We already know that Scott Walker has a severe case of rhetoric-reality syndrome but his recent comments on jobs demonstrate just how severe it is getting. First he announces that he is going to create 250,000 jobs and completely end unemployment in Wisconsin. It is pretty clear that this number is based on nothing and was concocted somewhere in the depths of the Walker's imagination. Only days after making his grandiose promise, he proceeded to send 76 more people (that had real jobs) to the unemployment line. Based on Walker's comments to WISN TV, he apparently thinks that these jobs didn't count and were not real since they were in the public sector (by the way, what does that say about his job for which he gave himself a massive raise in 2008?). So 250,000 imaginary jobs count but 76 real jobs don't?
So if Walker is declaring that only private sector jobs count as being real, then why does he want to stop the investment in things like high speed rail in Wisconsin? Just today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that the train manufacturer's plant development would help bring as many as 1,000 jobs to Milwaukee. That number doesn't even include the jobs that will be created by them doing business with various area suppliers. So what is Walker's criteria for determining what counts as a real job? These are private sector jobs aren't they? Then why is he fighting the effort to create them?
If jobs generated through public investment and public-private partnerships don't count as real jobs, then what does that say for Walker's "Milwaukee County Works" (government) program? Walker's program itself is funded largely by the federal stimulus, and back in December Walker was talking about how his (government) program "jumpstarts job creation". So using Walker's latest line of reasoning, does he even consider his own program to be actually generating real jobs?
It seems that Scott Walker is going to treat the jobs issue just like he has treated the stimulus issue. He apparently plans to come down on every conceivable side of the issue (sometimes at the same time) just to hedge his political bets. In the end, Walker's imaginations about higher office are costing real people real jobs and that is a real problem for all of us.
Posts
7 comments:
I see you're still lying about Walker giving himself a raise in 2008, even though he willing forfeited over $300,000 of his own wages to the county. When does accuracy become more important than scoring a cheap partisan attack?
It is really very simple if you are not an unquestioning walker groupie.
A. One of his campaign gimmicks in 2002, was a promise to only accept $78k for the county exec job.
B. He never put an end-date on that promise.
C. In 2008 he suddenly decided to give himself $119k for no particular reason...while at the same time he was sending others to the unemployment line and trying to cut their pay.
It is all well documented but it must not be polling well at team walker. Too bad...eventually he will learn that he must own his own actions.
Let me get this straight. Walker gives back 60,000 a year of his annual income, not because he had to, but because he wanted to. But when he scales it back to 10,000 a year, which is his right since it belongs to him, he's giving himself a raise?
Is this a special kind of liberal logic that only you can see?
The reason why it's a lie is because the money you consider a raise is already a part of his annual income. And since the money is already a part of his annual income, Walker's decision to keep more of it is not a raise.
Let me ask you this. If you gave $1,000 a year to charity for 10 years, but decided to scale back this year to $500 for personal reasons, would the charity be justified in criticizing you for giving yourself a $500 raise? If not, then you sir are a liar.
he made a campaign promise to voters and it ceased to be "his money" when he did so.
he never put an end date on that promise to voters.
this isn't about charity, its about walker's word to voters. he broke it in 2008.
sorry but taking $119k in taxpayer money is more than the $78k that he promised to take.
so i guess if you want to talk about lying, you may want to start with what walker said in 2002.
"he made a campaign promise to voters and it ceased to be "his money" when he did so. he never put an end date on that promise to voters."
Walker's campaign promise was that he would give a "portion" of his salary back to the public in order to give himself some moral authority to institute necessary budget cuts. Nowhere did Walker promise to give back $60,000 every year that he was the County Executive. A portion can be any amount ranging from 1% to 99% of one's income.
Your argument is based upon the assumption that Walker promised to give back $60,000 "and only $60,000" to the county. This is not true, and I defy you to find where he made this promise. Quotes from Walker back in 2002 would suffice.
moral authority? wow that is rich...but alas,I don't have time.
you make it too easy...there are several sources to verify his promise. but i'm not doing your homework for you, i imagine that it will all come out in due time.
given your obsession, i can tell that this broken promise has team walker worried.
now go ahead and get the last word, i know that you can't help yourself.
Word
Post a Comment