Wisconsin Republicans Out-Maneuver Exiled Dems

Gov. Scott Walker must have consumed a lot of Charlie Sheen’s favorite beverage of late - ‘Tiger Blood.’

After nearly three tumultuous weeks of protests, 24/7 media coverage and national attention in and around Madison, Wisconsin, state senate Republicans decided Wednesday night to use a procedural maneuver to push through an otherwise unpassable budget repair bill amongst a throng of stunned Democratic leaders, media and onlookers.

The bill’s measure effectively eliminates collective bargaining for public-sector employees in Wisconsin, except for wage bargaining.

Gov. Walker and Wisconsin Republicans attempted to negotiate with the missing 14 state senators who had disappeared across state lines to Illinois. The state senators' AWOL antics denied the Republican officials in Madison the necessary quorum it needed to go forward with the budget repair bill.

In the end, the Senate’s 19 Republicans approved the measure, 18 to 1, without any debate on the floor or a single Democrat in the room.

"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators undid 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin,” said Mark Miller, the leader of the Senate Democrats who fled to Illinois on Feb. 17 to block just such a vote from occurring. “Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten.”

The outrage enveloping the many pro-union and anti-Walker protesters and supporters was palpable.

"I think it's akin to political hara-kiri," said Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar). "I think it's political suicide."

Gov. Walker offered a brief statement,

"The Senate Democrats have had three weeks to debate this bill and were offered repeated opportunities to come home, which they refused," Walker said. "In order to move the state forward, I applaud the Legislature's action today to stand up to the status quo and take a step in the right direction to balance the budget and reform government."

Similarly, Republican Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau)summarized his party's committment to the Wisconsin voters with,

"The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job," his statement said. "They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can't act on our agenda."

To be sure, the main stream media will be abuzz about the turnaround of events in Wisconsin, especially the liberal-leaning media. Boycotts will ensue, walk-outs and other planned protests will also follow.

For example, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore announced on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show last night that all high school students in the nation should boycott the bill's passage by staying home from school Friday.

In the end, however, Gov. Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans were duly elected by the citizens of the Badger state to fulfill a promise to fix the budget and set the state on a course of fiscal sanity.

The Governors of other states will be watching closely how Walker did not back down amidst immense political pressure, especially in a state where collective bargaining for public-sector workers was basically invented.

Ultimately, the newly elected, 44-year-old governor of a historically blue state, Scott Walker, has taught some of the other Republican governors like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and John Kasich a thing or two about grit.

And even though his poll and popularity ratings will suffer in the short-term, in the long run, Gov. Walker will be seen as a trailblazer of sorts, fighting for what's right for taxpayer's, not just what's popular.

And he may have even one-upped Mr. "Tiger Blood' himself.

Posted by Kevin L. Lagola at March 10, 2011 12:38 AM
Comments
Comment #319834

They weren’t exiled!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 10, 2011 1:42 AM
Comment #319835

“…fulfill a promise to fix the budget and set the state on a course of fiscal sanity.”

Kevin,

The only way they could pass the anti-union sections of the bill was to separate it from the very fiscal legislation that was Walker’s justification for it in the first place. It only proves that the anti-union issues had very little to do with the budget issues.

Comparing the acts of Wisconsin Republicans to those of Charlie Sheen is quite apt. There is a clear disconnect between their thought processes and reality.

Posted by: Rich at March 10, 2011 7:33 AM
Comment #319839

Oh contraire!

Collective bargaining on its face is basically a recipe for what I call debt-by-a-thousand-negotiations. It has everything to do with finances.

The burden that piles up contract after contract after contract negotiation with the hundreds of school districts, municipalities, etc end up costing untold millions in lost efficiencies, waste and abuse.

Worse, promises are made to workers that cannot be fully met years in advance, regardless of the economic environment. This whole scheme as I like to call it, undermines fair and reasonable negotiations.

Moreover, the Wisconsin Republicans used a procedural method to move along a bill that had all necesarry votes, save for the fleeing Democrat 14.

On paper, collective bargaining has everything to do with debt and costs. Therefore, the senate Republicans separated (again, on paper) the so-called financial portion of the bill from the other portion for practical reasons, not that it wasn’t ever considered ‘financial’ in the first place, because it was.

Furthermore, unions can still form in Wisconsin’s public sector. Albeit, without ‘forced’ dues collection.

The irony of all this is that in any other segment of our society, this public-sector union-elected politician labor practice would be considered a monopoly, unfair, illegal and a cartel.

But because it has existed for so many decades, it is deemed a natural or civil right. It is not. After all the dust clears and the hyperbole, protests, boycotts, strikes, lawsuits and attempts at recalls are settled, one will see that the world will have not ceased to turn on its axis. That the other 20-plus states that call this law ‘business-as-usual’ will continue to thrive will be an afterthought.

We don’t see the over 2 million federal workers striking or protesting that they do not have similar restrictions on their collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining in the public sector is not an inherent natural right. It exists via the long-standing legal remedies that were borne out of years of politicking by unions and mostly Democratic politicians.

I’m not anti union. I’m pro taxpayer.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 10, 2011 9:34 AM
Comment #319841

Weary willie writes: “They weren’t exiled!”

One can be in self-imposed exile. To wit:

According to an online encyclopedia,

“Exile can also be a self-imposed departure from one’s homeland. Self-exile is often depicted as a form of protest by the person that claims it, to avoid persecution, an act of shame or repentance, or isolating oneself to be able to devote time to a particular thing.”

Moreover, the Heritage dicitionary states,


(ĕg’zīl’, ĕk’sīl’)
n.
1.
a.Enforced removal from one’s native country.
b.Self-imposed absence from one’s country.
2.The condition or a period of living away from one’s native country.
3.One who lives away from one’s native country, whether because of expulsion or voluntary absence.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 10, 2011 9:41 AM
Comment #319844

“…the senate Republicans separated (again, on paper) the so-called financial portion of the bill from the other portion for practical reasons, not that it wasn’t ever considered ‘financial’ in the first place, because it was.”

Kevin,

It is or it isn’t. If it is, then the Republican maneuver was a sham.

Claiming that union negotiations were the cause of the fiscal crisis or will be in the future is nonsense when you cannot demonstrate a factual correlation.

The current fiscal fixes requiring additional contributions from public employees have not been opposed by the unions. By Walker’s own analysis (according to a link you posted previously), the future deficits facing WI are related to unfunded liabilities of Medicaid going forward. It has nothing to do with public employee compensation. Furthermore, the most significant portion of public employee compensation packages reside in police and fire related services. Those unions were exempted from his bill!

Posted by: Rich at March 10, 2011 9:54 AM
Comment #319846

It will be interesting to see how many union members opt to bailout and not pay union dues.

There are so many interesting results that have taken place in WI:

I believe the exile was self imposed, as Kevin pointed out, but it will be interesting to see how the WI voters react to the fact that the Dem Senators were in IL when all this went down. Didn’t they have a responsibility to voice their opinions in the debate in the state capitol? They were AWOL when the rubber met the road and if I were a democrat in WI, I would be very upset that they failed to represent me.

The situation in IN was a little different; the Gov, by executive order changed the rules of union negotiations and his ratings went down at first, but when the IN people saw how the state economy rebounded, they were found to be in agreement with him and he became very popular. As has Gov Christy’s popularity increased in NJ.

One can’t help but recognize; Gov Chris Christy, Gov Kasich, and Gov Walker are bold and very popular for their steps forward to rescue state economies. Sure, the left is in a tizzy, but the left only represents a small group of radicals. Add to this, the state government in ID is moving to abolish tenor of school teachers. It’s a shame that states have had to take the lead and do what the Fed Government should have done.

Now, the left is screaming and hollering that this move in WI is illegal and not fair. Was it fair when Obama and the Dems, in a straight party line vote decided to shove Obamacare down our throats, when the majority of Americans were against it? I didn’t see the MSM and liberals calling for protests of the Obama government because they passed Obamacare by a one-sided vote, and even told us we would not know what was in the bill until after it passed. We still see polls showing a 50-60% of Americans against Obamacare. The left loves to say that Republicans will pay in 2012 for what they have done, but I say Americans still haven’t forgotten Obamacare, and Dems will continue to pay a price in future elections. As events continue to unfold (Sebelius admitting before a congressional panel that double counting was done in the HC bill top the amount of $500 billion), the American people will continue to not like the bill or trust Obama.

Lastly, when was the last time Tea Party Conservatives have acted like these liberal union members in WI? It is disgusting to watch liberals try to shut down a state government. Who are the ones who resort to violence? Who are the liberal leaders who call for violence? Is it not whiny Dem politicians and union leaders?

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 11:17 AM
Comment #319847

Kevin L. Lagola-
Let me list the reasons why bravery doesn’t describe what they did.

1) They stuck it in a fiscal bill in the first place, rather than having it as a separate bill. If they were really that confident in union-busting being appealing to the public, such a poison-pill manuever would not have been necessary.

2) They ended up passing that bill at three in the morning in a vote that left Democrats in the minority wondering what had happened. Why not wait until the following day, and force it by open procedural methods?

3) They insisted on keeping the provision in, even as the Unions were willing to concede the wage and benefit reductions. Why not agree to the reductions, if your real aim is fiscal? It’s the numbers that need to add up, not your ability to walk all over people.

4) Gov. Walker was then caught on that tape with “Mr. Koch” admitting that he was planning on trying to trick the Democrats into coming back. Kind of brave, deceiving people to get what you want.

5) Then, finally, they utterly stripped out the provision from the fiscal bill, and then claimed that it was never a fiscal matter to begin with so they could pass it on a simple majority, which didn’t require the Democrats to come back. Why? Because they likely felt they weren’t going to win that battle.

So, five reasons right there that this does not qualify as an act of bravery.

Your party in Wisconsin has demonstrated contempt for public opinion, which is overwhelmingly for the unions and against the end of collective bargaining, contempt for an orderly process in the Legislature, holding unconventional votes and using questionable procedures to get your measure through, and finally, your side resorts to a tactic that essentially eviscerates your original argument.

You couldn’t win this fight the right way, so you cheated. You are congratulating your people on how brazenly and boldly they twisted the rules, deceived their opponents, and showed contempt for their rivals.

You are remind people why they removed the GOP from power. In Wisconsin, the tide may turn very soon, as recall efforts are underway. Your side has forgotten that they govern more than just their special interests, more than just their base. Such disregard has its costs, and Wisconsin only compounds it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 11:29 AM
Comment #319848

1776-
Walker is popular? At nearly sixty percent disapproval? Kasich, whose popularity dropped to 35% when he announced his plans? Christie is your sole example, and if you’ve noticed, he’s not union busting.

