments were listed and delineated. None of them touch how things are otherwise done. So an appeal to ignorance will not stand as an argument, given that we have all the information about Act 219.

<<<Hence complaint/hearing/deposition in circular file leads to no Wisconsin court action for you.>>>

I have no idea what that means. Wisconsin court takes action on restitution all year long (unless you are still confusing restitution with punitive damages).

Continued.....

<<<If you do get it then you are still limited to wages lost, interest on them, attorney fees and court costs - so nothing for your time spent trying to get your due, nothing for your future economic losses or noneconomic losses. So the absolute best that someone discriminated against can hope for is that they break even. If you were passed over for hiring solely because of a prohibited form of discrimination, which led subsequently to an underdeveloped career and hence lost lifetime earnings, you get nothing at all for that harm via a DWD ruling or Wisconsin court.
>>>

No, it addresses much more than that, Including past promotions what were missed out on.

Punitive damages must be addressed in federal court, however. Now plaintiffs can't have cases being tried in multiple courts at the same time. You may not like the order in which things are done, but that does not affect the fact that they CAN be done.

I was not attempting to appeal to ignorance, only warning that information that uses as its basis a set of statutes that have been affected by recent legislation needs a double-check for current accuracy.

"Complaint/hearing/deposition in circular file leads to no Wisconsin court action for you" means that there is no provision in the statutes to force DWD action in this matter, only to review its decisions. If those decisions are never made, there is no recourse. One is therefore utterly dependent upon the DWD to make a decision in a finite amount of time in order to put you in a position where you can avail yourself of the Wisconsin court system.

"No, it addresses much more than that, Including past promotions what were missed out on."

I didn't say past promotions, I said future harm as a result of the discriminatory action, and in particular the effect it may have on one's career and therefore future earnings.

@Geoff,

<<<...there is no provision in the statutes to force DWD action in this matter, only to review its decisions. If those decisions are never made, there is no recourse. One is therefore utterly dependent upon the DWD to make a decision in a finite amount of time in order to put you in a position where you can avail yourself of the Wisconsin court system.>>>

That's silly, Geoff. The circuit court IS where the issue will be tried. If DWD does not change its position to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff goes directly to circuit court. In fact, there is a government link provided to do so.

<<<I didn't say past promotions, I said future harm as a result of the discriminatory action, and in particular the effect it may have on one's career and therefore future earnings.>>>

You don't get it. The law provides for the DVD to make the employer restore the plaintiff to their proper position within the company. Therefore, if that is done, they have restitution of both money lost and status within the company/organization. What future promotions, therefore, are lost?

In addition, the plaintiff is to receive standardized monetary compensation if they don't want to go back to work. And if that's not enough, the law allows them to receive additional damages in federal court.

Luke, I believe you're misunderstanding me: the law covers discrimination not only in pay but in being hired or fired. If one is passed over for hiring purely on account of discrimination, that has an impact upon one's future career progression and therefore future earnings, the shortfall not being recoverable under current Wisconsin law.

"In addition, the plaintiff is to receive standardized monetary compensation if they don't want to go back to work."

And no, the plaintiff does not get automatic restoration to their proper position within the company. From 111.39(4)(c): "the examiner shall award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if requested by all parties and may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if requested by any party" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/111/II/39/4/c), the level of compensation being set elsewhere in that statute. So it's not automatic. You might hope to get the position you should have had a year earlier (the year figure coming from the DWD link).

If the defendant gives them the option and the plaintiff doesn't want to take the job that was their due, compensation is not automatic.

"And if that's not enough, the law allows them to receive additional damages in federal court."

And as I've not seen you disagree with, Wisconsin courts are rather more accessible than Federal ones.

@Geoff,
<<<<Luke, I believe you're misunderstanding me: the law covers discrimination not only in pay but in being hired or fired. If one is passed over for hiring purely on account of discrimination, that has an impact upon one's future career progression and therefore future earnings, the shortfall not being recoverable under current Wisconsin law.>>>>

Of course.

<<<<And no, the plaintiff does not get automatic restoration to their proper position within the company. >>>>

Yes they do, unless the parties involved don’t want it. Notice that the way the law is phrased is not reversed. It does not say that emplyment is terminated unless either party requests that it not be.

Continued....

<<<From 111.39(4)(c): "the examiner shall award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if requested by all parties and may award compensation in lieu of reinstatement if requested by any party" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/111/II/39/4/c), the level of compensation being set elsewhere in that statute. So it's not automatic.>>>

Yes it is, because there a only two alternatives. Either their status is restored, or the employment is terminated. Either way, “RESTITUTION” is executed.

