Bipartisan recall efforts in Wisconsin

[flockofseagulls104]

Less than halfway through the 60 days permitted for the process, and the first petitions seeking recall are being submitted today. This is a Senate district around La Crosse. --Bob

Yep, if you can't get what you want through the established processes, then to hell with it. Just create chaos until you get what you want. Isn't that what terrorists do?

This recall bull*** is costing the state, which is already bankrupt, to spend even more money.

Recall in Wisconsin is an established process. And as constituted in Wisconsin, it's really hard to use -- you need a lot of signatures. So when a recall movement actually makes it to the ballot, you can be sure that there are a lot of unhappy voters. I guess by your lights, all of those voters (40% of the district's turnout in the last gubernatorial election) are terrorists?

And by the way, the State of Wisconsin isn't bankrupt. The budget deficit is a direct result of a tax giveaway just enacted by the newly elected governor (not yet subject to recall) and the new Republican majorities in the legislator. I'm thinking it's safe to say that this is not the government the voters thought they were getting on Election Day. --Bob

Bob, do you have any idea what those 'tax giveaways' that you refer to really are? Or do you just quote the party line?

The 'tax giveaways' are actually a reduction of taxes to businesses that hire new employees, in order to to try to make it easier for existing businesses in the state to hire more people, who themselves will pay taxes. There is also a tax reduction for businesses who MOVE into Wisconsin, which will also serve to increase the tax base in general.


Pullease get real

[silverscreenselect]

The 'tax giveaways' are actually a reduction of taxes to businesses that hire new employees, in order to to try to make it easier for existing businesses in the state to hire more people, who themselves will pay taxes. There is also a tax reduction for businesses who MOVE into Wisconsin, which will also serve to increase the tax base in general.

As I understand it, the tax break for businesses that relocate to Wisconsin has a number of qualifiers which (1) make it unlikely it will apply to very many businesses and (2) will cost the state about $1 million in tax revenue a year. On the other hand, the tax break for jobs created will save every business in the state between $90 and $300 a year (depending on the size of the business) for each new person they hire.That one is expected to cost the state $67 million a year. Nobody is going to hire someone and fork over a full year's salary just to save $300 on their taxes. So essentially, employers are getting an additional tax break adding up to $67 million for people they were already planning to hire.

[Jeemie]

My "Conservative Man-Card" is sure going to be in tatters after continuing to respond to these posts, but dammit I wish more people would take basic economics classes than just repeat canards about how "tax cuts create jobs".

Although personally, I think I'm defending conservative principles when it comes to taxation than most conservatives would anyway.

Hey Flock- do you suddenly not agree with what used to be the conservative maxim that taxation should be simply to raise revenues to run the government, and not used as a tool to "shape people's behaviors" or "stimulate the economy"?

Because if you support tax policies that do anything other than that, you are being every much as in favor of "government intervention" as those "liberals" you claim to despise.

[flockofseagulls104]

My "Conservative Man-Card" is sure going to be in tatters after continuing to respond to these posts, but dammit I wish more people would take basic economics classes than just repeat canards about how "tax cuts create jobs".

Although personally, I think I'm defending conservative principles when it comes to taxation than most conservatives would anyway.

Hey Flock- do you suddenly not agree with what used to be the conservative maxim that taxation should be simply to raise revenues to run the government, and not used as a tool to "shape people's behaviors" or "stimulate the economy"?

Because if you support tax policies that do anything other than that, you are being every much as in favor of "government intervention" as those "liberals" you claim to despise.

I would like us to change the way the government funds itself, yes. But right now is what it is.

1. These tax changes are intended to assist businesses that want to hire more people and to encourage existing companies to locate in the state, thus intending to increase employment. People who are employed generally pay more state taxes than people who are unemployed. So the 'tax cuts' are intended to be offset by the tax revenue generated by the person who is actually employed. I don't know if it will accomplish what it is intended to do, nor do I know what it's unintended consequences are, but it is a much better thing to do than to raise taxes just for the sake of raising revenue.

2. I do not 'despise' anyone. I think liberals are wrong about many things, but I do not despise them. Do not make the mistake of buying into that stereotype of conservatives. For the most part, it is the left that is 'mean spirited'.

