Get benefits after 1-year residency

I object to taxpayers in Wisconsin having to support through welfare people who come into our state because of our high benefits.

I suggest that no one be eligible for welfare until they've proven residency in Wisconsin for at least one year. This should be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, and disqualify some persons who may now be receiving welfare.

-- James Vance, Fort Atkinson

Try sweat equity, volunteer credits

Wisconsin needs to pitch in to help these low-income families.

I lived in Chicago in the late 1980s and witnessed firsthand the mess the city made trying to "take care of" their low-income families. They built high-rise apartments for families that became crime zones. The high-rises were never maintained and were not suitable for families with small children.

Chicago needs help to clean up its mess, and I think Wisconsin should be one of the neighboring states to pitch in.

Instead of relying on taxes to fund low-income individuals, Wisconsin should require work and sweat equity from those participating.

Providing individuals free provisions and housing is just enabling them to continue their low-income status. In this life there is no "free lunch." If they do not have the abilities to work, then they need to be supported by a different program.

Wisconsin should also encourage its residents to volunteer to help in the ways they can. This could be accomplished by allowing individuals a tax break for the number of hours served. Instead of giving money, residents could give time in support for low-income families.

-- Claire Falk Wells, New Glarus

Welfare migrants taking us for a ride

Yes, lawmakers should consider ways of reducing low-income migrants. There aren't that many jobs here for one thing. We have had a lot more crime here. We also have a lot of people wandering around the city not worrying about working.

I have heard young women on my bus talking about getting welfare in Madison and Chicago and Detroit and Minneapolis. I think we're being taken for a ride.

-- Tim Lovick, Madison

Opportunity draws people here, too

Sunday Forum columnist Tom Hefty's supposition that Wisconsin is a welfare magnet is a tired theory.

Hefty cites parsed reports that conveniently ignore opportunity as the rationale for people moving to Wisconsin. As parroted by Hefty, past commentators and fear mongers raised public scorn for newcomers based on ignorance and xenophobia.

Sadly, plutocrats motivated by greed disregard social responsibility and act on their unfounded fears to selfishly protect their sacred portfolios. Wisconsin can do without such corporate profiteers who only expect tax havens and reject our history of support for people.

Schools, roads, public safety and even health care are part of our greater societal responsibilities. Immigrant families from near and far were always a backbone of our workforce. Perhaps Hefty's own ancestors faced the sting of intolerance yet persevered to find opportunities here.

In Wisconsin, hard work and the ideal of equal opportunity underpin our aspiring meritocracy model. Our policies should act as a catalyst for Wisconsinites as well as newcomers to climb the economic ladder.

-- Bobby Peterson, Madison

Welfare not meant for able-bodied

Wisconsin must make serious revisions to its welfare system to make it comparable to our neighbor Illinois. History has already proven our welfare system acts as a magnet, but it has not attracted teachers, doctors, lawyers or hard-working individuals.

Evidence shows it has attracted individuals to areas of our city prone to problems. If we want more neighborhoods like these, our current system will continue to supply them.

My experience is limited to Madison, but I assume Milwaukee and other Wisconsin cities have experienced the same problems.

I visualize a welfare system that provides for the truly disabled or elderly people in need, but not for able-bodied people who choose not to work. If we support the able-bodied, they lose self-esteem and confidence, and it adds to the taxpayers' obligations.

-- Ivan Bruner, Madison

Correlation may not be causation

I was struck by Tom Hefty's failure to heed a basic lesson I learned in my college statistics class: "correlation does not imply causation."

His article seems to assume that because Wisconsin offers generous welfare benefits and we are seeing an increase in low-income population, low-income people must be moving to Wisconsin for those benefits.

But, nothing in the article demonstrates that the generous welfare benefits are why these low-income people are moving to Wisconsin.

Could this just be a coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

If Wisconsin is to ensure we have a 21st century economy that attracts high-paying jobs and educated individuals, we must also ensure we understand why we're currently not attracting those jobs and individuals.

Assuming a link between welfare benefits and lower-income migrants into the state does not promote the debate. Solid scientific research does.

-- Andrea Dannenberg, Madison

Correct the balance of givers to takers

Yes, lawmakers should reduce the in-migration of low-income individuals.

Most economies (those without abundant natural resources) remain healthy only when tax revenue generation is in balance with tax revenue consumption. The Princeton study quoted describes Wisconsin as "more attractive to low-income individuals than to high-income earners" and ranks us third in this "negative correlation" among all the states.

