Wisconsin Protests

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just pointing out that it's not a new idea.

Okey dokey, fair enough.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The point is that the number is completely useless. National surveys are irrelevant when it comes to State issues.

It suits the desperately shallow arguments of anti-union types to think so, but if the numbers were the other way round, I'm reasonably certain they'd be citing them as evidence of how wrong and out of sync with national public opinion the teachers are. I'd be interested to see the results of a non-partisan poll in Wisconsin but since I believe the assault on collective bargaining is also being tried in other states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Idaho, and Tennessee, for the last time, the poll is not useless. National public opinion does matter.

I notice that members of the Green Bay Packers have come out and publicly supported the teachers.

Tom Crabtree was asked on twitter why he hadn't done so and he responded.

because i dont like to get into politics on Twitter. But i fully support wi unions and i think Gov. Walker is out of his damn mind.

Good on you big man.

cheesehead

Sgt. Sensible, as a present resident (but not native) of Wisconsin, upon moving here I learned very early on never to underestimate the power of the Green Bay Packers.

If you may, a story: My wife and I flew into Green Bay for my job interview (me to interview and her to check out the area). We checked into a local hotel and turned on the 6 o'clock local evening news. The US had just started their ground assault of Iraq (2nd war). The lead news story that evening - the Green Bay Packers players take on the ground assault in Iraq. They proceeded to interview two offensive linemen (granted one was a graduate of the US Naval Academy) on their views of the ground offensive. I knew right then I was a long way from the New York City metropolitan area (our home base).

So I don't underestimate the power of a back-up tight end (Crabtree) to influence the process.

That said, it is interesting the popular unrest against public-sector unions currently emerging in this country is originating here in the heartland. If only that popular unrest would also be increasingly directed against Wall Street, the banking industry, the regulators and the New York City - Washington D.C. power-nexus in general, then we might be on to something. That type of unrest might be coming (I hope it is), because clearly those on the coasts are not going to lead that type of needed action.

Manic Moran

I'd be interested to see the results of a non-partisan poll in Wisconsin but since I believe the assault on collective bargaining is also being tried in other states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Idaho, and Tennessee, for the last time, the poll is not useless. National public opinion does matter.

I'm not sure you entirely comprehend how the difference between State and Federal entities work. The residents of New Hampshire are so certain about their rights with respect to firearms that when one politician dared to suggest that they be prohibited from attending the legislative sessions whilst wearing them, they booted her out of office. It is highly unlikely that the denizens of the nation as a whole would be of that mind, but New Hampshireites don't care. The number of people in New York City alone who oppose Vermont's rather liberal carry laws probably outnumbers the entire population of Vermont. So what? They want to affect Vermont's laws, go live in Vermont.

NTM

BluePlanet

“Hundreds of cops have just marched into the Wisconsin state capitol building to protest the anti-Union bill, to massive applause. They now join up to 600 people who are inside.”
Ryan reported on his Facebook page earlier today:

“Police have just announced to the crowds inside the occupied State Capitol of Wisconsin: ‘We have been ordered by the legislature to kick you all out at 4:00 today. But we know what’s right from wrong. We will not be kicking anyone out, in fact, we will be sleeping here with you!’ Unreal.”

http://understory.ran.org/2011/02/25/breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/
Not sure if it's accurate, but sounds promising.

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

http://understory.ran.org/2011/02/25/breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol/
Not sure if it's accurate, but sounds promising.

http://www.google.com/search?q=We+will+not+be+kicking+anyone+out&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Good chance of that.

southsiderosie

cheesehead wrote: »

Many view this as a matter of math. We simply can't continue to fully fund pension benefits and medical benefits for retired public workers.

My only complaint: Why didn't Walker include Police/Fire Unions in the bill (presently they are exempt). To me, that does smack of purely politics. Perhaps once this bill passes (and my prediction is it will), Walker will then go after the Police/Fire Unions.

Amerika wrote: »

No... for the union bosses, it seems to really be all about the dues money. For the Governor of WI, it is all about dealing with a budget deficit.

