I can't relate to your post as I was fortunate enough to grow up in a different era in St. Louis MO when neighbors knew each other well, doors were left unlocked and my teachers were either the same teachers my mother had or their sons or daughters; well before "Hooked on Phonics".

Our teachers took us on field trips to libraries, banks, zoos, museums, state parks....they had a lot more freedom to do so then, "concerned parents" hadn't stripped away their very ability to teach through experience and adventure! Parents were much different then too! They actually bought books for their children or took them to libraries and bookmobiles.....they didn't buy them a Gameboy or sit them in front of a television with a bag of potato chips and tell them to be good. They actually assisted in their children's education!

If our teachers sent notes home about issues at school our parents responded; not by going to school and threatening litigation against the school district or the teacher, but by discussing the problem and responding accordingly. My mother and my aunt did this and worked 8 hours a day too, so it can be done. I was the eldest of 11 children and we were not by any stretch of the imagination wealthy, we weren't dirt poor, but there were times the principal at that school had to make sure we had a noon meal!

Too much of the onus for education, the instilling of moral values and discipline has fallen to the shoulders of the teachers; parents believe the teachers should do it all and they don't get the credit they deserve for doing as much as they can do with what they get. Each time a budget goes to review education and the arts are the 1st things on the list of budget cuts.

To conclude this diatribe, while I appreciate what you are saying please ask yourself “Was the teacher doing all he/she could do with the tools and budget available? Did he/she have 20 students to teach or 50? Did the students participate and want to learn or were they there because they had to be”?

Straw man alert.

GrrlRomeo: I wonder how much he gets paid for posting on this blog.

Yes Edgar - how dare he. Doesn't he know we only want one side of an issue here?

All through the health insurance reform "debate" and the midterms, the right has been telling us that the "tea party" was an organic, mass protest movement. Although it was clear to everyone with eyes that it was anything but from the beginning, it is still nice and instructive to see how astroturf compares to the real deal when placed side by side. And, no surprise, there is no comparison.

MeddlingMonk: And the usual suspects are still whining in blog threads because the TP people don't get no respect.

Yeah, well, to them I say respect isn't a gift.

It seems like the facts are available and what I read, the INVESTMENT PERIOD DECLINE IN 2008 caused most of the problems. Hence, when I said before the management of pension fund was the problem, but NOOOOOO, we fault the teachers, nurses and firefighters, police, NOT WALL ST!

******************************

1. How is the WRS funded?

WRS benefits are funded by contributions made by participating WRS employers and employees and investment earnings on those contributions. Although investment earnings are the primary source of funds, the two are co-dependent. Generally, when investment earnings exceed the expected rate of return, there is a “downward” pressure on WRS contribution rates – they tend to decrease. When investment earnings fall short of the expected rate of return, there is pressure to increase WRS contribution rates. Contribution rate changes are normal for pension systems like the WRS.

However, because of the magnitude of the 2008 investment decline on the WRS trust funds, there will be pressure to increase contribution rates for several more years.

http:// etf.wi.gov/ news/2011_Contribution_Rate_FAQ. pdf

http:// www.etf.wi.gov/employers/ wrs_contribution_rates. htm

facts are out there

Just make it up, why not.

No, that would be what some doctors are doing for "sick" public employees.

This "fact" was released to media by the Governor's office. I am trying to find the best objective source. I do note that I could not find where any of the local media has challenged this assertion. It is sourced but I can't find the "memo."

Wisconsin taxpayers currently make nearly a 100% payment for the employee portion of the public sector pension contribution. Illinois and Indiana taxpayers contribute the entire employee portion as well, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio pay 0% of the employee contribution. (State Budget Office Memo 2-9-11)

Wisconsin taxpayers currently make nearly a 100% payment for the employee portion of the public sector pension contribution

False. The links above show the story. The sources are Wi.Gov, so....

I copied and pasted in 13.1 for the links I posted (broken apart to enable visibility) The fund went way down because of INVESTMENT LOSS, which is how the fund is managed, but it states they depend upon gain or loss... as to contributions

WRS benefits are funded by contributions made by participating WRS employers

This, WRS employers, would be the tax payers and I am correct, they contribute the lion's share of public employee's pension.

OK, I am reading it verbatim:

WRS benefits are funded by contributions made by participating WRS employers and employees and investment earnings on those contributions. Although investment earnings are the primary source of funds, the two are co-dependent. Generally, when investment earnings exceed the expected rate of return, there is a “downward” pressure on WRS contribution rates – they tend to decrease. When investment earnings fall short of the expected rate of return, there is pressure to increase WRS contribution rates. Contribution rate changes are normal for pension systems like the WRS.

However, because of the magnitude of the 2008 investment decline on the WRS trust funds, there will be pressure to increase contribution rates for several more years.

I am losing patience with some folks, The sky is green. If you rebuild the links (backspace at the spaces), copy and paste the link, go to Wi.gov site and browse around to find out for yourself, there are some charts and broken down by title (it does seem that the elected folks get more from the taxpayers than the teachers do. Like most pension plans or annuities, there is and investment manager that there where it's BOLDED, states the fact that the investments as=re the PRIMARY SOURCE OF FUNDS.

Then it goes on to say the LOSSES in 2008 would require more contributions.

I HIGHLY recommend you investigate that site and it's fairly easy to see what the source of contributions, it's broken down annually and by title. PLEASE LOOK AT IT.

Don't take it from me, look there at the official site!

http:// etf.wi.gov/ news/2011_Contribution_Rate_FAQ. pdf

http:// www.etf.wi.gov/employers/wrs_contribution_rates.htm

backspace between the second backslash (/) and the first w on the above text

then copy and paste into your browser RobDon

Thanks, Sandy. Please explain why the WRS contribution rates chart says "Employer Normal Contribution" and "Employee Normal Contribution". Why the word "normal"? Something is amiss.

If the public employees were already contributing 5% and the state 5% why isn't anyone reporting that the Governor is wrong claiming that public employees contribute almost nothing to their pension?

Since you like links here's one to the WI Legislature site containing an information paper showing that taxpayers contribute 99%+ to state employee's pensions. (Scroll down to page 52 Table 28.) Notice it uses the word "actual" payment and not "normal" payment. Hmmm.

http: // legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Informationalpapers/84_Wisconsin%20Retirement%20System.pdf

Watch RobDon make unsupportable statements then change the subject. What a surprise.

This is what it is all about-

"WRS Funding $72.8 billion WRS assets (market value) on December 31, 2009."

http://etf.wi.gov/publications/et8901.pdf

All those billions in Wisconsin Retirement System just waiting to be stolen by Republicans.

Can you see it says when the investment does not perform as expected? I will check out your link, but you apparently are not willing to see that there is a system in place agreed to by State (employer) and the teachers, the firefighters, nurses, police, etc. You try to point to some "gotcha" that is not there. It's interconnected, the agreement lays it out. There are contingencies in place for the "actual" 2008 drop off the cliff we watched on the DIJA chart in Q3.

The fund is under the control of the employer, and being managed by investors.

It would seem something is amiss if people trust in "supply side" stock deals and manipulations that many folks predicted was coming to a bubble burst in the real estate/mortgage.

I can see there is a fund. This is also in your documentation.

As of December 31, 2009, 1,223 of the 1,469 WRS employers had no unfunded accrued liability, either because they had made additional payments to retire their outstanding balance or had no liabilities because they had been created after the date of the last benefit improvement legislation. The state itself is now an employer with no unfunded accrued liability .

I can surmise that the terms include that if the fund underperforms (as it probably did, like most in 2008) they are obligated to make good on the promise.

The actual would account for those times of crappy returns. There was mention made of paying out the unfunded liabilities due to the drastic fall of investments.

I am inclined to be upset about the Wall Street shenanigans rather than the pensioners and those that made agreements. What I think the folks that want to stop the pensions are advocating would lead to broken deals that take away from retired people and future retirees.

The brouhaha over unfunded taxpayer liabilities to civil service workers is a hoax designed to rob those pension funds and give the money to the rich in the form of tax cuts. In my state, and in Wisconsin, and in many other states I am sure, civil service workers pay into a pension fund which pays them back when they retire. This pension fund is inevitably many billions.

States are NOT in debt due to outrageous civil service pensions but due to payment on tax-free bond interest to the hammock-loving investor class.

Covah: There seems to be an inordinately large number of people who practically worship the ground that "hammock loving investor class" (I would describe them as blood-sucking parasites) walks on.

Watch RobDon make unsupportable statements then change the subject. What a surprise.

I'm not changing the subject at all. I still maintain the Wisconsin public employees contribute very little to their pension. The Governor's bill would require they contribute half of what is paid into the system and the state would match it.

If public employees were already doing this they would be saying so and the news media would be reporting it. The unions would not say we now conceded and will agree to the financial demands, they would be saying we already contribute half.

I'm comfortable this position is correct. If you think otherwise,...in the words of Speaker Beohner, so be it.

By the way, this does not make public employees or even union "evil" folk, they fought for this. I understand. Now the taxpayers have said we've got to work a different system.

A business (or a state) can not exist long if they do not have the majority control of its expenses.

"For every dollar Walker's protesters put in their retirement, the state contributes about 57 dollars."

Who said that?

That giant sucking sound you hear is the memory hole in action.

I heard the stat from Mike Huckabee and since it seemed in line with the numbers I’d found, I thought it communicated the point quite well. What I could not find were the raw numbers, so I gave you a link that included the following:

This information is from the link in post 13.9

Table 28: Required Contributions by Source of Actual Payments -- In Thousands

Amount Paid by Public Employees in 2009 $7,952 or 0.6%

Amount Paid by Taxpayers in 2009 $1,365,777 or 99.4%

Also in this document is the following:

“As noted above, the benefit adjustment contribution for general classification employees will increase to 1.5% of earnings in 2011. For state employees, the state will pay up to 1.3% of earnings for this contribution.”

If the total contribution remained the same, this would mean taxpayers contributed about 70 for every dollar contributed by the employee. My guess is the 2010 or estimated 2011 numbers is where the 57 dollars for every one dollar contributed is calculated.

I’m sorry, I thought you could do some quick math from the link I gave and see my numbers were on target. Even if you argue with the exact amount, it still means that public employees contribute only 1 to 2% of their pay to their retirement pension and the taxpayers contribute the rest.

Case closed. Unless you have raw data that is cut and dry like those I posted, absent the WRS spin of “normal contribution” instead of “actual contribution.”

RobDon, to make it appear that taxpayers are paying 99.7 percent of pension is extremely misleading. The fund is built up over time, but the taxpayers are not paying the pensioners, the fund is. There may some worries over investment losses from 2008. But if they would negotiate that in good faith, the members would probably agree to contribute more.

Busting Unions is the Holy Grail, the issue is fixable (if it is the cause of so grievous crisis (I doubt that it is) without the elimination of bargaining rights. That is the problem. It seems as though there is a created crisis, so they can leverage it to take the Union donations out of the elections, while they allow multinational Corps to donate.

From the section you are talking about, they are speaking about the negotiated "pickup" of the employee portion they contribute (5 or 10 percent of their wages).

Over time, state employee groups have negotiated or have been provided an employer "pickup" of almost all employee-required WRS contributions. The state has agreed to assume the payment of basic employee-required contributions equal to 5.0% of gross payroll for all employee classifica- tions as well as up to 1.3% of gross payroll for any benefit adjustment contribution required from state employees in the general classification and up to 1% of gross payroll for any benefit adjustment con- tribution required from state employees in the pro- tective with Social Security classification.

http:// legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Informationalpapers/84_Wisconsin%20Retirement%20System.pdf

It's getting really tiresome to pretend that crisis is imminent regarding those things that interfere with Republican/Corporate power structures. Wages and pesky Middle Class people cost the Corps too much. They should love having a Middle Class to pay their share of taxes they avoid. There truly is a problem when CEOs and Board members have increased their salaries massively, yet evade taxation AND outsource jobs.

I am currently looking for a percentage of Unionized WI "employees". There are designations for employees as Executive and Elected (I assume NON Union titles. that are designated as contributing "normal" and "actual" amounts. It's broken down into segments. How many of the jobs in WI (and other States) are union members? I am going back to the WI.Gov site now.

