.

Unemployment Benefits Being Cut Short for 10,500 Wisconsin Claimants

Wisconsin's improved economy will no longer allow the state to extend unemployment benefits to claimants, due to a loss of a federal subsidy.

Wisconsin families who receive unemployment insurance are going take a hard hit when their benefits are cut short.

Due to Wisconsin's lower unemployment rate the state no longer qualifies for the federal emergency insurance, which extends the benefit to 63 weeks from 54 weeks, reported the Wisconsin State Journal

The state’s 6.7 percent rate is below the 7 percent rate needed to be in order to receive the federal subsidy, which helps states with high unemployment rates.

About 10,500 workers who have been unemployed for more than a year have received notifications that they will start losing benefits the week of Feb. 9, according to the report.

Unemployment benefits are given to people who lose their job at no fault of their own. People can receive up to $363 in weekly benefits. 

The Anti-Alinsky March 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM
Once again John passes up on substance and falls back on insults.
The Anti-Alinsky March 10, 2013 at 11:29 PM
John, the company I work for goes through unemployment claims all the time from people that quit. Typically they are new hires that put in just enough time to say they tried, then are gone. Granted, the job is not the easiest, but I have talked with convenience store people and found out they go through quite a few as well. Everyone in my company even remotely tied into HR has come to the same conclusion as Greg. By this point it would be easier to find person in the last ten years that WAS turned down for unemployment. As far as websites: http://www.ehow.com/how_4679591_still-qualify-unemployment-insurance-benefits.html http://unemploymenthandbook.com/unemployment-articles/all-about-unemployment/180-can-you-get-unemployment-if-you-quit http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_you_quit_your_job_can_you_collect_unemployment_benefits http://takethisjobnshoveitblog.com/2010/08/30/can-i-quit-my-job-and-still-get-unemployment-benefits/
John Wilson March 11, 2013 at 01:07 AM
The Anti–Alinsky – While I am certainly aware of situation(s) where an employee may terminate his/her employment – FOR GOOD CAUSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYING UNIT – these case(s) remain remarkable rare, and are usually very difficult to prove; then too, the employer may, appeal the initial administrative judge’s decision to a higher level, and that decision too may be appealed to still another court. The claimant does NOT receive any unemployment benefits during this process, and must usually higher a labor law attorney, if this process goes beyond the initial determination. http://takethisjobnshoveitblog.com/2010/08/30/can-i-quit-my-job-and-still-get-unemployment-benefits/ [This is always an uphill battle to prove by the claimant; if you, as an employer, find yourself losing a substantial number of these cases, you really need to get your place in order, fast!] Also, please prove that "the DWD never rejects claims"... I personally know many folks who are and were denied their UC Claim; the notion that no one is denied is simply a flagrant lie... Lastly, there is the underground communication that always occurs among employers – albeit flagrantly against the law – where a person who self-terminates and wins unemployment compensation, is essentially blackballed from future employment. The number(s) of these people who win their cases are indeed miniscule, and the retribution by employers is indeed dronish.
John Wilson March 11, 2013 at 01:25 AM
The Anti-Alinsky – “We need more people with Bill’s eloquence.” I Thought I was merely doing a public service by simply enumerating a small cabal, of many, folks on the Patch. Who share “Bill’s eloquence.” I have no idea why any of these eloquent folks could possibly perceive this as an “insult.”
