Comments for Sifting and Winnowing

Comment on Supporting our future. by Frank Rojas

Frank Rojas — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:02:55 +0000

Nice clear report. How being part of the UW System has made this any better is beyond me. I know that certain state grants that were intended for UW Madison to keep star faculty were declared by the System to be for all faculty and the UW Madison got far less than was intended when the budget passed. I am sure other programs were similarly diluted.
The ineffectiveness of the current System leadership is beyond poor. Reilly could not make an effective case for sunshine and warm weather.
The UW Madison needs a board and leadership focused on the requirements of a top research university. Other than being in the same state UW Madison has little in common with any other UW campus. That does not mean an need to any cooperation with the others but that can be handled without Reilly or his staff.

Comment on Are Our Pensions Next? by Admin

Admin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:04:55 +0000

New development just reported by Journal-Sentinel: “Walker nominee Petersen withdraws nomination to investment board.” http://tinyurl.com/6wxtj3v

Comment on Are Our Pensions Next? by David Ahrens

David Ahrens — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:08:48 +0000

Mark’s comments refer to the budget repair bill. Two provisions of the repair bill (ACT 10) were enacted: increasing the vesting requirement (to 5 years) and increasing the numbers of hours/year for participation (1200). Two of the other items were included in the budget bill (ACT32). THey are the study on voluntary participation in the retirement plan – a poison pill. And to study conversion to a defined contribution plan (which is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article).
In regard to John Roberts comments: By any measure, the WRS as currently constituted is a defined benefit plan. Market forces on an annuitant’s specific contribution does not affect the benefit because……it is defined.
The notion that social security is a “ponzi scheme” is absurd.
The fact that the fund at last audit was 99% funded was based on prior rate of retirement. There is little doubt the fund has the capacity to fully fund current annuititants in the near term. However, to say that the phenomenal change in rate of retriement is “no problem” and that downscaling of wage contribution is “no problem” belies the simple math of any annuity scheme. Less money in will mean less money out.
If a voluntary system is enacted (per Bush’s attempt on social security) it will cut off the flow of new funds and quite rapdily decrease the capacity of the fund to meet its obligations.

Comment on Are Our Pensions Next? by John Roberts

John Roberts — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:44:51 +0000

The wording of this bill is very misleading. Based on the definitions the ETF is a defined contribution plan.

And this article is very misleading. The ETF is currently a defined contributions plan, not a defined benefits plan as stated in this article. The defined contributions are about 10 or 11% of our salaries and wages. The benefits are calculated based on years of service and dollar contributions to the ETF plan. This amount is increased or decreased depending on the net worth of the ETF funds. The increase or decrease for the variable fund is annual, for the fixed fund it is five year averaged. The only variance from this is that the monthly payout from the fixed fund is guaranteed not to go below the initial monthly amount. The Variable portion could potentially go to zero. Just like a 401K.

The ETF is 99% funded, thus is not a Ponzi Scheme like social security. So the changes that “could set the wheels of crisis in motion” can not do so.

Increased retirements: The money is there, so no effect on the fund. No crisis.
Wages frozen: Reduced benefits to employees later but no effect on the fund. No crisis.

Also Walker borrowing from the fund is not likely as it was tried before and found to be illegal by the courts. Not to say we shouldn’t be alert to any possible shenanigans, we should.

Comment on Are Our Pensions Next? by Mark Werner

Mark Werner — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:57:10 +0000

The review does not state anything about ending the DB plan.

From the budget repair bill.

This bill also requires the secretary of administration, the director of the Office of State Employee Relations (OSER), and the secretary of employee trust funds to study the WRS. The study must specifically address establishing a defined contribution plan as an option for WRS participating employees; establishing different vesting periods for employer contributions and eligibility for WRS retirement benefits; modifying the supplemental health insurance premium credit program for state employees; and permitting participating employees to not make employee required contributions under the WRS and limiting retirement benefits for these employees to a money purchase annuity. Under the bill, no later than June 30, 2012, the secretary of administration, the director of OSER, and the secretary of employee trust funds must report their findings and recommendations to the governor

Comment on Wrapping up a traumatic year for UW-Madison, and a challenge for 2012 by Frank Rojas