Here's an interesting site with latest census information. Perhaps the funds are in better shape (the most recent data might be before the upswing in the market) than this site shows. Perhaps the fees are too high for managing these funds? There seems to be a problem when people see all that money sitting there and how can we get in on that action? Insurance seems to be a common thread with Wall Street.

http:// www.census.gov/govs/state/0950wist.html

It would appear the trouble is in the pension fund (like so many that lost) and I would say that some of the Elected officials, Executives, not JUST Union members could contribute into their pension funds. I kept noticing that the amount of the Elected and Executive "segments" of employees are contributing at a smaller ratio than Teachers, so there is an inordinate focus on teachers.

There is anti Union sentiment that is not warranted. Perhaps the Execs and Elected can kick in contributions until the fund recovers and perhaps the budget isn't as bad as people say. The rest of the data appear sound. Maybe there's something to the claim of mismanaging the fund?

I have to ask WHY ALL the focus on ANTI-Unions??? (rhetorical)

The fund is built up over time, but the taxpayers are not paying the pensioners, the fund is. 

Sandy, if you read my posts I am talking about contributions. The money to invest has to come from somewhere, those dollars are called contributions. In the private sector many companies will match dollar for dollar (up to a certain amount/percentage). In Wisconsin, the taxpayers match 50 dollars plus for every dollar the employee contributes!

RobDon, to make it appear that taxpayers are paying 99.7 percent of pension is extremely misleading.

Read my posts and links, I'm saying the taxpayers are making 98+ percent of the CONTRIBUTIONS. I'm fully aware these funds are then invested to so they grow over time, this does not change the facts I've presented and you and Covah want to pretend do not exist.

Here's another quote, this time from the University of Wisconsin...

State employee pensions are also a hot issue. From 2000-2009 taxpayer contribution to the public employee pension plan was 12.6 billion while during that same period state employees contributed a meager 0.4 percent(No, that is not a typo), or 55.4 million to the cause.

Covah, do you believe that public employees in Wisconsin contribute more than 1 or 2 percent of contributions to the pension program? Show your facts.

I do not dispute what that says, but when someone posts vague things a portion of the agreement, when debating a bill that cuts off ability to collective bargain, rather than address that minute detail that can be fixed, it gets people riled up against Unions, when the "employees" are not all Union members.

When people want to fix a problem, they should look at the reason why and deal with that, not add in anti Union stuff, which I think is why all those folks are out in the street.

You did say what you claimed, technically. When someone says 99 percent of pension ... is taxpayer funded, it makes people get riled up against Unions, when nobody seems to say much about the NON union Wisconsin "Employees"!

BUT, the fix is not to pull the plug on Unions, but MAYBE to ask employees, the Execs and Elected (and whomever else is a non union employee) folks to kick in toward their pension (temporarily?). There is a much larger percentage of "normal" contributions for Executives and Elected folks, which is currently being paid (probably due to LOUSY performance of the fund). The State had agreed to do what they said and I suspect the main problem is the fund was not performing well.

I think the main argument is the Union is the target, when it is not the problem. The Union is viewed as "competition" to eliminate or suppress to gain political power.

We all need to learn how to walk like Egyptians!

The Screen Actors Guild, yeah. Not sure how much it counts as a union these days. It was back in the studio system days but that was when actors were employees.

Uh, that was a Democratically controlled House, a Democratically controlled Senate, and a Democratic President who saw the wisdom of extending the current tax rates.

C'mon RobDon. Surely you've been following the news and are aware that Democrats only agreed to extend tax cuts for the top 2% as a compromise with Republican Senators who were filibustering extending tax cuts for the other 98%.

Only happened for the wealthiest because of republican strong-arming. Remember that is the cost over the next two years. think of the cost over the last eight while fighting two unfunded wars. This is also reflecting the lost income caused by the financial crisis there by reducing the potential revenue further. The point is that the cost of public sector workers is not the reason we are in a fiscal deficit.

GrrrlRomeo, you are correct. I'm aware of the way it happened. The Democrats could have voted on before the elections but they chose not to because they didn't want to have someone say they voted to raise taxes.

The Republican's "strong-arming" is no different than what the Democrats in Wisconsin are doing now. Either both are right, or both are wrong is my point.