<<< You might hope to get the position you should have had a year earlier (the year figure coming from the DWD link).>>>

Right. Notice the role “if” plays in my post.

<<<And as I've not seen you disagree with, Wisconsin courts are rather more accessible than Federal ones.>>>

The federal law gives, by far, the best and fair protection to BOTH parties. In addition, this process avoids several trials from being held simultaneously in different courts.

Taking your points in turn:

If a given state administration is to be blamed for job losses (or credited with gains), then I hope you would agree that it should be important to distinguish local trends (which it is reasonable to hold them responsible for) from national ones (which it is not).

Under the Doyle Administration, the number of nonfarm payroll jobs peaked in June 2007 at 2,889,300 and left it at 2,740,800 in December 2010 (see http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SMS55000000000000001), a drop of about 150,000 or 5.1%. In the nation as a whole for those months the figures are 137,687,000 and 130,346,000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001), a drop of 5.3%. So under the Doyle Administration, Wisconsin jobs actually did slightly better than nationally (you can pick Jan 2011 as the changeover month instead, it doesn't affect the conclusions). I don't see you can hold Doyle's policies for the 150,000 job losses that are perfectly explained by the national recession.

On the other hand, the March 2012 figures are 2,730,600 for Wisconsin and 132,821,000 for the nation as a whole, so from December 2010 Wisconsin lost 0.4% of its jobs while the nation as a whole gained 1.9%. Under the Walker Administration, Wisconsin has successfully bucked the national jobs trend - and not in a way to be proud of.

Two problems with referring to Politifact: firstly, they analyze private sector jobs, yet Walker's campaign promise (which they even quote) had no such qualification. As I've referred above, Wisconsin is 10,200 jobs under water since Walker took office.

If you insist upon holding Walker to a different set of standards than those he set for himself and look at the private sector alone, that can be done by subtraction of the government sector jobs tabulated at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SMS55000009000000001 This has dropped by 16,100 under Walker, hence since December 2010 Wisconsin has gained 5,900 private sector jobs, an increase of 0.25%. Only three states did worse than that over the same time period (MS, AR, RI). It's an appalling record: and remember, that's holding him to more convenient standards than the one he laid out for himself.

You suggest working with Governor Walker to create jobs. What you overlook - presumably intentionally, because it's amazingly obvious - is that Governor Walker has had a lock-step legislature to get whatever "jobs" legislation he wanted passed. He owns it all; the buck stops nowhere else.

As for dragging this state to hell, Walker doesn't seem to need any help there.

Geoff, Thanks to last years senate recalls, Governor Walker DOES NOT have a "lock-step legislature to get whatever "jobs" legislation he wanted passed." One RINO is now all it takes to block Republican legislation. The failed mining bill from earlier this year is the perfect example.

As for your selfish Liberal friends working with Governor Walker, I will say it again: Why would ANYONE want to locate or relocate a business to Wisconsin when the Liberals are threatening to return to the failed policies of Diamond Jim Doyle?

As for creating jobs:
38448 jobs listed on the Department of Workforce Development's JobCenter website:
https://jobcenterofwisconsin.com/
thousands of jobs listed under monster.com
I found over a thousand listed under dice.com for Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and Appleton
Over 300 new job listings in Craigslist the last three days.

Maybe the job situation is not as bad as you think

So Anti-Alinsky, you say that any GOP legislator who fails to walk in lock step with Walker is a RINO.

If you want to go on about the mining bill as some sort of inevitable source of jobs had it passed, you have to ignore the collapse in iron ore prices (http://tinyurl.com/7l6teyo) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs looking into whether the tribes were paid any heed in the process (http://tinyurl.com/6nx8ekv) and Federal water regulation issues arising.

Anyone would want to locate a business in Wisconsin if there were demand for their products at sufficient price. Demand which the Walker Administration has been destroying. As I've already detailed, under Doyle Wisconsin did better for jobs than the nation as a whole, so I would like to know what metric you are using to call his policies 'failed'. Especially when compared to Walker, whose administration has completely turned the state jobs picture around and not in a pretty direction.

And woo, you've discovered that a certain fraction of each job's lifespan is spent finding someone to fill it. When I checked a week or two ago, the DWD's Job Center site was 1/4 out of state jobs. Are you arguing that Walker should be given credit for jobs created in other states? Or credit for driving people away from Wisconsin and their jobs here because he's gone so far down the road to destroying public education that they don't see much of a future here any more?

@Geoff

<<<If you want to go on about the mining bill as some sort of inevitable source of jobs had it passed, you have to ignore the collapse in iron ore prices (http://tinyurl.com/7l6teyo) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs looking into whether the tribes were paid any heed in the process (http://tinyurl.com/6nx8ekv) and Federal water regulation issues arising.>>>

Boy, you are really grasping at straws. I can tell you, as someone who trades metals on the Asian market, that iron is not near its historical high, but it is also not too low either. Regardless, the mining company DID want to mine here, so it was economical for them to do so. Are you arguing that the politicians who blocked the mine were secretly concerned about the price of iron ore?

As for the general employment issue, I am going to try to get back here and address that when I get time.

I'm not saying anything about the politicians in that; I'm saying that Gogebic Taconite had mounting reasons to not go ahead with the mine even if the regulations were relaxed; dropping prices created uncertainty over the financial viability of the project; the way the mining regulation relaxation bill was crafted (without involving the tribes) created uncertainty over its future with the possibility of being it killed under Federal Treaties and hence created uncertainty over the viability of the project.

Gogebic Taconite's actual action was indistinguishable from the best available to them in the case where they had already decided to pull out due to these issues that mounted during their legislative effort: the failure of the mining regulation relaxation bill to pass the Senate enabled them to pin the blame on excessive regulation - salvaging for them a political win, something of not inconsiderable value to them in other states - instead of quietly dropping things later.

Obviously at some point Gogebic *did* want to mine in Wisconsin. However, there is plenty of reason to believe that the failure of the mining regulation relaxation bill was not in fact the straw that broke the camel's back.

@Geoff,

You mention the price of iron, yet no one else brought that up with regard to how the bill was crafted. You appear to be grasping at straws here.

Ironically, for your argument, they are opening a mine in another state, which demonstrates how absurd the opposition to the mine in this state was, not to mention how absurd the crafted issue of the price of iron is.

They are indeed mining. Elsewhere!

@Luke: "You mention the price of iron, yet no one else brought that up with regard to how the bill was crafted."

Except I didn't bring it up with regard to how the bill was crafted, I brought it up with regard to why the project may have been undesirable regardless of how the bill turned out.

Who did you expect to bring it up (not that that's relevant)? Those who defeated the bill through their own efforts? The backers of the bill, who can score more political points if people don't think Gogerbic had any other reason than its failure to pass to pull out?

"Ironically, for your argument, they are opening a mine in another state, which demonstrates how absurd the opposition to the mine is this state was, not to mention how absurd the crafted issue of the price of iron is.

They are indeed mining. Elsewhere!"

You're claiming that because _one_ potential site becomes uneconomic due to market conditions (the commodity losing 1/4 of its value), _all_ potential sites must become uneconomic for the same reason? That makes no sense at all.

@Geoff,

<<<Except I didn't bring it up with regard to how the bill was crafted, I brought it up with regard to why the project may have been undesirable regardless of how the bill turned out.>>>

That's not my point. My point is that the politicians and the mining company did not bring it up. YOU brought it up.

<<<<Who did you expect to bring it up (not that that's relevant)? >>>

Perhaps the mining company itself?

<<<You're claiming that because _one_ potential site becomes uneconomic due to market conditions (the commodity losing 1/4 of its value), _all_ potential sites must become uneconomic for the same reason? That makes no sense at all.>>>

The "same reason"??? You are the one who brought up the price of iron. The price of iron is the same, regardless of where it is mined.

I'm claiming that the mining company is in business to mine to make money. Since the mining company and all the politicians involved said that it was more lucrative to mine in Wisconsin, I believe them rather than you.

Who is your source of information that tipped you off that the price of iron was a factor in going to another state? Yourself.

"<<<<Who did you expect to bring it up (not that that's relevant)? >>>

Perhaps the mining company itself?"

Why on earth would they? As I pointed out, they gain nothing by doing so, and win political points that can be cashing in other states by omitting any such information.

"<<<You're claiming that because _one_ potential site becomes uneconomic due to market conditions (the commodity losing 1/4 of its value), _all_ potential sites must become uneconomic for the same reason? That makes no sense at all.>>>

The "same reason"??? You are the one who brought up the price of iron. The price of iron is the same, regardless of where it is mined."

Er, the cost of extraction isn't because it's dependent on local geological conditions. Different costs of extraction for different sites = different price points at which they cease to be worthwhile investments.

"Who is your source of information that tipped you off that the price of iron was a factor in going to another state? Yourself."

No, it's called Economics 101. Mining elsewhere clearly indicates that that site in another state is economic at the iron ore prices we now have. Therefore no matter what happened in Wisconsin, that site would be developed. That investment decision is therefore entirely independent of whether a 25% reduction to potential revenue turns a different investment option from worthwhile to not.

@Geoff,

<<<Why on earth would they? As I pointed out, they gain nothing by doing so, and win political points that can be cashing in other states by omitting any such information.>>>>

Again, why would they pick Wisconsin in the first place if it is where they would make the least money? In addition, what evidence do we have other than your counterfactual, counterintuitive conjecture?

<<<Er, the cost of extraction isn't because it's dependent on local geological conditions. Different costs of extraction for different sites = different price points at which they cease to be worthwhile investments.>>>

Errrrr…….No, Geoff, you brought up the PRICE OF IRON. The PRICE OF IRON is the same, regardless of where it comes from, and regardless of the cost of extraction. It is a commodity that is sold on the open markets. People don’t pay more for iron from one place over another.

<<<<No, it's called Economics 101. Mining elsewhere clearly indicates that that site in another state is economic at the iron ore prices we now have. Therefore no matter what happened in Wisconsin, that site would be developed. That investment decision is therefore entirely independent of whether a 25% reduction to potential revenue turns a different investment option from worthwhile to not.>>>>

It is more uneconomical because of the obstacles put up by the politicians, not because of the price of iron or the cost of extraction.

"Again, why would they pick Wisconsin in the first place if it is where they would make the least money?"

The industry as a whole would pick it in addition to more profitable options if the market price justified it. Where exactly did Gogebic take its investment, do you claim?

"In addition, what evidence to we have other than your counterfactual, counterintuitive conjecture?"

What evidence do we have that Gogebic was telling the truth in stating that their reasons for abandoning the project were purely legislation-related?

"Errrrr…….No, Geoff, you brought up the PRICE OF IRON. The PRICE OF IRON is the same, regardless of where it comes from, and regardless of the cost of extraction. It is a commodity that is sold on the open markets. People don’t pay more for iron from one place over another."

I have never said that they do. You clearly don't get it, so I'm going to go through some very simple steps to try to lay it out:

1. The price per ton of iron is $X.
2. At some site, cost of extraction per ton is $Y. $X - $Y > 0, and enough for a bit of profit, so it is a good investment to set up a mine there.
3. The price per ton of iron drops to $Z.
4. At the same site, cost of extraction per ton is $Y. $Z - $Y < 0, or at least less than a worthwhile return on investment money. Now it is no longer a good investment to set up a mine there.

This is not a complicated concept to grasp.

"It is more economical because of the obstacles put up by the politicians, not because of the price of iron or the cost of extraction."

That's an assertion based upon the statement of a company that has every reason to lie.

Geoff,

<<<< This is not a complicated concept to grasp.>>>>
It certainly isn’t a hard concept to grasp, considering that you just explained WHAT I ALREADY TOLD YOU!!!

Don’t you get it, Geoff? You argued that the PRICE OF IRON was the cause. Now, by finally making my point, you need to argue that THE COST OF EXTRACTION has changed.

How has the price of extraction changed? Do you have anything other than counterfactual, counterintuitive conjecture? Perhaps they invented a new mining machine that works only in Michigan? Perhaps they were going to pull out of Wisconsin all along after the bill was passed, and use their super-secret Michigan machine to mine with?

<<<<< That's an assertion based upon the statement of a company that has every reason to lie.>>>>

That’s one way of dealing with the issue so that all the comments by the politicians and the company don’t have to be addressed. Everyone but you is telling a lie. And you know because you know, because it’s obvious because you know that you know.

Wow Luke. Very well said. Geoff seems to be a lot of babble and little solid substance. He reminds me of a dog that chases his tail one way, and when he can't get it tries the other direction.

"How has the price of extraction changed?"

?

Take a deep breath, relax, and re-read what I actually wrote rather than what you want to think I did. When I explain "cost of extraction per ton is $Y" and then later in the same explanation say "cost of extraction per ton is $Y", I mean that the cost of extraction hasn't changed.

When the price of iron changes (and we know for a fact that it did during the legislative session, significantly), the economics of whether a project is worthwhile can change too.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

"<<<<< That's an assertion based upon the statement of a company that has every reason to lie.>>>>

That’s one way of dealing with the issue so that all the comments by the politicians and the company don’t have to be addressed. Everyone but you is telling a lie. And you know because you know, because it’s obvious because you know that you know."

You know that Gogebic and Wisconsin's legislative leadership were telling the unadulterated truth about Gogebic's motivations for their pullout. Anyone who disagrees (even if they have facts that support an alternative hypothesis) is lying. And you know they were telling the unadulterated truth because you know they were, because it's obvious because you know that you know.

Anti-Alinsky's claim was that "The failed mining bill from earlier this year is the perfect example [of Walker jobs legislation that was upset by an uncooperative legislature]". If the bill would have led to job creation and Gogebic pulled out substantially because the bill failed, then this claim is accurate. However, we also know for a fact that the economics shifted significantly during the legislative session. Both can equally well explain Gogebic pulling out, so it is impossible to conclude that the mining bill, if passed by the Senate, would have led to any jobs at all.

