Rachel Maddow says Wis. to have a budget surplus this year

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year."

Rachel Maddow on Thursday, February 17th, 2011 in a segment on her television talk show

Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year

Politifact Wisconsin

It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.

A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-’11 -- or if it does, it’s the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.

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.

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

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.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

Now there's a shocker! An MSNBC talk show host telling a lie!



NOT!

LMAO!

Seriously, she should shit-can her researchers. I'll give her just a wee bit of slack. I know that news anchors and opinion hosts have researchers do their work for them.

TexasBlue wrote:LMAO!

Seriously, she should shit-can her researchers. I'll give her just a wee bit of slack. I know that news anchors and opinion hosts have researchers do their work for them.

Bullshit... she knew she was telling a lie. I've been on the inside. There is no way she didn't know this - researchers or no.

Please dblboggie, give me your definition of "lie".

Your BS is beyond tiresome.

i_luv_miley wrote:Please dblboggie, give me your definition of "lie".

Your BS is beyond tiresome.

Definition of a lie... stating something that one knows to be untrue to be true. Rachel Maddow KNEW that what she was reporting was not true, hence the label as "liar."

Perhaps you would be so good as to provide evidence that Maddow was telling the "truth" since her "truth" was in fact a lie.

Perhaps you ought to be demonstrating how you "know" that she knew she was lying. Appealing to hyperbole that she works for a leftist news agency is neither mature not proof of anything.

If one would just read the original post from PolitiFact, one finds all the evidence needed to make the claim that Maddow lied.

The only sources for Maddow's claim were bloggers and an "editorial" which is not a factual news story.

The sources of the truth, however, were many and irrefutable. Anyone with even a shred of journalistic training and integrity would know about these sources of the truth, and would have availed themselves of them as did the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press.

Ergo, Maddow lied - or in the alternative - is too stupid to hold a position of responsibility in the media.

Ergo, instead of reporting a post, all one has to do is ask another to back up the claim (Maddow lying). That's what I would've done, were it me. Ergo, if one read the entirety of the findings by PolitiFact, they would draw the same conclusion about Maddow.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Perhaps you ought to be demonstrating how you "know" that she knew she was lying. Appealing to hyperbole that she works for a leftist news agency is neither mature not proof of anything.

As an aside Matt, I was not basing my conclusion on the fact that she works for a leftist news agency. I was basing it on the facts contained in the PolitiFact piece above. And what I said was not "immature" as you say. I have seen you make the very same scoffing observations about media personalities and outlets in your country. Any one having actually read the PolitiFact piece would have known the truth well before I chimed in, I only restated the obvious.

dblboggie wrote:I was basing it on the facts contained in the PolitiFact piece above

I know I didn't make myself very clear on that one, but I wasn't referring specifically to this thread or subject, I couldn't really give it a shit about this subject.

But a number of times you have dismissed sources because of a leftist slant without any consideration of the content, most notably when cable2 posted an article from mediamatters a few weeks ago. THAT is neither mature nor helpful. So you will laugh at mediamatters, ILM will laugh at articles by Fox. Instead of scoffing sources of the other side and lauding sources that champion our own beliefs, everybody needs to address to content of each article on its merits (or lack thereof) and point out why it is wrong.

I'm surprised I really needed to explain that to adults personally, but there you go.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Instead of scoffing sources of the other side and lauding sources that champion our own beliefs, everybody needs to address to content of each article on its merits (or lack thereof) and point out why it is wrong.

That's what I prefer to do.

I wish everybody would. It is lazy to dismiss sources as having bias when everything has an agenda. You can't avoid bias. We are biased depending on so many things. We live in the 21st century, in the western world in Capitalist countries. I am male, white skinned and born in the 1970s. In those two sentences are things that already bias my view of the world.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I wish everybody would. It is lazy to dismiss sources as having bias when everything has an agenda. You can't avoid bias. We are biased depending on so many things. We live in the 21st century, in the western world in Capitalist countries. I am male, white skinned and born in the 1970s. In those two sentences are things that already bias my view of the world.