[Jeemie]

1. These tax changes are intended to assist businesses that want to hire more people and to encourage existing companies to locate in the state, thus intending to increase employment. People who are employed generally pay more state taxes than people who are unemployed. So the 'tax cuts' are intended to be offset by the tax revenue generated by the person who is actually employed. I don't know if it will accomplish what it is intended to do, nor do I know what it's unintended consequences are, but it is a much better thing to do than to raise taxes just for the sake of raising revenue.

But it wouldn't have been a matter of "raising taxes just for the sake of raising revenue" (although, again, that's what taxes are for. We can debate the scope and size of government, but the fact of the matter is, taxes SHOULD be just for raising revenue and nothing more). It would have been a matter of not just handing out more tax cuts that do nothing to create jobs but instead line corporate coffers some more.

And quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me that you would say something like "I don't know if it will accomplish what it is intended to do, or what the unintended consequences will be, but let's pass it anyway because...well...it's a tax cut and I'm for tax cuts".

2. I do not 'despise' anyone. I think liberals are wrong about many things, but I do not despise them. Do not make the mistake of buying into that stereotype of conservatives. For the most part, it is the left that is 'mean spirited'.

A distraction from the main point that if you are for tax policies that are in any, way, shape or form designed to change or influence behaviors, then you are NOT subscribing to conservative principles.

[silverscreenselect]

1. These tax changes are intended to assist businesses that want to hire more people and to encourage existing companies to locate in the state, thus intending to increase employment. People who are employed generally pay more state taxes than people who are unemployed. So the 'tax cuts' are intended to be offset by the tax revenue generated by the person who is actually employed. I don't know if it will accomplish what it is intended to do, nor do I know what it's unintended consequences are, but it is a much better thing to do than to raise taxes just for the sake of raising revenue.

Flock, merely because one of your icons says why something is "intended," doesn't mean you should disengage your brain and accept the statement at face value. I don't oppose the idea of targeted tax breaks that actually create jobs. However, when you actually look at what these two breaks do, you see there isn't a whole lot of job creation there. One is fairly benign: it's limited to only a small number of companies and it doesn't cost a lot of money, but it's not likely to produce a lot of new jobs either.

The other is more widespread. It gives a $100-300 tax break to every company in the state for each new job. People hire new employees because they think the employee will generate sufficient additional revenue to justify their cost. And they give themselves a fairly decent cushion for error. No one is going to pick up $20000 and up in salary and benefit liabilities on a new employee just because they are going to save at most $300 on their taxes. That law won't create one single new job in the state of Wisconsin. What it will do is give an extra tax break to every employer in the state who was already planning to hire new people. And this is happening at a cost of $67 million a year to the state at a time of a severe budget crunch during which state employees are being told about the sacrifices they have to make.

Here in Georgia, the Republican legislature tried a similar con job on the public and it has blown up in their faces. They introduced a bill cutting back the top income tax rate (which virtually everyone in the state pays) from 6% to 4.5%. To be revenue "neutral," they proposed scrapping much of the itemized tax deductions in favor of an allowance somewhat like a standard deduction. However, when economics professors at Georgia State crunched the numbers, they found by an odd coincidence that the change in the tax structure would result primarily in a tax increase for people making under $180,000 a year and a tax decrease for those making over $180,000. Surprise; surprise. Since the newspapers and TV stations have run with the story, the bill has been stalled as the legislature is ducking for cover.

[Bob78164]

1. These tax changes are intended to assist businesses that want to hire more people and to encourage existing companies to locate in the state, thus intending to increase employment. People who are employed generally pay more state taxes than people who are unemployed. So the 'tax cuts' are intended to be offset by the tax revenue generated by the person who is actually employed. I don't know if it will accomplish what it is intended to do, nor do I know what it's unintended consequences are, but it is a much better thing to do than to raise taxes just for the sake of raising revenue.

Flock, merely because one of your icons says why something is "intended," doesn't mean you should disengage your brain and accept the statement at face value.

Or, as someone else asked earlier in this thread:

[D]o you have any idea what those 'tax giveaways' that you refer to really are? Or do you just quote the party line?

--Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

1. These tax changes are intended to assist businesses that want to hire more people and to encourage existing companies to locate in the state, thus intending to increase employment. People who are employed generally pay more state taxes than people who are unemployed. So the 'tax cuts' are intended to be offset by the tax revenue generated by the person who is actually employed. I don't know if it will accomplish what it is intended to do, nor do I know what it's unintended consequences are, but it is a much better thing to do than to raise taxes just for the sake of raising revenue.

Flock, merely because one of your icons says why something is "intended," doesn't mean you should disengage your brain and accept the statement at face value. I don't oppose the idea of targeted tax breaks that actually create jobs. However, when you actually look at what these two breaks do, you see there isn't a whole lot of job creation there. One is fairly benign: it's limited to only a small number of companies and it doesn't cost a lot of money, but it's not likely to produce a lot of new jobs either.

The other is more widespread. It gives a $100-300 tax break to every company in the state for each new job. People hire new employees because they think the employee will generate sufficient additional revenue to justify their cost. And they give themselves a fairly decent cushion for error. No one is going to pick up $20000 and up in salary and benefit liabilities on a new employee just because they are going to save at most $300 on their taxes. That law won't create one single new job in the state of Wisconsin. What it will do is give an extra tax break to every employer in the state who was already planning to hire new people. And this is happening at a cost of $67 million a year to the state at a time of a severe budget crunch during which state employees are being told about the sacrifices they have to make.

Here in Georgia, the Republican legislature tried a similar con job on the public and it has blown up in their faces. They introduced a bill cutting back the top income tax rate (which virtually everyone in the state pays) from 6% to 4.5%. To be revenue "neutral," they proposed scrapping much of the itemized tax deductions in favor of an allowance somewhat like a standard deduction. However, when economics professors at Georgia State crunched the numbers, they found by an odd coincidence that the change in the tax structure would result primarily in a tax increase for people making under $180,000 a year and a tax decrease for those making over $180,000. Surprise; surprise. Since the newspapers and TV stations have run with the story, the bill has been stalled as the legislature is ducking for cover.

I am not going to argue this any further other than to point out one more time that we have a diametrically opposed viewpoint of what taxes are.

What it will do is give an extra tax break to every employer in the state who was already planning to hire new people.

No, SSS, Jeemie, Bob, it doesn't 'give' a tax break to every employer. It let's them KEEP more of the money they have earned. No, it may not entice an employer to hire a new employee, but it will make it a bit easier for them to do so.

The whole point is that a small cabal of Unionists, Democrats and media types are making a mockery of the election process in Wisconsin, simpley because they did not like the outcome of the last election, and they do not have the political power to stop the actions of the duly elected representatives by using the rules. So they are changing the rules, making up stuff and demagouging in order to get their way.

Did the republicans flee the state when the dems were in power? The unions, dems and leftists trash the Koch brothers, and the media and the BJ blogs go right along, but where's the indignation against the outside union support of the anarchy, where's the outrage against George Soros? And this whole bunch of crap about these 'tax breaks'... It's all a smear. If it was dems that passed these tax laws, they would be praised. Give me a break.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Here is an interesting take on tax reform.

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2 ... nster.html

Veronique de Rugy argues here that we should eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her points are fair enough, but if we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, I would instead suggest that we eliminate the traditional part instead and put everyone on the AMT. That would broaden the base, and allow us to lower the rate, which offers better incentives all the way around.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here is an interesting take on tax reform.

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2 ... nster.html

Veronique de Rugy argues here that we should eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her points are fair enough, but if we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, I would instead suggest that we eliminate the traditional part instead and put everyone on the AMT. That would broaden the base, and allow us to lower the rate, which offers better incentives all the way around.

If we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, why don't we go for a consumption tax, or the Fair Tax, which has been vetted by experts and would be difficult to **** around with for political and social engineering.

[Bob78164]

Here is an interesting take on tax reform.

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2 ... nster.html

Veronique de Rugy argues here that we should eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her points are fair enough, but if we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, I would instead suggest that we eliminate the traditional part instead and put everyone on the AMT. That would broaden the base, and allow us to lower the rate, which offers better incentives all the way around.

If we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, why don't we go for a consumption tax, or the Fair Tax, which has been vetted by experts and would be difficult to **** around with for political and social engineering.