The unions have agreed to make their members contribute to health care and pension costs. The only issue left on the table is collective bargaining. The fact that the governor is still a) pushing the bill and b) did not include all unions in his original condemnation of spending suggests that this is not about the budget AT ALL.

In addition, the bill has language giving the government the power to make massive cuts to health services in committee, rather than before the entire legislature, and language that would make it easier to make executive (rather than legislative) decisions to privatize state services and businesses. In short, the entire bill reads like a right-wing idealogue's wet dream. Ultimately this bill has very little to do with the budget and everything to do with using an economic crisis to enact the kinds of privatization plans and cuts to low-income public services that would be nearly impossible if enacted in the full light of day.

Amerika

A one-time giveback means little! Governors like Walker understand that, and understand the need to have long-term fixes to head off disaster caused by unsustainable public-union pensions and benefits. WI’s $3.6 billion shortfall, which will be realized over the next two years, didn’t just suddenly appear. It came about largely from years of irresponsibility regarding collective bargaining on public-union pensions and benefits… those expenses which come due long after the politicians who negotiated them are out of office.

I shake my head in disbelief when I hear people claiming collective bargaining as a "Right.” It isn’t manna from heaven people. As a matter of fact, some states don’t even allow collective bargaining.

Have a gander at this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903132.html
So let's be honest... where would you rather live?

It’s a sad state of affairs that there isn't greater outrage. Public unions are one of the Democratic Party's largest donors, and they form the groundwork core of the Democratic campaign machine. Can’t people see that it's a conflict of interest for the public unions to bargain with the same politicians they've donated to during an election campaign? Especially when those politicians doing the negotiating have no financial stake in the outcome of the agreements they make.

The other part of the topic's opening post has to do with WI Senate members leaving the state and refusing to do the job they were elected for. I understand Indiana senators are now doing the same. Can you imagine if this becomes the legislative norm. Running away from your responsibility just because you don’t like it. I don’t understand why the people don’t storm the statehouses with pitchforks and torches, to tar and feather these politicians who refuse to do the job they are elected for. Democrats and President Obama should be ashamed. Look at Obama’s refusal to defend the Defense Of Marriage Act because he feels it is unconstitutional. Imagine if the next president decides to do the same with Roe vs Wade or Civil Rights legislation… to refuse to defend them because he or she feels it is unconstitutional. My god! Obama and the Democrats must do the job they were elected for, which includes defending our laws. If they won’t, then they should leave office, or be removed.

BluePlanet

Seems largely to be a "budget crisis" Scott Walker helped create via tax cuts to his supporters.

The public sector employees have already agreed to cuts. The only remaining obstacle - collective bargaining rights, has no effect on the actual budget. No actual savings to be made from it's passage.

The wisconsin democratic senators are probably doing the right thing to stay away. This governor has only been in charge for something like 2 months and he's already polarized the place.
I rather fancy the electoral chances of those democratic senators should a Recall election be held.
Can't express the same confidence in a Recall election for the governor tho.

2 months into the job and he's caused of all this?

I also read he said he'd turn down a federal Dept of Transportation grant to build a "high speed" (by american standards) rail line between Madison and Milwaukee.
Bizarre, you'd think a business minded fella could figure out a way to benefit from an infastructure project the state doesn't even have to pay to build.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

The wisconsin democratic senators are probably doing the right thing to stay away.

So you would be good with this ploy being utilized by either party, Democrat or Republican, whenever either feels it would benefit their cause? Maybe we should take it a step further and start shirking our responsibilities that we don’t like or agree with... like following traffic laws, paying taxes, and ignoring the rules at boards.ie.

BluePlanet

No, i would rather Scott Walker did the obvious thing and compromise.

Like i said, at this point it's he and his backers that appear more likely to loose with a Recall election than the dems.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

Like i said, at this point it's he and his backers that appear more likely to loose with a Recall election than the dems.

Under the same light, I could say I’m glad to see recall efforts already underway for several of the MIA Democrat senators because of their efforts to protect their union backers, which ensures their campaign coffers remain well stocked for the next election... at the expense of taxpayers of course.

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Under the same light, I could say I’m glad to see recall efforts already underway for several of the MIA Democrat senators because of their efforts to protect their union backers, which ensures their campaign coffers remain well stocked for the next election... at the expense of taxpayers of course.

