Yep, Gov. Scott Walker’s “laser focus” on creating jobs in Wisconsin is sure paying dividends…

And another set of employment data – this one preliminary and subject to revision – showed Wisconsin losing an estimated 22,600 private-sector jobs during April of this year.

In related news, according to the state Department of Workforce Development 62,072 private-sector jobs were created in Wisconsin between December 2010 and December 2012, meaning that with half his term in office completed, Gov. Walker has created just a little over one fourth of the 250,000 jobs he promised he’d create before the end of his first term in office.

Smells like failure to me…

Tagged with:

11 Responses to Wisconsin loses over 22,000 private sector jobs in April

  1. Sue says:

    Why aren’t the Koch brothers stepping up to the plate? It’s in their best interests to keep WI believing that Scott is our savior, and they certainly can’t be affected by this ‘uncertainty’ thing – after all, they own Scott and most of the legislature – and they have companies in WI.
    So would it kill you boys to create a couple of jobs? You’re willing to throw millions into these races. It’s not like you don’t have the bucks to do it.
    Maybe instead of asking Scott and his cohorts “where are the jobs”, we should be asking their monetary supporters. You got what you wanted, now create some damn jobs for your golden boy.

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      Your post illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the economy and business. People don’t just create jobs because they have the bucks or the goodness of their hearts. There actually has to be demand for something to be created or produced.

      • Perhaps Scott Walker should have thought of the “demand” portion of the principles of supply & demand before he waged war on public employees, many of whom are the solidly middle class kinds of folks who purchase goods. Many of those folks are barely scraping by (at least the ones I know), and so they don’t have the kinds of disposable income any more that would actually create a demand for goods and services.

      • Rich says:

        You know something FMSN? It’s one thing for a commenter on a blog to have a complete lack of understanding of our economy works, and another thing altogether for our governor to have a complete lack of understanding for how our economy works. It wasn’t Sue above who was elected on the promise that she would create 250,000 private sector jobs in 4 years, now was it?

  2. Rich says:

    But that’s the thing, the Koch’s don’t care about Scott Walker or the people of Wisconsin. They got what they wanted, Scooter got his power, and the people of Wisconsin got screwed.

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      What did they get?

      People of WI got screwed? For once that I can ever remember taxes are in check, government has a balanced budget… seems good to me.

      • Wisconsin is required by its state constitution to have a balanced budget, so your comment about balanced budgets is moot.

        As for Walker taking credit for balancing our state’s budget, not so much.

        But when Walker’s two-year budget ends June 30, 2015, officials project a potential deficit of $188.2 million.


        Walker’s first budget cut our GAAP deficit to $2 billion on June 30. But under his proposed new budget, the GAAP deficit will climb to $2.6 billion by mid-2015.

        And remember that when he was running for Governor, Scott Walker said he wanted to implement GAAP accounting principles in state government, so using GAAP Walker’s budgets have actually increased our state’s budget gap.

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          Hey Zach, first you say that the state constitution requires a balanced budget and then go on to say that there will be a deficit. How is the even possible then? Please explain.

          Surely you know better, unless you are willing to deny that Doyle created a huge deficit. But that’s just too ridiculous. There used to be a time when your comments were more rational. Perhaps you have started reading too many of the conspiratorial posts of the other guest contributors (who I note seem to believe in every conspiracy except Obama’s birth certificate!).

          If you get some time, I would love to hear your thoughts on the Benghazi cover up and if it will have any effect on Hillary’s chances. Or maybe a comparison of Nixon and Obama when it comes to enemies’ lists, IRS abuses, and monitoring the press. I remember that the blog would sometimes pick up on stories that weren’t covered in the national press, so maybe a belated Gosnell post on how it might have a chilling effect on planned parenthood funding and a woman’s right to choose.

          • PJ says:


            I realize the Conservative-Libertarian propaganda-sphere has pushed the Obama-Nixon parallel on just about every conspiracy they invent, but there is no link, not even a tenuous one between Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the IRS controversy et cetera, et cetera, et cetera and the Obama Administration. These are, in fact, all political attacks against the Obama Administration. Were you to look closely enough, you’d find that the Conservative leadership in this country never abandoned Nixon. To some extent, Conservative leadership today is more vicious and more corrosive than Nixon.

            To your conspiracies: Benghazi was not a cover-up. Latest breaking news on the “cover-up” that Conservatives can’t seem to locate or explain: Republicans not only lied to the press about emails sent by the White House, but fabricated those emails to fit their narrative.

            The IRS incident isn’t a scandal nor is it akin to Nixon’s enemies lists. Tea Party groups weren’t singled out exclusively during any period nor were their applications denied. By contrast, the IRS did deny Liberal groups no more political than the Tea Party. I read through the questionnaire that Tea Partiers wailed was so burdensome, and for any legitimate organization, the questionnaire should have been no effort at all. Then there’s this:

            501C(4)s need more scrutiny, not less. The IRS needs more staff and the IRS needs clear criteria on what “political” actually means – given government gridlock due to obstructionism, those rational criteria might be a long time coming. It seems a little counter-intuitive to allow any political activity tax exemption; seems more than a little counter-intuitive to allow a system where political contributions could ever remain secret. Therein lies one component of the scandal. Obama overreacting to the incident is the scandal, “Issue Ads” are another, PACs and SuperPacs another. Political organizations pretending to be welfare organizations is a biggie. FMSN, are you really prepared to contend that the Tea Party is primarily a welfare organization and not a political one?

          • Rich says:

            Another Gish Gallop. I didn’t realize Walker was involved with Benghazi, IRS and AP. Try those threads instead.

          • The state’s budget was balanced when Walker and his Republican allies passed it into law, thus complying with our state’s constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, but all they did was create a future deficit for lawmakers to deal with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *