Gov. Walker to hand out state assests in no-bid contracts

[Londo_Jowo]

The key lies in their ability to keep public opinion on their side.

Which maybe be very easy if the Unions resort to their typical strong arm tactics.

 

[Throckmorton]

Uh, this is a rehash of the same bs trotted out at the beginning of this lib tantrum. There is nothing tying them to any deal or any proof that they are going to gain anything. But don't let all that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory...

Right, the Koch brothers say they have nothing to gain from the no-bid sales, therefore all is right and proper. Are you really that gullible?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Uh, this is a rehash of the same bs trotted out at the beginning of this lib tantrum. There is nothing tying them to any deal or any proof that they are going to gain anything. But don't let all that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory...

No bid contracts are not a sign of collusion? Are you really not seeing the elephant in the room?

 

[WHAMPOM]

They don't need to be standing there because they KNOW you will pull the lever for the Democrat. Why? Because Democrats will 'reward' you for your loyalty. What's absurd is that you think this isn't corruption.

Again, I ask, in what non-government business are employees allowed to pick their own boss who then agrees to increase the pay and benefits of said employees as a 'thank you'.

But yes, generalizing that all union employees are Democrats was stupid. I should rephrase. NOT all union employees are Democrats, but ALL union money, even from those who disagree with it, is funneled to cortrupt Democrat politicians who will do whatever the union wants.

"Cauff, snort, cauff" Walker not "NOT" cutting rights of union people that backed him for election, "cauff, cauff."

 

[WHAMPOM]

Also, why is the governor giving businesses tax breaks up to $67m when the state is in a deficit?

Please check his list of contributors.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Right, the Koch brothers say they have nothing to gain from the no-bid sales, therefore all is right and proper. Are you really that gullible?

No bid contracts are not a sign of collusion? Are you really not seeing the elephant in the room?

lol @ both of you. You SOOOOOOO want to see something there that you ignore reality. Now if there were ANY legitimate shred tying that provision to the koch brothers and Walker then maybe... just maybe it'd be plausible but at this point all you have is an unsupported theory you are trying to use to "get" a Governor who your puppet masters have told you to hate.

Good job...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Wow, I think this just went from protest to revolt:
http://understory.ran.org/2011/02/2...ice-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow, I think this just went from protest to revolt:
http://understory.ran.org/2011/02/2...ice-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/

So much for the rule of law.

 

[spidey07]

Wow, I think this just went from protest to revolt:
http://understory.ran.org/2011/02/2...ice-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/

Greece 2.0. It's fine until you run out of other peoples money and that's where were at. Make your preparations people. It's coming.

 

[Steeplerot]

It's coming.

Common Sense for anyone who has actually been out in the wilds of life.

 

[Jhhnn]

Which maybe be very easy if the Unions resort to their typical strong arm tactics.

Strong arm tactics? Watch what happens when "Investors" in these schemes raise the rates they charge to the state for what they provide, given that each asset is a mini-monopoly.

It's the story of privatization everywhere. I'm surprised that people are big enough chumps to fall for it, over and over.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Once again, the point you keep dodging is that when Walker says he wants employees to pay "more" for their retirement, he's being deceptive. What he really means is he wants to reduce their compensation, something Walker and his apologists keep denying.

I'm not too familiar with the WI situation and am finding it a bit confusing.

You seem to be keeping up with it, maybe you can help clear some things up?

From what I've heard, these state/local employees have a very generous pension plan. And specifically, a Defined Benefit Plan. I.e., when you retire (often somewhat early) you get a generous annual pension payment.

Now I see you talking about these state/local employees making pre-tax contribution to their retirement plan. But I don't think I've ever seen or heard of an employee's ability to make pre-tax contributions to a Defined Benefit Plan.

Do we have two type plans here? Or, are you saying that these employees already contribute (on a pre-tax basis) to their Defined Benefit Plan provided by teh state of WI? (Edit: Although it's moot after reading the article linked, I've confirmed WI offers two retirement plans. One is a defined benefit plan, the other is a defined contribution plan similar to a 401k plan. The proposed bill affects the DBP, not DCP.)

TIA

Edit: OK, I read the article you linked above. This response posted on that site has it right:

This is sophistry. By this logic, employees always contribute 100% of their benefits, even if they actually contribute a lower percentage than that. Consider a private sector worker who has 40% of the cost of his health insurance premiums deducted from his paycheck. Would you say he actually pays 100% of the cost of his health insurance, because he accepted the 60% employer contribution in lieu of increased wages?

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm not too familiar with the WI situation and am finding it a bit confusing.

You seem to be keeping up with it, maybe you can help clear some things up?