For starters, a consumption tax is regressive. Low-income families necessarily spend all or almost all of their income, whereas higher earners do not. --Bob

[earendel]

Here is an interesting take on tax reform.

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2 ... nster.html

Veronique de Rugy argues here that we should eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her points are fair enough, but if we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, I would instead suggest that we eliminate the traditional part instead and put everyone on the AMT. That would broaden the base, and allow us to lower the rate, which offers better incentives all the way around.

If we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, why don't we go for a consumption tax, or the Fair Tax, which has been vetted by experts and would be difficult to **** around with for political and social engineering.

For another it would have a deleterious effect on charitable giving.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here is an interesting take on tax reform.

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2 ... nster.html

If we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, why don't we go for a consumption tax, or the Fair Tax, which has been vetted by experts and would be difficult to **** around with for political and social engineering.

For starters, a consumption tax is regressive. Low-income families necessarily spend all or almost all of their income, whereas higher earners do not. --Bob

Research the Fair Tax, sir.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here is an interesting take on tax reform.

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2 ... nster.html

If we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, why don't we go for a consumption tax, or the Fair Tax, which has been vetted by experts and would be difficult to **** around with for political and social engineering.

For another it would have a deleterious effect on charitable giving.

The tax code should not determine whether you give to charities or not.

[silverscreenselect]

The whole point is that a small cabal of Unionists, Democrats and media types are making a mockery of the election process in Wisconsin, simpley because they did not like the outcome of the last election, and they do not have the political power to stop the actions of the duly elected representatives by using the rules. So they are changing the rules, making up stuff and demagouging in order to get their way.

The Democrats did not change the rules. The rules regarding quorums and the recall laws were on the books. The Republicans took advantage of the recall laws in California to get Arnold Schwarzenegger elected.

Also, every corporation that does business in the State of Wisconsin, and every person living in Wisconsin gets the benefit of a wide variety of state services which they are obligated to pay for through the taxing process. "Keeping more of what you earned" really means "paying less for the services you are using."

[Bob Juch]

If we are going to argue for such a large move in the tax code, why don't we go for a consumption tax, or the Fair Tax, which has been vetted by experts and would be difficult to **** around with for political and social engineering.

For another it would have a deleterious effect on charitable giving.

The tax code should not determine whether you give to charities or not.

If people do not get a tax deduction for giving to charities then they will be able to give less thus the charities will be able to do less, then the Federal government will have to do more thus resulting in higher taxes.

[flockofseagulls104]

The whole point is that a small cabal of Unionists, Democrats and media types are making a mockery of the election process in Wisconsin, simpley because they did not like the outcome of the last election, and they do not have the political power to stop the actions of the duly elected representatives by using the rules. So they are changing the rules, making up stuff and demagouging in order to get their way.

The Democrats did not change the rules. The rules regarding quorums and the recall laws were on the books. The Republicans took advantage of the recall laws in California to get Arnold Schwarzenegger elected.

Also, every corporation that does business in the State of Wisconsin, and every person living in Wisconsin gets the benefit of a wide variety of state services which they are obligated to pay for through the taxing process. "Keeping more of what you earned" really means "paying less for the services you are using."

I disagree. When the mismanagers of the state commit to funding more services than they can possibly sustain in order to get reelected, there's a point where you need to cut the services. Wisconsin is at that point now (not to mention the federal government). Every business in every state gets the benefit of staying in business by making sure their revenue is equal or more than the cost they incur to produce their product or service. If they lose money by staying in business, there is no point in continuing. In most cases they cannot just arbitrailiy increase their prices without taking the risk that their volume of sales will decrease. Their option is to reduce their overhead and production costs in some way. Not so with the government in your mindset. The only option in your mind is for them to raise their prices (raising taxes). Which will decrease their volumne, as in more cases then not, it will discourage people from doing the things that will cause them to pay more taxes, if it's possible for them to do so.

This crap in Wisconsin is exactly what happens when the government tries to reign in the unsustainable. This is a manifestation of the "they will make Grandma eat dog food' syndrome.

[flockofseagulls104]

The whole point is that a small cabal of Unionists, Democrats and media types are making a mockery of the election process in Wisconsin, simpley because they did not like the outcome of the last election, and they do not have the political power to stop the actions of the duly elected representatives by using the rules. So they are changing the rules, making up stuff and demagouging in order to get their way.

