Posted by Tina
Reuters reports this morning on the situation in Wisconsin where budget consequences loom even as Democrat lawmakers hide and avoid important duties:
Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker said on Monday that absent senate Democrats have 24 hours to return and vote on a measure to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state will miss out on opportunity to refinance its debt.
“Now they have one day to return to work before the state loses out on the chance to refinance debt, saving taxpayers $165 million this fiscal year,” Walker’s spokesman Cullen Werwie said in a statement.
“Failure to return to work and cast their votes will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very near future,” the statement said.
The legislators have been elected to act in the best interest of all of the people of the state and not just a select few. The political point has been made. It’s time for them to return and participate in the process.
Well, like most things political, it turns out this was just a red herring.
Buried in the bill to bust the unions is this:
Section 44.16.896 of Wisconsin Senate Bill 11, which reads
(1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14)(am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3)(b).
While everyone is watching the birdie, the snakes are stealing it all!
How could any taxpayer approve of selling state assets to political cronies with NO BID CONTRACTS?
Jim where in the statute does it say “state assets” can be sold to “political cronies”? Other than that you are right contract bid is a preferable method
State agencies sometimes buy and sell under no bid contracts WHEN IT IS IN THE PUBLICS BEST INTEREST. Examples would be when there are no competing bids, when there is only one contractor who does that kind of work, or when an emergency situation requires expedience. A budget battle might qualify, I don’t know, but in any case the contract or sale would contain language that ensures the state is not harmed in the deal.
This bill’s language also goes on to qualify such sales/contracts; it includes the following:
Any such contract would include legal actions and penalties for noncompliance.
You will also see in Quentins paranoid post that the bill reads: “notwithstanding” certain other sections. Without knowing what those other sections are it’s hard to know exactly what this section means.
It sounds like the bill is aimed at finding ways to eliminate the burden on taxpayers to me. If selling a power plant would save the taxpayer and if only one bid was made but it was generous and otherwise acceptable under this law wouldn’t it make sense to go ahead with the deal?
You had me fooled for a long time Tina.
I honestly thought you were stupid!
NObody is so stupid to think that any sale will only be because it is in the public’s best interests.
That’s like saying NAFTA is good for American workers.
Nobody is that stupid!
You’re simply a (deleted) to your country, like all the others who spread lies.
Tina,
I don’t share your blind trust that bureaucrats will do what is in the public’s best interest. I feel that sale of state property should be done in the open, with full disclosure and public review.
Quentin you have such a way with words. You must have been up all night coming up with that clever assessment.
Have you ever participated in a bidding process with the state? Do you have any personal experience in this area or are you just blowing BS out the proverbia spiggot!
The language in these documents are ALWAYS written to favor the government acting as an agent for the people. Whether what they do is smart or wise is another story.
By the way, union and protectionist talking points notwithstanding, NAFTA was good for American workers, Mexican workers and Canadian workers:
http://www.slideshare.net/jprime100/international-trade-effects-of-nafta-4475277
Two-way agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico increased more than 125% since NAFTA went into effect, reaching $14.2 billion in 2003 compared to $6.2 billion in 1993.
Mexico is the top export destination for beef, rice, soybean meal, corn sweeteners, apples and beans. It is the second largest for corn, soybeans and oils. As a result of NAFTA, the percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico has grown from 22% in 1993 to 30% in 2007.
Source: USTR, NAFTA Facts 2008
Mexican Economy US Economy Effects
The Mexican economy is the worlds 13th largest; Mexico is the United States 3rd largest trading partner and the 2nd largest market for U.S. exports.
U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew from US$134.3 billion (US$46.5 billion to Mexico and US$87.8 billion to Canada) to US$250.6 billion (US$105.4 and US$145.3 billion respectively).
Mexican exports to the United States reached over US$138 billion, while Mexican exports to Canada grew from US$2.7 billion to US$8.7 billion, an increase of almost 227%.
Greatest opposition to NAFTA (and free trade in general) comes from the belief that foreign competition hurts U.S. employment., however:
Employment within the US rose 22% (25 million jobs) from December 1993 December 2006
Average US unemployment decreased post-NAFTA
1981-1993 7.1% unemployment
1994-2006 5.1% unemployment
Moreover, increased openness to trade has been accompanied by a more rapid rise in wages, especially in the area of United States manufacturing.