From what I've heard, these state/local employees have a very generous pension plan. And specifically, a Defined Benefit Plan. I.e., when you retire (often somewhat early) you get a generous annual pension payment.

Now I see you talking about these state/local employees making pre-tax contribution to their retirement plan. But I don't think I've ever seen or heard of an employee's ability to make pre-tax contributions to a Defined Benefit Plan.

Do we have two type plans here? Or, are you saying that these employees already contribute (on a pre-tax basis) to their Defined Benefit Plan provided by teh state of WI?

TIA

Fern

I don't know, and I don't really follow it that closely either. I simply read the article I linked earlier as well as a few minutes on the State of Wisconsin's web site, which appears to corroborate the article. It sounds similar to the State of Iowa's IPERS (Iowa Public Employees Retirement System) when I contributed to it. That was many years ago, however, and regulations may well have changed since then.

 

[Fern]

Not according to this article: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

It's a long read; he spends a lot of time blasting the media for failing to check their facts. It says that according to the language in the employees' contract (as opposed to Walker's repeated assertions), their retirement contributions are tax-deferred employee compensation, i.e., part of their salaries. Thus, when Walker says employees need to "pay more" he is actually talking about cutting compensation.

People are getting confused here, and arguing semantics (or more accurately IMO, spinning for their own political purposes).

When a job is advertised as paying a salary of $60K, this is what you get

1. $60,000
2. less employee's share of FICA tax
3. less employee's Fed & State income tax w/h
= take home pay.

$60K is what is on your W-2.

Now WI has a very generous benefit package, far more generous than comparable positions in the private sector:

1. HI, likely around $20K or so.
2. Defined benefit pension, only god knows how much that might be worth annually; it takes complicated actuarial calcs that differ from year-to-year in amount.

What the WI bill appears to do is modestly cut those two fringe benefits. The 'salary' is not being cut.

However, if you are asked to contribute some amount to your fringe benefits (HI and pension plan), it is likely your contribution will be made as a payroll deduction. This means your monthly take home pay will drop by the amount of those contributions.

Again, fringe benefits are being reduced. All this other talk of "pre-tax" and "cutting compensation" etc is merely confusing the issue.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Edit: OK, I read the article you linked above. This response posted on that site has it right:




Fern

The response you quoted is 100% spot on. It's asinine for them to try to trot out a claim they already "pay" for it when they clearly don't pay for it in wages like the rest of us do.

 

[Fern]

Back to the OP - they need to explain why the assets should be sold with no-bid (Don't like the term 'no-bid' here, that sounds like awarding jobs).

I think they should put them up for sale 'as is' and see who offers the most. Although it sounds like the plants are old and in some ways in bad shape, so the 'due diligence' required could be costly and lengthy.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Back to the OP - they need to explain why the assets should be sold with no-bid (Don't like the term 'no-bid' here, that sounds like awarding jobs).

I think they should put them up for sale 'as is' and see who offers the most. Although it sounds like the plants are old and in some ways in bad shape, so the 'due diligence' required could be costly and lengthy.

Fern

It's a may or may not thing. It doesn't mean they will be sold no-bid, but as I noted earlier it may be to open up the possibility due to normal bid regulations being prohibitive.

 

[Bowfinger]

People are getting confused here, and arguing semantics (or more accurately IMO, spinning for their own political purposes).

When a job is advertised as paying a salary of $60K, this is what you get

1. $60,000
2. less employee's share of FICA tax
3. less employee's Fed & State income tax w/h
= take home pay.

$60K is what is on your W-2.

Now WI has a very generous benefit package, far more generous than comparable positions in the private sector:

1. HI, likely around $20K or so.
2. Defined benefit pension, only god knows how much that might be worth annually; it takes complicated actuarial calcs that differ from year-to-year in amount.

What the WI bill appears to do is modestly cut those two fringe benefits. The 'salary' is not being cut.

However, if you are asked to contribute some amount to your fringe benefits (HI and pension plan), it is likely your contribution will be made as a payroll deduction. This means your monthly take home pay will drop by the amount of those contributions.

Again, fringe benefits are being reduced. All this other talk of "pre-tax" and "cutting compensation" etc is merely confusing the issue.

Fern

Seems like you're making a couple of assumptions here, though perhaps you're now following this more closely than you were.

First, I've frequently seen the claim that WI employee benefits are "very generous." Do you have a factual basis for that, or is that an assumption based on the claims of Walker and his supporters? Have you seen any quantitative comparisons of Wisconsin employee benefits vs. those of similarly large, white-collar employers in the region? Mind you I wouldn't be surprised to find they have good benefits. I'm curious as to how good.