The Democrats did not change the rules. The rules regarding quorums and the recall laws were on the books. The Republicans took advantage of the recall laws in California to get Arnold Schwarzenegger elected.

Also, every corporation that does business in the State of Wisconsin, and every person living in Wisconsin gets the benefit of a wide variety of state services which they are obligated to pay for through the taxing process. "Keeping more of what you earned" really means "paying less for the services you are using."

Tell me why the people of Wisconsin really need to provide 100% funding for teachers healthcare and retirement. Tell me why the state government needs to be stopped and recalled in order to preserve the teacher's unions power to extort benefits for teachers at the cost of the taxpayer (ie: you and me). Teachers that have no choice but to be represented by the union. These are not essential services that will hurt the poor. These are political kickbacks that need to be cut. And this is just one example. Sounds like the mafia to me. That's what this is about, not the Koch brothers, not 'tax breaks' for corporations. Those things are all smoke screens that several of you just buy into. Wake up.

[silverscreenselect]

The whole point is that a small cabal of Unionists, Democrats and media types are making a mockery of the election process in Wisconsin, simpley because they did not like the outcome of the last election, and they do not have the political power to stop the actions of the duly elected representatives by using the rules. So they are changing the rules, making up stuff and demagouging in order to get their way.

The Democrats did not change the rules. The rules regarding quorums and the recall laws were on the books. The Republicans took advantage of the recall laws in California to get Arnold Schwarzenegger elected.

Also, every corporation that does business in the State of Wisconsin, and every person living in Wisconsin gets the benefit of a wide variety of state services which they are obligated to pay for through the taxing process. "Keeping more of what you earned" really means "paying less for the services you are using."

Tell me why the people of Wisconsin really need to provide 100% funding for teachers healthcare and retirement. Tell me why the state government needs to be stopped and recalled in order to preserve the teacher's unions power to extort benefits for teachers at the cost of the taxpayer (ie: you and me).

The teachers earned that money and those benefits. In many cases, they took the jobs instead of higher paying jobs in the private sector because of those benefits. And that crap about how government employees are higher paid is an apples to oranges comparison. Government employees are higher paid because there aren't a ton of minimum wage service sector government jobs. The government doesn't run a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart. A survey here in Georgia showed that far more government employees had college degrees than private sector employees, and when you compared the salaries of college grads, the private sector paid 20% higher (government pensions did lower the overall compensation gap).

So the teachers took the jobs and spent varying portions of their careers in these jobs because of those benefits. And they understand and are willing to negotiate on giving some of that up. But the state of Wisconsin now wants them to pay the way for hundreds of businesses that are being given a tax break. The teachers earned the money and the benefits. They are willing to give some of that up. The businesses aren't being asked to pay higher taxes (which would be analogous to the teachers giving up some of their benefits). Instead, the state wants them to pay less for the services they are receiving. Why are businesses "better" than teachers in this regard?

[flockofseagulls104]

The Democrats did not change the rules. The rules regarding quorums and the recall laws were on the books. The Republicans took advantage of the recall laws in California to get Arnold Schwarzenegger elected.

Also, every corporation that does business in the State of Wisconsin, and every person living in Wisconsin gets the benefit of a wide variety of state services which they are obligated to pay for through the taxing process. "Keeping more of what you earned" really means "paying less for the services you are using."

Tell me why the people of Wisconsin really need to provide 100% funding for teachers healthcare and retirement. Tell me why the state government needs to be stopped and recalled in order to preserve the teacher's unions power to extort benefits for teachers at the cost of the taxpayer (ie: you and me).

The teachers earned that money and those benefits. In many cases, they took the jobs instead of higher paying jobs in the private sector because of those benefits. And that crap about how government employees are higher paid is an apples to oranges comparison. Government employees are higher paid because there aren't a ton of minimum wage service sector government jobs. The government doesn't run a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart. A survey here in Georgia showed that far more government employees had college degrees than private sector employees, and when you compared the salaries of college grads, the private sector paid 20% higher (government pensions did lower the overall compensation gap).