It is not my claim that Gogebic were definitely lying about their motivations; it is my claim that given the change in market conditions it is impossible to conclude that, if the mining bill had passed, there would be any jobs created as a result.

@Geoff

<<<Take a deep breath, relax, and re-read what I actually wrote rather than what you want to think I did. When I explain "cost of extraction per ton is $Y" and then later in the same explanation say "cost of extraction per ton is $Y", I mean that the cost of extraction hasn't changed.>>>

Sorry. Gave you more credit than I should have.

Geoff, The mining company has been pursuing the mine in Wisconsin since the Doyle years when the price of iron was half of what it is today. In addition, as I have already mentioned (and you did not address), everyone involved agrees that the Wisconsin location is the most profitable one because the ore is more concentrated. How then does is EVER become more economical to mine elsewhere? How then does it become less economical to mine when the price of iron is dramatically higher then when Doyle is in office and the price of iron was so much lower than it is now?

There is no answer. All we have is your imaginary scenario, which is in contradiction to what everyone has said about the topic, including those opposed to the mine.

@Geoff

<<<<You know that Gogebic and Wisconsin's legislative leadership were telling the unadulterated truth about Gogebic's motivations for their pullout. Anyone who disagrees (even if they have facts that support an alternative hypothesis) is lying. And you know they were telling the unadulterated truth because you know they were, because it's obvious because you know that you know.>>>>

I believe both those opposed to the mine and those who were for it. I believe every reporter who wrote for or against the mine. I believe that they spent a heck of a lot of money trying to get the site studied and the bill passed when the price of iron was much lower than it is today. I believe every politician in the state of Wisconsin, regardless of their party.

I also believe that you made up a totally untenable story that can't be defended by anyone.

@Geoff

The price of iron ore during th Doyle years until now. I rest my case.

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=iron-ore&months=60

"Geoff, The mining company has been pursuing the mine in Wisconsin since the Doyle years"

Really? Let's have a look at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/Projects.html where we are told that "The DNR issued Gogebic Taconite an exploration license in spring 2011". Doesn't sound like they even got around to exploring until the Doyle years were but a memory. Unfortunately for your point the price then was rather higher then than today.

"when the price of iron was half of what it is today."

I read that the figures thrown around with regard to the size of the potential investment were of the order of $1.5 billion. Presuming that your claim is accurate about the timing of the origins of this project (and setting aside the facts of the exploration timetable), then a mine capable of being profitable with that level of investment at half the current market price for the product would give them at least an additional $1.5 billion in profit if it were to go ahead at today's prices.

Yet Gogebic walked away. They didn't even try to wave millions in goodwill investments on the people of Schultz's district (or anyone else's) in an attempt to find even a sliver of a chance of getting what they wanted legislatively.

If your explanation is correct, then Gogebic are run by the greatest morons on the planet.

"In addition, as I have already mentioned (and you did not address), everyone involved agrees that the Wisconsin location is the most profitable one because the ore is more concentrated."

Gogebic's competitors clearly don't agree through their disinterest.

Looking at http://headwatersnews.net/feature/public-meeting-held-on-proposed-penokee-iron-mine/ it would seem that even Gogebic Taconite's own spokesman disagrees with you, reportedly describing the site as having "less favorable geology" and the ore as "low-grade".

@Geoff

<<<<Really? Let's have a look at it.>>>

Oh boy! Let’s!!

<<<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/Projects.html where we are told that "The DNR issued Gogebic Taconite an exploration license in spring 2011". Doesn't sound like they even got around to exploring until the Doyle years were but a memory. Unfortunately for your point the price then was rather higher then than today.>>>

You are so right, Geoff. It sure looks like they weren’t even around exploring until 2011. You are certainly right that the Doyle years were but a memory when that license was issued.

Do you think, Geoff, that getting a license to explore is like going to the store and buying an iPhone? They just ask a couple of questions and then hand it to you?

Perhaps something had to happen FIRST?

Continued….

They buy the mineral rights first. Here is the document that gave them the rights, long before Walker took office, and LONG after they started negotiating with the county!

http://www.northwoodalliance.org/GogebicTaconite/GTAC_Lease_Option.pdf

The price of iron was 1/5 of what it is today when Gogebic started the process.

<<<Yet Gogebic walked away. They didn't even try to wave millions in goodwill investments on the people of Schultz's district (or anyone else's) in an attempt to find even a sliver of a chance of getting what they wanted legislatively.>>>

On the contrary, they did. But that’s another rabbit trail I will chase you down at another time.

