Resolved: That Scott Walker's recent budget bill is a wonderful, much needed idea

I'll just clarify a few terms before I begin my argument. "Scott Walker's recent budget bill" refers to the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill. The bill requires state employees to contribute about 5.8% of their salaries toward their pensions. State employees are also required to pay at least 12.6% of annual health insurance premiums. In addition to the monetary requirements, the legislation includes key changes to collective bargaining. Many public sector workers can only negotiate wages now. [1] Definitions: Wonderful – excellent, extremely good Much needed – necessary I stand in opposition to this proposal on the grounds that this bill is neither wonderful nor is it needed. My opponent's first argument is a false one. It relies on the premise that these unions did not accept concessions. Much of the outrage over this bill was not over the financial demands. Rather, it's about the bargaining power that's taken away from workers. In fact, two top union leaders accepted all financial demands. [2] My opponent makes another assertion that unions have ruined "our industries." This is rather ambiguous, but the conclusion is so simple and so baseless that I'll wait for him to back it up. Even using what seems to be the favorite example of anti-union people, GM, it's ridiculous to pin all or even most of the blame on the unions. Toyota, Honda, and other foreign companies have been making cars of higher quality for years. In addition, GM relied on short-run, rather than long-run, profits. SUV's and trucks made up 50 percent of the U.S. automobile market in the late nineties, and the demand for those vehicles has since subsided. [3] Somehow, in recent years, it has become logical to scapegoat others when the real fault lies within the shortsightedness and terrible management of corporations. Moving forward, I have one argument to begin this debate (4,000 character limit): I. The Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill will hurt the education system in Wisconsin's schools and colleges. The first point in this argument is that the bill will decrease incentive to work in the Wisconsin school system. Requiring teachers to contribute more toward their pensions and health care premiums and the threat of even higher contributions in the future does not encourage many new workers. In addition, there is little stability, as their contracts will be renewed and changed each year. Some teachers have already threatened to leave. [4] Another point is the bill will hurt a very important resource to college students, graduate assistants. The Teaching Assistants' Association, the oldest graduate employee union in the world, will have many of its bargaining rights taken away. Graduate employees receive a meager stipend, tuition remission, and health insurance. They have only gotten this much, thanks to the contributions of groups like the TAA. While this bill leaves stipends unaffected for the most part, it puts benefits like tuition remission and health insurance at risk. This is an already poor group, and it would be an awful idea to discourage new graduate students from working for the university. It would give fewer resources to students, and hurt academia as a whole in Wisconsin. [1] http://host.madison.com... [2] http://host.madison.com... [3] http://www.popularmechanics.com... [4] http://chippewa.com...