Wisconsonian Fascism

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Hello.... anyone from 'sconny paying attention to your state politics??

 

The new Governor has decided to change things up a bit... when I lived in WI, it was a fully Democrat led state, and since then has changed, significantly. I lean left, but see myself as mostly in the middle, in that both parties disgust me, only slightly less than the Tea Party.

 

So, the new gov gets into office, immediately spends $137 million, then claims that the state has an enormous budgetary shortfall of $141 million (gosh, gee, who spent that money). As a result, he feels that things must change rapidly, ala the Tea Party/radical right, and that spending must be slashed.

 

Essentially, the long and the short of what is going on is an immensely unethical power grab, forcing the Democrats in the state senate to flee to Illinois so that they will not be available for voting, as otherwise their voice will be completely ignored and the vote will be final - as they cannot win any vote against the majority party at this time, and the Gov is unwilling to do anything through the normal political process of actually discussing things openly. Instead, he has wealthy financiers (from states FAR from WI) backing him, men who dislike unionization and paying state employees a fair wage.

 

The result - state employees that are not Firemen or Police are forced to accept as much as a 20% pay cut to fix the budget... why are the Firemen and Police protected??? Oh, that's right, they supported his campaign.

 

I am ok with people disliking Unions. I am a Union member and am very greatful for my Union, but I know also that many Unions have made business nearly unreasonable in some markets. That said, Unions are as American as apple pie, and for as many wrongs as they have committed, they have done at least twice the benefit to the working people of America. 40 hour work weeks - thank Unions, even if you are not a member: they exist because of Unions. Overtime pay- thanks to Unions. Workman's Compensation - thank a Union.

 

What is happening in Wisconsin is bred of too many people watching the newsman so that a talking head can think for them. Dis-involving themselves from political process because it is "too boring" or "not important".

 

The long term ramifications are hard to know. I guarantee one thing - this will spark a lot of discussion nationally, and I also know this - it will be lambasted strongly by Californians and New Yorkers.... where most of the people in this country live, BTW. And for good reason - if the people of WI want to disband Unions, fine - but do it through open discussion and debate, rather than forcing quick votes and ram-rodding legislation through because "they can" as the opposition party is weak at the moment.

 

Sad state of affairs, I am disgusted, and very saddened that one of my best friends is facing a $6000 annual pay cut as the result of the governance.... All he does is insure that infirm and old and disabled veterans receive healthy and sufficient nutrition while they recover or fade away.

 

Then, think of his employees, many of them grown men and women with families to raise. Their $11.82/hour gig for cooking said foods is about to be chopped by nearly a quarter.... who can have a good life or even "make a living" at that rate of pay? Sure, kids might think that's a good wage.... by adult standards, it is a very sad state of affairs. He lives in a small community called Waupaca, and 30/40% of the folk their are employed at the Veterans Home. I can see the local businesses shuttering.... as there is no more money for anything but the BAREST of necessities.

 

If you live in Wisconsin, take a look at what is going on. I don't care what your political affiliation is, think of the repercussions of what the gigantic douche-nozzle you allowed to be elected is doing to your state and communities. If you are for what is going on, state your argument - If it is at all defensible, I will be shocked.

 

Please think critically. Remember that each of us has a voice. Educate yourself. If after that, you agree with what is going on, perhaps we can have the discussion that Wisconsin currently refuses to.

[Totenkopf]

Was wondering how long before this topic surfaced. Just a few things. Was under impression that amount of money WI is in hoc is much more than a mere $141 mil (more like >$3 bil). Complain about Walkers tactics, but it's exactly what Reid/Pelosi did in DC, where at least their opponents didn't run off like children b/c things didn't go their way (a tactic now being copied in IN and OH, it seems). And, while a lot of people live in CA and NY, they don't constitute most of America's population. Still, I agree that unions were once very necessary early on in America's industrial revolution and that all unions aren't inherently bad either. But they have become somewhat redundant given things like OSHA/EEOC/etc.. and a whole host of other govt regs/laws that are supposed to protect workers.

 

Not exactly clear what you mean by "What is happening in Wisconsin is bred of too many people watching the newsman so that a talking head can think for them. Dis-involving themselves from political process because it is "too boring" or "not important".

Afterall, print journalism is essentially "writing heads", where you have to parse their biases as well.

 

Interesting thing about exclusion of cops/fireman is that those are often the services govt threatens to cut first when people resist new/raised taxes to solve govt's irresponsible spending habits. Also, in this dispute, both sides have backers from out of state....with many supporters being bussed in from outside of WI (the "professional protesting class" it seems).

 

Overall problem is that the state and local govts can no longer afford to be so generous in rewarding contracts to public sector employees. You can only tax people so much before they leave....or their employers do. The fed govt is in big financial trouble as well and is going to be less and less able to subsidize the states. Interestingly, btw, even FDR opposed public sector unions. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

[Working Class Hero]

Just wanted to pop in and say that this:

Interestingly, btw, even FDR opposed public sector unions.

is misleading, if not a downright lie.

What he was opposed to was unions shutting down the government, not the existence of unions themselves.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

 

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

 

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

 

But they have become somewhat redundant given things like OSHA/EEOC/etc.. and a whole host of other govt regs/laws that are supposed to protect workers.

And where did we get these regulations? Through unions! I have no doubt that if these anti-union bills get passed, we'll start seeing even more encroachment on these laws that are used to justify saying unions are redundant.

[mur'phon]

Tot: I'd argue that the primary reason for having unions (at least in the private sector, I find it harder to defend public ones) is to even the playing field betwen capital and labor, not fighting for spesific laws that workers may or may not want.

Simply put, as long as companies earn a profit, unions strenghten the barganing position for labor relative to capital when it comes to how to distribute the profit pie. As such, I'll argue that (private sector) unions won't become redundant unless there is no pie to share, then again, if that happens capitalism would be redundant too.

[Tommycat]

First one must look at the reason why people want these government jobs. They are heavily sought after. Why is that? Because the benefits FAR outweigh the benefits of nearly every other market out there. I don't have a problem with private sector unions, so long as the employers have the option to hire non-union workers as well. If I don't want to be a part of the union that gives my union dues to the Democratic party, I shouldn't be forced to.

 

I don't agree with what the Democrat state legislators are doing. If they are going to leave the state, to prevent a vote, what's to stop the Republicans from doing that when the Dems have the majority. Oh, but it'll be different then. The people of the state voted for the Republicans to be in office. "The election is over, and we won," should be repeated to the Dems this time. Obama used that line against the Republicans. Elections have consequences.

[Totenkopf]

@mur'phon- not arguing for whether or not unions should exist, though. May not be big on unions, but don't oppose their right to exist in the private sector. But many of the reasons unions are touted so strongly lie in claims that workers were being exploited and forced to work in inhumane conditions, not merely that they didn't get a bigger share (let alone any argument about what level of profit sharing they were entitled to) of the companies' profits. In that sense, they are largely redundant. Also, it might be a little easier to feel some level of sympathy for unions if they didn't spend money so lopdsidedly on one political party with their members' dues, regardless of how the members felt about it. This would be true whether it was the dems, reps, greens, etc.. that were the beneficiaries of such largesse.

 

@WCH--nothing misleading, let alone a lie . FDR recognized the conflict of interest in public employee unions, never said whether he was sympathetic toward their perceived struggles. We saw w/PATCO what happens when public employees decide to "stick it to the man".

[mur'phon]

Tommy: benefits for being government employed are misleading. True they usually earn more than private sector counterparts, however this is mainly due to their higher education. Check for education and most government employees are underpaid compared to their priv s counterparts, except for the unskilled who are paid more.

Now you could argue that their benefits outside pay are higher (and they are), however a lot of those benefits are tied to pensions, pensions that are so underfunded that you'd be a lunatic to expect to get one as good as promised.

 

And of course avoid mandatory unionization, however, at the same time, remove laws restricting sympathy strikes, and other ones that limits the ability of union (and workers in general) to bargain efectiveley. If the employers want to avoid laws that restrict their ability to bargain, let's do the same for employees.

 

As for unions giving money to politicians, we're on the same page, get their (and other's) money out of politics.

 

@Tot: I'd argue that the political money problem applies to all groups who hand politicans money, however, if donations are to be allowed, then I see little wrong with unions handing cash to those likely to represent their interests.

 

Also, the employers taking a large share of the profits is a form of exploitation, so is having workers in poor conditions without compensating them, if employees didn't have an issue with their working conditions, I doubt they'd use the unions to complain about it.

[mimartin]

Been following this, most of it I can understand my only real bother by the entire thing is the governor not including all the state employees in this and the fact that it includes future collective bargaining agreements, but only in certain areas. This picking and choosing is what bothers me. If it is alright for the state trooper why is it wrong for the teachers and vice versa? As it is it only seems more like a political stunt than anything else since he is only going after those that did not support him during the election.

 

Been also upset because the Governor supporters keep insisting that the other side is unwilling to compromise, but from what I’ve seen they are willing to take the pay cut and the decrease in benefits, but the sticking point is the right to future collective bargaining. In that case, it is the Governor that is the one unwilling to compromise (well unless you are in Policemen or Firefighter Union).

 

As to the Democrats sneaking off to prevent the vote….Call Tom DeLay, when Texas Democrats ran off to Oklahoma to prevent a vote, DeLay used Homeland Security to track them down. Served them right, no self-respecting Texan would run to Oklahoma.

[JediMaster12]

I haven't been following what's going on in Wisconsin but I do know that my clams have been steamed with talk about encroachment of laws that were hard earned by unions like OSHA and the like.

 

I recently received an email from one of the faculty members who is with CFA, the organization that works on behalf of the CSU faculty and what the chancellor is proposing is nothing short of highway robbery. His proposals, accordingly are an attempt at an admn power grab to put the fate of tenure appts solely at the descretion of the campus president and other managers and some hints that senority will be ignored, etc. Probably nothing new since CFA has been fighting for fair wages for faculty for years.

 

The last major thing regarding CFA was when someone had the brillant idea of furlough days where faculty won't get paid for those mandatory days off and take a 20% reduction from an already pitiful payrate. The thing that pisses me off in these kinds of exchanges is that them higher ups are not willing to make the sacrifice and take the 20% cuts themselves. I know an economist can argue about profit and capital to me until they are blue.

 

Times are hard now and they will be harder but frankly tactics like what Wisconsin is doing aren't going to make it better. I think it will just make it worse.

[Tommycat]

Been following this, most of it I can understand my only real bother by the entire thing is the governor not including all the state employees in this and the fact that it includes future collective bargaining agreements, but only in certain areas. This picking and choosing is what bothers me. If it is alright for the state trooper why is it wrong for the teachers and vice versa? As it is it only seems more like a political stunt than anything else since he is only going after those that did not support him during the election.

 

Been also upset because the Governor supporters keep insisting that the other side is unwilling to compromise, but from what I’ve seen they are willing to take the pay cut and the decrease in benefits, but the sticking point is the right to future collective bargaining. In that case, it is the Governor that is the one unwilling to compromise (well unless you are in Policemen or Firefighter Union).

 

As to the Democrats sneaking off to prevent the vote….Call Tom DeLay, when Texas Democrats ran off to Oklahoma to prevent a vote, DeLay used Homeland Security to track them down. Served them right, no self-respecting Texans would run to Oklahoma.

 

On this, I think we're in agreement. The future collective bargaining is where it gets sticky. Then again, maybe those unions should have kept their money and their mouths out of it if they didn't want to see repercussions(j/k). I don't necessarily agree with how the workers had gone on illegal strikes either. Taking "sick days" instead of going on strike so they would still get paid while on "strike."

 

As tor the Texas Dems sneaking off... maybe that's why they went to Oklahoma. Texans didn't want to go to Oklahoma to pick up the Dems. For the record, I didn't agree with the redistricting either, but then that's cause it was a California idea that they brought back to Texas.

[mimartin]

I didn't agree with the redistricting either, but then that's cause it was a California idea that they brought back to Texas.

I had no problem with the redistricting, the Democrats have done it before when they were in power. I also do not have a problem with the Democrats running off to prevent the vote. When one party (does matter which one as they both do it) is unwilling to compromise or even listen to the other side, then my elected representative should do everything possible to protect my interest. What they all seem to forget once they get into office is they do not just represent those that voted for them or financially supported their campaign, but all the people in their district, state or nation. So instead of listening to compromise that gets them what they want, but still lessens the heartache on others they plow ahead with their own plan. Of course, on the other side, when you do seek compromise the other side seems to have a penitence to sabotage with stupidity so they can point at the law and saw how stupid it is. With both sides it is all about politics and getting elected/reelected and nothing about doing the work of the American people.

