Doesn't Gov. Scott Walker know how to follow his own rules?
Or is he so hell-bent on punishing the poor that he feels he can make up the rules as he goes along just so he can make them suffer?
Or is he just afraid of public scrutiny?
Earlier this year, Walker pushed for greater involvement over the writing of administrative rules—that nit-picking process that agencies go through to flesh out bills that have been passed by the state Legislature. In the past, agencies would submit their proposed rules to the Legislature, allow the public and experts to weigh in, and then implement the approved rules.
Walker changed all that with the help of a compliant Republican-led Legislature. Now, agencies must submit their proposed rules—along with a detailed economic impact analysis—to him for approval before they go to the state Legislature. And if Walker doesn't like the rule, he can let it die.
So this leads to the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) recently changing how it would reimburse child-care providers in the Wisconsin Shares program. The providers in this program were unfairly maligned by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel when the paper sensationalized alleged fraud cases in a poorly administered program. Since then, these providers—including honest, hardworking child-care providers who have done nothing wrong—have become convenient scapegoats for the Journal Sentinel writers.
So the Republican-passed state budget included a provision that would allow DCF to adjust Wisconsin Shares providers' pay. Not surprisingly, DCF decided to reduce providers' pay, even though pay for these workers has been frozen since 2005. What's more, noted the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, private child care providers, Head Start providers, and public and choice schools are not reimbursed in the way proposed by DCF—just some Wisconsin Shares providers.
For DCF to implement this new reimbursement policy, it should have gone through the new rule-making process.
But DCF didn't. It merely released an “operations memo,” a sort of heads-up about the new policy—no review by the governor, no public input, no economic analysis, nothing. Even the nonpartisan state Legislative Council found that the new policy is, in reality, a rule, and needed to go through the rule-making process.
State Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) blasted DCF's changes in a press release, saying, “Just because the Walker administration might not respect the law does not mean it can ignore the law.”
Grigsby noted that Walker's Department of Health Services was also found to be out of compliance with federal law.
This behavior continues a pattern established throughout the year. Walker's allowed his appointed head of the Department of Health Services to cut almost $500 million from Medicaid programs; developed the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, which won't be as open to the public as the former Commerce Department; tried to prevent the press from accurately reporting a study on the benefits of health care reform; and tried to strong-arm his collective bargaining bill through the state Legislature without debate. What's more, he consistently avoids meeting the public in free and open settings.
When it comes to DCF's rule change, we've got to ask: Why can't Walker and his political appointees follow their own rules?
Or is he so hell-bent on punishing the poor that he feels he can make up the rules as he goes along just so he can make them suffer?
Or is he just afraid of public scrutiny?
Earlier this year, Walker pushed for greater involvement over the writing of administrative rules—that nit-picking process that agencies go through to flesh out bills that have been passed by the state Legislature. In the past, agencies would submit their proposed rules to the Legislature, allow the public and experts to weigh in, and then implement the approved rules.
Walker changed all that with the help of a compliant Republican-led Legislature. Now, agencies must submit their proposed rules—along with a detailed economic impact analysis—to him for approval before they go to the state Legislature. And if Walker doesn't like the rule, he can let it die.
So this leads to the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) recently changing how it would reimburse child-care providers in the Wisconsin Shares program. The providers in this program were unfairly maligned by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel when the paper sensationalized alleged fraud cases in a poorly administered program. Since then, these providers—including honest, hardworking child-care providers who have done nothing wrong—have become convenient scapegoats for the Journal Sentinel writers.
So the Republican-passed state budget included a provision that would allow DCF to adjust Wisconsin Shares providers' pay. Not surprisingly, DCF decided to reduce providers' pay, even though pay for these workers has been frozen since 2005. What's more, noted the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, private child care providers, Head Start providers, and public and choice schools are not reimbursed in the way proposed by DCF—just some Wisconsin Shares providers.
For DCF to implement this new reimbursement policy, it should have gone through the new rule-making process.
But DCF didn't. It merely released an “operations memo,” a sort of heads-up about the new policy—no review by the governor, no public input, no economic analysis, nothing. Even the nonpartisan state Legislative Council found that the new policy is, in reality, a rule, and needed to go through the rule-making process.
State Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) blasted DCF's changes in a press release, saying, “Just because the Walker administration might not respect the law does not mean it can ignore the law.”
Grigsby noted that Walker's Department of Health Services was also found to be out of compliance with federal law.
This behavior continues a pattern established throughout the year. Walker's allowed his appointed head of the Department of Health Services to cut almost $500 million from Medicaid programs; developed the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, which won't be as open to the public as the former Commerce Department; tried to prevent the press from accurately reporting a study on the benefits of health care reform; and tried to strong-arm his collective bargaining bill through the state Legislature without debate. What's more, he consistently avoids meeting the public in free and open settings.
When it comes to DCF's rule change, we've got to ask: Why can't Walker and his political appointees follow their own rules?
*/?>
Mr. Livingston I presume, thank you for your hate-speech!
Your 50% of minimum wage plan is even more hateful than your talk of castration! Do you realize that such plan is Koch's dream?
When you allow "opportunistic business" to hire at half minimum wage, then they WILL respond with laying off their minimum wage folk, filling those positions with this new "half-class". Driving the displaced workers to need welfare assistance, only to be rehired at half minimum wage, moving them into this half-class too!
This will "ripple up" through the Middle Class as well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And you know that the owners of these business will reward themselves with big pay raises for their cutting labor costs down to size.
And then these new workers will not even be able to patronize or buy the products of the establishments they work for... DEAD ECONOMY.
This is as bad as Ron Johnson hiring prisoners for his Pacur business, which displaces jobs from law-abiding voters who are not in prison! But, we reward him by voting him into the Senate.
I'n not saying you alllow businesses to hire at 50% of the minium wage. I saying that you allow people on welfare to earn their pay by giving them a broom, snow shovel or whatever. Start them at the Milwaukee river and have them police the streets spotless all the way to Tosa with a drill sergent screaming at them and keeping them in line. Do all the streets that way. At least have them find out what its like to really work. It stupid to give people money to lay on their backs and fornicate. No, if they want food stamps, food rations, and some spending money, they should be required to perform service to the community first. Obviously we can't just give them a nomral wage. Paying them half as much means they are working twice as much and therefore staying out of trouble. If they want to upgrade to regular employment, then they will need to make some changes like brush their teeth, pull their pants up, clean up, be kind and polite, and dance for the man. Like all the rest of us. Perhap brutal hard labor will wake them up to the real world. When I see people toiling in hot sun in the tomato fields in Florida or the watermelon patches of Texas, morning til night, just to make a few buck and still send money home to mom, damn I admire that. Those are brave people. Not cowards like we have here who are scared to death of hard labor. When I go to Home Depot and I see men who have ridden their bicycles for mile, just to get in line waiting for guys like me to come pick them up and take them to a job site -- damn I admire that. Especially when they work like bees in a hive. Hell I might just tip them out a extra $20 and buy the a burrito. No food stamps and welfare for those hard workers. My pals, my friends, my amigos. They need a favor, I'm there for them. But those welfare types in the hammock, sitting there with their mouth open and staring at all the people working, don't expect sympathy from me while brave people are getting in their cars everyday, driving to work, dancing for the man, and providing for their children. Working, getting rich - is a personal lifestyle decision, not just dumb luck and the economy. Seriously, if you are clean, friendly drug free, and dependable -- you will never be without work.
That's the big difference between Republican and Democrat. Republicans are the party of big business, which is a tiny minority of voters. They need to draw in enough workers and non-owners to get their 51% of the vote at election time, so they hide their true message beneath social conservative and "pro-establishment" messages to draw in the votes of their "angry base". - All these people do not share, they care only about getting more faster than "the other guy".
Democrats are the party of debate, compromise, negotiation, fairness for all, "spreading the wealth". Not as greedy, if you find wealthy people here, it is because they have been enlightened, they realize that their business needs customers who have good paying jobs in order for their own businesses to thrive. Herb Kohl, George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, they seem to know.
DCF, and all other Walker (Koch's puppet) administration initiatives, you can see the strong Republican Big Business minority control here.
-------------------------------------
I saw a TV interview last weekend... It was about "Economic Growth". Do we want the growth of the Reagan 80's, or the Clinton '90s? The 80's was the rich getting richer faster than the working class was, the 90's was about everybody getting richer. Reagan dropped the top tax bracket from 70% to 35%, Clinton jacked it back up to near 40%, W Bush dropped it back down to 35%. Capital Gains rates, not as visible, kind of not on the voters radar. I suspect the story is not pretty.