So the teachers took the jobs and spent varying portions of their careers in these jobs because of those benefits. And they understand and are willing to negotiate on giving some of that up. But the state of Wisconsin now wants them to pay the way for hundreds of businesses that are being given a tax break. The teachers earned the money and the benefits. They are willing to give some of that up. The businesses aren't being asked to pay higher taxes (which would be analogous to the teachers giving up some of their benefits). Instead, the state wants them to pay less for the services they are receiving. Why are businesses "better" than teachers in this regard?

It is like talking to a wall.
It is not about the teachers. It is about the unions.
Businesses don't pay taxes. They pass them on.
What essential services do the public sector unions provide us, the taxpayers?
Why is it impossible for the government to get more efficient in providing these 'services' that the businesses are paying for? (Which is what is being attempted by requiring the teachers to pay more of their share of their healthcare and retirement and reducing the extortion power of the unions.)
Businesses are revenue generators, teachers are staff (essential staff, but staff nonetheless). If you have less revenue generators, you can afford less staff. Instead of letting go staff, the state is trying to make it so they can afford to keep as much of the staff as possible by reducing expenses. You can smokescreen all you want and question the choices that are made, but this is one choice that is the correct one. I'm sure if they decided to reduce staff of police, fireman or any other staff under their control, you would have the same anarchy and demagouging by those who are effected. But at least the current legislature is showing the courage of addressing the problem in some way, instead of sweeping it under the rug, as their predecessors have all done.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm sure if they decided to reduce staff of police, fireman or any other staff under their control, you would have the same anarchy and demagouging by those who are effected.

Well, I guess if you lived in Wisconsin and your house burned down after the local fire department had laid off personnel and failed to buy new equipment you would just shrug your shoulders and say that's what's got to happen because we sure had to give some more tax breaks to private industry.

[silverscreenselect]

Businesses don't pay taxes. They pass them on.

And I guess business doesn't pay for supplies or materials or rent. They just pass them on as well. Tell that to our landlord or to Office Depot.

Businesses pass on the totality of their expenses in terms of prices. However, the market requires that each business' prices be in line with its competitors. So, if a business has any particular expense item that's higher that its competition (or would result in a price the customer would not pay), it either has to find a way to cut expenses in some other way or make do with a lower profit margin.

Your statement might be true ONLY if all businesses paid the same amount of taxes.

[flockofseagulls104]

Businesses don't pay taxes. They pass them on.

And I guess business doesn't pay for supplies or materials or rent. They just pass them on as well. Tell that to our landlord or to Office Depot.

Businesses pass on the totality of their expenses in terms of prices. However, the market requires that each business' prices be in line with its competitors. So, if a business has any particular expense item that's higher that its competition (or would result in a price the customer would not pay), it either has to find a way to cut expenses in some other way or make do with a lower profit margin.

Your statement might be true ONLY if all businesses paid the same amount of taxes.

Exactly. You are right on for once.

Now apply that to the government, except for the fact that it has no competitors. In your world view, that means they can just up their prices to support whatever activity they want to do. And in most cases, they want to do any activity that buys votes, keeps people happy and expands their power. That is what has to stop. The government needs to find ways to cut expenses and make do with a lower profit margin.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

There was something on the news last week about a judicial election that was supposed to be referendum on Gov. Walker, anybody hear how that turned out?

Meanwhile on tax policy.

How To Take A 100% Tax Write-Off For A New Porsche, BMW or Cadillac

[silverscreenselect]

There was something on the news last week about a judicial election that was supposed to be referendum on Gov. Walker, anybody hear how that turned out?

Meanwhile on tax policy.

How To Take A 100% Tax Write-Off For A New Porsche, BMW or Cadillac

The initial results indicated that the challenger, who ran against Walker's choice, was ahead by about 200 votes in very heavy voting (typically an off-year judicial runoff election gets very little interest). However, two days after the election, the Republican County Clerk of Waukesha claimed that there had been an error in the initial recording of the votes that resulted a substantial vote swing toward the incumbent who now appears to have won by 7500 votes. The final official tallies have not been certified (that's expected to happen later this week). Needless to say, Democrats are not happy and the whole thing seems headed to first a recount and than a possible lawsuit.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... s-distrust