As for how people are reacting to what their Democratic Party Senators are doing? Those folks popularity actually went up. Seems like people like folks representing their interests.

As for the Affordable Care Act? The vote was one sided because almost every Republican opposed it, and opposed it from the beginning. It was also one-sided because we needed sixty votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, which your side used relentlessly to block legislation from our majority. But we didn’t resort to illegal or nearly illegal tactics to pass it. You call it being stuffed down your throat, but what do you call all the things your people are trying to do, all over the country? Your people push this stuff with no regard for whether people actually like it. Rick Scott didn’t even consult with his Republican Colleagues, who were actually interested in the rail, and the jobs that came with it.

And really, were your people fulfilling the will of the people when you insisted on tax cuts that the majority of American opposed continuing? Tax cuts that swallow any and all benefits that might have come from your indiscriminate and economically destructive spending cuts? You’re not even starting from breaking even, you’re starting, due to your own deliberate policy decisions, from a worse deficit than you started out with.

But hey, your folks really know how to market your BS policy, and badmouth the other side. Tell me then, why with the exception of the mandate, most of the details of the Healthcare law actually poll with majority support? Tell me why, if people were so against our healthcare law, why the Public Option and Medicare buy-in were so popular?

Let me be blunt: your people had to lie in order to make people hate Healthcare reform. You had to peddle BS lies about Death Panels and Government takeovers, scaring people over false charges in order to poison the debate.

It’s bad enough that your people sell such lies, it’s worse that as time goes on, you actually come to believe them as if they were facts, and not the rhetorical tricks they are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 11:51 AM
Comment #319850

Kevin,
The one major thing the Republicans are overlooking is the distrust they jave installed in the State of Wisconsin. For as a business person how can I trust the State to live up yo its obligations if they will not live up to the obligations they owe to their onwn employees?

Yes, it seems that in an attempt to one up the Femocrats the Republiocans have signed their own death. For told to fiz the budget, by their own words they have done nothing to help the cause. In fact, by breaking the Syaye Contract with the Public Workers they have left open the door to individuals sueing the State for millions of Dollars.

So what is the Republicans plan when they still don’t fix the budget and have business not willing to work for the State? In fact, they are now more than ever looking at beiing recalled because they have broke their contract with the Wisconsin Voter.For who in their right mind wants to deal with class sizes of 60-120 screaming students? And why won’y the teachers quit public school and form their own private school that takes more State Money?

Yep, winning the battle and losing the war seems to be Conservatives favorite pastime. Only this time it has open the door for a thrid political party to take away their standing as a National Party in 2012 IMHO.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 10, 2011 12:54 PM
Comment #319851

First, Unions are fine in the private sector jobs even though I don’t have any love lost for them. Second IMO the Democrat Senators who ran away from home like little children instead of doing their jobs are more to blame then the Republicans. Third, Unions in public sector are a invitation to corruption, especially when unions are contributing money to political candidates.

Posted by: KAP at March 10, 2011 1:26 PM
Comment #319852

Captain Renault to Rick…”I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling (politicking) is going on in here.”

Elections have consequences. If what was done in Wisconsin is illegal it should be undone. If not, then the next election will decide if the majority of voters in Wisconsin are in compliance with this move. This is what I expect for Obamacare.

We should not be upset when leaders lead. Obama and other state governors should pay attention to Walker in Wisconsin. Americans want and need leaders, not squishy, straddle-the-fence politicians.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #319853

Stephen; you will notice I used the example of the IN Governor as one who was unpopular when he issued an executive order pertaining to union negotiations, but is now popular, after the fact. If Gov. Walker and Kasich were not popular, they would not have been elected a short 4 months ago. I’ll tell you what, when the out-of-state union thugs, who have come to WI and OH go home; when the Hollywood crowd have gone back to CA; when the Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons have crawled back into their holes, then we will see what the WI people have to say about the situation. How do you know what the Dem Senators and WI people support? Are you basing this information on polls? How many times have I heard you and others on the left say, polls are not accurate and are based upon the questions asked. Do you know how the poll questions were asked? From what I understand, the local newspapers are responding negatively to the influence of outside interference.

You say: “As for the Affordable Care Act? The vote was one sided because almost every Republican opposed it, and opposed it from the beginning. It was also one-sided because we needed sixty votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, which your side used relentlessly to block legislation from our majority. But we didn’t resort to illegal or nearly illegal tactics to pass it.”

So you believe the Republicans did not have the right to oppose Obamacare? They did not have the right to filibuster? They did not have the right to represent their constituents and block Obamacare? And now you are saying that the WI Senate does not have the right to pass this union restriction law, because it is illegal. Care to prove that what the active Senators did was illegal?

Your comments are sour grapes. You bring up Rick Scott because the left can’t stand to be beat at their own game. If the liberal politicians were popular and their goals were popular, the pray tell why a liberal blue state booted their butts out of State and Fed government? Your argument won’t stand the test. You are simply upset at loosing.

You accuse Conservatives of lying to the American people about Obamacare, but it was your side who failed to explain what was in the Bill. It was your side who pushed the Bill through passage with a party line vote. It was your side who told the American people, “we won’t know what is in the Bill until after it is passed”.

