Maddow WRONG according to Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel fact checkers

[postulater]

...

Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

...

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

...

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

...

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.


http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

[shraby]

1. This is the bottom line. If there was a shortfall, he sure didn't

help the problem by giving tons of money away. If he'd kept it where it belonged, we would have been in great shape at the end of the budget period.

[midnight]

2. I find myself agreeing with Rachel...

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. So does Thom Hartman

He mentioned this a couple days before Rachel reported it.

[HereSince1628]

3. The numbers are a mess. You can't trust anything reported

I've tried to figure it out and find that I can't. There are at least 3 different sets of numbers in play and the numbers don't agree.

Two points.
1) focusing on the budget numbers is really missing the point that whatever the budget concessions need to be the unions have agreed to make them--if they keep the right to fully negotiate. Walker and the Republican Senate leader have refused to compromise on the bill.

2) it's unclear how much Walker's breaks to business will burden the state's financial picture, but it is clear that THEY DO CONTRIBUTE TO IT. And they reach out into the future in a more concrete manner than any unknown negotiating of state worker contracts do.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I side with Rachel

And knowing her, she will address this on tomorrow's show.

[postulater]

9. I hope she does.

And I bet she will have some great insight.

Budget stuff always seems complicated.

[annabanana]

15. There is an advantage in MAKING it seem complicated. Most people

will throw up their hands and accept whatever they're told by whoever they already agree with.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. This particular statement is simply absurd:

"Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem'. How can it not even be part of a deficit problem if it boosts the deficit? Seems like Republican talk to me.

[HereSince1628]

13. Exactly. Figures don't lie but liars get to choose what they add

The timelines used to admit numbers into the discussion are all different, and the numbers used don't actually match up because the important ones are estimates.

But the budget isn't really the issue. To get lost in arguments over the numbers is exactly what the R's want.

The REAL purpose of the bill is to Union Bust.

Don't fight the decoy.

[Dennis Donovan]

7. ...tax cuts not part of this problem?

Bullshit! That $$$ has to come from somewhere. And Walker has been bloviating all along about the projected defecit as a reason for his draconian austerity measures (i.e. attacking the union's ability to collectively bargan IN THE FUTURE and how this would affect municipalities' abilities to remain solvent thru the state's fiscal crisis).

[rucky]

8. The estimated shortfall has a huge range

between 50-some and 300-some million. How is it that nobody knows the real numbers?

[TomClash]

10. The Memo is poorly worded

It indicates a projected off-budget shortfall and then says a number of savings partially reduced the shortfall. That partial reduction would make any deficit miniscule. I don' think that is what the Memo meant to say but you could see how someone could get it wrong.

The Memo also does not say the Tax Reciprocity money must be paid to Minnesota this year, which the article assumes. Maybe they asked Lang, but who knows?

Finally, the workers' contributions are not one year items - they will persist for years unless legislation changes them. Because they will also be applied in the 2011-12 budget - when Walker's business tax cuts apply - it is fair to argue that one reason the workers are paying more for their health care is that Walker passed his tax cuts. The Journal acts like there is no link and that is false.

Of course, since the workers have conceded this point, this is not really the issue. The issue is that the Legislature may pass this bill removing it from the collective bargaining process, which is also being neutered.

[mfcorey1]

11. I believe Rachel! nt

[Larkspur]

12. Did the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel endorse Walker for Gov last year?

Are they a right wing paper? Saying that tax cuts don't contribute to deficits is a right wing talking point.

Rachel rarely gets her facts wrong and Ed Schultz talked about it before Rachel, I believe.

[HereSince1628]

14. Over the last week JS has seemed to the right.

Generally, it doesn't seem like a propaganda paper of the far right.

[iamtechus]

16. Rachel and others are relying on Wisconsin's own version of the "CBO".

That's the impartial agency that calculates the cost of legislation. Who are you gonna believe?

Walker & Company are citing the PROJECTED deficit which results from the big business giveaways, the amount that is the sum of yearly deficits after so many years if no corrections are made.