Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Mar 1, 2015.
Marc V. Levine may have his statistics on jobs right, but his conclusion that the administration of Gov. Scott Walker is responsible for lower-than-average job growth in Wisconsin is wrong.
The reason Levine, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, reached the wrong conclusions is his failure to understand the dynamics that create job growth in a private economy ("Walker to blame for poor job growth," Crossroads, June 29). I have been chief executive and chairman of HUSCO International for 25 years. During this period, HUSCO has added 1,200 jobs. Since the end of 2009, we have added 320 jobs in Wisconsin.
Most medium to large businesses have the flexibility to add jobs anywhere. Under the administration of former Gov. Jim Doyle, with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke as secretary of commerce, HUSCO significantly reduced jobs in Wisconsin and moved them to Iowa. The reason we made such a large investment in a new out-of-state factory when capacity existed in Wisconsin was driven by the difference in business support and labor availability, capability and cost. We made the decision to shrink our factory in Waukesha for internal reasons, but the decision to move more than 100 jobs to Iowa was based on the more attractive environment for business in that state.
There were both national and state issues that concerned us during the 2006-2009 time period. Like the majority of private businesses, HUSCO is organized as an S Corp, which means we pay taxes at the individual rates for Wisconsin and federal taxes. As he promised, President Barack Obama raised HUSCO's marginal tax rate to 39%, which resulted in a state and federal tax rate of 45%, compared with our international competitors that pay 20% to 35%.
Additionally, the Obama administration enacted other regulations and laws that harmed most businesses. When combined with minimal economic incentives to retain the jobs in Wisconsin under Doyle vs. large incentives from Iowa, it did not make economic sense for HUSCO to keep the jobs in Wisconsin.
More recently, the recall election of 2012 created uncertainty for those running businesses in the state. Uncertainty and job growth run counter to one another. However, even with the uncertainty created by the vitriolic recall politics during Walker's first couple of years, HUSCO was confident enough to add 320 high-paying jobs in the state.
Virtually 100% of business executives I know would say that there have been consequential improvements for business under the Walker administration. I believe there are two fundamental reasons for lower-than-expected job growth during Walker's first term.
First, adding jobs is a strategic decision for businesses and the cost of recruiting, training, salaries and benefits are very high. The uncertainty created by the recall election often resulted in businesses deferring decisions about expansion. Although business tax rates are down in Wisconsin and there is substantial confidence in Walker's policies, another election looms and many of the favorable Wisconsin policies could conceivably be undone.
Second, and probably more important, is the lack of available skilled talent especially for those positions requiring a high school degree and technical training.
By the way why is it ok to focus on raising taxes on the rich? What is the ultimate goal of that plan?
The ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth. The federal government thinks it is a symbolic Robin Hood. We forget that jobs are created by those "rich people." These are real jobs that are created on the basis of economic growth vs government made busy work jobs that are based on going into debt. The government does not create wealth. A free market place does. It ought to outrage every American that job creation is not rewarded, but is in fact penalized. So in essence an organization that is a drag on the economy (government) drains the life out of our organizations that do create jobs. Government is nothing but a leech on the American economy.
Walker is one of those few politicians that has a backbone. Regardless of what one thinks, he stood up to the Wisconsin legislature, the organized unions, and every liberal group in WS an did what he thought was right. What I admire most about him is keeping his eyes on what he believed in, without worrying about the next election. He faced the recall and reelection like a man should. This man's leadership is remarkable. Compare him to the typical spineless politician in Washington like Mitch McConnell that judges every vote with a poll and personal gain.
I know what it is I want him to answer that question.
We have had an upward redistribution of wealth for quite a number of years. The shrinking middle class shows this plainly. Is that an ok in your opinion?
Is it ok to use the government to take money from one group of people and give it to another for any reason? Yes or no
You question is far too simplistic and indicates simplistic thinking.
Is it right for the government to follow policies that take money away from the middle class and poor and give it to the already rich? Should not the government follow a
Rev, this policy of enriching the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor are creating a society where your kids will have a very hard time making ends meet. Think about your kids and other kids in the middle class.
You mean it is not nuanced enough to allow one to color a bad thing in a good light. This is what liberals do. They love to work in obscurity and when they get called on it they accuse, imply and dance around calling them stupid.
The truth is there is no need for anything other than "simplistic thinking". It keeps people honest.
No, simplistic thinking leads to serious error. It does not keep people honest, but it does keep them ignorant. Why else would politicians give answers so often that leads to simplistic answers and thinking? Because it helps the politician and leads the simplistic thinker into traps that harm him.
It is always dangerous to oversimplifying complex problems; making unrealistically simple judgments or analyses and that is what simplistic thinking is in reality.
So, answer my question with a thought out, rational answer.
It is all right for government to follow policies that enrich the already rich while harming the middle class and the poor?
It is not right or good for the government to implement policies that take from the middle class and the poor to give to the rich; NOR is it right or good for yhe government to implement policies that take from the rich to give to the middle class and poor.
BOTH are simplistic questions, requiring simplistic answers.
The "nuance," the critical thinking, lies in identifying which policies are doing either, and then identifying why the government should be allowed to implement those policies.
Don, thanks for a rational answer. I agree and in a perfect world that would be what government does. However, IMHO, our government has basically been taken over by rich corporations and the super rich. The Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, gave the government to the super rich and to rich corporations. We have seen the results of this, even before the decision, and the results are not pretty. The middle class has shrunk, the division of wealth has gravitated to the rich and super rich. To me this does not bode well for the future of the average citizen of this country. We already see signs that many middle class kids are being priced out of an education. This also does not bode well for our future.
I completely agree. I am normally an optimistic person, but not on this issue. Politicians first priority is to be win the next election. Because of this they have sold their souls to the rich and super rich at the expense of everyone else.
Conservatives like to scream redistribution of wealth is an evil. Well the redistribution of wealth to the rich and super rich at the expense of everyone else is a great evil.
Again, thanks for a good, rational reply.
And yet, your answer is not rational, because you don't acknowledge that government policies redistributing from the wealthy to the poor are also being implemented, and are just as wrong as the ones you choose to focus on.
Luke 12:48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
I don't believe I have called for redistribution of wealth. I have said that an important role of government is to take care of those in need as is the education of people. That is part of keeping the nation secure. I would say that the rich and the super rich have a responsibility to help those in real need be it through their own efforts or through government programs. Hoarding and not helping others in not Christian. For instance I approve of the programs to help others that Bill Gates has put in place. Do you?
Now I could say your reply was simplistic as you did not condemn policies that redistribute wealth from the middle class and poor to the rich.
Remember Christ's words at the last judgment?
Excellent post. You cannot reason with hatred.
Another one. Great stuff, guys.
And the only way for the government to do this is to take more from the wealthy in order to redistribute to those in need.
While I agree in principle, are you requiring others who may not be, or flat-out aren't, Christians--to employ Christian principles?
In 1993/1994, as a capstone course written paper requirement, I wrote that Gates needed to actually start doing such things as part of corporate responsibility, as well as improving the image/reputation of Microsoft. It wasn't until after he married that such benevolence became part of his life.
But I did. I said it was neither right nor good for the government to do such things. But I went further and said it's also not right or good for the government to take from the rich and redistribute to the poor. YOU have not agreed that both statements are true.
The government's job is to govern, not provide.
Always. Do you remember soul liberty?
Oh my. Where to start. Wow.
I guess I'll start on the Wisconsin side which I have some familiarity and then do the Minnesota side, wherein I reside.
"Walker gave the rich $2.1 billion in tax cuts"
False. Walker's biggest tax cuts went to corporations, manufacturers, agricultural and other businesses. This was during the recession and was an attempt to create jobs and attract business investment. He also gave across the board income tax cuts to all brackets.
"Walker cut school funding more than any other state"
Kind of true. Walker did cut school funding the first year he was in office, by 6.2% BUT this followed years of increases. During the period 2008-2011 school spending went up 13.9% overall. The latest numbers show that the school funding cuts in Wisconsin for 2014 were the third smallest in the nation.
3rd Worst job growth in the midwest
$283 billion budget deficit
False. Budget are parsed out in 3 year increments in Wisconsin. The latest budget situation, fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 showed a $443 million SURPLUS. Estimates for June 30, 2015 show a $396 million deficit.
Median income $800 lower than US average.
Let's say it's True. Whoop-dee-doo.
Raised taxes on the rich by $2.1 billion and "invested" $900 million in schools.
Kind of true. Raised taxes on the rich? True. Invested $900 million in schools? False. Because of Dayton's stewardship of the state for the past four years Minnesota schools have had a $1 billion IOU issued to them for years. The legislature and Dayton froze school spending increases and kept a running account of the amount "owed" to the schools. Dayton ran on a platform of taxing the rich and paying off this IOU. He succeeded. He didn't "invest" in education, he paid off a loan. (You need to know that because of third party candidates Dayton won the election with 50.07% of the vote.)
2nd highest job growth in midwest
True. And it would have been first if not for the oil boom in North Dakota. But stop and think a minute. Comparing job growth in Minnesota to Wisconsin--is that fair? Look at the major corporations based in Minnesota:
What about Wisconsin?
Northwestern Mutual Life
How hard would it be for Minnesota job growth to exceed Wisconsin?
$2 Billion budget surplus
True. Gee whiz, I wonder if that was because Dayton raised taxes? Think we need tax cuts in Minnesota? (Latest number is $900M surplus)
Rolf may want to chime in, he lives in Wisconsin.
Admit it Crabby, you are a Socialist. Fact is though under Obumma the rich have gotten richer and everyone else has gotten poorer!
I've asked you this at least twice now--How has the rich shifted money from the middle class by government policies?
That is partly because of government policies that create subsidies and low interest student loans. Colleges figure they can soak up the money being injected into higher education by the government by increasing tuition. It's an endless cycle.
How has the rich shifted money from the middle class by government policies?