So are you conceding this isn't so much about the Budget, as it is a partisan attack on working families and "the democrats"?

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

So are you conceding this isn't so much about the Budget, as it is a partisan attack on working families and "the democrats"?

How did you get that from: "Governors like Walker understand that, and understand the need to have long-term fixes to head off disaster caused by unsustainable public-union pensions and benefits."

And how does the WEA Trust, which has a monopoly on health insurance, benefit education, or as you put it "a partisan attack on working families" more so than just filling their own coffers?

A prime example of why public-union collective bargaining on fringe benefits should be eliminated.
http://www.neaexposed.com/weacexposed/documents/WEATrustfinalreport.pdf

BluePlanet

What, a "report" prepared by right wing hacks The MacIver Institute and the EducationAction Group ?

Don't waste my time.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

What, a "report" prepared by right wing hacks The MacIver Institute and the EducationAction Group ?

Don't waste my time.

I guess when you can’t refute the facts, it's best to deny the messenger, eh?

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

I guess when you can’t refute the "facts", it's best to deny the messenger, eh?

Fixed that for you

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I guess when you can’t refudiate the "facts", it's best to deny the messenger, eh?

Fixed?

You've thrown up a PDF with little summary. Care to excerpt relevant data to your argument? Linking to large format files without summation or context does not constitute Discussion.

PDF wrote:

This is by no means a scientific study. This is a report, based on a review of insurance data
from school districts throughout Wisconsin, many interviews with school personnel and state
officials, and research of local press clippings and other relevant material.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

Fixed that for you

Okay then, how about you prove something wrong in the report. It shouldn’t be too hard to come up with a whole myriad of errors, as it is 22 pages long.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Okay then, how about you prove something wrong in the report. It shouldn’t be too hard to come up with a whole myriad of errors, as it is 22 pages long.

I'm sure theres a word for this flaccid type of debate tactic: Throw up information with no context, expect everyone to pore through it and discern what point you were trying to get across in the first place, then ask people to refute it?

Perhaps you could instead humour me by stating, plainly, what point you are trying to convey. Currently all I see is a PDF file with no connective context to this thread.

Seeing how it is in fact 22 pages long could you perhaps take 20 seconds to summarize what information you would like the other participants in this thread to discern from the PDF you have presented? I find it simply good manners to make yourself clear, and concise. With an emphasis on concise.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Fixed?

You've thrown up a PDF with little summary. Care to excerpt relevant data to your argument? Linking to large format files without summation or context does not constitute Discussion.

First, that's not my quote you quoted.

For the second part. Here is a section of the report that pretty much sums up the whole thing (at least to me). And you could have waited a little longer than 10 minutes for me to get what you wanted before you started to complain!

One scenario occurred in 2006 in the Kenosha school district, according to the Small Business Times. The school board, facing a $7.2 million deficit, gave preliminary layoff notices to 142 teachers. Much of the deficit was related to soaring health insurance costs, and WEA Trust had just handed the district notice of a 20 percent increase for the following year.

School administrators responded to this crisis by sending out a request for insurance bids. One company came back with a bid that would only increase district costs by 2.8 percent the following year while maintaining most of the employee benefits. The district’s non-instructional employees accepted the plan, saving the district about $3 million. But the teachers union refused to budge, dashing hopes for another $3 million in savings.

As a result, 40 teachers were laid off.

One angry resident of the district was quoted as saying, “It blows my mind when someone is presented with a (insurance) program that duplicates what they have, protects someone else’s job, provides a better education for kids and no one is the worse for it, but they say no because this is not the union insurance plan, which has become a monopoly in Wisconsin.”

I hope that helps explain some of the problems with collective bargaining. I think the governor is using information in this report in part as a reason to eliminate collective bargaining.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

NTM

I only find these posters offensive in how ignorant they are. I can't think of how the Governor compares to Hitler, or a Terrorist.

Speaking of ignorance: these are teachers, right?

Overheal

I hope that helps.

It does, greatly. You mentioned a prime example but goodness if I was going to root through such a large document comprised of several examples and data sets to pick and choose from. That however is a fair example of how unionization can be a considerable problem. Now people can rebut in the same context, finding instances where unionization of healthcare actually saved jobs and money.


...

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

So you would be good with this ploy being utilized by either party, Democrat or Republican, whenever either feels it would benefit their cause? Maybe we should take it a step further and start shirking our responsibilities that we don’t like or agree with... like following traffic laws, paying taxes, and ignoring the rules at boards.ie.

I don't see this as any different than a filibuster on the floor of the US Senate: a quirk in procedural rules that prevent legislation from going to a full vote. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, the use of procedural delay tactics is nothing new or exciting in American politics.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't see this as any different than a filibuster on the floor of the US Senate: a quirk in procedural rules that prevent legislation from going to a full vote. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, the use of procedural delay tactics is nothing new or exciting in American politics.

There is a huge difference between a filibuster and a fleebuster. The biggest is that one involves doing your job, the other does not.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't see this as any different than a filibuster on the floor of the US Senate: a quirk in procedural rules that prevent legislation from going to a full vote. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, the use of procedural delay tactics is nothing new or exciting in American politics.

Agreeing or Disagreeing with such politics seems rather instrumental here though don't you think? To say that its regardless - it's not.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Now people can rebut in the same context, finding instances where unionization of healthcare actually saved jobs and money.

*crickets chirp*
(To have a joke or comment followed by a silence substantial enough to make the chirping of crickets audible. The idea is that you can only hear crickets when there are no other sounds, such as conversation or laughter. Often used to denote the awkward pause after a bad joke.)

I gave a little more time than Overheal before I commented.

But I’ll take a shot at it. It’s both a rather funny and sad comment (some might say an oxymoron). Funny in the sense that with the pure numbers of teachers, the WEA should be able to negoiate great relatively inexpensive prices for health care coverage - but by their pricing, seemingly don't. Sad because they probably do, but charge the most expensive rates for their coverage to school districts - taxpayers.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a filibuster and a fleebuster. The biggest is that one involves doing your job, the other does not.

How does blockign a vote count as not doing your job? Most voters don't elect senators to stand on the floor and read the phonebook, but it is a legislative delay tactic. Particularly for opposition parties, blocking objectionable legislation is seen as part and parcel of their job as legislators. Filibustering and denying a quorum have the same effect, and neither is illegal.

Overheal wrote: »

Agreeing or Disagreeing with such politics seems rather instrumental here though don't you think? To say that its regardless - it's not.

I don't think I get your question. Procedural delays have a long and often sorry history in the US, most notably around civil rights legislation. But they are not unprecedented, which is why I don't see the Wisconsin delay tactics as particularly outlandish.

cheesehead

Southsiderosie writes: "The only issue left on the table is collective bargaining rights"

A rebuttal: While CBA rights certainly are an issue the public sector unions feel strongly about, there is another issue on the table - From today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Critics of Walker's budget-repair bill say it would mean less union money for Democrats. That's because the legislation would end automatic payroll deductions for dues and would allow public employees to opt out of belonging to a union.

Full Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article at the link:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117078618.html

I truly believe this is a valid point. The fact the State would no longer premptively deduct the union dues with automatic payroll deductions and the employee would receive their actual salary and the Union would have to collect the money from their members does not sit well with the public sector unions.

Argue about CBA rights being taken away all you want, that's a valid issue,
just not the only issue left on the table.

In response to Memnoch's argument: "Either people should have the right to bargain collectively or they shouldn't, that's the principle at stake here. I stand firmly behind the right of people to democratically band together in order to protect their rights. Removing this right is a fundamental blow to the idea of basic democracy."

From Robert Barro (Professor of Economics at Harvard) in today's Wall Street Journal:

"Labor unions like to portray collective bargaining as a basic civil liberty, akin to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion. For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty."

Full article from 2/28/11 Wall Street Journal at the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166011983939364.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

BluePlanet

[QUOTE=cheesehead;70928155end automatic payroll deductions for dues and would allow public employees to opt out of belonging to a union.[/QUOTE]
But i don't think anyone actually defends the current practice of automatic payroll deduction for union dues. In fact, ending it is something you hear on this side of the pond in our system as well.

Let union members setup automatic direct debit via their bank. I think just about all unions in the private sector do this already.

BluePlanet

Wisconsin voters would not elect Gov. Walker in retrospect: poll

If voters in Wisconsin could repeat the 2010 gubernatorial election, the majority would support defeated Democratic nominee Tom Barrett over Republican Scott Walker, according to a report [PDF] by Public Policy Polling.
Fifty-two percent of the 768 registered Wisconsin voters surveyed said they would vote for Barrett if they could do last fall’s election for governor over again. Forty-five percent said they would vote for Walker and four percent were uncertain.

"The difference between how folks would vote now and how they voted in November can almost all be attributed to shifts within union households," Tom Jensen of PPP explained. "Voters who are not part of union households have barely shifted at all - they report having voted for Walker by 7 points last fall and they still say they would vote for Walker by a 4 point margin."
"But in households where there is a union member voters now say they'd go for Barrett by a 31 point margin, up quite a bit from the 14 point advantage they report having given him in November."

A major contribution to Walker's victory, according to Jensen, was the amount of Democratic voters who did not vote in November. But with the media spotlight enlivening Wisconsin's political landscape, Gov. Walker is unlikely to face apathetic voters again.
"Those sleeping dogs aren't lying any more though and when you combine the reinvigoration of the base with GOP union households trending back toward the Democrats, Walker seems to have severely hurt his party's chances of building on their gains from 2010 next year," Jensen concluded.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/28/wisconsin-voters-would-not-elect-gov-walker-in-retrospect-poll/

All my wisconsin friends on Facebook are calling for his head.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Filibustering and denying a quorum have the same effect, and neither is illegal.

Although taking the cowards way out and refusing to do ones job for which they were elected for, which will cost the taxpayers $165 million due to the inability to restructure debt, result in reduced services, and cause as many as 12,000 layoffs isn’t illegal... It should be!

Priceless!
http://www.youtube.com/user/gorockfordregion#p/u/0/QwcVHyk3FBE

And good for the WI republicans who now are pushing through a voter ID bill (which Democrats strongly oppose), with spending provisions removed giving it the ability to pass without Democratic lawmakers present. Maybe all those dead people who show up to vote for Democrats will finally get stiffed. Actions have consequences. If the Democrats refuse to participate in the process, then they shouldn’t complain about the consequences. But of course they will, as immature children don’t expect to be held accountable for their actions.

And yes, Walker might only see one term. I have seen it happen numerous times at the Governor level. Blue states elect a Republican governor to do the tough things and correct the mismanagement of years of losey Democrat governorships. The Republican Governors are vilified and hated as they make the hard choices to get states back in fiscal shape. Then once a state starts to see light at the end of the fiscal tunnel, they put Democrats back in office to repeat the cycle all over again. It just happened in my state. People here have been afraid - so they elected a Repbulican, and still don’t know all the ramifications that will happen in the next few years from Fast Eddies' giving the farm away in fringe benefits to public unions - with the bills conveniently coming due after his term has ended. I recently spoke to my state representative... and she is scared $hittle$$ over how our fiscal shape will look in two years if nothing is done now (or face incredible tax increases). So our newly elected Republican governor will also have to make the tough choices currently facing California, New York and Wisconsin. And of course will be hated publically for his actions, but privately respected for doing what needs to be done. But in the end, no matter how well a job he does, I still expect to see another big city loving, entitlement driven Democrat governor elected in one or two terms.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

I also read he said he'd turn down a federal Dept of Transportation grant to build a "high speed" (by american standards) rail line between Madison and Milwaukee.
Bizarre, you'd think a business minded fella could figure out a way to benefit from an infastructure project the state doesn't even have to pay to build.

Not bizarre at all. Maybe Governor Walker has qualms about the Obama administration’s “damn-the-arithmetic-full-speed-ahead” proposal. Maybe he is reluctant to expose his state from paying the standard large amounts of money likely required for construction overruns, along with operating subsidies when those lofty rider projections are proven to be pie-in-the-sky numbers. And maybe he fears vast numbers of people might not be so overly eager to pay higher rail costs than airfare, in order to travel at much slower speeds.

But fear not, the Obama administration will undoubtedly find other states readily willing to waste our money. California anyone?

(special thanks to George Will)

BluePlanet

Oh i'm sure if Obama just took a small slice of that Defense budget and used it to fund social projects and transportation infastructure, it'd be paid for handily enough.


So, what gets your goat about the Wisconsin protests?
For me, i know people there and I see images of mass protests of people concerned about loosing their rights. Rights that were hard won.

What's in it for you? Just don't like to see dems get uppity?

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

So, what gets your goat about the Wisconsin protests?
For me, i know people there and I see images of mass protests of people concerned about loosing their rights. Rights that were hard won.

Hard won? I take it you’ve never had your and your family’s life and welfare threatened by union thugs during bitter negotiations, having to make Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson your best friend on the advice of the police.

Am I soured towards unions... you betcha.

Manic Moran

How does blockign a vote count as not doing your job? Most voters don't elect senators to stand on the floor and read the phonebook, but it is a legislative delay tactic. Particularly for opposition parties, blocking objectionable legislation is seen as part and parcel of their job as legislators. Filibustering and denying a quorum have the same effect, and neither is illegal.

I'm going to disagree with your premise. A fillibuster is working within the rules of the House*. All members are present, the house's business continues. The quorum rules, however, were not put into place to enable boycotts (though they do have that effect), they were put into place so that if there were circumstances resulting in involuntary absence, a smaller than desired representation of representatives could not legislate State policy.

Or, in other words, the one is conducting the business of the House (and yes, filibustering is part of this, even if it's not very productive in real terms), the other is preventing the House from doing any business at all in the first place.

NTM

*Used generically, to cover any legislative body

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Am I soured towards unions... you betcha.

Right, so you're really here to soapbox union busting, all that crap about the budget deficit is just the nearest excuse.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

Right, so you're really here to soapbox union busting, all that crap about the budget deficit is just the nearest excuse.

If rallying against the greed, excesses, politician buying, and shady tactics of public unions - which has put many states into financial Armageddon at the cost of the taxpayers, is considered soapboxing... then okay. Then we all should be soapboxing!

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

If rallying against the greed, excesses, politician buying, and shady tactics of public unions - which has put many states into financial Armageddon at the cost of the taxpayers, is considered soapboxing... then okay. Then we all should be soapboxing!

Do you have a similar issue with billionaires who use their influence also?
What do you think about privatising rescources with no bid contracts to donors?

BluePlanet

FYI some details on Walker's budget can be found here:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117154428.html

RichieC

Sgt. Sensible wrote: »

It suits the desperately shallow arguments of anti-union types to think so, but if the numbers were the other way round, I'm reasonably certain they'd be citing them as evidence of how wrong and out of sync with national public opinion the teachers are. I'd be interested to see the results of a non-partisan poll in Wisconsin but since I believe the assault on collective bargaining is also being tried in other states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Idaho, and Tennessee, for the last time, the poll is not useless. National public opinion does matter.

Polls only matter to the right when they agree with them.

Remember Bush? the Decider!!! strong man!

then Obama gets in they're howling about poll numbers where his health care plan was concerned.

you're wasting your time debating them.

Overheal

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh i'm sure if Obama just took a small slice of that Defense budget and used it to fund social projects and transportation infastructure, it'd be paid for handily enough.

I question how many social projects the government should be funding, anyway.

20Cent wrote: »

Do you have a similar issue with billionaires who use their influence also?
What do you think about privatising rescources with no bid contracts to donors?

Thats a rather large red herring, isn't it? A completely different discussion in fact.

Rather, it's the Union in this case which is awarding a No-Bid contract to their bum chums at this Insurance company. All attempts to award the service to another insurance company with a lower bid have been blocked by the unions.

I guess the question really becomes do you have a problem with no-bid contracts?

BluePlanet

Apparently Scott Walker has claimed that he's only doing today what he campaigned for, but this lengthy article makes the case that that is FALSE

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Do you have a similar issue with billionaires who use their influence also?
What do you think about privatising rescources with no bid contracts to donors?

The answer to both is... Depending on the circumstances, sometimes I have a problem with it.

But lets not dwell on “apples and oranges.”

And back to the topic... Will Governor Scott Walker go nuclear?

Governor Walker has at his disposal Article 8, Section 8 of the Wisconsin State Constitution.

Basically, it allows non-fiscal bills to be passed by a simple majority of state legislators. So if the Governor removes the collective bargaining section from the budget and puts it forward as it's own separate bill, it could be passed by a simple majority.

This had dragged on long enough, and the circus has run its course. Walker should forget about letting fleebuster Democrat Senators try and save face, and launch the dang football. Green Bay Packer fans should appreciate that. ("football" is slang for the briefcase that travels with the US President and contains the codes for launching nuclear missiles.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-02/wisconsin-union-fight-gov-walkers-nuclear-option/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

Manic Moran

Basically, it allows non-fiscal bills to be passed by a simple majority of state legislators. So if the Governor removes the collective bargaining section from the budget and puts it forward as it's own separate bill, it could be passed by a simple majority.

The thought has occurred. There are a number of bills which the Republicans would probably be very pleased to see pass quickly, not necessarily on the union issue. They've apparently been rather restrained in not doing so.

NTM

Amerika

Democrats not willing to perform the job they were elected to do should be cause to utilize the tactic. The public will most probably realize the tactic was used because of extraordinary circumstances. But I think the Republicans are holding off for now, because they realize what goes around comes around. Unlike the Democrats who seem to believe history starts today.

Alert!!! Some good Democrats still exist. Wisconsin Republican Senator Glenn Grothman - while being chased and trapped by union thugs, was saved by Democrat Representative Brett Hulsey. Hope still exists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cx77K8e3WE

cheesehead

I always enjoy healthy debate and have followed this thread with interest.

However, I can't help but feel somewhat saddened by this thread.

Why? Because my cynical side is screaming to me: "Turn the middle class against itself. Divide and conquer. The establishment stays above the fray and remains untouched. They couldn't have planned this any better"

As the Oscar winner for Best Documentary, Charles Ferguson (for Inside Job - the film examined the financial crisis of 2008) said in accepting his award:

""Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong."

I believe the majority of Irish and Americans can support this statement.

Amerika

cheesehead wrote: »

I believe the majority of Irish and Americans can support this statement.

Greed and abuse are not limited to only one end of the food chain.

Measures against abuse from the top of the food chain are slowly happening (as well they should), and will continue. Here is one of the latest.
SEC urges new fiduciary rule for brokers and advisers
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/22/us-sec-fiduciary-idUSTRE70L0LO20110122

Measures against abuse from the other side of the food chain are also happening as states must find ways to do more with less. And ground zero in that fight is in WI.

cheesehead

I fully agree with the sentiments Amerika.

With Walker's release of the Wisconsin budget yesterday, and particularly with the clause of opening up parental school choice to the entire state (which the already embattled teachers union is not particularly happy about), one friend of mine who's connected to the national political scene emailed yesterday and stated: "As a resident of Wisconsin, get ready for the biggest and most important election in Wisconsin history. Wisconsin has now become "ground zero" for the 2012 state and federal election cycle"

Manic Moran

Why? Is Wisconsin voting particularly early in the Primaries this time around?

NTM

Manic Moran

An opinion piece in the Daily Iowan today had the following quote:

The primary union-leader talking point is that the bill “gets rid of unions.” There are no provisions in the bill to get rid of collective bargaining completely, but the bill does cap total wage increases at the inflation rate

Whether that's correct or not, I don't know, but it does challenge the common perception. Which does beg the question. What actually is in the bill? I've spent five or ten minutes searching for a factual summary, but have found nothing but superficial description and/or opinion. I guess I could just read the bill itself, but I wouldn't be surprised if, like many budget bills, it's a massive, interconnected monstrosity which is impossible to understand in a ten minute reading. But if nobody else can provide a link to a good summary, I will try.

We've been discussing this for about three pages now. Who can honestly say they know what the hell it is we've been discussing, as opposed to arguing general principles?