Budget Adjustment Bill In The Best Interest of Families

Drastic action necessary to balance the budget without massive job cuts

MADISON—Wisconsin Family Action President Julaine Appling released the following statement on Special Session Senate Bill 11, Governor Walker’s Budget Adjustment Bill.

“As a pro-family organization, we must speak out because this is fundamentally about the integrity and independence of the family unit.  Unsustainable state government debt hurts families now and in the future.  This is a reasonable plan.  It’s a way in which we now can truly say we’re all working for the best interest of WI.  The private sector has made its cuts and continues to make cuts.  Families in the private sector have adjusted to smaller incomes and are grateful to still have jobs in this economy.  We cannot go back to them and raise taxes in order to keep benefits for public sector employees at an artificially inflated level.

“We appreciate the service of our public sector employees, including teachers.  However, benefits are a value-add for employees when the employer has the ability to enhance the job package.  The state of Wisconsin no longer has the ability to provide a Cadillac of benefit packages to public employees who currently share only a fraction of the cost.  State and local government must be able to address budget deficits without getting tied up in months of benefits negotiation.  We are broke and our only other options are to make massive job cuts, go deeper into debt or implement an oppressive tax increase on families.  Governor Walker’s proposal is a reasonable approach to balance the state budget, one that does not cut family-supporting jobs or increase the burden on family incomes in the private sector.”

Advertisements

6 comments on “Budget Adjustment Bill In The Best Interest of Families

  1. eric leverance says:

    I appreciate WFC’s efforts to keep the pulic informed on issues within the government. However, I have a few comments/concerns regarding support and reporting of the budget adjustment bill. In regards to the issue, I understand that cuts need to be made in order to avoid debt, keep the budget balanced, and not increase tax burdens. I also understand that certain protestors may not be a bit over zealous. But most of the actions there (chanting, drums, blocking entrances to prevent voting, etc.) are not new tactics and do not pose a threat. We see these actions in many civil conflicts, and most likely if it was a cause that I/WFC supported (ie-an expanded pro-abortion bill)those protests would be more tolerated. It seems the tone of your reporting is pretty biased, simply because it is a bill that WFC supports. Furthermore, while I generally support the cuts being made, I’m not sure that the Republican party is going about it in the right way. There is a labor union involved in these decisions that the republicans are trying to eliminate, or at least ‘neuter.’ That seems to be the main issue of strong contention. It seems to me the government is using this opportunity to strip the power of the agency that represents all these employess, forcing them into a situation where they have no recourse for change, and without garauntees of re-establishing these concessions in the future. Granted, many employees in the general work force don’t have unions to represent them. But this is a system that is already in place. Concessions and cuts are one thing. But using this bill to destroy the structure of the unions is really what this conflict is about. That is being overlooked here. Where is the critique of THAT part of the issue? I would like to see your statements on that aspect of the bill, not just the financial implications of the bill itself. My fear is that WFC (and many Christian/pro-family organizations) are ignoring this aspect and commenting based on Republican party-line stances. That’s dangerous. Because if we only hold the ‘party-line’ stances as Christians, then we loose the ability to challenge our party’s practices/tactics when they are in the wrong. I welcome your feedback on this. Thank you.

  2. Brad says:

    I have a response for Eric. This bill will not destroy the structure of unions. It will make it so that unions can bargain for pay only, like it is in the real world for everybody else. It will also make it so that unions can no longer confiscate money from the working man, to fund the democrat party. Eric says we have a bias. He’s right. We have a Christian bias. You know. “Thou shall not steal”. Oh, by the way, if you give “guarantees of re-establishing these concessions in the future”, they cease to concessions, and it’s all pointless. Like I said, we have a Christian bias, and the Republicans happen to be 100% right on this. Eric needs to examine his own bias, because his comments are based on Democrat party-line stances, and union thug stances. Remember, the Democrat party, and the unions are two peas in a pod. They will both roll over for any sin (abortion, theft, graft, sodomy, treason, etc.) that will keep the money rolling in. And remember, the Doyle administration, and the Democrat party, put us in this 3 to 4 billion dollar hole, and the unions benefited handsomely from it.