Re/ your comments to Kevin:

1. Prove the Bill was illegal
2. “They ended up passing that bill at three in the morning”; Stephen, how can anyone take anything you write seriously. “Democrats pass health care bill in the middle of the night”, with 39 Dem Congressmen siding with a straight Republican vote against Obamacare:

http://malcontentralphie.blogspot.com/2009/12/did-you-sleep-well-last-night-democrats.html

3. Was it illegal?
4. Is there a law against ticking the Dems into doing what they are paid to do?
5. Was it illegal?
So you whole response to the Conservative side is “It’s not fair” (said in a whiny voice). It is certainly an act of bravery to stand and not cave to the whining of the left.

Lastly; there have been death threats upon the Republican Senators and their families, public property has been damaged, bussed in liberal union thugs have tried to disrupt the business of the WI government, and the liberal protestors have basically proven themselves to be violent bullies.

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #319854

KAP,
What Americans need to do is to disband groups like the Chamber of Commerce. For if public sector unions are bad for America, look at the damage caused by groups like the Chamber of Commerce. In fact,given the breaks corporations have fotten compared to public unions over the last 30 years I would say groups like the Chamber of Commerce pose more danger than public unions.

Now the question is can the Republicans handle Individual Workers demanding Individual Contracts from Individual Agencies of Individual States? For personally, if you want me to educate 60 students instead of 30 than my pay gets tripled seeing that not a single Elected Official is ready to step into a classroom that size and deal with the unrulyness. In fact, due to public safety how much will it cost the State to have a police officer in the classroom?

Posted by: henry schlatman at March 10, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #319855

Where is the outcry from the left for the damages done in these demonstrations?

Tea parties have been continually denigrated for being racist (patently false) being violent (patently false) and being out of control (also patently false).

Tea party rallies are/were left in immaculate condition, and last night the demonstrators invaded the capital, smashing windows, breaking door locks, and I just listened to a man being interviewed on the Dennis Prager Show who was simply wearing a suit who was attacked because he was assumed to be a legislator. He wasn’t hurt but he was pushed to the ground and the only thing that saved him from a beating or worse was his screaming “I’m not a republican!”

Liberals and those on the left are so blatantly hypocritical on this whole demonstration.

Imagine if the minority congress had all chosen to “boycott” the awful health care bill by simply walking out and staying out. The outcry from the left and the media would have been heard on Mars. But when the shoe is on the other foot, the behavior is warranted and they are practically pioneers and patriots.

The best thing about this entire debacle is that the unbelievable double-standard of conduct that the left enjoys and the right suffers is getting some much needed attention.

This just illustrates the assertion I believe to be true, that the left doesn’t disagree with conservatives, it thinks conservative values (on ALL fronts) are EVIL - which to them, justifies any behavior.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at March 10, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment #319856

Henry-

I don’t think the State collects the membership dues for the Chamber like they do for the unions. Last time I was a member of the Chamber it was purely voluntary. Why don’t you suggest government disband the Sierra Club or Rainbow Push?

Posted by: George at March 10, 2011 2:24 PM
Comment #319857

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. More than 96% of U.S. Chamber members are small businesses with 100 employees or fewer.

As the voice of business, the Chamber’s core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world.

A January 2010 public opinion survey conducted by Harris Interactive found that Americans rank the U.S. Chamber of Commerce among the top five best-known and respected organizations in Washington.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 2:25 PM
Comment #319858

You’ve got to love Stephen’s twisting of history, or shall we say revisionist history:

“WASHINGTON — In a major victory for President Barack Obama, Democrats muscled a huge, $787 billion stimulus bill through Congress late Friday night in hopes of combating the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041/

Stephen, in the middle of the night, the Democrats muscled a huge $787 billion stimulus bill through the Congress in the words of a liberal MSNBC.

Tell me Stephen, were you concerned when this bill passed in the middle of the night, or are you only concerned when Republican Bills pass in the middle of the night? And to top that; the stimulus was nothing more than a slush fund to pay off unions for supporting Obama. It did nothing for the economy. No wonder the American people are fed up and want to boot Dems out…

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 2:25 PM
Comment #319859

Henry, If the school districts would budget their money better then maybe they would have only 30 kids per class, better schools and teachers. Case point the major city closest to me had a school super who had a salary of $300,000.00 and did nothing for the school district but put it in a bigger hole then what it was in before her tenure, and speaking of tenure that to is a joke for some of the lousy teachers that it protects. The city school district in my area already has BOE police in every school and have had them when my kids were in school 15 years ago.

Posted by: KAP at March 10, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #319860

Great points Yukon Jake and very true. I suppose Stephen will somehow try to spin the liberal violence as justified. Like I said, it is sour grapes and the left does not believe Conservatives have a right to voice their opinions. It all fits together when you understand how they think; believing the voters are basically stupid and need the government to take care of them. Since Obama has taken office, almost 40% of the American people are drawing government subsidies. I fear our nation will never survive…

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 2:35 PM
Comment #319861

1776, don’t expect Mr. Daugherty to agree with your illumination of democrat tactics in Washington. Liberals live by different rules and most are afflicted with a mental disorder. Their numbers are shrinking as the disorder is being successfully treated with elections, truth, education and facts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #319862

1776-
First, you don’t have to be wildly popular. If there’s a multi-candidate ballot, you don’t even have to win by a majority.