The Anti-Alinsky March 12, 2013 at 02:22 PM
John (if that is your real name), Greg was making a blanket statement, likely based on personal experience. From my personal experience, a claimant loosing an appeal is the rarity. The clause "Good cause attributable to the employer" is just too broad. I could turn around and quit, claim I was sexually harassed, and find a couple of co-workers to back me up. I even had one employee tell me he was going to quit and collect unemployment because he could get $350/month to do nothing. And yes, we lost the appeal on that one. One of the reasons appeals go for claimants that quit is because they feel they have made a hostile workplace for themselves. They quit, claim unemployment and determine they can't return because their boss now "hates them". Maybe this will help explain it for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alIBxXS70vI BTW-if you are interested in that "underground communication that always occurs among employers", you can find it at JohnWilsonIfThatIsHisRealName/PeopleNotToHire/TheIlluminatiWillRuleTheWorld.org
John Wilson March 12, 2013 at 06:18 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – I am pleased to see that you are the nanny for McBride and now Greg’s blanket – I really do not know if either of them “know” what they mean; I am overjoyed that you “know.” Regarding your “personal experience” as opposed to real evidence – not a YouTube, YouTube – you and your cabal fall flat on your prodigious derrieres. I receive emails every week alerting me to potential “troublesome employees” from other employers, and sometimes telephone calls… The clause, GOOD CAUSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYING UNIT, is in labor law has been upheld for quite some time now; if you want to attack the law, go ahead. I would suggest that a far more fruitful endeavor would be to clean up your employment practices/place and move forward. Furthermore, with the burden of proof being completely on the Claimant – other employees within the company do not want to testify for fear of termination – it is a tremendous burden to prove your case, particularily because your proof usually ends up being company records… Courts rule on EVIDENCE presented at the hearing, not some potential retaliation the employer may engage in at some future date. My experience has been that if you treat ALL your employees with respect, fairness, do your due diligence in background checks, interviews, in-house tests, clearly communicate the duties and obligations to the potential new employee; you simply do not find yourself in UC hearings and all this garbage.
The Anti-Alinsky March 12, 2013 at 08:25 PM
John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: “I am pleased to see that you are the nanny for McBride and now Greg’s blanket…” Sorry Johnny, but neither Bob or Greg need me for a nanny. They have managed to put your silly arguments to rest often enough. I was using the quote as a segue to my point. Johnny also wrote: “…I receive emails every week alerting me to potential “troublesome employees” from other employers, and sometimes telephone calls…” No employer in their right mind is going to send out an “troublesome employee” alert. The possibility for slander or libel is too great. Johnny also wrote; “GOOD CAUSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYING UNIT, is in labor law has been upheld for quite some time now…” I am not arguing the concept, just the broad use of it as it is being used today. Johnny als wrote: “My experience has been that if you treat ALL your employees with respect, …, in-house tests, …” IN HOUSE TESTS? This from a self admitted, twice weekly pot smoker. Does it not even occur that this is the epitome of hypocritical, making your “employees” take a test that you yourself would fail? Finally, Johnny wrote: “the burden of proof being completely on the Claimant…” I am going to put this one in the B.S. with your Eagle Scout award and Mensa membership. This just shows you have never had employees, let alone any that quit and applied for unemployment. Do you even have a job?
John Wilson March 13, 2013 at 05:36 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – There is an intervening response to your last post floating around the Bermuda Triangle (i.e., the Patch) – Sarah does not answer her email, Skype, phone, whispers from GOD – so the portion of your last tortured and incoherent post will hopefully be addressed here. “Finally, Johnny wrote: “the burden of proof being completely on the Claimant…” I am going to put this one in the B.S. with your Eagle Scout award and Mensa membership.” Yes, AA, the entire burden of proof in a “self-termination” employment case falls on the Claimant. Now if your company wants to assist the Claimant that is up to your company; otherwise, the law is clear: the burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that he/she terminated employment with GOOD CAUSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYING UNIT (Namely, the employer.) You choose to call that B.S... Perhaps you also have some infamous YouTube sites to support such an outlandish assertion.
John Wilson March 13, 2013 at 05:42 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – (Prior intervening response) Your beliefs are of no consequence. However, you losing appeals on “self-terminating” employees speak volumes on the quality and legal compliance of your business practices. [Most of the issues, legal and otherwise, occur because of the hubris of business owner’s; they really do believe that they can do anything they want with impunity.] They, not the labor laws, are their own worst enemy. ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EMPLOYING UNIT is not a “broad use’ concept. It is actions or lack of actions by the employer that provide reasonable grounds for an employee to terminate their employment. You just do not appreciate it because it places reasonable legal restraints on your behavior in the employee-employer relationship. I get that, you want complete control. Our in-house tests, have nothing to do with drugs, they are standardized pre-employment reasoning, Mathematics and personality assessment tests. I am sympathetic to your confusion regarding the last very irrational “My experience…” half of your psychotic rant. However, as previously written, your rant has no basis in reality… the same as most of your highly emotional rants.
