FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

6/22/2009
Tom Nelson - unbelievable hubris

In the category of if-you-repeat-it-enough-almost-anyone-will-believe-it, Rep. Tom Nelson actually puts Democratic budget lies in print. Rep. Nelson’s stock reply letter to constituents who objected (were there any that supported?) his vote in favor of a very messy budget calls the budget “in simplest terms, a fair share budget.”

The budget includes over $3.2 billion dollars in cuts – the deepest in Wisconsin history. State employees will face 16 furlough days and I will return 16 days of pay to the state along with my colleagues as a self-imposed furlough. While state spending increased 74% in the past fourteen years under Republican leadership, this budget reverses that trend by decreasing spending of tax dollars by 2.3%.

Wisconsin’s income taxes have not increased in 40 years. The overwhelming majority – 99% - of Wisconsin residents will not see an income tax increase, and for the 1% of residents who will see an increase – those making more than $300,000 per year – rates remain lower than neighboring Iowa and Minnesota. Additionally, the budget does not increase the general sales tax and holds the line on property taxes. While these protections seemed unlikely just months ago, tough decisions and strong leadership led to a budget that protects middle class families.

A number of key provisions contained in the budget will create job growth and economic recovery….

This stuff is too full of lies to continue. I can’t even be diplomatic and label it as “disingenuous.”

I’ve written about these ridiculous claims of “cuts.” (Dems spin the budget – do we look stupid?) Any “cuts” in this outlandish budget come only to the General Fund, because Democrats play billion dollar tricks with fund transfers, transferring revenues and spending in and out of the General Fund with embarrassing ease. And, as would seem to be the case with Nelson, some claims of “cuts” are merely decreases in initial bloated “wish list” agency budgets that have no connection to reality in the first place.

No. This budget does not contain “cuts.” TOTAL spending in the budgets (depending on whether you look at the Doyle, JFC, Assembly or Senate budget) actually increases by 6.3% to close to 10%.

And 16 furlough days. Some union members are complaining about what is effectively a 3% cut in wages (after a 2% raise for the year which the union refuses to give back – Doyle rescinded the 2% raise for nonunion workers). How does that compare to what’s going on in the private sector – for folks, that is, who actually still have jobs.

Be assured, Dem budgets this year increase taxes and fees by over $3.3B. (That includes a $2.1B increase in the Assembly-passed budget and $1.22 billion in tax hikes approved in that “budget repair (!?) bill” in February.)

Be assured too, that many in Wisconsin will see 7 to 10% increases in property taxes, due to state cuts in the increases (and in some instances, cuts in actual dollars) in aids to municipalities and schools. Interesting that Nelson doesn’t mention that.

And be assured that in order to pay for increased spending in this budget, our state will see an unprecedented increase in debt payments over the next four years. Imagine that.

Lastly, be assured, this budget, in any of its present forms, with tax increases and regulatory changes, squashes business development, job growth and economic recovery in Wisconsin.

Funny thing that Nelson thinks his Assembly budget is so great. In commenting last week about the proceedings, he apparently couldn’t’ get too serious about the situation.

I think if I were to compare this last budget week, it would be a combination of band camp and math camp.

Having voted for this sham of a budget, is it understandable (acceptable?) that Nelson and his fellow Dems blatantly lie to their constituents about it?

Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net

COMMENTS

I'm shocked..., shocked to learn that politicians would lie to people!

Duke (Mon Jun 22 09:15:41 2009)

I received this story in my email today:

One very hot day in the town of “Hundredsville” (a small community where the town’s population conveniently numbered 100), the townsfolk had assembled for their annual potluck picnic. Everyone was expected to contribute something with the wealthiest expected bringing a little extra and the poorest welcome to partake even if they could not afford a contribution.

After their sumptuous repast, one citizen remarked, “You know what would be nice, a cold and sweet ice cream cone. Who wants ice cream?!” Immediately, 50 other hands went up and they decided to march down to the ice cream store to make their purchase. Despite the fact that not everyone wanted ice cream, everyone but the poorest chipped in with the wealthiest once again gladly giving a little extra to help out their friends and neighbors.

Upon arriving at the ice cream store they counted their pooled funds and found they only had enough for a one-scoop cone. At that point someone in the crowd suggested, “It is so hot and I have not had ice-cream in such a long time I would really like to have a two-scoop cone” and many agreed. But what could they do? They only had enough money for one scoop and they began to ponder ways to solve their dilemma.

There were many ideas suggested. One promoted simply prioritizing their desires. They could use money set aside for other purposes and then do without that item later. Another recommended they count their blessings and make do with a single scoop. Yet another suggested, “We could ask our fine friends and neighbors if they would contribute additional money to cover the difference. So the 51 headed back to the picnic. Not surprisingly, the other 49 refused agreeing that it was unfair to ask them to subsidize a second scoop. After all, a fine meal was provided for all with ice cream for those who decided to partake. Extra ice cream, while nice, was really not an absolute necessity and they had already gladly subsidized one scoop of the tasty treat. Once again, the 51 considered their options.

One option offered was to simply take the money by force but was quickly discarded as they realized the town sheriff would arrest them and throw them in jail. Finally, the cleverest of the 51 noted, “We have the votes. Simply pass a law establishing an Ice Cream Tax!” Our fellow townsfolk would then be LEGALLY compelled to give us the money we need for the second scoop! In fact, if they don’t give us their money, THEY will go to jail!”

And so it went on. Each time one of the townsfolk wanted something they could not afford, they rounded up 50 of their like-minded friends and created many new taxes to subsidize their desires. The poorest certainly enjoyed all the new things they previously could not afford as they paid little of each new tax. After years of this predicament, many citizens of Hundredsville began to take exception, especially the wealthy. They continued to subsidize the whims of the 51 with no additional benefit to themselves. It became particularly onerous in difficult financial times as the 51 reasoned they needed increasingly larger subsidies from the 49 to maintain their expanding town budget. But, what really irked the 49 is that the 51 satisfied their desires at the expense of the 49 without so much as a “thank you.” Moreover, the 51 began feeling ENTITLED to these new things and often mocked, belittled and even accused the 49 of being selfish and greedy!

Slowly, the 49 realized their plight, especially the wealthy, and moved away, mainly to surrounding towns. Hundredsville became 51-sville leaving behind only the poorest who now had nothing. And that is the story of how urban blight was born.

emily matthews (Mon Jun 22 10:58:42 2009)

I did the math. A couple yrs ago, government 36% of our GDP in taxes, and the private sector-individuals and businesses, paid another 18% for the cost of regualtion. (Total 54%. Or $7.56 Trillion.)

Assume a 14% decrease in the economy, reducing our $14 Trillion GDP down to $12, and COG now equals 63% before new taxes and regulatory expenses are figured. But we forgot to add the $2 Trillion increase in Federal spending, all of it borrowed, since Oct 1 last year. ALL of it added to our federal debt. So current cost of government is likely (7.56 2=) $9.56 Trillion, more or less, or ($9.56/12=) ABOUT 80% of GDP!!!!

BEFORE new spending programs, BEFORE new costs of regulation are added.

ECONOMIC SUICIDE?

SUSTAINABLE???

And remember, David M. Walker, former comptroller General of the US has been saying that unless we massively cut spending, our tax rates will have to double to fulfill our unfunded mandates over the not so long run. So cost of government will soon exceed 100% of our economy.

I submit that the purposeful destruction of our economy (and our liberty) is nothing less than treasonous.

Ken Van Doren (Mon Jun 22 10:17:30 2009)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend