On Wisconsin.

As a former State employee (Minnesota), I thought I would weigh in on the situation in Wisconsin.

First, when they say things like this action will save the state such and such, that is a distortion.  They are taking money away from people.  They are not saving money.  Thus, the actions in Wisconsin are a tax on state workers.  It is nothing less.  You are taxing the state employees on the wages and benefits that they had bargained for in good faith.  If the state wishes to get concessions from the state workers, they can bargain with them for those concessions.  From what I have read, the state workers' unions have made concessions in recent years.  This includes unpaid furlough days and wage freezes.  Naturally, these were negotiated.

Second, there is lots of talk about average salary.  Both sides use their statistics to show how much this group or that group makes more on average.  However, averages are meaningless!  There are far fewer state employees than there are private sector employees.  Thus, anyone making a large salary on the public side will greatly skew the average.  So, the athletics coaches at the state universities will raise the average salary.   However, the Milwaukee Bucks players will have less of an impact if they are included at all (which I doubt.) Further, if you wish to be fair about things, you talk about the median income.  Of all the employees, what does the person in the exact center make.  It is the only fair measure.  Also, include full compensation.  In that way, you can include all of the people making exorbitant salaries, but that will not affect the median income.  Otherwise, you are just comparing apples to oranges, and lying with statistics.

Third, all of these statistics are irrelevant!  As I said before, this is a tax.  In fact, it is a highly regressive tax.  Those employees just scraping by are going to pay a lot bigger percentage of their pay to cover this.  It does not matter whether the average salary is higher on the public side or not.  Those state employees that can least afford this, are going to take the brunt of it.  If you want to hire good teachers, how are you going to do it now?  This tax will place a larger burden on the state's school districts.  No longer can they offer a nice benefits package (in lieu of a nice salary) to prospective teachers.  Not to mention all of the other state jobs.  If you think it is hard to find good teachers now, take away their collective bargaining rights.  Hence, this will adversely affect the Wisconsin educational system.

Fourth, the people who were receiving these wages and benefits have obligations just like everyone else.  The level of obligation was measured on the level of salary and benefits that was negotiated at the beginning of employment.  You are taking the rug out from under these employees.  Further, those employees that expected these benefits and now they have them taken away.  It is a bit of a bait and switch.  This may be a breech of contract.  This law will most certainly end up in court.  It will also result in a worker slow-down and possibly a strike.  If you do not think this will cost the state money, you are sorely mistaken.

Any way you look at this, it is wrong.  It is wrong on every level.  You do not select a group of people and simply tax them.  This is not a majority rule thing.  The majority have to look out for the rights of the minority in this type of action.  You could pass a tax on all people named Scott.  I am sure the majority of non-Scotts would approve of this tax.  While there are a number of people named Scott, they are certainly not in the majority.  Thus, with a majority vote you could possibly create such a tax.  However, it is not a fair way to raise revenue.  This is particularly true of the people named Scott who are barely scraping by.  Of course, the government is not spinning it this way...