The Anti-Alinsky March 14, 2013 at 01:05 AM
John Wilson (if that is your real name), Nope your wrong again. The burden of proof SHOULD be on the claimant, but it's not. You are trying to pass as an expert on unemployment compensation claims, but do you have any experience at all, other than maybe applying for them? At least I prefaced my conclusions "in my experience". Since I have spent more time than I wanted already searching for any sort of data showing successful appeals. Finding none, I had to fall back on my experience. Since you have none on the business end, I guess my conclusions are correct....AGAIN!!! Maybe this will give you a better understanding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGT2l-1K9_g
John Wilson March 14, 2013 at 02:44 AM
The Anti-Alinsky – Your Lack of any verifiable proof to support your very outlandish series of assertion(s) is even more outlandish. Please share the following with your .5 person HR department as they may want to stop paying people for “self-termination” and that .5 person may even want to create a set of viable, legal employee-employer relationship policies. Test for Constructive Discharge “A constructive discharge occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that an employee feels forced to resign. At-will employees can generally be fired for no reason so long as it is nondiscriminatory or not against public policy. To prove a constructive discharge, the employee must establish that working conditions are so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign because of a (1) discriminatory reason or (2) reason contrary to a well-defined public policy. Employees subject to just-cause provisions also can establish a constructive discharge if they can show the employer purposefully created an intolerable working environment so they would quit and avoid just-cause provisions. In other words, the constructive discharge doctrine recognizes that employers might refrain from directly terminating an employee and instead engage in conduct designed to force him to resign.” Engage in some basic logic courses, and cease with your compulsion for visual only learning. You are rapidly becoming a very sad, little man...
John Wilson March 14, 2013 at 02:55 AM
The Anti-Alinsky – Should you require a verifiable source for my last post – WARNING: It is not a VIDEO! – you may access: http://axley.com/articles/constructive-discharge-042109
NObama 2012 March 14, 2013 at 03:13 AM
I say we turn the 10,500 deadbeats into square Solent Green wafers and feed them to the bottom 80%.
The Anti-Alinsky March 14, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Yes John (if that is your real name), the claimant SHOULD be the one with the burden of proof. But again, I have been directly involved in two of the claims against us, worked on two others, and helped write a policy that will hopefully close some of the excuses our ex-employees use. One of those claimant called to tell me he decided to go on unemployment rather than showing up for work. Despite the fact I documented the incident immediately, the hearing officer awarded the unemployment to him. Johnny, did you happen to notice that Saul Glazer is an employment lawyer. Did you really think he was going to come out and say that in reality all you have to do is quit your job to collect unemployment? So what's your experience with unemployment, besides collecting it?
John Wilson March 14, 2013 at 11:34 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – Your puerile anecdotal tales of UC hearing(s) woe aside, you lost your UC cases – IF they ever really happened – merely because you do not have viable legal policies that cover the employee-employer relationship, and is enforced uniformly. It really is that simple. “But again, I have been directly involved in two of the claims against us, worked on two others, and helped write a policy that will hopefully close some of the excuses our ex-employees use.” That, in itself, is a significant part of your problem; that such a neophyte as you would be involved in writing company employment policy, given, “I have been directly involved in two of the claims against us, worked on two others, and helped write a policy…” I will suggest, from the tenor and tone of your diatribe, that you probably lost all four of these cases. Yes. AA, I did notice that Saul Glazer is an employment lawyer. Did you happen to notice that our discussion was about EMPLOYMENT LAW? I understand that your company has a Patent lawyer, attempting to assist your .5 HR person with, what I consider a massive employee-employer relationship at your company. Good luck with that and your hubris…
John Wilson March 15, 2013 at 03:58 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – Gov. Walker’s extreme right wing “austerity programs" appear to be just another in a long serious of misinformed, misguided and maladapted actions perpetuated by, stupidity, hubris, ancient ideology, and monolithic incompetence. Note Wisconsin’s unemployment rose from 6.7 to 7.0 in January 2013. Gov. Walker probably has not noticed, as he is too busy touring the 50-states, getting money from his TP backers for his forthcoming “presidential” bid. It is ever so comforting to see that you and your company are following his lead and are adding to the unemployed ranks as well. You’re doing a fine job AA… http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsins-unemployment-rate-ratcheted-up-to-7-in-january-4t95m2q-198269511 .html
