Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Is anyone following Wisconsin?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="804brown" data-source="post: 810778" data-attributes="member: 29553"><p>An excerpt from an article by Robert Grenwald (<a href="http://www.Bravenewfilms.org" target="_blank">www.Bravenewfilms.org</a>):</p><p></p><p>Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker is using phony budget projections to manufacture a staged "fiscal emergency" in his state so that he can whack programs and political opponents, but even his fake "emergency" pales in comparison to the cost of the Afghanistan War to his state. In fact, the U.S. would only have to bring home 151 troops from Afghanistan to save more money than Walker's ridiculous union-busting plan. Better yet, ending the Afghanistan War altogether would <a href="http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/state/WI/program/13/tradeoff/0" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0088c3">save</span></a> taxpayers in Wisconsin $1.7 billion this year alone, <em>more than ten times the amount "saved" in Walker's attack on state employee rights.</em></p><p> </p><p>One might ask, "Isn't Walker's fake budget crisis a state budget issue? How would ending the Afghanistan War pay for that?" We get this question a lot when we talk about the cost of war to a state's taxpayer. Keep in mind that state budgets are tangled with federal spending. That's especially true over the past couple of years, as state budgets have relied on federal Recovery Act funds to balance their books during the recession. Spending decisions at the federal level are therefore doubly important, as they not only affect the national budget, but also what funds are available to help preserve state-level public structures.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="804brown, post: 810778, member: 29553"] An excerpt from an article by Robert Grenwald ([URL="http://www.Bravenewfilms.org"]www.Bravenewfilms.org[/URL]): Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker is using phony budget projections to manufacture a staged "fiscal emergency" in his state so that he can whack programs and political opponents, but even his fake "emergency" pales in comparison to the cost of the Afghanistan War to his state. In fact, the U.S. would only have to bring home 151 troops from Afghanistan to save more money than Walker's ridiculous union-busting plan. Better yet, ending the Afghanistan War altogether would [URL="http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/state/WI/program/13/tradeoff/0"][COLOR=#0088c3]save[/COLOR][/URL] taxpayers in Wisconsin $1.7 billion this year alone, [I]more than ten times the amount "saved" in Walker's attack on state employee rights.[/I] One might ask, "Isn't Walker's fake budget crisis a state budget issue? How would ending the Afghanistan War pay for that?" We get this question a lot when we talk about the cost of war to a state's taxpayer. Keep in mind that state budgets are tangled with federal spending. That's especially true over the past couple of years, as state budgets have relied on federal Recovery Act funds to balance their books during the recession. Spending decisions at the federal level are therefore doubly important, as they not only affect the national budget, but also what funds are available to help preserve state-level public structures. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Is anyone following Wisconsin?
Top