[Totenkopf]

@Tot: I'd argue that the political money problem applies to all groups who hand politicans money, however, if donations are to be allowed, then I see little wrong with unions handing cash to those likely to represent their interests.

 

To the degree that unions made their political contributions strictly voluntary and transparent, fine. If all the dems/libs in a union want their money going to the dem party via the union, don't have a problem with that. However, I'm with TC on this.....people shouldn't be forced to have their dues money go to a party they don't support. Let the unions have fundraisers for that kind of thing.

 

With both sides it is all about politics and getting elected/reelected and nothing about doing the work of the American people.

 

Sadly true.

[mimartin]

To the degree that unions made their political contributions strictly voluntary and transparent, fine. If all the dems/libs in a union want their money going to the dem party via the union, don't have a problem with that. However, I'm with TC on this.....people shouldn't be forced to have their dues money go to a party they don't support. Let the unions have fundraisers for that kind of thing.

If we outlaw unions for this reason, shouldn't we also outlaw Chamber of Commerce, Better Business Bureau and the NRA? I use to be a member of all three then figured out they did not give money based on who supported their agenda, but to a political party.

[TriggerGod]

I was fully expecting this topic a week ago, but didn't have time to do anything that a real Kavar's topic would contain (a source, a 5 paragraph essay on my entire opinion, and even an interesting fact!), so beggars can't be choosers.

 

Anyways, I have no real opinion on this, except for the Unions, and that would be pretty 'tl;dr~'. All I know and care about is its going to severely affect my humble little town. Around 6 years ago (or has it been 8.. I honestly can't remember. haha.) GM closed it's plant, and laid off innumerable workers. That kick started the Recession for us.

 

we were in the recession before it was cool

 

This year, our entire student body was shocked and rocked by the decision by our school board (who's vocabulary includes only "cut," "budget," and "statistics") to raise the students:teacher ratio for classes (from 18:1 to 24:1), then cutting - and laying off, if that's their only class - those classes. Because of the budget issues the school board proposed to 'fix' with this plan, the teachers who remain won't be getting any increased income, if anything less. Now think about how p.o.'ed the teachers are when you combine each part (school budget, budget cuts proposed by Walker, the whole Recession) means they got, instead of the 20% paycut experienced statewide, they'll get a 30% (or more, depending on how much the board actually ends up cutting) paycut.

 

Yesterday most of the students of our high schools, myself included, accomplished the first non-violent, peaceful protest that this town ever saw (if you don't count the occasional sign wavers about the budget cuts, on that weekend), and it was, from our point, extremely effective and proving that the students DO care about schools. Two amazing speeches, 5 kids yelling "Viva!" and "Anarchy!", and a carpool later, we found ourselves at our district offices with kids from the rival high schools, protesting for change.

 

The kids who didn't end up going out on the walkout had their own reasons (ie. "I'm on probation," "I already have 5+ truancys," "Coach says we're off the team indefinitely if we walkout," "I just don't believe it'll do anything," or "It doesn't affect me" being the popular excuses) and most of the teachers, our principals included, were actually in support of what we were doing, because it also directly affected them

[Totenkopf]

If we outlaw unions for this reason, shouldn't we also outlaw Chamber of Commerce, Better Business Bureau and the NRA? I use to be a member of all three then figured out they did not give money based on who supported their agenda, but to a political party.

 

Not sure what you're talking about here. Nobody here has said anything about outlawing unions, just being able to opt out of having their dues being applied to political agendas not supported by the member.

[mimartin]

Well the governor is pretty much outlawing unions. Not much point in a union without collective bargaining.

[Totenkopf]

Well the governor is pretty much outlawing unions. Not much point in a union without collective bargaining.

 

Crippling the union, perhaps, but not outlawing them. Perhaps you might feel it amounts to the same thing, but at least currently I don't have a big problem reining in public sector unions given the finacial crisis America has inflicted on itself.

[mimartin]

I have no problem taking action today because of the crisis, like I wrote in my original post; my problem is it restricts future collective bargaining. I would also be less against it if it included ALL PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. I agree with the governor that police and fire persons are important, but so are teachers and the people that collect our garbage.

 

Without collective bargaining there is no union, it isn’t cutting off their legs; it is cutting off their head.

[Totenkopf]

Far as I've seen, it's not elimination of collective bargaining, but putting restrictions on its scope in an effort to keep from having to repeat this process over and over down the road. Either way, will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Tommycat]

Been thinking about this, and had a strange thing pop in to my mind... I think the Republicans got the wrong message in '10. People voted out the Dems for ramming things down our throat without attempting compromise, and now the Republicans are doing the same thing. I'm guessing an Obama re-election in 2012 as people get sick of the Reps doing what the Dems did. Then the dems getting voted out again in 2014, because they will think in 2012 that it was somehow everyone voting FOR all of their policies...

[Totenkopf]

Well, they say history works in cycles.

[Lord of Hunger]

The new Governor has decided to change things up a bit... when I lived in WI, it was a fully Democrat led state, and since then has changed, significantly. I lean left, but see myself as mostly in the middle, in that both parties disgust me, only slightly less than the Tea Party.

Which tea party? You've noted a movement with no structural or ideological unity. Tea Party groups have beliefs from all over the spectrum save for the far left.

So, the new gov gets into office, immediately spends $137 million, then claims that the state has an enormous budgetary shortfall of $141 million (gosh, gee, who spent that money). As a result, he feels that things must change rapidly, ala the Tea Party/radical right, and that spending must be slashed.

Please define radical right. Compared to some other countries, our "conservatives" are progressive.

Essentially, the long and the short of what is going on is an immensely unethical power grab, forcing the Democrats in the state senate to flee to Illinois so that they will not be available for voting, as otherwise their voice will be completely ignored and the vote will be final - as they cannot win any vote against the majority party at this time, and the Gov is unwilling to do anything through the normal political process of actually discussing things openly.

Wait, wasn't it the choice of those Senators to flee in order to delay the vote?

Instead, he has wealthy financiers (from states FAR from WI) backing him,

What successful politician doesn't?

men who dislike unionization and paying state employees a fair wage.

 

The result - state employees that are not Firemen or Police are forced to accept as much as a 20% pay cut to fix the budget... why are the Firemen and Police protected??? Oh, that's right, they supported his campaign.

Probably.

I am ok with people disliking Unions. I am a Union member and am very greatful for my Union, but I know also that many Unions have made business nearly unreasonable in some markets. That said, Unions are as American as apple pie, and for as many wrongs as they have committed, they have done at least twice the benefit to the working people of America. 40 hour work weeks - thank Unions, even if you are not a member: they exist because of Unions. Overtime pay- thanks to Unions. Workman's Compensation - thank a Union.

All true.

The long term ramifications are hard to know. I guarantee one thing - this will spark a lot of discussion nationally, and I also know this - it will be lambasted strongly by Californians and New Yorkers.... where most of the people in this country live, BTW. And for good reason - if the people of WI want to disband Unions, fine - but do it through open discussion and debate, rather than forcing quick votes and ram-rodding legislation through because "they can" as the opposition party is weak at the moment.

1) That's politics.

2) The Republicans in that state make a claim that the people of Wisconsin have given them a mandate to stand up to unions. True or not, they have been elected to majority rule. If the people of Wisconsin, as a whole, felt that unions are worth protecting they would not have voted the way they did.

Sad state of affairs, I am disgusted, and very saddened that one of my best friends is facing a $6000 annual pay cut as the result of the governance.... All he does is insure that infirm and old and disabled veterans receive healthy and sufficient nutrition while they recover or fade away.

I am sorry to hear that.

Then, think of his employees, many of them grown men and women with families to raise. Their $11.82/hour gig for cooking said foods is about to be chopped by nearly a quarter.... who can have a good life or even "make a living" at that rate of pay? Sure, kids might think that's a good wage.... by adult standards, it is a very sad state of affairs. He lives in a small community called Waupaca, and 30/40% of the folk their are employed at the Veterans Home. I can see the local businesses shuttering.... as there is no more money for anything but the BAREST of necessities.

 

If you live in Wisconsin, take a look at what is going on.

Unfortunately, this is a national phenomena in varying degrees.

I don't care what your political affiliation is, think of the repercussions of what the gigantic douche-nozzle you allowed to be elected is doing to your state and communities. If you are for what is going on, state your argument - If it is at all defensible, I will be shocked.

 

Please think critically. Remember that each of us has a voice. Educate yourself. If after that, you agree with what is going on, perhaps we can have the discussion that Wisconsin currently refuses to.