Are you aware of what Kasich’s final vote percentage was? Look it up, then we’ll discuss his popularity.

As for Walker, he won by 52% in 2010, and he’s now pissed off precisely the folks who stayed home in enough numbers to allow him to be elected, and he now polls below reelection level. Too bad he’s got people looking to force a recall election pretty soon. Who do you think will show up in droves?

The Republicans win a lot because they pull some gutsy moves. But sometimes your ass writes checks your body can’t cash, and Walker doesn’t exactly have the popularity to burn.

As for Rick Scott? He won this last election by less than 49%. That’s about what percentage Kasich won by.

Everybody campaigned on bringing jobs. Nice, huh? So, it seems like their version of bringing jobs is laying off thousands of people, and making the rest work for less than they were before. Brilliant!

Are you even willing to admit that it’s even remotely possible that your politicians might be ticking people off, and that they might not have the political capital to win their next election if they keep doing that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment #319863

Mr. Daugherty, what does one call a person who wins by 49%?

GOVERNOR

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 2:48 PM
Comment #319864

Yeah, go ahead and celebrate! Because the GOP is currently signing their death warrant!!! And not just in the state of Wisconsin! It’s just as Michael Moore has been saying for the past few days — you’ve finally overplayed your hand, and will now be made to truly suffer for it.

Because what they’ve just done has totally ripped the mask off and the whole nation is now coming to understand what this has really been all about.
What they have proved:
1. This was never about “budgets”.
2. This was never about concern for “taxpayers.”
2. This isn’t about about “shared sacrifice.”

What Walker and the GOP is doing in Wisconsin has been driven by BLATANT CORPORATISM.
Blatant SHOCK DOCTRINE at work.
Blatant CLASS WARFARE and crushing of the people.
Blatant POWER and GREED — for the wealthy few. Especially to benefit the stone cold evil, avaricious Koch Brothers (whose father was a founding member of The John Birch Society).
And now, people are waking up! Because everybody knows it!
Including plenty of Republican and Independent voters.

And in order to do it, the Wisconsin GOP Senators BROKE STATE LAW.
By violating the Open Meetings Law.
This is a statute that requires: “all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.”
These crooks met at 1:00 AM, allowed no one near them, and ignored the part of that statute that absolutely required them to give notice of what they were doing 24 hours in advance.

So, this law breaking will most definitely be challenged in court. And so the these Republicans will lose because they very clearly didn’t bother to follow that law.
But let’s say that they can manage to buy off the presiding judge, still they will lose. Because in their haste to crush AFSME they left themselves wide open to being sued by every single one of those people who have been out there protesting.
The Wisconsin GOP, their rush to do the bidding of the Koch’s in anyway they could, completely lost their heads, not to mention they’re all going to be recalled, too.

What a bunch of idiotic Koch suckers they’ve been — stupid as a big bag of hammers!

But wait, that’s not all!

Because embedded within the bill they passed last night at one o’clock in the morning (illegally) was a blatantly draconian provision that allows the state to fire any protesting workers:
“The bill authorizes state officials to fire any state employee who joins a strike, walk-out, sit-in, or coordinated effort to call in sick.”

So, what have the protesters and union supporters have to lose now? Why, Nothing. Nothing at all!!!
So, we may well see a GENERAL STRIKE now in the state of Wisconsin, too.

They want to talk about budgets and sharing the sacrifice?
Yeah, that’s what the wealthy Wisconsinites are sure to get for themselves if a general strike is called!

Corporatist Republicans can go ahead celebrate all this utter stupidity.
Or one can acknowledge that they’ve actually dug their own grave. By squeezing a little too hard. By energizing the union movement in ways not seen in many years. And by alerting our entire population to a very obvious fact that some of us have always known is right under our noses: that when push comes to shove, there really is a hell of a lot more average (and fed up) folks like us than there are of them, and when we get up enough steam, we can definitely work together and move as one to crush them, too.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 2:50 PM
Comment #319865

Stephen, let me answer you last question first:

Yes, our politicians are ticking off people, but they are those on the left, so it don’t mean squat…

Walker won by 52% in a liberal blue state; I consider that a land slide.

Since I am from OH, I can tell you Kasich is very popular. Don’t judge by the liberal talking heads on the MSM. Or the out-of-state union thugs; they don’t represent OH.

Everyone campaigned for bringing jobs; Humm, 4 months ago, and you think the jobs should be created in 4 months? Obama ran on the same ticket 2 1/2 years ago and we are worse now than then and a whole lot more in debt. Great points Stephen, thanks for reminding us of Obama’s promises and failures.

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 2:51 PM
Comment #319866

The sad truth is that although many people may deem what Gov. Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin did as ‘overreach,’ it will undoubtebly end in various threats of harm towards the Republicans, the governor and some of their family members (as 1776 points out).

I think that the real threat is to democracy as a whole when elected officials can simply abscond from all duly elected responsibility by fleeing to another state.

That’s simply abhorent. Regardless if one hates the repair bill or not, or that it wasn’t supposssedly a ‘mandate,’ the fact is, as RF points out, elections do have consequences.

How will our democracy work in the near or far term if it’s ok for elected representatives to leave their post when they don’t like a bill or its likely outcome based on political party makeup in a legislature?

