Wisconsin governor cancels layoffs after union vote

[beowolfe]

is this guy nuts??? He just passed a bill taking away collective bargaining rights for public employees in a manner that the state law says has to not have a fiscal impact. Now he saying there is a fiscal impact? Is he setting the stage for his bill to be overturned by Wisconsin courts?

 

[Avatar4321]

It might help if you elaborated on what you are talking about so the rest of us can understand.

The whole point of this battle was to get the states fiscal problems under control.

 

[JFK_USA]

He said he was canceling the layoff notices now that the bill passed. Even though it will not hold up in court because it does have an impact on the budget so it needed a quorum to pass. But its republicans, critical thinking isn't there strong point. Non-sensical rants and fear mongering is.

 

[beowolfe]

He said he was canceling the layoff notices now that the bill passed. Even though it will not hold up in court because it does have an impact on the budget so it needed a quorum to pass. But its republicans, critical thinking isn't there strong point. Non-sensical rants and fear mongering is.

At least someone is paying attention! If removing public employees bargaining rights makes layoffs no longer needed, then the bill has a fiscal impact. According the Wisconsin law, the only bills that can be passed without a quorum present are bills that have NO fiscal impact. Do you get it now, Avatar4321? It seems he's providing his opposition with the information they need to have the new law overturned in court.

 

[California Girl]

He said he was canceling the layoff notices now that the bill passed. Even though it will not hold up in court because it does have an impact on the budget so it needed a quorum to pass. But its republicans, critical thinking isn't there strong point. Non-sensical rants and fear mongering is.

Republicans lack critical thinking? Seriously? Just Republicans? Grow the fuck up. Very, very few politicians allow critical thinking to affect their party affiliation... and the same is true of you.... and a whole bunch of others on this forum.... on both sides of the political spectrum.

In fact, I doubt you'd ever heard of the phrase until you read it from someone else. You show absolutely no evidence of having attained the skill of critical thought.

 

[McDowell's]

No collective bargaining rights, so he has the ability to alter salary amounts. Now he can reduce salaries of teachers and keep the teachers which were going to be laid off employed without increasing or decreasing the overall budget allocation. No fiscal impact. Sounds pretty simple.

 

[beowolfe]

No collective bargaining rights, so he has the ability to alter salary amounts. Now he can reduce salaries of teachers and keep the teachers which were going to be laid off employed without increasing or decreasing the overall budget allocation. No fiscal impact. Sounds pretty simple.

The problem is, he's said he's going to use this to close a multi billion dollar gap in the budget. If he does, no matter how you twist it, there is a fiscal impact. From what I've read of Wisconsin law, fiscal impact isn't defined. So, in all probability, a judge will have to define it. Whether it means no impact on the overall budget allocation or whether it means an impact on any and every state function, we'll have to see. But even under your scenario, if the budget was billions short and this one action will cure that, then there is a fiscal impact on the overall budget allocation.

 

[McDowell's]

No collective bargaining rights, so he has the ability to alter salary amounts. Now he can reduce salaries of teachers and keep the teachers which were going to be laid off employed without increasing or decreasing the overall budget allocation. No fiscal impact. Sounds pretty simple.

The problem is, he's said he's going to use this to close a multi billion dollar gap in the budget. If he does, no matter how you twist it, there is a fiscal impact. From what I've read of Wisconsin law, fiscal impact isn't defined. So, in all probability, a judge will have to define it. Whether it means no impact on the overall budget allocation or whether it means an impact on any and every state function, we'll have to see. But even under your scenario, if the budget was billions short and this one action will cure that, then there is a fiscal impact on the overall budget allocation.

So? They have to pass other bills to actually effect any of those claims. Those bills will be subject to the more stringent guidelines.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He said he was canceling the layoff notices now that the bill passed. Even though it will not hold up in court because it does have an impact on the budget so it needed a quorum to pass. But its republicans, critical thinking isn't there strong point. Non-sensical rants and fear mongering is.

At least someone is paying attention! If removing public employees bargaining rights makes layoffs no longer needed, then the bill has a fiscal impact. According the Wisconsin law, the only bills that can be passed without a quorum present are bills that have NO fiscal impact. Do you get it now, Avatar4321? It seems he's providing his opposition with the information they need to have the new law overturned in court.

No one said the bill does not have a fiscal impact. The rule you are apparently referring to requires the Senate to have a quorum of 3/5ths to pass bills that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state.

Maybe you should go back to school and learn to read.

 

[beowolfe]

He said he was canceling the layoff notices now that the bill passed. Even though it will not hold up in court because it does have an impact on the budget so it needed a quorum to pass. But its republicans, critical thinking isn't there strong point. Non-sensical rants and fear mongering is.

At least someone is paying attention! If removing public employees bargaining rights makes layoffs no longer needed, then the bill has a fiscal impact. According the Wisconsin law, the only bills that can be passed without a quorum present are bills that have NO fiscal impact. Do you get it now, Avatar4321? It seems he's providing his opposition with the information they need to have the new law overturned in court.

No one said the bill does not have a fiscal impact. The rule you are apparently referring to requires the Senate to have a quorum of 3/5ths to pass bills that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state.

Maybe you should go back to school and learn to read.

Don't need to. I read fine. But you may want to go back and practice yours. The rule doesn't say any bills that are fiscal. It says bills that have a fiscal impact. So, while you're parading the virture of your reading ability vis-a-vis someone else's, you got it wrong. So a visit to your local elementary school may be in order.