Well as a non-Wisconsin resident, I neither support nor object to what is going on in your state. I can sympathize with your position (I know many people personally facing similar problems), however I will note that this situation has been years in the making. America can no longer sustain a half-assed hybrid of free market capitalism and state welfare. Either it must be reformed into a streamlined version or we will have to choose between either economic theory. The choice will be tough and it will hurt.

 

That being said, throwing around the word fascism does nothing useful. Yes, I know: you're angry. You have every justification. But you pointed out that people are disconnected from politics. True or not, if our nation's political dialog is nothing more than character jabs then why would anyone connect with that. No, I'm not calling for our rhetoric to be toned down. Quite the opposite: I hope it heats up but with real issues rather than misused terms like "socialist" and "fascist". Doubting each others' patriotism only weakens the States.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Was wondering how long before this topic surfaced. Just a few things. Was under impression that amount of money WI is in hoc is much more than a mere $141 mil (more like >$3 bil).

I will provide a source, although your later complaint about writing heads seems you hold writers in equal or less esteem than Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann etc

Complain about Walkers tactics, but it's exactly what Reid/Pelosi did in DC, where at least their opponents didn't run off like children b/c things didn't go their way (a tactic now being copied in IN and OH, it seems).

How is this acting like children? It is the only responsible thing to do, as the bills were not up for discussion, argument or arbitration, the vote was a no win scenario and their constituents would have been completely ignored if they were available to vote. This, IMO, is the act of responsible politicians, although they are probably just as creepy as any other politician.

And, while a lot of people live in CA and NY, they don't constitute most of America's population.

Fair enough, two states that comprise a quarter of the population seems significant to me. Texas of course is the other big dog.... and politically, they seem to have it together better than most.

Not exactly clear what you mean by "What is happening in Wisconsin is bred of too many people watching the newsman so that a talking head can think for them. Dis-involving themselves from political process because it is "too boring" or "not important".

This is the result of posting when fired up and having had worked a very physical 15 hour day.... not my best thinking or writing.... and full of personal bias. It is my opinion though... people are distracted by fanaticism and charisma, and too many refuse to think for themselves.

Interesting thing about exclusion of cops/fireman is that those are often the services govt threatens to cut first when people resist new/raised taxes to solve govt's irresponsible spending habits.

Agreed... and I support police and firemen, they are very important gangs...

Also, in this dispute, both sides have backers from out of state....with many supporters being bussed in from outside of WI (the "professional protesting class" it seems).

Gross, not good, gross.

Overall problem is that the state and local govts can no longer afford to be so generous in rewarding contracts to public sector employees. You can only tax people so much before they leave....or their employers do. The fed govt is in big financial trouble as well and is going to be less and less able to subsidize the states.

You are ignoring the damage done on a local level, like the city of Waupaca. These people will eventually default on their taxes... how does that help the government, if they have to feed and house these people in Tax Prison?????! It is a double whammy, wholly created by irresponsible and unrepresentative government.

 

@LoH: I pick on the Tea Party because regardless of their "diversity" (I personally think that's a lot of whooey) they are too loud, and Sarah Palin is the prime mover-and-shaker: that should tell you everything you need to know. Radical right is a term used in our governments here in the US. We are talking about US government. Feel free to google what the term means locally.

 

Yes it was the choice of the Senators to flee... I should have stated that more clearly, that I support their flight, for reasons mentioned in response to Totenkopf.

 

As for having backers from out of state.... conceded that politicians like to line their pockets however they can. Is this a good or acceptable state-of-affairs for you?

 

I fail to see your point in "that's politics." Looks to me either that you like this style of politics, or you have thrown in the towel.

 

Fascism: The term I did not use lightly.

 

For the record, I live in Atlanta, was born in Iowa, have lived in Nebraska, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Minnesota, and Texas.... only finished High School in Wisconsin, This is not a local issue for me, it is a national one that has simply raised it's ugly head in WI.

 

@mimartin: your points on CBA's and the relation to Unions were points I wish I had raised, thank you.

 

Been thinking about this, and had a strange thing pop in to my mind... I think the Republicans got the wrong message in '10. People voted out the Dems for ramming things down our throat without attempting compromise, and now the Republicans are doing the same thing. I'm guessing an Obama re-election in 2012 as people get sick of the Reps doing what the Dems did. Then the dems getting voted out again in 2014, because they will think in 2012 that it was somehow everyone voting FOR all of their policies...

Yup.

[Totenkopf]

I will provide a source, although your later complaint about writing heads seems you hold writers in equal or less esteem than Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann etc

 

Well, maybe more esteem than KO. Just saying that writers are no less biased than the talking heads and that it's helpful to know their biases before taking whatever they say as gospel. Just common sense stuff.

 

How is this acting like children? It is the only responsible thing to do, as the bills were not up for discussion, argument or arbitration, the vote was a no win scenario and their constituents would have been completely ignored if they were available to vote. This, IMO, is the act of responsible politicians, although they are probably just as creepy as any other politician.

 

Would you have said that if the Republicans had been able to do that to the Dems at the federal level since '06 (or even vice-versa in the '90s)? The responsible adult thing to do would have been to cast their votes and then do their damndest to try to beat the reps in the next election. As Tommy (I think) pointed out already, BO lectured the Reps that elections have consequences, and the dems lost this last one. Besides, in politics, little is ever irreversible. As to your point about pols being creepy, no real arguments here.

 

 

Fair enough, two states that comprise a quarter of the population seems significant to me. Texas of course is the other big dog.... and politically, they seem to have it together better than most.

 

You'll probably hate me for this, but the combined pop of the two states, while significant, is still less than 20% of total figure (<60 mil out of 307mil). Still, given that NY and CA are in dire financial straits, it should be interesting to see how they cope with their problems. There's going to be a lot of hurt coming down the pike, hurt that can't be ameliorated by just raising taxes.

 

This is the result of posting when fired up and having had worked a very physical 15 hour day.... not my best thinking or writing.... and full of personal bias. It is my opinion though... people are distracted by fanaticism and charisma, and too many refuse to think for themselves.

 

My cynical side figures that we are as afflicted w/bread (look how fat Americans have become overall) and circuses (sports, porn, etc...) as the Romans ever were. The decreasing attention spans of many people make them more susceptible to easily digestible sound bytes (from left to right) vs actually trying to think critically about the consequences of our choices.

 

 

You are ignoring the damage done on a local level, like the city of Waupaca. These people will eventually default on their taxes... how does that help the government, if they have to feed and house these people in Tax Prison?????! It is a double whammy, wholly created by irresponsible and unrepresentative government.

 

Not ignoring local problems, rather recognizing there are no easy solutions and that failing to address the financial problems in an attempt to seem empathic/compassionate won't make those issues disappear and will likely only exacerbate them.

[Lord of Hunger]

@LoH: I pick on the Tea Party because regardless of their "diversity" (I personally think that's a lot of whooey) they are too loud, and Sarah Palin is the prime mover-and-shaker: that should tell you everything you need to know.

Not really concrete reasons to oppose an entire socio-political-economic movement, but that's just my opinion.

Radical right is a term used in our governments here in the US. We are talking about US government. Feel free to Google what the term means locally.

That is besides the point. What is labeled radical right is not radical in the slightest. The policies advocated by most Tea Party groups are, in the history of US government, fairly moderate right. Admittedly, they're also out of touch with the current reality of government but so is the entire political system.

Yes it was the choice of the Senators to flee... I should have stated that more clearly, that I support their flight, for reasons mentioned in response to Totenkopf.

Just read them. I disagree. That's about it.

As for having backers from out of state.... conceded that politicians like to line their pockets however they can. Is this a good or acceptable state-of-affairs for you?

There hasn't been any good or acceptable state-of-affairs for me in regards to government since Obama's halt on drilling in the Gulf. That killed my trust of US government.

I fail to see your point in "that's politics." Looks to me either that you like this style of politics, or you have thrown in the towel.

Just because I choose to understand the situation does not mean I approve or disapprove. My view of how this country should be run is completely and utterly different from any group.

Fascism: The term I did not use lightly.

No offense intended here, but a wikipedia article does not prove your point for you. Your reasoning does.

For the record, I live in Atlanta, was born in Iowa, have lived in Nebraska, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Minnesota, and Texas.... only finished High School in Wisconsin, This is not a local issue for me, it is a national one that has simply raised it's ugly head in WI.

My mistake, I got the impression you were from Wisconsin.