You can’t just up and quit, and then have the audacity to call it democracy at its best and have interviews with the media daily on your position and/or demonization of Gov. Walker’s bill from another state.

The 14 Dem state senators should’ve been doing their job (being in Madison); they should’ve tried to represent the ‘other’ constituents in their respective districts who duly elected them, but who are not necessarily sympathetic to the public-sector’s POV.

There are approximately 175,000 affected public-sector union employees in the state of Wisconsin. The rest of the residents represent millions of others’ with a different viewpoint.

Call it what you want, frame the narrative as you wish, but this is not about union-busting or even about dismantling the union-democratic monopoly. It is about taxpayers, the inherent unfair bargaining advantage between the union and elected officials and how the two aforementioned issues unecessarily drive up costs and institutionalize inefficiencies in the delivery of Wisconsin’s public service.

I say jack up all deserving public-sector workers’ pay. Just as long as their performance merits such compensation - just like the private sector.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 10, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #319867

1776, I to am from Ohio and agree Kasich is popular, and so is Portman who ran against the former Lt. Gov. and yes it is the left wing minotity who is making all the noise.

Posted by: KAP at March 10, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #319868

Adrienne, are you sure you want to use Michael Moore as an expert on political matters?

The left has been telling the Republican Party what they need to do to win for the past 2 ½ years. The question is, should we take your advice and would it help us? No, I think we should continue on the path to “DISTRUCTION”, don’t you?

Aren’t you supposed to be a lady? I won’t comment on the rest of your liberal talking points and I find some of your talk offensive.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 10, 2011 2:58 PM
Comment #319869

Yukon Jake-
I’ll believe the reports of vandalism when I hear them from a reputable source. Remember the 7.5 Million dollar bill for repairs before?

As for violence? Well, gee, we can start with the anti-Paul protestor that got her head stomped while already restrained.

As for Racism? Look up Mark E. William’s “colored people” letter. Oh, and what is it that Steve King is doing up there in Washington, regarding Muslims? Oh, how about that witch-doctored photo of Obama? Or the Obama bucks for Welfare with fried chicken on them? Or the postcard with a watermelon patch on them?

The Tea party isn’t racist, but it sure tolerates a lot of racism and questionable connections in the name of Opposing Obama and the Democrats. You may not be a racist for being in the Tea Party, but the Tea Party has a problem separating itself from racists.

1776-

There was little or no suspense about the outcome, although the final act played out over hours and extended late into the night.

That was to allow time for Brown to fly back. He cast his vote more than five hours after most senators had left the Capitol for a 10-day vacation, one of the longest roll calls in Senate history.

That was why the vote took that long. He was only coming back from having buried his mother. No big thing. But, as was said, there was little doubt of the outcome. Not like with the Medicare Drug benefit vote the Republicans had early in the last decade, where they basically kept open a vote so they could bully the recalcitrant members of their own party into pushing a major bill.

Your people used Deem and Pass, and Reconciliation rules to pass legislation, but I don’t hear about that from you, do I? Because it has to all be unfair, and Republicans have to be the victims.

Tell me, while we’re on the subject of duplicitous definitions: was Walker wrong before when he supported the end of collective bargaining on fiscal grounds, or is he wrong now, now that it’s fiscal rationale has been completely sweeped away? Don’t wait for Royal Flush to answer for you, tell me, what do you think?

Royal Flush-
We lived by Paygo. You live by Cutgo. Difference? In your world, taking in less revenue without offsetting cuts doesn’t count as a deficit-widening measure.

Your side burned the Democrats in effigy when they were filibustering your judges. Then you turned around and used the filibuster to an unprecedented degree.

Your side has a redwood trunk in their eye, and they ask to take the sawdust from our eye. Take the big tree out, so you can actually see straight.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #319871

“It’s just as Michael Moore has been saying for the past few days — you’ve finally overplayed your hand, and will now be made to truly suffer for it.”

WOW…now there’s a powerful ally and someone only liberals could follow.

1776 writes; “Walker won by 52% in a liberal blue state; I consider that a land slide.”

I grew up in Wisconsin and you are correct. Also, Wisconsin voters finally booted out three term US Dem Senator Feingold.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #319872

Btw, for those interested, everyone can boycott the Koch Suckers!!!

It’s very simple, just don’t buy these paper products:

Angel Soft, Quilted Northern, and Soft n Gentle toilet paper; Brawny paper towels; any of the Dixie plates, bowls and napkins; Sparkle, Vanity Fair and Zee napkins — these are all Georgia-Pacific paper products.

And don’t buy these fabrics:

Invista Fabrics, Fibers and Polymers

Under the Invista banner: Coolmax, Cordura, Solarmax, Supplex, and Thermolite fabrics, as well as those containing Lycra; Comforel fiberfill; Dacron fibers; Somerelle bedding products; Stainmaster carpets and Tactesse carpet fiber.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #319873

Adrienne, I never buy any of those products so I guess I’ve been boycotting those products for years. Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson IMO are hurting your cause instead of helping and I almost forgot Al Sharpton.

Posted by: KAP at March 10, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #319874

Adrienne, are the employees of the corporations producing the products you propose to boycott…union members?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 3:19 PM
Comment #319875

1776-
Let me get this straight, you call Wisconsin a liberal blue state, and yet you say it doesn’t matter if he ticks off Liberals?

