July 26, 2011

"Wisc. Assembly Democrats Would Have Added $1.7 Billion in Spending, Created $1.4 Billion Deficit."

"A comprehensive analysis of Assembly Democrats’ proposed amendments to the recently passed state budget shows that had their amendments been adopted, spending would have increased by $1.7 billion."

According to the MacIver Institute. If you think they got it wrong, please post in the comments or email me.

45 comments:

Scott M said...

Democrats increase spending? In other news, 2+2=4, the sun sets in the west, and Leon is getting larger.

rhhardin said...

It's a big deficit, but it would have eased the burden on the backs of the poor.

edutcher said...

They really are that stupid, aren't they?

WV "yeaup" Sometimes God hands you the material.

gerry said...

You'd have a deficit, but you wouldn't have red ballons polluting the rotunda.

The Crack Emcee said...

I like how viciously they fought for it, like the world would end if they weren't allowed to break the bank, just One. More. Time.

Why did my wife just flash through my mind,...?

MadisonMan said...

Did the Democrats actually want any of these amendments actually to pass? I think they just wanted them to be voted against. Makes for a good campaign ad.

Original Mike said...

"Did the Democrats actually want any of these amendments actually to pass?

The previous Administration and legislature left us with a structural deficit. How do you think that happened? Of course they wanted them to pass, though they may not have had much hope that they would.

MikeinAppalachia said...

Hard to know with rh's comments-here and elsewhere-if there's implied humor, irony, or to be read as is.

traditionalguy said...

Wisconsin can always balance the budget for needed re-distribution spending by immediately withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

And think of the Bullet Train, windmill and solar panel jobs sprouting like weeds everywhere for free after the coal industry has been fully deemed illegal by King Obama I.

The GOP just lacks the necessary fantasy life to govern.

Original Mike said...

I thought rh's comment was quite amusing.

Hagar said...

All this yakety-yak about spending, borrowing, and debt limits bugs me.

What it comes down to is that we need to cut the damn programs - number and scope - there just is not enough tax money in the world to pay for all these wonderful things the "liberals" want to establish for us, besides that the agency staffs necessary to manage these programs are withdrawn from the productive economy and themselves need to paid with tax money.

Alex said...

Degenerates like garage are the ruin of us all.

TosaGuy said...

I look forward to the next budget where I fully expect there to be an actual cut in the amount of money spent by the State of Wisconsin. The governor went after the fruit on the ground in this last budget. The low-hanging fruit is next. We need to get our state and local spending down, and therefore our taxes, so we can simply thread water for the massive federal tax hikes that will come in the next 10 years.

EDH said...

According to the MacIver Institute. If you think they got it wrong, please post in the comments or email me.

I only trust the MacGruber Institute.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I think they got it wrong, and did so intentionally.

I assume that their total number is a correct total of all the spending in all the ammendments. However, note this from the linked article:

None of the amendments offered by the assembly Democrats passed and many of the later amendments containing similar provisions of earlier packages.

In other words, if the earlier ones had passed, ( at least some of ) the later ones would not have been proposed. Thus, your title quote is incorrect.

Chip S. said...

@Ignorance,

If you bothered to read the report, you'd find that this was explicitly taken into account in the calculations. They were careful to avoid double-counting.

Stay blissful.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

That'll teach me. ( Okay, it probably won't )

I was expecting that trick, having seen it so many times before, that when I read the third paragraph my expectations were confirmed and I stopped reading.

But you are correct, according the the 4th paragraph they didn't double count.

Slightly less ignorant, still blissful.

Thanks.

Jim at Polimerican.com said...

rh -

Because the burden of paying back the debt you advocate for incurring would never ultimately fall on the middle class and poor, right?

There's a magical fantasy world with enough rich people to fund every single social program that you want. You can tax them into oblivion without adversely affecting the economy and hurting the job opportunities for the poor.

You can also do this without the wealthy deciding to declare their primary residence in a no-income state like Texas while declaring their home in Wisconsin as a 2nd home just like all the other states that passed "millionaire taxes" only to watch those millionaires flee the state.

End result everywhere EXCEPT in your fantasy world? Now Wisconsin loses the revenue that they were alerady getting and instead get NOTHING and the taxes have to be raised on the poor and middle class to make up for it.

But in your world Democrats and Obama ride unicorns that defecate Skittles while you eagerly gobble them up because you think they taste delicious.

m stone said...

I still haven't figured out rh. He is entertaining.

Paul said...

Wrong? Oh yea, I bet they underestimated it all. Have you ever heard of a budget coming in on, well, the budget amount?

Ann Althouse said...

"I still haven't figured out rh."

Keep trying! It's the path of enlightenment.

Chip S. said...

@Igorance, classy response. Your bliss shows. (This is a 100% snark-free comment.)

Michael said...

"It's a big deficit, but it would have eased the burden on the backs of the poor."

What burden do the poor carry? How would hiring more government workers alleviated the strain?

Curious George said...

"Michael said...

What burden do the poor carry? How would hiring more government workers alleviated the strain?" The Man. Keeping them down. And nothing eases the strain of the Man keeping one down more than lots of free shit.

MikeinAppalachia said...

Jim at Poliwhatever-
Think you are making an unfounded assumption as to rh's intent.
Not that I disgree with your post.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Chip S. said...

@Igorance, classy response.

Damn, I just failed blog commenting 101.

Is it too late to say something profane about your mother?

How about if I just needle you about mispelling my name?

Chip S. said...

Just assume it was meta-snark. I wouldn't want to harsh your mellow.

Chuck66 said...

How does creating a huge deficit help the so-called poor?

Chuck66 said...

Three UW system schools have recently lost lawsuits for discriminating against their Christian students. Perhaps if the UW could rid itself of bigotry, there would be more money to help the poor.

Original Mike said...

God damn blogger is trying to force me to accept it's cookies again.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Yes, the MacIver Institute would need to go through a big comprehensive analysis to reach that conclusion. The MacGyver institute, now, could have done it starting with just a single number and a few bits of wire.

Lem said...

If you think they got it wrong, please post in the comments or email me.

Earth to garage.. here is your chance ;)

Lem said...

It looks like garage is not awake yet. (to paraphrase Trooper)

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Leave Garage in quiet please.

He is seeking the path of enlightenment, and cannot take anymore burden on his back until the path opens up.

Lem said...

Its not Garage's job to get men at the MacIver Institute laid.

Lem said...

God damn blogger is trying to force me to accept it's cookies again.

Last night around 4am I went to comment at Rebecca Watson and was asked to accept cookies.. imagine my horror at the thought of not having coffee with those.

Alex said...

Alex_Votocracy

With all this political uncertainty these days it is nice to know we now have alternatives:http://bit.ly/pJWViG To find out more visit our platform's page! http://bit.ly/Votocracy

Phil 3:14 said...

Well they were necessary to offset those tax breaks for rich corporations.

(I think that's how it works)

Methadras said...

Leftards spending money? Dear God say it isn't so. Next thing you know, it will be virtuous on how slowly they spend it.

Methadras said...

Lem said...

Its not Garage's job to get men at the MacIver Institute laid.


No, it's his mothers.

AprilApple said...

That 10$ co-pay is just too much! Off with Walker's head!
The left need their middle class welfare. The democrats promised.

Triangle Man said...

That 10$ co-pay is just too much!

I think you mean 10%, but whatever.

RonF said...

Well, but to be fair - is that net of spending proposed by Republicans that would not have passed if the Democrats were in charge?

Minicapt said...

No, it must be gross, because such spending is mandated by the handbook "Rules for Democrats".

Cheers