Wisconsin Budget Problems

Guest Blog
By: Kevin Hannigan
       Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has been dominating the news lately as he attempts to balance the budget deficit that his state has incurred. Wisconsin has run a deficit of around three billion dollars, and Walker understands that the budget needs to be balanced. Throughout his campaign for governor in this past election cycle, Walker ran on the idea that he was going to balance the budget—by making cuts to the public sector, as opposed to inflicting a tax increase on the entire population. Judging by the state of the nation’s economy, it’s illogical to increase taxes because it will only to continue to hurt the people. So, Governor Walker is proposing to cut benefits for public sector unions in order to fix the budget deficit. This has sparked outrage from thousands of state employees—mostly teachers—that will be affected the most by this policy.
       Obviously, most on the left have been critical of this plan, but unfortunately they are in a very small minority. The fact is public unions are a tiny percentage of the population—at just over two percent of the national population. And, they are not very popular among those who are not involved in unions. Economically, those involved in public sector unions are among the most unproductive workers in this country. They receive far greater benefits than those in the private sector and don’t have to worry about being laid off, as they are government employees. Public union members see the world much differently than those in the private sector. For example, one of the outcries from the protestors is the fact that they will have to give 12% of their paychecks to pay for their healthcare—among the best in the state. This is an increase from 6%, and yet they are outraged. What they don’t understand is that there are many people in the private sector who pay 30%, and continue to see increases. They can’t complain or do anything about it, so they just have to do what they have to do.
       Not only that, but teachers—the bulk of the protestors—are complaining despite the fact that they get close to four months of vacation during the calendar year. They are eligible for tenure—one of the worst ideas in this nation’s history—after just a few years. They get great health care and retirement benefits among other things. It’s pretty fair for the taxpayers—who employ these people—to ask for cutbacks to state employees. What the taxpayers don’t deserve is for the state senators—whom they elected—to flee the state and their obligation to the people, simply because they disagree with a policy. Imagine if everybody employed this kind of behavior. Nothing would ever get done. It’s childish, yet nobody criticizes them for this. If the roles were reversed and the Republicans were the ones fleeing the state, it’s pretty much guaranteed that the left-wing media would criticize them without mercy. Yet when Democrats behave like this, they are seen almost as martyrs or the ones who are really sticking up for the people.
       The public unions in Wisconsin are on the losing side of this debate. They have more benefits than anybody in the private sector—even the private-sector unions—yet they don’t work as hard, get four months of vacation, and are guaranteed jobs for life. Public sector employees should be at the mercy of the state and the taxpayers, not the other way around. In fact, public unions should not even exist. Private unions are meaningful—they deserve collective bargaining rights in order to gain better working conditions, etc. But when our teachers forge notes from doctors in order to join a protest about which they have no argument, there is a serious problem. And it shouldn’t be seen as a coincidence that two-thirds of eighth grade students in public schools in Wisconsin cannot read proficiently.
       There needs to be a change in the public sector. Public employees need to be able to be fired. They have to have some sort of incentive to fulfill their duties as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately though, it is not this way. But, there are glimmers of hope in states such as Wisconsin. Other governors around the country are following this path. New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and New York are all states that are venturing into this territory in order to solve budget problems. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York may be a Democrat, but he knows what he has to do to fix the state’s fiscal problems. Governor Walker of Wisconsin won the 2010 governor’s election by a significant majority as a result of running on the idea that he would cut benefits and collective bargaining rights for his state. He has rightly refused to implement a tax increase, but he promises to lay-off thousands of public sector workers if his current proposal fails. It’s time for the unions to decide what’s best: a cut-back in their benefits as a whole or continual job loss in a terrible economy? They should accept Walker’s proposal, and learn to deal with it. The vast majority of the country certainly has.

Two things everyone must know when talking about the financial crises

If your like me, then you must also be tired of hearing that President Bush and the Republican party are solely responsible for the financial crises!!!  I say enough is enough and its time we fight back. And the way to do that is to understand and memorize two key phrases: 1) ninja loans, and 2) the dot com bubble.

President Clinton and his Democratic Congress continued and strengthened the policy that every American should have the right to own his own home.  While this piece of legislation sounds great in principle, it does not and did not work in actuality.  The administration put pressure on lenders to not ask as many questions, lend out more money, and regard citizens with less than stellar credit ratings and jobs as perfect borrowers.  This led to the emergence of many things, but amongst them was a new loan called 'NINJA loans' (My personal favorite, cuz lets be honest who doesn't like ninja's).  These loans stood for 'No income, No job, No assets, No problem.'  Everyone was entitled to a loan.  As opposed to the past where you had to show the bank that you had enough money to repay the loan, and only then would a bank lend you money, now banks were giving money to anyone (as commanded to by Congress).  This directly influenced the financial crises, as it was specifically these sub-prime mortgages (mortgages that were lent to people that could not afford them) that people then defaulted on a few years later (obviously cuz they had no jobs) that caused our current situation today (This subject is very detailed and intricate but if there is enough demand for it I would be glad to dedicate a blog just to sub-prime mortgages).  Of course when this happened, the same people who called on the banks to lend out these loans now called on them to take responsibility for their actions.  It was a Democrat ideology of 'housing for all' that directly influenced the crises we face today. If this 'feel good' policy had not been made law, perhaps the borrowers that had to default on their payments would not have been given loans in the first place, and the whole idea of a sub-prime mortgage would never have been formed.

The second key phrase is the dot com bubble.  It is true that Clinton came into office with a deficit and left with a huge surplus, there is no arguing that.  However, the question is was it his policies that led to the surplus or simply a technological boom going on in the Country at the time.  President Clinton's policies in no way, shape, or form influenced the technological bubble forming during the 90's.  It was this boom that led to the huge(HUGE) stock market growth, more money in people's pockets, and ultimately more money for the federal government.  As the 90's came to a close, the political leaders were actually facing the 'problem' of what to do about the budget surplus in future years.  NO ONE (not democrats or republicans) foresaw the bubble bursting, and it was this huge event that ended the windfall of money into the governments coffers.  Without this industrial stimulation, and with the unfortunate and unseen events of September 11 and costly wars following closely in its wake, there was no way any President could have avoided a deficit.

In conclusion, I am not here to say that the Republicans are without blame (As President of the US, President Bush certainly could have curtailed the legislation but chose not too). But, there is certainly enough evidence to point out that the 'feel good' policies of democrats were just as bad for our economy.

Is Obama shifting towards the Center(I think not)

I don't know if anyone out there has ever had problems changing their image, but if you have, all hope is not lost.  As a matter of fact, we can look to our very own President Obama as a leader in this field (now I finally get the slogan 'change').  Only two years ago, Conservatives were screaming from the rooftops about how President Obama is a socialist.  Today, as columnists around the Country try to decipher the budget proposal, he is being regarded in an entirely new light...a CENTRIST.  If the most publicized and talked about man in America can change his image, this should certainly give all of you out there a lot of hope (I know Sarah Palin is his biggest disciple).  But I know what your wondering; how did he do it??

Well lets start with the most recent event, the budget proposal.  Basically, his Liberal allies are furious at what they are describing as a war on the poor.  And there is a lot of truth to this statement.  President Obama slashed the budgets of many of the programs that help lower income citizens throughout this Country.  Conservatives are also mad at him, as the budget in their opinion still has a lot of room to cut additional programs.  So whose left??  Only the Centrists, and they theoretically love President Obama's current proposal.  Its the best of every possible situation.  The budget claims to lower the deficit, yet amazingly enough it also does nothing to change the two biggest entitlement pograms, Medicaid and Social Security.  Obama promises the impossible to the American people, promising to both not limit the two programs while also slashing the budget.

Next, all one has to do is turn to any news channel to see that the Middle East is going up in flames.  In 2009 when protesters took to the streets in Iran to demand reforms, President Obama did little to nothing (A truly remarkable task for the most prominent person in the most prominent Country in the world (for all my liberal readers, yes America is the greatest Country in the World)).  Today, however, after at first firmly getting behind the Egyptian people's calls for Mubarak's resignation (a key partner and friend in the Middle East to America), he now realized that calling for a friends fall but not for an enemies is just not supported by most Americans.

I can go through many other 'reasons,' but that will take a long, long, long time because there are so many of them to turn to.

So has Obama's ideology actually shifted, or is he simply making a smart political move to what is now looking like a tough re-election campaign?  The phrase, 'a tiger does not change its stripes,'  readily comes to my mind.

Readers: What are your thoughts?

The Budget For Dummies

A lot of people have been telling me how confused they are with the current budget proposal put for by President Obama today.  I told them all not to worry as it seems like President Obama, Republicans, and Democrats also seem to be in that same boat.  But in order for my readers to be better informed than everyone else, I am dedicating today's session to a quick but effective summary of what this debate is all about.

In one corner we have the Democratic Party coming off of a significant defeat in the 2010 election cycle.  Trying to respond to their constituents grievances on the economy, they actually cut many activities that they hold dear including Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Community Development Grants.  The proposed budget will be 3.73 trillion dollars and acknowledges that our deficit will INCREASE next year.   However, it also promises the American people that in the long run the debt will go down (something I hope is true because it seems like my generation will bear the brunt of it if it keeps expanding).  President Obama plans to also raise income from a spending freeze on many discretionary activities, eliminating current tax breaks (there are new reports that the bipartisan tax break that was agreed to only a month ago is now going to be repealed by Obama), as well as increasing taxes.  This, according to President Obama, will lower the deficit, make our debt more manageable, and make our overall economic situation stronger.

In the other corner we have the Republican Party coming off of significant gains in the 2010 election cycle.  They were swept into Congress on many campaign promises, but for this particular purpose 'slashing the budget' is chief amongst them.  Republicans have already said it is not enough.  They claim that for the 2011 fiscal year there are still many more cuts to be made (Republicans estimate another 62 billion in cuts), so for the 2012 fiscal year President Obama simply did not do enough and that more cuts are needed.  Republicans claim that the  budget President Obama is suggesting will only increase our already trillion dollar deficit.
Also, they acknowledge that while President Obama did put forth 'ideas' that Medicaid and Social Security need to be fixed, they also point out that no concrete plans were put forward, and that everything surrounding these two huge issues has already been said before.
In regard to the tax proposals President Obama put forward, Republicans pointed out that many of these issues had been put forward in Congress already and met strong opposition there signaling that what President Obama offered is just not enough.  Responding to criticism from Democrats that are calling on Republicans to stop pointing out flaws and put forward ideas, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) says Republicans intend to lay out their own version of a budget in March or April.

There you have it...short, simple, and effective.  

Enjoy!!!

President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak Resigns

Wow!  Talk about unpredictable.  This man controlled Egypt with an iron fist three weeks ago, and today was ousted, not by the military, smart bombs, or even death, but by his own people.  It is a true testament to the power of people with a dream who are willing to go against all odds, give up their lives, and go the distance in order to see their dreams realized.

However, as an American, I greet the news of 'a peaceful transition to DEMOCRACY in Egypt' with caution.  In America, many of us have a tendency to think that democracies all over the world support the same ideals that we do in this great Country.  However, history has proven that this is not always the case.

Lets look at a few examples.  Mexico is a democracy, yet its people live in poverty and its government is governed by corruption.  Iran, is a supposed democracy, but whose values are opposed to those of the United States and the rest of the Western World, its elections are a facade, and they live under an extremely suppressive government.  Iraq, who owes its democracy to our American troops, is also filled with bloodshed and mayhem because the people cannot agree with the very principles that govern what a democracy is.

So yes, I view this resignation with caution.  Mubarak was not the most ambivalent and generous man in the world.  He was a dictator.  He suppressed the rights of his people.  He did many things that we in a democracy do not like.  BUT, he was also a steady and reliable friend in a region full of enemies.  He might not have been the best guy, but we could rely on him as a friend in the region.  Call me crazy, but as an American, a friend in the Middle East, especially a non-western one, is something we need!

Will Egypt turn out to be a true democracy and an even greater friend to the West than ever before?  Or, now thanks to calls for 'change,' will the Muslim Brotherhood, an enemy of the US and the West, come to power in the next government.  Will Egypt retract its peace treaty with Israel?   Will the modern weapons that America supplied to Egypt to keep them safe now be turned against our allies in the Middle East and Europe?    These questions will be answered only through the course of time. 

However, I am going to end this post on a more upbeat note and state that I am cautiously optimistic about what will happen in Egypt.  The people that toppled Mubarak’s regime seem to be genuinely interested in a democracy that will better their lives and Egypt’s standing in the world, and I hope for their sake as well as ours that this becomes a reality. 

Only time will tell….

First Post: Might as well make it a fun one

Hello everyone,
As this is my first post I wanted to just jump right into the political scene.  For many of us, Craigslist is used to buy and sell books, furniture, and other items of a relatively normal nature.  However, some people think that Craigslist could be more properly used as a website to pick up girls.  That fortunate person is Representative Christopher Lee of New York, and he gets the honor of being the first person to ever be mentioned on TheRightPath blog.

For those of you that do not know the story,  Christopher, a husband and father, decided to respond to a woman's request for her 'soul mate' and after some initial communication, sent a picture of him shirtless to her (I guess Congressmen in our current economic climate just have a lot of time on their hands).  The woman decided to then google his name to get more info on the guy (Again, great move, but come on your searching for men on Craigslist, I think you lost that privilege).  After discovering his profession she then turned him in to a gossip website who broke the story, making it front page news of the New York Times, and forcing him to resign (I guess he is the exception to the rule that all press is good press). 

But, according to the New York Times, 'before Mr. Lee resigned, Gawker reported that a spokesman for him had responded that the congressman believed his computer had been hacked into.'

Now since other politicians usually spend years defending their name from stories like these, I am going to assume that there was no hacking involved.  But, you guys can make up your own minds (cuz we all know that Congressmen love to run in political races the take up all their time, spend tons of cash, and earn one of the most prestigious positions in America, only to have to give it up over a prank).

So in conclusion I give this Congressman the award of the most ridiculous story of the week (yes that will be a recurring theme on this blog) for having no foresight into the consequences of doing this kind of stuff.  But there is some good news; with all the time he has now, maybe he will be able to use Craigslist the proper way to sell his autobiography titled 'The Worst Mistake of My Life.'