Sigh. He won by just 52 percent. He loses just a handful of points from that, and he’s toast. Unfortunately, he won with turnout from liberals low, and with people unaware that he’d go on this union-busting rampage.

Does consent of the government not mean anything? Do you really expect that relatively liberal Wisconsinites are going to stomach that much of a rightward shift without some kind of reaction? It doesn’t work that way.

As for us being worse now on jobs?

Yes, we are. Why? Because of the economic crisis. It didn’t politely stop for Obama’s election. By the time he signed the ARRA into law, Unemployment was at 8.2 percent. That was in his first full month in office. A year before, unemployment had be 3.4 percent higher.

He was seeing his economy lose several hundred thousand jobs a month. Did this suddenly start with this election?

No, it started with the collapse of our credit system under Bush, which in turned created a crisis of consumption.

Now, two years later, the economy’s added 220,000 private sector jobs. Only trouble is, it also shed 30,000 public sector jobs. So, the figure comes out to be about 192,000 in terms of job increases.

The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression was never going to stop on a dime. Obama’s policy turned this country around. It stopped a consumption slide that was threatening to take us all the way into our next great depression.

The Republicans? Their only ideas are all the ideas that failed before the crash, and indeed, many of the ones that caused it.

I think its only fair to ask whether this economy could have recovered faster, if the Republicans hadn’t locked us into pre-crash thinking.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #319876

Royal Flush-
Oh, yes, I’m not disputing that a 49% win is still a win. Just tell me how much political capital a person who wins by those margin has to waste.

Is it just me, or has apologizing for Bush’s narrow wins distorted the GOP’s perspective on just what a risky electoral strategy running base elections are?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:24 PM
Comment #319877

Pardon me, that number should read 3.4% lower unemployment. Bush managed in one year to turn full employment into a raging freight train of unemployment, would be the point. If Republicans don’t think the Stimulus stopped it, then what did?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #319878

Mr. Daugherty asks, “Do you really expect that relatively liberal Wisconsinites are going to stomach that much of a rightward shift without some kind of reaction? It doesn’t work that way.”

Sure it does, they got rid of three-term US Senator Russ Feingold didn’t they? He was among the most liberal senators in the nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #319879

Conservativethinker:

Adrienne, are you sure you want to use Michael Moore as an expert on political matters?

Michael Moore isn’t an expert on all political matters. But he IS most definitely an expert when it comes to the many, many ways that the wealthy and powerful screw over everyone else.

Aren’t you supposed to be a lady?

Yes. I am a Lady. A Woman. A Female of the species. One who doesn’t believe in antiquated double standards.

I won’t comment on the rest of your liberal talking points and I find some of your talk offensive.

Well, that’s too bad. I personally find wealthy people trying to crush people and attempting to usurp democracy highly offensive.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 3:27 PM
Comment #319880

Kevin L. Lagola-
Did you happen to check what the numbers were on support for Collective bargaining and unionization when you made that claim?

And answer me this, while you’re at it. Why is it okay for Republicans to play on people’s envy of better paid middle class and working class workers, but Democrats are wrong for pointing out the much greater, and growing distinction between all working class and middle class wages, and those of the Rich? If it follows that making more money as a union member is bad, how is it any better for execs to pull down millions in compensation, even if they’re leaving a company in disgrace?

And if they’re laying off workers left and right to pay for all that, then aren’t people better advised to take their fight to the Execs who are taking their jobs, rather than the union members, who are not?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #319881

Mr. Daugherty asks…”Just tell me how much political capital a person who wins by those margin has to waste.”

Great question Mr. Daugherty, it reveals much about how liberals think. We find this “political capital risking” idea being employed by Obama in nearly every decision (or non-decision) he makes today.

As I wrote, a few posts ago, leaders are elected to lead, not merely put their finger into the wind (or up their rear-ends) to discover what is popular at the moment and will attract the most supporters at the next election.

I won’t vote for the person who is merely a poll-taker and one who must asses the political risk before acting upon what they believe is correct and good for the nation.

This adversity to leading (and embracing pandering) is revealed by the liberal and progressive idea about “group rights” over individual rights.

For dems and libs and many reps it is too much about getting elected, rather than governing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #319882

Royal Flush-
Tell me: How much Rightward shift does 51-47 buy you? Just winning doesn’t mean you get to push your agenda any way you want to, without consequence. Russ only had to lose once, that doesn’t mean Walker gets to win again if he pushes things too far.

I mean, are you even considering how extraordinary that election was? Are you counting on that unlikely success to be indicative of a trend? What sort of results do you think you’re going to get in Wisconsin if you don’t have that wave at your back?

Or, put another way, if the Democrats could win the way they did in 2008, then lose the way they did in 2010, what makes you think the Republicans can push their luck in 2012 with impunity? Is there some magic potion in your back pocket to make it so?

It’s this kind of thinking that got us into our current economic mess, treating extraordinary returns as par fro the course. When next we face each other in an election, people will have had a two year refresher course in what Republicans back in power are like. You might be blind to how arrogant and alienating your politicians can be, not having learned the 1996 or 2006 lessons, but the rest of us aren’t. Your people are going to be associated with the decay of our society. When the garbage goes uncollected, when the services cease, when the police get laid off, and the firefighters ask for money before they put your housefire out, it’ll hang on your neck.