Average real compensation increased post-NAFTA
1980-1993 0.9% annual growth
1993-2006 1.6% annual growth
Implicit gains in the area of income gains, due to higher national productivity, up to $930 annually for family of 4
Over that period (1993-2007), GDP grew 50 percent in the United States and 46 percent in Mexico.
United States: 38% economic growth
Canada: 30.9% economic growth
Mexico: 30% economic growth
Jim I didn’t mean to suggest or imply “blind trust” of government at all. You can’t have read much of my writing at PS to have come to that conclusion.
What I did say is that there is nothing in the bill’s language that would suggest secret sales or sales made behind closed doors or sales made to “cronies”. There are laws in place about such things. I would bet that public postings would be required for instance.
Quentin thought he had found something sneaky going on. there is nothing to suggest such a thing. This amendment could help with the long term budget goals and that is the purpose of this bill.
Tina,
Remember that Schwarzenegger tried to pull a similar scam here, selling off state buildings, which would have been a bad deal for the taxpayers.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bad-Math-Proved-in-State-Building-Sale-Plan-90988064.html
“The Associated Press reported this week that California will pay about $5.2 billion to rent the buildings over the next 20 years after they are sold to private investors. The administration hopes to net just $660 million from the sale, after paying off $1.1 billion in construction bonds, as a way to help close the state’s budget deficit.”
Of course the deal was done in the open, but despite the obvious cost to the taxpayers, and protest from the public, the Governor wanted to proceed anyway.
Also remember the No Bid contracts awarded to military contractors in Iraq, where we are paying $45 for six-pack of Coke (canned in Iraq) and $100 to wash a load of laundry.
Somehow the taxpayers always loose in these kind of deals.
Jim you’re right, the idea to sell buildings, and particularly the bid that was chosen, looks like a lousy deal in the long term. But put this deal in perspective and it takes on a different hue.
Awnuld tried several times to get our lawmakers to seriously address budget issues by cutting spending. Those in power, and we know who they are, would have none of it. This was a creative way to obtain some immediate cash…you can’t balance the budget with assets…you need revenue! Californians are already taxed too much and firing people doesnt go over big either.
Whats more curious is there was apparently another bid that made better sense:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39626607/California_to_Sell_24_Government_Buildings_for_2_3_Billion
Getting an accurate accounting for the money spent on the Iraq war, and particularly no bid contracts, is difficult compared with finding raving leftist rants about such things. Of course those rants have suddenly disappeared since Obama is at the helm even though the same no bid contractors are being used. The reason for thatand for the no bidis that the companies used are the only companies with the capability to do the job.
A chart popped up recently that shows the total cost of the war in Iraq as opposed to the stimulus signed by Obama(see graph)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/
Big government costs big bucksI think we can both agree that we spend way more than we need to spend and a lot of it gets wasted. That’s one reason we conservatives are for smaller, more simplified government and laws.
We also hear sensationalized stories that are absolutely political. A story that circulated about a very expensive toilet seat a few years back failed to reveal the details. Apparently the cost included R&D to develop the seat for the space shuttle. It took a serious amount of creativity and design work to get it done. Placed in context the price tag wasnt so outrageous after all.
NAFTA good?
Uhm, Y’know those millions of Mexicans that have come to America and burdened our health care system, and driven wages down, and put guys who won’t hire illegals out of business?
Those Mexicans we are taxed too much to educate?
Those Mexicans, who not having a job, have turned to crime and contributed to the deaths of 20,000 of their fellow citizens? AND committed horrendous crimes against Americans?
Those Mexicans who have turned our Southern States into a war zone?
In spite of your and the Tory’s efforts to propagandize that all of the aforementioned is a “GOOD” thing, we patriots know that all of this, in reality–that’s the world in which WE live–is BAD.
We know NAFTA, like the Tea Act of 238 years ago, gives the shaft to mom-and-pop businesses in favor of multinationals.
WE know it’s a repeat of history.
You cannot fool us!
Yeah Q, like Mexicans never crossed the border till NAFTA was passed…get real!