<<<<If your explanation is correct, then Gogebic are run by the greatest morons on the planet.>>>

No, your understanding of the situation is incorrect. For example, a $7 fee for every ton of land moved killed the deal. A single scoop of dirt (literally DIRT) would have cost the company $100 before any iron could be removed. Now that’s stooooooopid.

@Geoff

<<<<<Gogebic's competitors clearly don't agree through their disinterest.

Looking at http://headwatersnews.net/feature/public-meeting-held-on-proposed-penokee-iron-mine/ it would seem that even Gogebic Taconite's own spokesman disagrees with you, reportedly describing the site as having "less favorable geology" and the ore as "low-grade".>>>>

Now that's funny. Seriously funny. He is making a comparison of relatively local EXISTING mines as point of reference for the audience. Those are not places that the company has as other options for new mines. The company was ready to dig here, so they did not go to those places mentioned in the article. On the contrary, they went to Michigan..

"The price of iron was 1/5 of what it is today when Gogebic started the process."

So now you're implying that Gogebic left at least $6 billion in pure profit on the table without making any serious play for public opinion? It makes no sense.

(If $1.5 billion investment is profitable at 1/5 current price => expected revenue at 1/5 current price exceeds $1.5 billion => expected revenue at current price exceeds $7.5 billion => expected profit at current price exceeds $6 billion).

Except you don't really, because the unequivocal earliest date that the document you cite puts the start of Gogebic's interest at is January 2010, at which time according to your earlier link the price of iron ore was 87% of today's price, not 20%. For the latter figure you are saying their interest stretches back to at least 2007. Conceivable, even if you haven't sourced it. Let's run with that for now.

Curiously, the mining regulations in 2007 were the same as they are today, yet Gogebic was apparently completely undeterred. There was no guarantee whatsoever that a sympathetic Republican Party would take the trifecta of the Assembly, Senate and Governor's Mansion in the elections three years later, yet Gogebic was apparently completely undeterred.

Why would Gogebic be suddenly put off going ahead with a mine by the failure to change regulations that had been completely consistent throughout all earlier stages of the project? It makes no sense.

Geoff,

<<<<So now you're implying that Gogebic left at least $6 billion in pure profit on the table without making any serious play for public opinion? It makes no sense.>>>>

No, I'm stating outright that you keep changing the topic to something new because you keep getting spanked on issue after issue after issue. You are such a moving target.

In addition, YOU are the one implying that they left that much on the table (which undermines your VERY OWN ARGUMENT!). But what DID I say? I said that on the bill the Dems put such outrageous fees that they company decided to move on.

<<<<Except you don't really, because the unequivocal earliest date that the document you cite puts the start of Gogebic's interest at is January 2010, at which time according to your earlier link the price of iron ore was 87% of today's price, not 20%. For the latter figure you are saying their interest stretches back to at least 2007. Conceivable, even if you haven't sourced it. Let's run with that for now.>>>>

No, that’s the date of the signing of the document, after more than two years of dealing with politicians. That is not the date they walked in the door.

As for the numbers regarding ore, the lowest is $34.8 and the highest is $190. Even if we pick $135 as a point of reference, we have many times whatever number you want to pick as a recent reference point.

Continued…

But Geoff, I’m going to have to use my adult voice on you now. Your point was that prices are much lower now than when Gogebic started the process. It’s time you put on your big boy pants and stop playing games. I was right and you were wrong.

<<<<Curiously, the mining regulations in 2007 were the same as they are today, yet Gogebic was apparently completely undeterred.>>>

No, they are not the same. The Dems kept adding fees and regulations. They couldn’t even scoop up a cup of useless soil without paying a new hefty fee.

<<<< There was no guarantee whatsoever that a sympathetic Republican Party would take the trifecta of the Assembly, Senate and Governor's Mansion in the elections three years later, yet Gogebic was apparently completely undeterred.>>>>

And? Do you have anything to add? How else would they have gone about it? Do you know in advance what people will do? If so, perhaps you can fault them.

<<<<<Why would Gogebic be suddenly put off going ahead with a mine by the failure to change regulations that had been completely consistent throughout all earlier stages of the project? It makes no sense.>>>>>

You’re right that what YOU suggest happened makes no sense. But it never happened.

"<<<<So now you're implying that Gogebic left at least $6 billion in pure profit on the table without making any serious play for public opinion? It makes no sense.>>>>
[...]
In addition, YOU are the one implying that they left that much on the table (which undermines your VERY OWN ARGUMENT!)."

It's called reductio ad absurdum. *You* are the one putting forward that they were interested in having a mine in Wisconsin even at 1/5 the current market price. Since the investment amount spoken of is $1.5 billion and I have already laid out the arithmetic, *your* position requires that they be walking away from at least $6 billion in profit, and that without making any serious attempt to sway public opinion commensurate with that amount of money being at stake.

This conclusion is absurd. Therefore the position (yours) that leads to it is false.

"<<<< There was no guarantee whatsoever that a sympathetic Republican Party would take the trifecta of the Assembly, Senate and Governor's Mansion in the elections three years later, yet Gogebic was apparently completely undeterred.>>>>

And? Do you have anything to add? How else would they have gone about it? Do you know in advance what people will do? If so, perhaps you can fault them."

So, undeterred by the mining laws under which they developed their project, they were then suddenly deterred when it turned out that they'd have to operate under that mining law. Got it.

@Geoff

<<<<So, undeterred by the mining laws under which they developed their project, they were then suddenly deterred when it turned out that they'd have to operate under that mining law. Got it.>>>>

No, silly Geoff. Why can't you read what I said? I said that the Dems were trying to pass a bill that CHANGED the laws?

Also, when are you going to put your big boy pants on? When you are you going to admit that the cost of iron is many times what it was then the company started the process?

"No, silly Geoff. Why can't you read what I said? I said that the Dems were trying to pass a bill that CHANGED the laws?"

Because I credited you with having mistyped and was waiting for you to rephrase, but apparently not. Erm, the GOP were trying to pass a bill that changed the laws, the Dems were clearly interested in keeping the status quo.

"Also, when are you going to put your big boy pants on? When you are you going to admitt that the cost of iron is many times what it was then the company started the process?"

Given that I've just proven via reductio ad absurdum that the company cannot have been serious about it at that point, I'm not awfully concerned about it.

@Geoff

<<<<Given that I've just proven via reductio ad absurdum that the company cannot have been serious about it at that point, I'm not awfully concerned about it.>>>>

The only thing you showed is that your speculation failed to match up with history and sound math. You failed to show that the bill did not make it more profitable to go elsewhere.

Can't wait to see that argument.

"The only thing you showed is that your speculation failed to match up with history and sound math."

So you're just banging on the table now. Got it.

You've been busily speculating that Gogebic's interest in the area dates to 2007 or earlier, yet at a public meeting on January 19th 2011 (http://www.northwoodalliance.org/GogebicTaconite/GTAC_Transcript_20110119.htm), their managing director Matt Fifield said "we are just at the very very beginning of the process". Hell, Gogebic Taconite LLC did not even *exist* until June 2010 (https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller file number 4836589). It would appear that you're an expert on the failure of speculation to line up with history.

Since you are watching the commodity price, you know that in January 2011 - "at the very very beginning of the process" - it was 25% higher than in March 2012 when Gogebic pulled out.

He also claimed at that meeting "2.2 billion tons of taconite resource".

Yet Gogebic never even applied for an exploration license until March 15th 2011 (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/documents/projects/GogebicExplorationLicenseApplication31511.pdf). They never actually bothered getting as far as doing any actual exploring of the deposit.

What changed between January 2011 and March 2012? We know that the laws were the same, we know that the ground itself didn't change since it wasn't disturbed, we know that Gogebic's knowledge about the taconite there didn't expand since there was no new exploration. What changed?

The fact is that between January 2011 and March 2012 Gogebic's Wisconsin plans changed. At least two relevant things happened in that time: a mining bill failed and the price of the product dropped 25%.

My contention is and always has been that you cannot look at these facts and claim that AB426's failure was necessarily the sole or even the predominant reason for Gogebic's change of plans.

The fact that Republican leadership and Gogebic both pointed to AB426's rejection by the Senate does not shed any light upon which of the two or what mix of them was the actual cause. Republican leadership gained politically - regardless of the actual cause - from the narrative that the Dems and a rogue Senator of theirs had killed a jobs bill; Gogebic gained - regardless of the actual cause - from the same narrative because it gives them political leverage elsewhere to have laws tailored to suit them. Therefore the fact that Republican leadership and Gogebic pointed to the same reason does not shed any light upon what the actual cause of their packing up was.

Therefore passage of AB426 would not inevitably have led to any more jobs created in Wisconsin, unless you can establish that a 25% reduction in potential revenue didn't kill it (and that level of reduction will kill a lot of potential investments). It may well have, but there is no inevitability about it.

@Geoff

<<<<<You've been busily speculating that Gogebic's interest in the area dates to 2007 or earlier, yet at a public meeting on January 19th 2011 (http://www.northwoodalliance.org/GogebicTaconite/GTAC_Transcript_20110119.htm), their managing director Matt Fifield said "we are just at the very very beginning of the process". Hell, Gogebic Taconite LLC did not even *exist* until June 2010 (https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller file number 4836589). It would appear that you're an expert on the failure of speculation to line up with history.>>>>

That’s funny. He is clearly talking about dealing with the public and getting the bill passed. Certainly no one but you would argue that negotiating with the county and getting mineral rights did not happen before, and therefore were closer to the beginning than the date at which he was speaking. His point is that they are just beginning what is part of a larger process that culminates in a bill that passes. Yet I guess that I wouldn’t be surprised to find out are going to argue that 2008-2010 came after 2011.

In addition, I’m confused by your comment that the company did not exist until June of 2010. The company signed the mineral rights agreement on January of that year. You provide a link to Delaware, but there’s nothing on the site when I go there. I can’t imagine what could be on a document in Delaware that would contradict what happened here in Wisconsin months before you say the company existed.

As for any lag between one step or another, it is almost universally true in these circumstances that a company takes a lot of time to get the logistics in order so that resources aren’t wasted. They need to be as certain as possible that they are not going to spend money on a project that is going nowhere, so they spend a lot of time between steps to make sure they have the backing of the powers that be. After that they take the next step, each of which becomes more and more public.

<<<<What changed between January 2011 and March 2012?>>>>

The bill that was proposed.

<<<< We know that the laws were the same, we know that the ground itself didn't change since it wasn't disturbed, we know that Gogebic's knowledge about the taconite there didn't expand since there was no new exploration. What changed?>>>>

The bill.

<<<The fact is that between January 2011 and March 2012 Gogebic's Wisconsin plans changed. At least two relevant things happened in that time: a mining bill failed and the price of the product dropped 25%.>>>

Swings like that happen all the time. The fact is that the price of iron was up hundreds of times since the company approached the county. Any company that can’t tolerate swings like that won’t go into business in the first place. Every metal besides the very most precious ones (excluding sliver) make those types of swings, at the very least.

<<<<The fact that Republican leadership and Gogebic both pointed to AB426's rejection by the Senate does not shed any light upon which of the two or what mix of them was the actual cause. Republican leadership gained politically - regardless of the actual cause - from the narrative that the Dems and a rogue Senator of theirs had killed a jobs bill; Gogebic gained - regardless of the actual cause - from the same narrative because it gives them political leverage elsewhere to have laws tailored to suit them. Therefore the fact that Republican leadership and Gogebic pointed to the same reason does not shed any light upon what the actual cause of their packing up was.>>>

On the contrary, the Dems agreed with the Republicans and the company that the bill was unacceptable to the company. No one disagrees. The company went elsewhere.

<<<<<Therefore passage of AB426 would not inevitably have led to any more jobs created in Wisconsin, unless you can establish that a 25% reduction in potential revenue didn't kill it (and that level of reduction will kill a lot of potential investments). It may well have, but there is no inevitability about it.>>>>

The price of iron didn’t kill it. We are told what killed it by everyone involved. They are actually going to mine in another state, which was their second choice after Wisconsin. The price of iron is hundreds of times what it was prior to when the process began. People who deal with metal prices expected the price of all metals to go up, and the present price is actually pretty good.

"You provide a link to Delaware, but there’s nothing on the site when I go there."

That's a related to how their search works: it's a POST, not GET, so I can't craft a URL to get directly to the Gogebic entry, which is why I provided the URL of the search box and the file number to search for to get to it.

"The price of iron is hundreds of times what it was prior to when the process began."

Hahahahahahahhahaaaa!

Let's try another quote from that meeting transcript by their managing director, Matt Fifield: "We first learned of the deposit in late 2009"

Perhaps I should see if I can buy Gogebic Taconite from Cline, because apparently they have perfected the time machine.

@Geoff

<<<<"You provide a link to Delaware, but there’s nothing on the site when I go there."

That's a related to how their search works: it's a POST, not GET, so I can't craft a URL to get directly to the Gogebic entry, which is why I provided the URL of the search box and the file number to search for to get to it.>>>

Doesn't seem easy to use. I tried it, but failed. I don't have time to mess around with it. Perhaps you can copy and paste it, or maybe I will look for it later. I'm very confident that it will lead to nothing worth looking at, considering that the company was already a LLC that could do business in this state. I suspect you are looking at something that applies to that state.

<<<<<<"The price of iron is hundreds of times what it was prior to when the process began."

Hahahahahahahhahaaaa!

Let's try another quote from that meeting transcript by their managing director, Matt Fifield: "We first learned of the deposit in late 2009"

Perhaps I should see if I can buy Gogebic Taconite from Cline, because apparently they have perfected the time machine.>>>

Yeah, maybe I should have said 100%. Silly me.

What's bad are your sources suck.

@keith

Don't blame the messenger.