Doesn't the need to reverse the trend seem pretty obvious? Unfortunately, such reversal is not obvious when political power is the real goal, rather than keeping the private sector (tax revenue generators) and public sector (tax revenue consumers) in balance.

Liberal political power is based on enlarging the number of government dependents, including minimizing taxes and increasing transfer payments. The perfect liberal class warfare battle is when the users outnumber (and out vote) the generators, resulting in a permanent power balance advantage. That is, until the generators vote with their feet and leave the state, which is the conclusion of the Princeton study.

It's time to re-balance Wisconsin as more attractive to high-income earners and less attractive to low-income individuals.

-- Brad Taylor, Madison

Work together to save entire industry

As an employee of a GM dealership, the success of the American auto industry is important to me.

It's true that U.S. automakers have not always made the best business decisions, but in recent years the products are better quality, deliver better fuel economy and offer great value for dollars spent. (Visit GMfactsandfiction.com for more information.)

When the CEOs went before the Senate, they could have thought more about the image they projected by flying on their private jets. But that is not the main problem. I take offense over the demeaning behavior towards the CEOs and the workers they represent.

Don't forget that when automakers lose billions, it is their own money and that of the stockholders.

When lawmakers spend billions and keep this country in debt, it is the U.S. taxpayers' money which we have no choice about supplying to them.

It's time we all work together to do what is best for all. Have faith in American industry, support it by buying products when you can, and let your lawmakers know that loans to U.S. automakers must happen quickly.

Loans will be paid back, unlike the billions spent on government handouts that have plagued us for decades.

-- Wayne Segner, Monroe

Still room for more skilled auto workers

The Big Three automakers have been given an opportunity to get themselves out of trouble by coming up with a good business plan to present to Congress. The problem is they may not know how to create a "good business" plan. If they did, they might not be in the predicament they're in.

They will come back with a plan that will have little change from current business. They'll whine to Congress that the banking industry was given $700 billion and faced no scrutiny, so why are they picking on the auto industry?

If the Big Three went belly-up tomorrow, it would leave a lot of people without jobs, but that may only be temporary. Big Three car-buyers still need cars, which opens a whole new market for the other car manufacturers.

To meet the market void, these other manufacturers will have to step up production, which means more facilities and jobs which can be filled by the workers from the Big Three.

They may have to make some concessions, but in the long run they'll be back doing what they know best, with companies that are capable of foreseeing the future and manufacturing cars that will keep them employed for many years to come.

-- John Mauritz, Madison

Why can't America invest in its workers?

Why is it so tough for our elected officials to help the U.S. auto industry? This would save thousands of American jobs, yet they have no problem giving billions to greedy financial companies.

If we gave them the $25 billion loan, what they do with the money should be monitored. We are dumping hundreds of billions in the collapsing Wall Street world, with no guarantees and none of that money is going to the consumers in trouble.

Some people say these blue collar auto workers make too much and are overcompensated for their work. Would they be happier if everyone in this country made minimum wages?

We are one of the few countries that let foreign companies come in and build factories to run our own American companies out of business. We also let our companies move their factories overseas for cheaper labor, then bring the goods back into the U.S. with no penalty. Why?

What a great bunch of leaders we have in power. I'm sure their pockets are well lined for their efforts. When is this country going to reinvest in our own American workers?

-- Pat Walsh, Sun Prairie

Our senators have it almost right

The U.S. auto manufacturers do need bailouts, but with stringent contractual conditions. Specifically, no bailout money should be advanced unless:

None of the funds go to the remuneration of the top executives. Further, management's salaries are frozen or cut, and bonuses are eliminated until operations are profitable. Executives responsible for creating overweight, gas-guzzling, global warming cars and trucks deserve none of the bailout.

The companies agree to produce by the 2012 model year at reasonable prices all the advanced electric (e.g. the EV1) and hybrid vehicles that consumers want, and agree to progressively surcharge fuel-inefficient cars (getting less than 30 mpg) immediately.

The companies agree contractually to give the U.S. Treasury the same bailout sum in first-preferred stock. The public deserves a grip on their assets.

Union members agree to work on a level field with the rest of America's workers regarding retirement and benefits.

Do we believe capitalism works well when times are good? In bailouts, the Uncle with deep pockets needs to administer tough love to reform the status quo.

-- Philip B. Leavenworth, Mount Horeb