morninmist March 15, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Wisconsin's unemployment rate ratcheted up to 7% in January http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsins-unemployment-rate-ratcheted-up-to-7-in-january-4t95m2q-198269511.html And a great response to this sad news for WI: taxtherich1 - Today at 10:29 AM - We are Open for Business: "jobs will come once we set-up an illegal computer network in my office" "jobs will come once we give tax breaks to corporations" "jobs will come once the economy improves" "jobs will come once the protesters leave Madison" "jobs will come once we break Open Meeting laws" "jobs will come once the recall is over" "jobs will come once the presidential elections are over" "jobs will come once taxes are lowered" "jobs will come once the John Doe is over" "jobs will come once we cut 900 million from education" "jobs will come once we create the WEDC" "jobs will come once we implement divide and conquer" "jobs will come once we destroy the rivers and lakes" "jobs will come once we gerrymander voting districts" "jobs will come once we turn-down HSR funds" "jobs will come once we turn-down federal dollars for Medicaid expansion" "jobs will come once we strip public unions" "jobs will come once we divert federal foreclosure dollars towards the budget" "jobs will come once we erase data from our computers" "jobs will come once we erase corporate regulations" "jobs will come once I travel the country raising money for my criminal defense fund" "jobs will come once "jobs will come once
The Anti-Alinsky March 16, 2013 at 02:00 AM
John Wilson (if that is your real name), you need to read more than just the headlines. Below are some of the highlights you missed because you were too excited about the PRELIMINARY data!!! “…the state added an estimated 12,400 private-sector jobs in January but lost an estimated 10,600 government jobs in the month… “It's common for the state's monthly employment reports to show contradictory trends, …because the agency relies each month on "unreliable methodology" to calculate the preliminary data…” “Economists as well as the state agency freely admit that the data is prone to major revisions… because the government bases its monthly findings on sparse sample sizes, which create a wide margin of error…” “To underline its point, the agency also released revised data for last year …Those revisions found that the preliminary estimates for total non-farm jobs last year undercounted non-farm job creation by 67,100, the agency said.” Remember last spring when the preliminary estimate showed we had a job loss since Walker took office, then it turned out it was a gain of 23,000? Maybe you should wait again until we get all the facts!!!
The Anti-Alinsky March 16, 2013 at 02:03 AM
John Wilson (if that is your real name), Remember two months ago when you claimed to smack me down with your “facts” just before I pummeled you with data and logic. Let me refresh your memory: http://muskego.patch.com/articles/sunday-poll-jan-20#comments_list ====================== John Wilson wrote: "Anti, Anti, Anti, I just smacked you down on this YESTERDAY... Need more..." Seriously Johnny! I made a faux pas in transposing the number: 4,800 instead of 4,500 (which is a net difference of 14,400 jobs), while I corrected you when you made an full out attempt at misrepresenting number. Let me summarize your errors: 1) 250,000 minus 86,000 = 164,000 NOT the 245,500 that you initially tried to claim to get to Governor Walker's GOAL!!! 2) 250,000 minus 86,000 still equals 164,000 NOT the 212,489 you tried to claim later. 3) 250,000 minus 86,000 still equals 164,000 NOT the 208,489 you now try to claim below. At least your numbers are moving in the right direction. By my calculations, three more posts will get you there. And we are still better off than the 121,000 jobs LOST under Diamond Jim Doyle!!! ======================== So, add the 67,100 under-estimated jobs to the 86,000 we knew were created, Governor Walker has 96,900 new jobs to go!!! Maybe this link will help you. It’s not a YouTube video, but if you read beyond the headline you might start to understand it. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/schncol17-0094mis-198546381.html
John Wilson March 16, 2013 at 04:47 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – (P-1) You begin by citing a plethora of your errors, even omitting some obvious ones… [Is that what you mean by... "I pummeled you with data and logic." (?) 1) Your inability to read and comprehend the JS 2) Your transposition error of 4,500 to 4,800 3) Your error in multiplying that incorrectly transposed number and arriving at some spurious number 4) Then you incorrectly cite “YOUR data 250,000 – 86,000 = 164,000” as MINE! 5) “212,489 JOBS WERE STILL NEEDED TO MAKE WALKER’S PROMISE OF 250,000 NEW JOBS COME TO FRUITION, PLUS 10,000 NEW businesses” MINE! 6) You still have not cited any PROOF that 86,000 jobs you claimed previously were CREATED; you just gleefully added 67,100 to those imaginary jobs. [TP/GOP WISHFUL THINKING…] I believe my link for the total number of jobs created [41,511, Updated: Friday, January 18th, 2013 ] was: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/526/create-250000-new-jobs/ On March 28, BLS will release the QCEW data for the last three months of 2012, which will provide an even more accurate picture of the jobs picture over the past year.
The Anti-Alinsky March 16, 2013 at 05:32 PM
John (if that is your real name), I included the link to the blog in case you needed to go back and reread the postings. I remembered them, but I have an unfair advantage by not smoking pot twice a week. That post was in response to your constantly changing job numbers. While we still have a ways to go to get to the 250,000 GOAL, we are headed in the right direction.
John Wilson March 16, 2013 at 05:58 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – (P-2) is some were in the Bermuda Triangle; it only got REJECTED 3-times, so whenever Sarah awakes… My numbers are consistent and my data are accurate: 2011: 27,811 jobs created in Wisconsin. 2012: 13,700 jobs created in Wisconsin. 41,511: jobs created in Wisconsin under Walker’s administration in 2-years! “That post was in response to your constantly changing job numbers. While we still have a ways to go to get to the 250,000 GOAL, we are headed in the right direction.” “… we are headed in the right direction.” Of course we are; if you want to make the entire state unemployed… You do have an “unfair advantage” because everything you think or feel is a universal reality to you… You still haven't give any proof of the 86,000 jobs you claim were created...
John Wilson March 17, 2013 at 01:18 AM
The Anti-Alinsky – (P-2) http://watchdog.org/75094/workforce-development-calls-bull-on-bls-wisconsin-employment-numbers/ “Wisconsin, it seems, still is a long way from hitting the ambitious job-creation goals Walker promised in his 2010 bid for the governor’s mansion. At the time, he pledged to do what it took to help create 250,000 jobs. Taken together, Walker remains about $187,000 jobs from his goal.” I do not see 67,100 jobs here: http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.wi.htm I do not see 67,100 jobs here either: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST55000003 Aha, here they are: http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsins-unemployment-rate-ratcheted-up-to-7-in-january-4t95m2q-198269511.html “Wisconsin's unemployment rate rose sharply in January to 7.0% from 6.7% in December, according to preliminary estimates released Thursday by the state Department of Workforce Development.” It is important to note that these numbers come from DWD! [Read the entire article and you will see that they were off 67,100 jobs during the year – which you, of course, added to your count!] BLS releases its numbers on March 28… My personal preference for dealing with any data is to deal with the raw data. All data is subject to inadequate sampling, bias and manipulation. While Walker prefers the LAUS over QCEW, CPS and CES, those are incorporated in various statistical models used by BLS and they current show WI with a 7.0 unemployment rate, with a national rate of 7.7.