Second, are you certain that their retirement plan is paid with dollars above and beyond the employees' advertised compensation? My current employer, for example, has an employee "Savings Plan" that automatically deducts 6% pre-tax from pay (with a 50% employer match). This is a deduction from "advertised" pay, not something above and beyond. It is something both management and employees agree is employee-funded, while the 50% match is company-funded. So far this sounds like it could be much the same as WI employees. The one difference, however, is that our employees are allowed to opt-out annually if they would rather receive the extra pay instead.

So, depending on exactly how the WI plan is set up and presented, it seems quite possible this is something employees pay for themselves, out of their "advertised" compensation. Have you found anything factual documenting otherwise?

 

[Thump553]

Greece 2.0. It's fine until you run out of other peoples money and that's where were at. Make your preparations people. It's coming.

This is not about money. The Democrats agreed to all of Walker's money demands at the very start. This is about thinly disguised union busting and no-bid contracts to the governor's cronies. Corruption and blatant power exercising at its best.

 

[Bowfinger]

The response you quoted is 100% spot on. It's asinine for them to try to trot out a claim they already "pay" for it when they clearly don't pay for it in wages like the rest of us do.

Same question for you Cad. Do you have factual evidence this is the case, or is this simply your ASSumption (to borrow one of your favorite affectations)?

 

[Thump553]

It's a may or may not thing. It doesn't mean they will be sold no-bid, but as I noted earlier it may be to open up the possibility due to normal bid regulations being prohibitive.

I dare you to read that out loud with a straight face.

 

[Bowfinger]

I dare you to read that out loud with a straight face.

Yeah, that one seems pretty preposterous to me. Seems to me if they're changing the law to allow no-bid sales of valuable public assets, they could have just as easily changed the law to permit a streamlined bidding process. This assumes that the current bidding process is "prohibitive" at all, something that appears to be yet another ASSumption based solely on partisan bias.

I haven't dug into it, however, so that's just my assumption.

 

[Fern]

Seems like you're making a couple of assumptions here, though perhaps you're now following this more closely than you were.

First, I've frequently seen the claim that WI employee benefits are "very generous." Do you have a factual basis for that, or is that an assumption based on the claims of Walker and his supporters? Have you seen any quantitative comparisons of Wisconsin employee benefits vs. those of similarly large, white-collar employers in the region? Mind you I wouldn't be surprised to find they have good benefits. I'm curious as to how good.

I've heard the average quoted at $22k. I assume that's for a family. IDK if that's what the state pays on average or that's what the cost would be in the private HI market.

I'll check around and see what I can find.

Edit: Link to fmv of plan. I see they vary widely from about $1,500 per month to $2,800. I guess it depends on area where you live? $22k average looks reasonable/correct.

http://uwservice.wisc.edu/docs/publications/state-active-imputed-income-2011.pdf

Second, are you certain that their retirement plan is paid with dollars above and beyond the employees' advertised compensation? My current employer, for example, has an employee "Savings Plan" that automatically deducts 6% pre-tax from pay (with a 50% employer match). This is a deduction from "advertised" pay, not something above and beyond. It is something both management and employees agree is employee-funded, while the 50% match is company-funded. So far this sounds like it could be much the same as WI employees. The one difference, however, is that our employees are allowed to opt-out annually if they would rather receive the extra pay instead.

So, depending on exactly how the WI plan is set up and presented, it seems quite possible this is something employees pay for themselves, out of their "advertised" compensation. Have you found anything factual documenting otherwise?

WI has two plans. One is a Defined Benefit Plan (Wisconsin Retirement System) funded only by state contributions (employee pays nothing). It looks like this is where the 5% from the employees would go. Their site says the state currently pays this for teh employee.

They also have a deferred compensation plan (would supplement the other plan) that employees may opt to contribute to. I didn't see where the state matches etc.

link:

http://etf.wi.gov/careers/benefits.htm

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Same question for you Cad. Do you have factual evidence this is the case, or is this simply your ASSumption (to borrow one of your favorite affectations)?

Just people I know who are teachers and gov't employees in Wisconsin.

I've also posted actual numbers on the public vs private wage gap. BTW, Iowa is #1 and Wisconsin is #3 in the gap. That just might suggest "generous" but continue on if you must.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yeah, that one seems pretty preposterous to me. Seems to me if they're changing the law to allow no-bid sales of valuable public assets, they could have just as easily changed the law to permit a streamlined bidding process. This assumes that the current bidding process is "prohibitive" at all, something that appears to be yet another ASSumption based solely on partisan bias.

I haven't dug into it, however, so that's just my assumption.

I stated I don't know if that is the case or not but it seems plenty plausible due to the requirements I've had to deal with over the years with public projects. It's also more plausible than some wild ass conspiracy you libs are trying to spread.