Scott Walker

Unfortunately, my opponent has not given me much to work with. His argument was quite short, and he did not include sources for his minimum wage, prison, and pipeline arguments. Let’s begin with school funding. My opponent states: “First let me introduce you to Baseline budgetting.”Let us note the spelling error, but continue on. “So we can actually see that Scott Walker actually didn't cut the budget at all, but rather the increase that wasn't really affecting anything as the increase would still be greater than the previous year, meaning that there would still be a net gain despite his budget cuts.”This really confuses me. At first, my opponent said that Scott Walker actually “didn’t cut the budget at all”, and at the end of the sentence he says, “. . .meaning that there would still be a net gain despite his budget cuts.” My opponent seems to be having a difficult time deciding whether or not Scott Walker actually cut the budget. If Scott Walker only cut the increase, that is still cutting something. The idea that this increase “does not really affect anything” is a big lie. Yes, there will still be an increase due to this baseline budgeting, but it will be hardly enough for a school district to “live on”. The “other” increase (that Scott Walker just cut) is necessary for schools to use for a variety of reasons, like new education materials, and improvements to the school building itself.Here is an excerpt from the article “Federal Baseline Budgeting: A Scam by Any Other Name” by Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter.“Let’s say a government agency is spending $250 billion and, using baseline budgeting, is slated to have its budget increased to $275 billion. The Administration (or Congress) may, instead, call for an overall increase to $262 billion, or, an increase of $12 billion for the next fiscal year, and then promote the new budget as a $13 billion dollar cut in spending ($275bln – $262bln = -$13bln). This is like an obese individual who is expected to gain 100 pounds gaining only 75 pounds and then claiming he or she lost 25 pounds. Sounds absurd, doesn’t it?” - See more at: http://www.oftheeising1776.com...My opponent then states, “This is explained in the chart bellow.”Again, another spelling mistake. The chart given does explain the idea of baseline budgeting; however, it’s a chart from the Department of Defense. Could my opponent not find a chart actually relevant to the debate? Perhaps a chart from the Department of Education? Or better yet, a chart from the UW system, or K-12? Next, my opponent states: “My opponent continues to slam schools, but another thing is actually Scott Walker is pushing for School Vouchers.” He then goes into great detail about how great voucher schools are, and what they can do for the community.Now, I am all about kids deserving the best education they can, but voucher schools are actually not a good idea.According to a study done by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Milwaukee public school students outperformed those in voucher schools. While 48% of Milwaukee public school students performed at a level of proficiency in math, only 34% of voucher school students performed at a level of proficiency. Now that vouchers have been extended, religious and private schools will gain the majority of tax dollars spent on education. My opponent says: “Hands down private schools are way better than public school and with this plan in place parents, even from poor neighborhoods can afford to send their children to private school.” I would like to focus on the first part of this sentence. Obviously, as shown by data above, not all private schools are “better” than public schools. According to an article on Wisconsin’s school voucher program, there were 2,069 eligible students for voucher schools. Of these students, 76% of them did not attend a public school the last school year. 67% of them had attended a private school last year, which means that their parents could already afford the private school in the first place! My opponent says: “Hands down private schools are way better than public school and with this plan in place parents, even from poor neighborhoods can afford to send their children to private school.” Obviously, 67% of the children chosen to participate in this program could already afford private school (because they attended previous years). Now that private schools have gained the majority of tax dollars spent on education, public schools will losing funding. Clearly, some of these private schools are scams, and are not truly making education better for those who can’t afford it. We must keep trust in our public schools.Traffic spending is sorely needed, but with all of the delays, what are the effects? According to the Virginia Department of Transportation, delays cause increased job site costs, equipment stand-by costs, wage escalation, and financing costs. Do we really just want to set all of these projects aside, and watch the cost of this project being to grow and grow because we never finished it?Also notice my opponent’s misspelling of “motorist” in his traffic spending argument.My opponent states: “Now on to minimum wage, my opponent slams Walker for abolitishing the MW on construction workers, but she acts like that's a bad thing.”Notice the misspelling of abolishing. My opponent also states: “Now that the MW here is gone cost of these problems would be cheeper and tolls will fall in prices. More businesses and other things can easily move into the state providing more overall revenue and prices in the state will drop.”Also notice the misspelling of cheaper. Here is an excerpt from an article written by JM Ashby. “Under current conditions, local governments are required to pay contractors the same wage whether they are brought in from out of state or down the street. If the Prevailing Wage law is repealed by Governor Walker, however, local governments will be allowed to pay outsourced labor less money than their local counterparts.”Obviously, local governments will want to have projects done cheaper, and look to other workers, rather than to those in the local community. My opponent states: “Now that the MW here is gone cost of these problems would be cheeper and tolls will fall in prices. More businesses and other things can easily move into the state providing more overall revenue and prices in the state will drop.”If more businesses move into the area (yeah! We can get our building built for 2 cents because of the new law!) there is no safe bet that their sales will provide the state more revenue. And even if my opponent’s stated “plan” did work, and prices in the state did drop, it’s because construction workers don’t have a safe and reliable way to live because there is no more minimum wage for them. The fact that my opponent’s “plan” to improve the state means taking away safety of cash flow for construction workers is just sickening. My opponent states: “The same can easily be stated for parks.”This is literally no explanation. He did not even make an argument for the parks.He said the same can easily be stated for parks. . . so looking back at the above paragraph. There’s a minimum wage for parks? And that when we take it away, more businesses and other things can easily move into the state providing more overall revenue and prices in the state will drop? My opponent obviously did not clear up this issue because nothing about the previous paragraph he wrote makes sense about the state parks. My opponent states: “My opponent clammers that there are "issues," but she fails to realize that this is being replaced by survallance technology.”Note: What does “clammers” mean? My opponent also misspelled surveillance. The idea that technology can do better than a human has been toyed with over the last decade. Putting in technology instead of having a human guard is not a good idea. So many things could go wrong. The technology could malfunction, someone inside the building could shut it off before an escape, the technology could miss a fugitive trying to escape, the technology could be compromised. What could happen to a human guard? He could get shot by a fugitive trying to escape if the fugitive got his/her hands on a gun. Having an alert, alive, unable to be compromised/malfunction human would obviously be a better choice. My opponent states: “My opponent argues that the pipeline is out dated and needs repare, and though that it is true. That's not a reason to close it. It gives Wisconsin thousands of jobs and if anything it needs to be fixed by the company. NOT shut down.”Notice the misspelling of repair. My opponent seems to have mixed up my arguments. The pipeline that is outdated is in Mackinac Island, not Wisconsin. The one being built in Wisconsin has no problems as of yet. Yes, it gives Wisconsin thousands of jobs, but the company’s history has shown many problems. The pipeline in Mackinac Island needs repairing, but has Enbridge Energy bothered to fix it yet? No. Three years after the spill in Kalamazoo, Enbridge Energy had to go back and clean up more oil that had still remained in the river and in the sediment by the river. Enbridge Energy is not reliable enough for Wisconsin, and if another “mistake” happens, many natural reservoirs will be ruined.Obviously, my opponent has not had very many good arguments, and his argument was filled with spelling errors. His lack of an argument for Wisconsin state parks, and vagueness in his minimum wage argument was disappointing. Sources By Category Found Below:https://docs.google.com...