Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived his recall vote with surprising ease. This contest is already being used as a proxy for the November general election, with tea-leaf reading being in ample supply. Republicans have been quick to crow that the victory represents a referendum for conservative fiscal policy and austerity
in the face of soaring pension and medical expenses, while Democrats
have noted that Walker raised far more money, recall elections are
notoriously rare and difficult, many voted against the recall on the
principle that elections should not be redone, and recalls should not be
a recourse to express discontent with policies.
Whether this election has any real ramifications for November is questionable, but it does send a message that Democrats seem to be avoiding: There are real issues with the long-term spending obligations for retirement benefits. Current growth rates in the United States do not support the level of future obligations, and this should not be in dispute. Soaring obligations of municipalities, counties, and states have been so well documented that they should be taken as a first principle in any political debate. Michael Lewis’s searing portrait of Vallejo, California, where 80 percent of the city’s budget went toward benefits for public-safety workers, is a story that could be told across the country. Walker attempted a solution to this problem when he rammed through legislation last spring in Wisconsin that stripped public unions of their collective-bargaining rights and then passed laws reducing pay and benefits.
There have been plenty of arguments against Walker, including that he used the legislation to do a variety of other things – along with the Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature – such as reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations and cutting school budgets. His detractors have argued that these measures were odious and objectionable, that they served very particular special interests and not the public good — and they harmed many Wisconsin citizens. But it can’t be argued that those pension and retirement obligations are sacrosanct, especially given that most of them didn’t exist a few generations ago and many of them became more expansive in the past decade.
Read more: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/
Whether this election has any real ramifications for November is questionable, but it does send a message that Democrats seem to be avoiding: There are real issues with the long-term spending obligations for retirement benefits. Current growth rates in the United States do not support the level of future obligations, and this should not be in dispute. Soaring obligations of municipalities, counties, and states have been so well documented that they should be taken as a first principle in any political debate. Michael Lewis’s searing portrait of Vallejo, California, where 80 percent of the city’s budget went toward benefits for public-safety workers, is a story that could be told across the country. Walker attempted a solution to this problem when he rammed through legislation last spring in Wisconsin that stripped public unions of their collective-bargaining rights and then passed laws reducing pay and benefits.
There have been plenty of arguments against Walker, including that he used the legislation to do a variety of other things – along with the Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature – such as reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations and cutting school budgets. His detractors have argued that these measures were odious and objectionable, that they served very particular special interests and not the public good — and they harmed many Wisconsin citizens. But it can’t be argued that those pension and retirement obligations are sacrosanct, especially given that most of them didn’t exist a few generations ago and many of them became more expansive in the past decade.
Read more: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/scott-walker-won-because-he-took-action-against-soaring-pension-costs/
No comments:
Post a Comment