    • eric leverance says:

      Thanks for your reply. Some of what you said I will agree with. But as usual, it comes with some comments that are typical sarcasm. A situation where workers pay dues to the union is a sinful situation because “thou shall not steal?” C’mon. Get real. And my point on the concessions is this: if the economy were ‘fine’ then these cuts wouldn’t even need to be made. (Rest assured the Republicans would be gunning for them anyway because they want to destroy the unions.) So when things rebound, is there hope for gaining what was ‘conceded’ in the difficult times? No. Why? Because there is no ability to bargain. I realize that Republicans are against unions. But if the bottom line is the ‘bottom line of the budget’ then the need to eliminate those unions isn’t necessary. Just the financial concessions are. And that’s what this battle is about. I know too many people represented by unions. Some unions are good, others are not. Some jobs need union representation more than others due to work situations, etc. Do I think they could do better without them? Maybe. But when push comes to shove Republicans will be greedy. Look at the tax credit for new hiring. Business can get a $500-$1500 tax credit for hiring new employees. Oh… as if that’s going to make someone spend 30k-50k on a new position… because they get $1500 back?! That bill was not designed to stimulate jobs. It was free money to the corporations who were in position to hire anyway. And yes, I am generally a conservative/ republican voter who is a Christian. I don’t expect you to agree with me. But I’m not sure I agree with the tactics on this. At the very least, I question it. And again, if we (as repulicans/
      conservatives / christians) cannot question our own party’s practices, then we fail to do the right thin.

  3. Brad says:

    Eric, when someone is forced to contribute to a union against his will, and the money is used for things he doesn’t believe in, it is stealing. So, I don’t have to “get real”, because I already am. You said that if the economy were fine then the cuts wouldn’t be needed. Well, if the economy were fine, we wouldn’t be in a 3.6 billion dollar hole. The ridiculously stupid overspending of the Doyle admin. and the democrats put us in that hole. And, remember the raiding of dedicated funds, to pay off his union buddies?(That’s why you’re paying twice as much for your car registration as you did, before Doyle) Now, that the economy is not so fine, do the taxpayers get that money back because of some “guarantee”? Nope. Look, when the state cuts the state aid to cities and school districts, those cities and school districts will have to lay off employees or send taxes through the roof, without the elimination of collective bargaining for benefits. Besides, why should employees be telling their employer what benefits they should be offered, and what health ins. company the employer should use? Give me a break. You say the tax credit for new hires was free money for companies who would hire anyway. I say it made the difference between hiring that person in Wisconsin, and hiring that person where they have operations in another state. They might have needed another person, and the credit pushed them over the hump to be able to do it now, when they need that person the most. Besides, if you are right, and it is free money as you say, then it offsets a little of the over-taxation we have in this tax hell. Did you object to the implementation of combined reporting? It was nothing more than a money grab by the greedy democrats, which sent jobs out of Wisconsin, not just to other countries, but other states, who welcomed those companies. You have no problem questioning the actions of the Republicans even though you say you are one of them. Yet, even though you also call yourself a Christian, you refuse to give the unions the condemnation they deserve. I know what I’m talking about. I was forced to be in a union to keep my job. I had to pay dues, and watch the union use those dues to support liberal democrats who were in favor of abortion, sodomy, hate-crimes (to shut me up), over-taxation, and keeping the Bible and Christianity out of government schools while teaching all about other faiths. Where is your condemnation of that? I was one of a very few who raised their voices against these evil actions. Most of the time, I raised my voice alone. The reaction of union leadership was not to reason, or even argue. I was called a union buster. That’s right. They just called me a name and went on with business as usual. So, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t shed any crybaby tears for the unions. Like I said in my last reply to you, you need to examine your own position and bias. You are defending unions, and you know who they support, and what they do. Given all of that, why should anyone believe you when you call yourself a Christian?

  4. eric leverance says:

    Brad – You have some good (and very strong) thoughts. I agree with some, and disagree with others. Same is true of the bills/budget being presented. My main point of writing the original comment was 1) first intented to go to the organization, not a blog. 2) I simply wanted to challenge the idea that because we’re pro-life/pro-family/pro-values/pro-Jesus there is an automatic blind faith we have to have in a certain political party which we must follow. In my opnion, God is way bigger than that.

  5. Brad says:

    Eric: You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll address your latest reply. If we are pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Jesus, we will not defend organizations who are in opposition. Unions support the democrat party, which in turn, supports pro-death, anti-family, and anti-Jesus agendas. These agendas are even in their party platform. If you call that “blind faith”, then so be it. If you are “for” something, then it is a good idea to actually take a stand for it. Your’e right about God being big. And, what he says goes, like it or not. He is not all inclusive. Jesus said that He came to bring division. He said most people would be offended at Him. He also said that few people would take the way to eternal life, which is Him. He also said most people would take the wide gate to hell, which is anything else, including not making a choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s