What I would prefer everyone to do is take any given article (or statement) and try to dismantle it piece by piece. Within any given opinion or article is truth. Some of it right on. Some of it twisted in certain ways.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I was basing it on the facts contained in the PolitiFact piece above

I know I didn't make myself very clear on that one, but I wasn't referring specifically to this thread or subject, I couldn't really give it a shit about this subject.

But a number of times you have dismissed sources because of a leftist slant without any consideration of the content, most notably when cable2 posted an article from mediamatters a few weeks ago. THAT is neither mature nor helpful. So you will laugh at mediamatters, ILM will laugh at articles by Fox. Instead of scoffing sources of the other side and lauding sources that champion our own beliefs, everybody needs to address to content of each article on its merits (or lack thereof) and point out why it is wrong.

I'm surprised I really needed to explain that to adults personally, but there you go.

MediaMatters has one mission and one mission only - that is attacking conservative voices only. It is a George Soro's originated and funded non-profit organization, and they have repeatedly misrepresented conservative voices by taking statements out of context (and yes, I have examined these many times in the past and found that the missing context completely changed to meaning of said comment making the MediaMatters version a deliberate misrepresentation of said comments) or even using previously discredited sources who said a conservative talker said something, when quite the opposite is true.

I don't know about you, but it is neither "immature" nor prudent to take a source that has been repeatedly discredited for passing on false information and to lend any credence whatsoever, particularly when said source is as ideologically biased as MediaMatters. I wouldn't use the DailyKOS as a source either for the very same reason.

And if I'm not mistaken, you would not consider any article from AntiEvolution.org for the very same reasons, and would likely consider anything published there on evolution as discredited by virtue of the ideological/religious bias of the site.

dblboggie wrote:MediaMatters has one mission and one mission only - that is attacking conservative voices only.

Yet I do not see you dismissing the likes of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for doing the exact same thing the other way?

I would only dismiss such an anti-evolution source for the lack of science but I will always demonstrate why the article was wrong. Besides, Answers in Genesis is always good for a laugh.

Perhaps, in the interest of debate, you should attempt to take each article on merit and show with examples why that article is wrong?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:MediaMatters has one mission and one mission only - that is attacking conservative voices only.

Yet I do not see you dismissing the likes of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for doing the exact same thing the other way?

Perhaps that's because I don't use Beck or Limbaugh as sources, and I don't know anyone else here that does.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I would only dismiss such an anti-evolution source for the lack of science but I will always demonstrate why the article was wrong. Besides, Answers in Genesis is always good for a laugh.

Perhaps, in the interest of debate, you should attempt to take each article on merit and show with examples why that article is wrong?

First of all, why would I take articles from such sources on merit? I can certainly show examples of why such an article is wrong, but I would never just take a piece on merit when I can read it and know it to be false straight away.

dblboggie wrote:First of all, why would I take articles from such sources on merit?

I'm not sure you quite understand what I mean by that...

dblboggie wrote:I can certainly show examples of why such an article is wrong, but I would never just take a piece on merit when I can read it and know it to be false straight away.

You have dismissed articles for no other reason than they have a "leftist agenda". All I'm asking is that you read them and point out the flaws. It isn't debate when you say "hey, that's written by "X" a well known anti-American/Socialist/nutjob/Islamist so I'm not reading beyond the headline". Otherwise, how can you expect anybody else to take anything you say seriously when posting articles with a "conservative agenda"?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:First of all, why would I take articles from such sources on merit?

I'm not sure you quite understand what I mean by that...

Perhaps not.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I can certainly show examples of why such an article is wrong, but I would never just take a piece on merit when I can read it and know it to be false straight away.

You have dismissed articles for no other reason than they have a "leftist agenda". All I'm asking is that you read them and point out the flaws. It isn't debate when you say "hey, that's written by "X" a well known anti-American/Socialist/nutjob/Islamist so I'm not reading beyond the headline". Otherwise, how can you expect anybody else to take anything you say seriously when posting articles with a "conservative agenda"?

Fair enough. That's a good point.

Matt does bring up a good point on taking apart the article. I did it once to something Cable posted quite some time ago in here. The author was incorrect in saying that some US states violate the constitution by forbidding abortion. I picked that one off. The author failed to say that the states actually have "trigger" laws in case Roe v. Wade is overturned in the future. No state can forbid abortion outright.