I couldn't find the trend charts of how capital gains rates changed, but Warren Buffet knows that the current 15% top rate on cap-gains is too low. This is how Buffet knows that his rate is a little over 15%, but even the upper Middle Class in the 75K-300K range is saddled with near 35%. -- Understand that the true battle is not between the Middle class and the entitlement class, but rather the battle between the super-rich and the Middle Class? Ever notice that all "tax-reform" plans put forth are crafted to make the entitlement class pay more, the Middle Class pay less, but nobody notices that the super-rich are the real winners in those plans?
It's just easier to take on the entitlement class than to take on the super-rich. The entitlement class cannot afford to fight back.
PS - on the cap gains tax rate. We do not want to cut off the retired people who now must live off of their own cap-gains income from their shrinking 401k investments. Why not a "Capital Gains Standard Deduction"? No cap-gains tax on the first 100,000 of annual cap-gains paid out, but tax the portion above 100,000 at the usual income tax rate, high ones that Warren Buffet is talking about.
I don't understand why the Middle class insists on 35% tax as "job-killing" excess tax on high profits. Even at 35%, the super-rich are still able to keep 65% of their "well-earned" money, even though they no longer punch a time-clock for it.
Well put WaukeshaGuy. Check this:
http://youtu.be/QcvjoWOwnn4
How is it that you know how each person making stupid comments is spending their time?
They have zero time for the poor or disabled programs. Which would you would assume they don't do any charitable work..that doesn't involve a tux. or name in the paper. David doesn't like the poor and certainly wouldn't live in a neighborhood with the poor. Many in his neighborhood are most likely very poor at this time of financial hardships. Still going to pick some melons.
So, old friend, should those of us who work 80-hour weeks constantly under the guns of goals, benchmarks and metrics from on high just move to a poorer neighborhood so that we will "understand" some of your blather?
You have no idea how much we give to charity or how much time we put into programs for the poor, and every time someone like you carps about us wanting to hold some people accountable, we are a little less likely to want to voluteer or write that check. No good deed goes unpunished, and even though I've seen goals and hard work turn around dozens of potential slackers, still I have to read garbage like your inane comments about melon-picking. Why should I not take your route and suggest that you have never done a speck of hard labor in your life? Maybe state conclusively that you have never been held accountable for anything, that you have no work ethic and simply pine the hours away waiting for a handout from "the rich"? Can I do that, the way you do? Is that OK with you?
Why in the hell would anyone CHOOSE to live in a poor neighborhood? That statement alone proves that you have no ability to think in a linear or logical manner.
And finally, the classic socialist mantra- "you have way too much money". Well, old friend, put your money where your mouth is- how much money is too much money? Stop with the platitudes and give us some percentages. Why will none of you socialists just come out and tell us how much you want? Simple- you want everything. You want to redistribute everything because you want a system devoid of competition, merit-based rewards, or earned progression. Why? Simple again- you are certain that you will be left behind in such a system and fear it above all else.
David Livingston made the comment aboout melon picking. i chose to take my retirement at age 62. I have some heath issues and when corrected shall go back to work. I worked for some of the government programs and donated time and money to help the poor. I worked with autistic children and young adults. So please don't say I'm a slacker!!!! I loved my job and my clients many with dementia. Time on my hands.
I do owe a few people a big apology. I know that Louie Fortis worked hard for every cent that he has. I'm sure others have too. Many higher income individuals do charity work and donate large amounts. I have sympathy for the poor. Not every soul is college material or has had the chance to be.We are all different.
But you have to admit, most people are poor because the refuse to go out and bust their ass 80 hours a week. Most problems can be solved by just working hard and saving. I see a lot of poor people who blow their money on tobacco, liquor and lotto. Then complain they have no money. If we simply eliminate all these welfare programs, many poor people would opt into jobs and earn money. If they have to actually work for their money they would probably think twice before they blow it on vices. Sure some will suffer needlessly but most likley they will be taken care of by the kindness of others.
Some are poor because of circumstances! Cancer, MS, ALS, dementia, blindness at an adult age and the list could go on. Yearly Ins. deductibles. Once a bleeding heart always a bleeding heart.
Exactly, those are the ones we should help. But able bodied people need to hit the streets and go to work. There is always plenty of work for people willing to work really hard and really cheap.
Really hard and really cheap. That is what's wrong with the focking world. Only a few seem to think they DESERVE A GOOD WAGE for a day of hard labor. Preaching to the wrong girl. Every worker deserves a decent wage. Is slavery coming back?