Frank Rojas — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:00:35 +0000

The sad truth is Wiscosnin has rarely been generous or had a real positive feeling towards the UW Madiosn (or any UW you choose). Madison’s success is a happy accident of some good luck (WARF) and some good leadership at key times. Never has positive input come from the State government since they squandered the original land grant assets. And all the happy horseshit about the Occupy movement actually having any direct positve impact on the UW is just that–horseshit.
What the UW has to do is assert control over what it can and maybe even over some things it cannot. A very hard look needs to be given to enrollment and the number of seats given to instate students who were supposed to be subsidized by the State–but no longer are. Jobs must be cut in admin and anywhere else possible without harming education quality. Anything that can generate more income needs to be looked at. From online classes to fees for supporting computers, libraries, placement centers, advising and anything else not covered by tuition and directly related to the classroom. Maybe the dorms can become a profit center rather than just running to break even. Without a plan that puts money into the UW treasury you are screwed and all the protesting is not going to change that. The place runs on cash–not BS.

Comment on Are Our Pensions Next? by Admin

Admin — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:38:52 +0000

Readers of the above article might also be interested in this earlier one from March 1 of last year, which addresses some of the same issues: http://siftingandwinnowing.org/2011/03/01/does-governor-scott-walker-have-a-smoking-gun-buried-in-the-budget-bill/

Comment on Defunct war strategy program may still overshadow University of Wisconsin-Madison’s history of dissent. by Frank Rojas

Frank Rojas — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:24:19 +0000

You are free to debate that every election period as the UW is still a state controlled institution that invites advice from the faculty and administration but still reserves the right to run things as they see fit through the democratic process passing statutes that govern the UW and the appointed Regents that implement those. So critique away but do not expect anyone to cede control to your political viewpoint and /or control over how the UW operates or what types of research it chooses to do. And if you want me to cite some ideas that are outmoded and dangerous I might start with yours. But we’ll just let history decide about imperial sytems…violence and all that. As Obama already learned, once you are actually in charge all that BS that you spout as an academic goes right out the window.

BTW you should have much bigger things to worry about–like where your next paycheck will come from. The UW is in a real financial crisis and politcal debates such as this will do nothing to fix that very real issue. All I see out of the faculty are some useless resolutions saying: “please please treat the UW better”. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Comment on Defunct war strategy program may still overshadow University of Wisconsin-Madison’s history of dissent. by Allen Ruff

Allen Ruff — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:42:55 +0000

Mr. Rojas: You state that, “Every professor at the UW has the RIGHT to perform whatever work interests them.” Is that unqualified? Are there no limits, qualifications, reservations? Do you currently or would you ever have any concerns regarding some types of research and teachings? Are there no ideas which you deem wrong, outmoded, dangerous or just plain nonsensical? Would you not call such notions or “theories” into question when one of your esteemed colleagues puts them forward as true, irrefutable, incontestable and verified?

We, the authors have not said anything about the “rights” of any of the servants of power we have examined. We certainly are not “annoyed” by it all, but thought it only proper to draw attention to goings-on at the UW which would be of interest to at least some of the community.

Fully aware of the history of denial of academic freedom and assaults on freedom of inquiry on this country’s campuses, we also are not about denying anyone their “rights”. We also insist upon our right, as part of the “sifting and winnowing” process to call attention to that with which we disagree.

As a matter of fact, we’d be quite pleased if an open, public debate ensued regarding the increasing militarization of not just our universities, but the broader society, as well.

Today’s proponents of “grand strategy” have visions regarding the future and particular course and direction in which the country should head. That was true for their predecessors fifty and sixty years ago. That earlier era also gave us a cohort of critical oppositional thinkers at Madison; voices that called into question the course and direction chosen by the nation’s leadership and its base of support among a generation of academic boosters, ideologists, apologists and contractors.

Heirs of the “Wisconsin Idea,” the foreign policy critics of the “Wisconsin School” opened up the public debate and broadened the civic discourse, especially in regard to the role of the university in what was and remains an imperial system based in violence. And THAT should be what the UW is about today.

Comment on Defunct war strategy program may still overshadow University of Wisconsin-Madison’s history of dissent. by Frank Rojas

Frank Rojas — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:04:18 +0000

As a major university the UW is not obligated only to do work that the authors would prefer. Every professor at the UW has the RIGHT to perform whatever work interests them. Many do research that would be considered supportive of liberal causes–much to the chagrin of politicians that oversee the UW. In this case they may have been doing work in support of another portion of the political spectrum. Thart SHOULD be what the UW is about. The fact that it annoyed some leftists is just fine with me.