The Anti-Alinsky March 17, 2013 at 02:25 AM
John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: “I do not see 67,100 jobs here: … Aha, here they are: http://www.jsonline.com/business/wisconsins-unemployment-rate-ratcheted-up-to-7-in-january-4t95m2q-198269511.html …” ======== John, that’s the same link you used above. You know, the one where you just read the headline and missed the important points in the article. Here they are again, although I’m not sure why I post them, you seem capable of only reading the first sentence of any article or post: “…the state added an estimated 12,400 private-sector jobs in January but lost an estimated 10,600 government jobs in the month… “It's common for the state's monthly employment reports to show contradictory trends, …because the agency relies each month on "unreliable methodology" to calculate the preliminary data…” “Economists as well as the state agency freely admit that the data is prone to major revisions… because the government bases its monthly findings on sparse sample sizes, which create a wide margin of error…” “To underline its point, the agency also released revised data for last year …Those revisions found that the preliminary estimates for total non-farm jobs last year undercounted non-farm job creation by 67,100, the agency said.” Of course, your not the only one confused: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL1TeI2x2H0
John Wilson March 17, 2013 at 03:19 AM
The Ant-Alinsky – I referenced the link to specifically address the “67,100 jobs” and call “your attention” to them, because I know you are thick. My computer reads the text to me. Where did the 86,000 jobs come from and what is your source? You are really confused if you think I am going to read your diversions and empty rhetoric... either reference your sources or we will all know that you present nothing verifiable…
The Anti-Alinsky March 17, 2013 at 04:56 PM
John Wilson (if that is his real name) wrote: "Where did the 86,000 jobs come from and what is your source?" There were, and still are, a number of sources out there Johnny. Of course suppose I will have to do the work for you: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/0116collegegop.pdf http://www.wrn.com/2012/12/democrats-blast-walker-over-jobs-claim/ http://news.wpr.org/post/walkers-latest-jobs-numbers-discount-seasonal-hiring Johnny also wrote: "...You are really confused if you think I am going to read your diversions and empty rhetoric..." This from the king of empty rhetoric. At least I admitted I could not find relevant data concerning self-terminated employees that collected unemployment benefits, and that my conclusions were anecdotal based on my personal experience. You are still crossing your arms, making the pouty face and saying "no-no-no-no-no"!
John Wilson March 18, 2013 at 05:04 AM
The Anti-Alinsky – AA provides the following sources to prove 86,000 jobs were created by Gov. Walker. 1) College Federation of Republicans, Paid for and Authorized by WI Federation of College Republicans, Patrick Garrett, Treasurer 2) Wisconsin Radio Network 3) Wisconsin Public Radio News Ignoring for the moment the credibility of these sources (?) they state that Gov. Walker’s claim of 86,000 jobs is in dispute… not exactly proof. Now IF we add the 86,000 disputed jobs to your additional 67,100 illusionary jobs, Walker has already created 153,100 new jobs! Parenthetically, you could have called Reince Priebus ScrewUSA Maximus and received the same numbers; however, I do thank you for your prolific amount of research (?) 2011: 27,811 jobs created in Wisconsin. 2012: 13,700 jobs created in Wisconsin 41,511 jobs created in Wisconsin under Walker’s administration in 2-years. 208,489 will need to be created by January 12015 for, Walker to fulfill his promise. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/526/create-250000-new-jobs/ Again, these are factual numbers… not disputed. Finally, please provide some credible, authoritative sources for the 86,000 jobs you claim Gov. Walker created or admit that you have no proof… I would also ask you to provide the number of new businesses – Gov. Walker promised 10,000 – which he has created thus far.
John Wilson March 18, 2013 at 02:47 PM
The Anti-Alinsky – Just to keep you abreast of “We are headed in the right direction.” “The largest over-the-month decrease in employment occurred in Louisiana (-12,500), followed by WISCONSIN (-6,000) and Missouri (-4,700). [CAPS ARE MINE] "Nine states reported statistically significant over-the-month unemployment rate changes in January, of which seven were increases and two were decreases. The significant increases occurred in Illinois and Mississippi (+0.4 percentage point each); Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and WISCONSIN (+0.3 point each); and New York (+0.2 point)." [CAPS ARE MINE] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm
The Anti-Alinsky March 19, 2013 at 03:28 AM
John (if that is your real name), maybe you should wait until final numbers come in before you get too excited. Because of the way BLS calculates preliminary data, they can be waaay off. Once again I will link to Christian Schneider's OpED: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/schncol17-0094mis-198546381.html Tried to read beyond the headline this time.
morninmist March 19, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Walker is walking JOKE! @Progress2day ICYMI: We're 44th: Most Accurate Gauge Yet of @GovWalker Jobs Failure: wisdems.org/news/press/vie… #wiunion #wipolitics ...Read about Walker's terrible jobs numbers here. "Being 44th in the nation in job creation is the legacy of a governor who spends more time and money trying to whitewash his terrible record on jobs than actually focusing on jobs themselves. Scott Walker thinks he deserves another promotion when he has failed the citizens of Wisconsin so terribly with his signature promise to create 250,000 jobs," Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate said Tuesday. "The only job that Scott Walker has ever cared about is his own."

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something