[Updated 10:20 p.m., 10:57 p.m.] What with all the revelations about unattributed wording found on a consultant-written Mary Burke jobs plan, I went back to a 2012 posting (and others, below) I'd put together about Walker's jobs plan to look at his wording, too.
I carefully saved it in that posting because I was sure questions about his plan would crop up when he ran in 2014 and I wanted to make sure there was an accurate, transparent record available so we could get at the true facts towards the end of his term.
I'm sure Walker would take responsibility for making sure this kind of side-by-side analysis could be done easily with a mere keystroke or two.
Here is the link to my 2012 posting, and I will cut-and-paste and italicize some paragraphs with links to Walker's plan that will tell you everything you need to know about its details and effectiveness, and how it sizes up against Burke's plan, since Walker's people are attacking her plan's integrity.
Just click through the links to his plan, as I copied and highlighted them:
It's the plan his campaign posted in 58-point type to expand it to one 'page' longer than Democratic rival Tom Barrett's actual 67-page plan.
You can click through to Walker's plan where I've italicized the link from that posting at "jobs plan."
Just click on "Sources: Campaign news release" at the top of that page:
I carefully saved it in that posting because I was sure questions about his plan would crop up when he ran in 2014 and I wanted to make sure there was an accurate, transparent record available so we could get at the true facts towards the end of his term.
I'm sure Walker would take responsibility for making sure this kind of side-by-side analysis could be done easily with a mere keystroke or two.
Here is the link to my 2012 posting, and I will cut-and-paste and italicize some paragraphs with links to Walker's plan that will tell you everything you need to know about its details and effectiveness, and how it sizes up against Burke's plan, since Walker's people are attacking her plan's integrity.
Just click through the links to his plan, as I copied and highlighted them:
You won't find his failing 250,000 new jobs' pledge (and 10,000 new businesses, too!) under "Issues," and "Putting Wisconsin Back To Work."
But you can find the pledge on the 17th of 19 pages at the "Press Releases" link:
I've posted about it several times...and this is where on his site to find it...Good news. I'd posted a link lifted (can I say that?) right from his campaign website in 2011, so here's a really easy route to it at "Download Scott's Plan:
That [the 10,000 new businesses pledge]was on his campaign website: [word echo "to to" in the original]
More good news: I'd pasted a link even earlier to Walker's 68-page economic plan from his 2010 campaign.Scott’s Plan to to Help the People of Wisconsin Create 250,000 JobsDownload Scott's Plan
It's the plan his campaign posted in 58-point type to expand it to one 'page' longer than Democratic rival Tom Barrett's actual 67-page plan.
You can click through to Walker's plan where I've italicized the link from that posting at "jobs plan."
Scott Walker's embarrassingly thin (but in HUGE type, with a dozen or so words on each page to stretch to 68 'pages,' or one more than Tom Barrett's longer-standing, detailed, 67-real pages plan.
Remember triple-spacing term papers, or writing on one side of the page only in blue books)? Jobs plan reminds us again of the real Walker goal...Even Better Good news: PolitiFact has been carrying a link for many months on its recurring posting about Walker's jobs pledge - - which was the precursor to his plan and its promised outcome.
Just click on "Sources: Campaign news release" at the top of that page:
Create 250,000 new jobs.
Will "get government out of the way of employers ... who will then help Wisconsin create 250,000 jobs by 2015, and as we create those new jobs, we will be able to add 10,000 new businesses.”
Sources: Campaign news releaseGood thing we have these multiple references and sites so we can read, track and assess the development and quality of Walker's wording.
Sorry, Bice is apparently only reporting on GOP claims against Dems these days. He's strangely uninterested in the Walker boys' an. Almost like he's intentionally ignoring it, or is being told to ignore it by the J-S bosses.
ReplyDeleteTime to counterpunch with the truth, since our media won't do its job