Maddow Crushes PolitiFact's Credibility!

[democracy1st]

Run time: 12:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGmxquSfDu8   Posted on YouTube: February 25, 2011 By YouTube Member: MOXNEWSd0tCOM Views on YouTube: 132   Posted on DU: February 25, 2011 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 1770

 
Article in Question:

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

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



National Donor Profiles

First-ever mash-up of federal and state donations
Thousands of corporations and special interest groups, playing off the old adage "don't put all your eggs in one basket," are spreading their political cash across the nation, from the U.S. Capitol to the smallest states' statehouses. They may do so for a number of reasons, such as building strong relationships with decision-makers, attempting to influence votes or supporting philosophical positions such as lower taxes or expanded health care.

This database provides you with the total contributions for the Top 10,000 national givers in U.S. politics and their contributions to state-level politics during the 2008 election cycle. It's information that exists nowhere else. Use it to follow the money not only in the nation's capital, but also from Alaska to Florida, Maine to California -- and everywhere in between.


http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index_stfed.php

[lib_wit_it]

1. Can we please bombard Politifact with complaints about this? Contact form here:

http://politifact.com/contact/

[K8-EEE]

2. K&R

You go Rachel

[AgainsttheCrown]

3. Eh...

Absolutely love her show. I agree with everything else in that segment. And have always side-eyed Politifact's "non-partisanship."

However:

RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evening, Lawrence. Thanks very much for that.

And thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour.

I‘m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually. Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin‘s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.

I am not kidding. I‘m quoting their own version of the Congressional Budget Office, the state‘s own nonpartisan “assess the state‘s finances” agency. That agency said the month that the new Republican governor of Wisconsin was sworn in, last month, that the state was on track to have a $120 million budget surplus this year.

So, then why exactly does Wisconsin look like this right now?

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

MADDOW: Why is there a revolt in the American Midwest tonight? Why are we in day three of massive, massive protests—real upheaval in Wisconsin‘s capital city of Madison? Why are we seeing what was described today by my friend John Nichols, a seventh-generation Wisconsinite, as perhaps the biggest protests that have been seen in that state since Vietnam? Why is this—look at this—why is this happening?

As the state‘s own finances show, it is not happening because people who work for the state are the cause of some horrible budget crisis. It‘s not because teachers are lazy and rich. It‘s not because greedy snowplow drivers have bankrupted the state somehow.

The state is not bankrupt. Even though the state had started the year on track to have a budget surplus—now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Governor Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office.

Hey, wait. That‘s about exactly the size of the shortfall.

What is happening in Wisconsin right now has absolutely nothing to do with public workers. The headline here, the way this keeps getting shorthanded, is workers angry after state is forced by budget crisis to crack down.

That‘s not what‘s going on. The state is not being forced to crack down. A lot of states do have budget crises right now, but heading into this year, Wisconsin was not one of them.

No one's infallible. Even people we admire can be wrong. But if it's not explicitly stated, it's certainly implied that the short fall was caused by the tax cuts.

[Mister Ed]

4. So, was the budget shortfall not caused by the tax cuts?

It seems as if you've paused in the middle of the story and left us hanging. Was the $137 million shortfall caused by the $140 million in new business tax breaks? If not, why not?

[AgainsttheCrown]

7. Apparently not...

I was hoping she was going to refute the numbers that Politifact gave, but she didn't.

From watching the last clip: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x555056 and reading the transcript- I get the implication that the Tax cuts caused the shortfall. (Am I the only one?)

However they don't take effect until the next fiscal year.

Tax cuts at this time are irresponsible (just as the extension of the Bush tax cuts), but that is not the cause of the problem right now.

I'm disappointed that she dug in.

[democracy1st]

8. States have balanced budget amendments, by giving the tax breaks tax revenue is reduced.

The current rate of spending will cause a shortfall unless spending cuts are made.

[AgainsttheCrown]

9. Let's go to the source in question

I'll admit that I despise crunching and analyzing numbers, but I read the memo: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of
$56.4 million. This is $54.0 million above that of the administration's reports. The 2010-11
general fund condition statement is shown in Table 1.

If I'm reading it right, that's before they take in to account the short falls in various services (And I'd quote them all if it weren't such a hassle) :

Medical Assistance. It is estimated that an additional $153.2 million GPR will be required to fund medical assistance (MA) benefit costs through June 30, 2011. The projected shortfall is primarily due to MA enrollment costs and service costs exceeding Act 28 estimates.

Isn't this similar to a beginning ledger of a business before they take operating costs in to account?

This is really not my area of expertise. Any economic or accounting majors around to straighten me out? She is usually very diligent and I'd love to be wrong on this.


Now there is one thing my math hating ass can figure out. If they have to make these payments this fiscal year then they would have a shortfall, tax-cuts or not.

There are two items, not included in Table 1, which would reduce the general fund balance
if payment is made in the 2010-11 fiscal year. Those items are discussed below.


Minnesota/Wisconsin Income Tax Reciprocity Payment. On September 18, 2009,
Minnesota's Governor informed Wisconsin's Governor that Minnesota was terminating the two
states' income tax reciprocity agreement as of tax year 2010 (beginning January 1, 2010).
Therefore, the agreement last applied to tax year 2009. Because more individuals live in
Wisconsin and earn income in Minnesota than live in Minnesota and earn income in Wisconsin,
Wisconsin's estimated net payment to Minnesota due on December 1, 2010, for tax year 2009,
was $58.7 million. In addition, under the agreement, interest is applied to late payments. The
daily interest cost owed to Minnesota is $4,584. To date, these payments have not been made.


Patients Compensation Fund. On July 20, 2010, the State Supreme Court ruled that the
state cannot transfer monies out of the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (Fund).
In the 2007-09 state budget, $200 million was transferred from the Fund to advantage the general
fund. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court with directions that the $200 million,
with lost earnings and interest, be placed in the Fund. To date, the circuit court has not
established an amount or date of payment.


A status conference was scheduled to be held on January 24, 2011, regarding progress of
the parties in coming to an agreement in calculating earnings and attorney fees pertaining to the
Fund transfer. That conference was cancelled and has been rescheduled for March 21, 2011.
Pending the outcome of the court directive, the state may be required to return some, or all, of
the court-ordered amount to the Fund in 2010-11.

[Hissyspit]

5. WHY is he passing those tax cuts?

I knew about the $258 million Medicaid shortfall. I knew about it during her report (or sometime around then). WHY is he taking away the union bargaining rights? My understanding is that THAT won't affect the budget this year.

This state at this time SO does not need this governor.

[AgainsttheCrown]

6. I agree...

It's not about the budget. He is attacking the very concept of unions. And by his own admission wants to be the tip of the spear of the right's final push to destroy unions.

BUT as I understand it, the tax cuts won't affect this years budget either.

[Dave From Canada]

10. Sorry, but Maddow's completely wrong, and she needs to own up to it. Walker's tax breaks aren't

counted in the current budget. Not only that, but his tax breaks are for companies that move into Wisconsin and bring jobs.