The difference is the democrats compromise which is something repubs think is a dirty word. The reason the the GOP was so triumphant is because the progressive wing of the left did not show up to vote because they felt the dems gave up to much in each and every policy reform including stim, health care bill (which is no govt take over) it is a free market approach very similar to the Romney bill in MA. no public option, 300Bill in non stimulating tax cuts... on and on. The Dems key word is compromise the GOP continually says my way or the hell with the everyone.

They would have let extended benefits expire and tables left empty in order to get the wealthy CEO's and hedge-fund managers there massive tax cuts.

Compromise means that both sides work together, each conceding ground. That takes both parties. You can't say just the Democrats compromise.

Unless...you really mean, Democrats cave, they give in, they give up.

The battle in Wisconsin is only several days old. Give it time.

Oh, by the way, your bias is showing.

That is what I'm saying... Democratic politicians cave most of the time. This has to do with the fact that the caucus is made up of a plethora of ideas and agendas. It may be simplistic to say but I think most would agree that the GOP has a fairly clear agenda.

Reduce government down to its most basic functions. Defense. Other than that its fair game. Let the free market reign no matter the consequences.

The fact is that I agree that government is to large, its just that I believe it is to large in other places. How much are we paying out in no bid contracts, ag. subsidies, oil subsidies, war profiteers... Haliburton, blackwater. Just because it provides jobs to hire a said company to build a useless piece of military equipment doesn't mean that its a good way to spend money. How bout fixing bridges and roads.

It seems that the agenda of the GOP was to cut taxes to the wealthy, and spend like crazy on its corporate buddies thus creating huge deficits & in a last minute display of its love of "free market" transfer a massive amount of public funds to the private sector in the form of a bail-out with no rules or oversight of how it was to be spent.

Seriously though... consider the conditions in which Obama found himself assuming the office. Would you have just cut spending, and let the country bottom out. As if cutting taxes alone would create jobs out of thin air when the country is in recoil and there is a huge fall in consumption of goods... ie. a spending gap of trillions of dollars. No one is just going to start hiring with out the movement of goods and services. Lets see maybe we should have allowed the auto industry to fold as well and added all those workers to join the ranks of the impoverished. Hooverville anyone?

Two years on.. nothing is perfect, but people are buying cars again, spending is up, hiring is on the up, but we need inovation to fill the gap in our economy. If you hadn't noticed we don't make anything here any more... free market and all.

Our economy has been built on a lie. Fake products called credit default swaps, gave the illusion that valueless thing had huge amounts of value. Those are gone, in essence the only thing the US has made since the nineties is money, too bad it wasn't real.

You can call me bias, but the word to me defines someone who does not consider opposing view points in determining there own. I would say that I do.

not sure why but this link won't stay but google

Your Federal Income Taxes Are Lower Than You Think.

Your income taxes are lower than you think because most people do not do their own taxes. They turn the paperwork over to the guy at the minimall and yell, Where's my refund! That's all they know. So when some Republican says you pay 50% income tax the public is outraged even when they pay nothing at all.

The public believes "cut taxes" means cut YOUR taxes when it actually means cut taxes for someone else.

The pubic believes "cut spending" means cut someone else's benefits, not their own.

And they will keep right on believing it no matter what. People elected Republicans to save Medicare, save Social Security, and make jobs when Republicans say straight out they will cut Medicare, cut Social Security, and don't give a hoot about jobs.

"Small government"=give your tax dollars to the rich instead of back to you in the form of "big government" benefits.

That's right, I do my own taxes and see mine are fairly level for years as Middle Income (I am fortunate to be in that and much of it because of Union solidarity). Sorry for the repitiion, but there is a point to be made. Middle Income taxes stay even, while the upper incomes have theirs lowered with nothing beneficial, but deficit and debt.

I get sick (I'd be sick too, if I were having my agreed to benefits CUT OFF-there's a consensus that people would be willing to pay more to pension fund, but it seems the pension fund was mismanaged, not underfunded) when I hear over and over that the wealthy hire people or bring about economic good times-false.

This pension fund raiding has been happening in public and private sector pension funds. I also get sick when I hear people say because they don't get one, those that do should lose theirs.

People elected Republicans to save Medicare, save Social Security, and make jobs

Electing Republicans to protect the public good is like hiring Jack the Ripper as the protector of fallen women.