Posted on Wednesday, 14th July 2010 by J. Rawson Schaller
Former Tommy Thompson right-hand-man Jim Klauser, the estranged one-time Mark Neumann supporter who, in a June 7 letter, took Neumann to task on his negative campaign tactics, has authored a follow-up letter, being sent to Neumann today. (Text courtesy: Jay Weber)
The letter addresses Neumann’s bold claim that spending went up faster under his primary opponent than under Jim Doyle.
“Dear Mark:
It has been more than five weeks since I wrote to you requesting that you return the contributions Shirley and I made to your campaign. I asked for the return since you had assured us that you would run a positive campaign focusing on the Doyle-Barrett record. You haven’t done that. Even in these last weeks you have expanded your negative attacks beyond your primary opponent to everyone else.
Your campaign treasurer, your son Matt, told me that you would return my contribution if I refuted your claims about your opponent’s record as County Executive. You echoed those comments as well. The numbers you cite for Milwaukee County include capital bonding of $251 million which is expended over a three year period and paid-off over 15-20 years. (This was done to obtain better interest rates) Your analysis of Jim Doyle’s spending did NOT include bonding (which is considerable under Doyle).
You should know, but apparently don’t, that much of what a county government does is mandated and partially funded by either the federal or state government. County government has no control over increases/decreases in such funding. A care management organization is funded at $256 million entirely with state-federal Medicaid dollars.
You fail to mention the substantial reduction in the number of county employees under Walker’s watch. In 2000 county employees on an FTE basis numbered 7,263; in 2010 the number is 5,256. This substantial reduction indicates increased efficiency in Milwaukee County government and a savings to taxpayers.
The bottom line is you aren’t comparing apples to apples; rather your analysis is somewhat akin to fruit salad. By the way you should know, but apparently choose to ignore, that the county executive vetoed increased spending every year; these vetoes were overridden by the county board with the result of increasing spending.
You have used these misrepresented figures to claim that the county budget has increased 26% since 2006 while the state budget has increased 19%. In reality, Milwaukee County’s budget has increased 9% below the rate of inflation of 9.6% which gives Milwaukee County residents a spending reduction in adjusted dollars.
Please return our contributions.
James R. Klauser
July 14, 2010″
Posted in Home | Comments (11) |
11 Responses to “Jim Klauser’s NEW follow-up letter to Mark Neumann”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Time for Mark Neumann to “eat his hat”.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
[...] Badger Blogger has the details [...]
July 14th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
“…analysis is somewhat akin to fruit salad.”
Klauser spanked Mark hard with this one, I love it!
July 17th, 2010 at 6:37 am
Neumann’s web site makes comparison shopping easy.
“When Mark left Congress in 1998, the budget was balanced, America was paying down its massive debt, and the federal government enjoyed a surplus for the first time since 1969.”
“Walker’s first proposed budget in 2003 as Milwaukee County Executive had $1.1 billion in spending. His last proposed budget in 2010 had $1.5 billion in spending. In 8 years, he proposed to increase spending by 35% (compared with 27% for Governor Doyle over the same time period).”
http://markforgov.com/candidate/compareresumes
July 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am
TinMan, did you even bother to read the letter before you regurgitated Neumanns tripe?
“The numbers you cite for Milwaukee County include capital bonding of $251 million which is expended over a three year period and paid-off over 15-20 years. (This was done to obtain better interest rates) Your analysis of Jim Doyle’s spending did NOT include bonding (which is considerable under Doyle).”
July 17th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Calvin, yes, I read Klauser’s tripe before I read Nuemann’s tripe.
I believe this is the Nuemann claim that Klauser is referring to: “Neumann said Walker’s proposed budgets rose in 2003-’04 from $1.1 billion to $1.48 billion in 2010-’11 – an increase of 35%.”
Let’s not muddy the waters with capital bonding, is it, or is it not true that Walker’s proposed budgets increased by 35%.
If Krybaby Klauser can’t refute that simple claim then he should STFU.
July 17th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
and the federal government enjoyed a surplus for the first time since 1969
That’s a lie. Saint Mark deliberately forgets about Social Security. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus if you count SS–which normal people do. (Saint Mark evidently likes the “2 or 3 sets of books” method of accounting.)
July 17th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Clinton NEVER ran a surplus if you count SS
Actually, that’s the part that’s false: “But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.”
July 17th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
For fiscal year 1998, the $30 billion deficit was converted to a $69 billion surplus by inclusion of the trust funds; for 1999 the $1 billion deficit became a $123 billion surplus. http://www.allbusiness.com/government/employment-regulations/1130813-1.html
You’re right. The (R) Congress overspent by $20 BN in 1998 and by $1BN in 1999.
So Neumann lied.
July 18th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Neumann is playing games. He knows he’s being dishonest and so does Teeeeeeeeeeeeny Tim.
For Neumann it’s about is ego.
For Teeeeeeeeny Tim, it’s about being a liberal.
Both are dishonet. Both know it.
Btw. Neumann cannot eat his hat..CRAPPER ate it..
July 18th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Folkbum, teachers ought to know better than to allow a 3rd party with a spurious political agenda to do their fact checking for them.