Prosperity is your only way out. But prosperity costs money, money you’ve promised not to spend. Besides, if this country grows at a good rate, people might end up thinking Obama did it, and we can’t have that, can we?

Your side is great at selling itself for an election, but in times like these, we need better leadership than that. That was the lesson of 2006. People want more than just partisan politics. They want the jobs you promised.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #319883

Royal Flush-
Really. You pride yourself on being so indifferent, you pride yourself on being so much more in touch with the people. What exactly are your people using to guage this, the Force?

Sorry, fellow. There’s a certain extent to which you can push change before you tick off enough people to lose popularity. If your policies work, you might get some of that capital invested back. If they don’t, or you make such a bloody shameful mess out of the process, well you might not come off so well.

People can get tired of your bull****, RF. Didn’t 2006 and 2008 tell you that? One election, and you think you’re invinceable? If you think that, then your head’s buried in the sand.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 3:47 PM
Comment #319884

Mr. Daugherty writes; “…what makes you think the Republicans can push their luck in 2012 with impunity?

There you go again…talking about 2012 rather than deal with the reality of 2011 and the 2010 election.

Once again, for your benefit, I will state that elections have consequences as does leadership (or the lack thereof). The people of Wisconsin will be the judge of the actions taking place today in their state capital and reflect their approval or disapproval in 2012.

Apparently, the Reps are willing to do what they were elected to do and will worry about the election when the time comes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #319885

Mr. Daugherty writes; “People can get tired of your bull****, RF.”

MY, MY…aren’t you the clairvoyant one? Did you take a poll? Sounds a lot like desperation to me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 4:01 PM
Comment #319887

You know the left has lost this one when they have to resort to a certain kind of sucker or bull to describe their anger and frustration of not being able to do business as usual.

Let me clarify one point. The events in WI has nothing to do with collective bargaining. There never was collective bargaining. There were union demands and there were politicians meeting those demands in exchange for union dues going into their political coffers. If there were collective bargaining going on the taxpayers would be on one side and the unions on the other. That never occured.

Thuggery and gangsterism is the MO of the unions and it appears it will not change in the foreseeable future. In order for the left in WI to make there voice heard they brought in outsiders to wreak havoc. There senators go AWOL and cry about not being heard. How stupid do they think the WI citizens are. I’ll answer that. They think they are stupid and ignorant. The truth is that the WI citizens are smart and wise and will carry the day for WI.

SD get it together kid, you got a long road to go and a long row to hoe.

What we need here is the U of W marching band playing “On Wisconsin”.

Posted by: tom humes at March 10, 2011 4:40 PM
Comment #319888

Stephen, in answer to your questions about Gov. Walker; yes I support him is all he does. He and Gov. Christy are great men in my book.

“Mr. Daugherty writes; “People can get tired of your bull****, RF.”
MY, MY…aren’t you the clairvoyant one? Did you take a poll? Sounds a lot like desperation to me.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 04:01 PM

Royal, have you ever noticed when liberals become desperate, they use words like bull****? It makes them sound like they are really serious. To me it sounds like they can’t talk without cursing and I must add Adrienne has really impressed me with her potty mouth. I bet she is a woman every child would be proud to call mother.

The left can be read like a book: first they tell the Conservatives how to win an election or better yet, how to not lose an election, and if that don’t work, they change tactics like Stephen has done:

“It’s this kind of thinking that got us into our current economic mess, treating extraordinary returns as par fro the course.”

The key word is “us”. Now it’s everyone’s fault for the mess we are in and if we could just work together, we can fix all the world’s woes. As long as we do what the liberals want.

STEPHEN, GET OVER IT!!! Our politicians are doing what we want them to do. We are not being hoodwinked. The independents are in agreement with what the bold, Conservative Republicans are doing. If they lose in future elections; it will be because they failed to do what we wanted them to do.

“Royal Flush-
Tell me: How much Rightward shift does 51-47 buy you? Just winning doesn’t mean you get to push your agenda any way you want to, without consequence. Russ only had to lose once, that doesn’t mean Walker gets to win again if he pushes things too far.”

Has the left changed their beliefs since 2008 and the boast of “we won and we now run the agenda”? Yes Stephen, there were consequences in 2010 for the Democrats who pushed their own agenda. Does that mean there will be consequences for the Republicans in 2012? Possibly, but only for those who side with the liberals. I have told you before, the left has awakened a sleeping giant and the TP is its name and it will never set by and allow liberals to control the agenda again…

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 4:52 PM
Comment #319890

KAP,
As far as I am concerned the dues to the Chamber of Commercebeing a tax write off does come out of the taxpayers pocket. So please remove all the little groups who ask Congress for billions why writing off thousands for what the Conservatives don’t wamt to admit is Public Workers pay for their own wages as Taxpayers.

Now, you call out the school super for maling $300,000.00/yr.; however, how many of your elected officials are making 10 times that amount? In fact, being part of the Establishment and not the School Teachers I say eliminate those jobs to include the entire State Board of Education before we take one job from a teacher. And considering the Governor and General Assembly are part of the Establishment, let’s take away the heating and air from the buildings as well as the other luxuries they have.

In fact, seeing that security and transportation are not included in the constitution let the Elected Officials suffer like the rest of us in the streets which they are making unsafe by eliminating the police. And surely they can clean up after themselves just as our ancestors did not long ago. For if we are going to start taking away rights of Americans shouldn’t we start with the rights of the so-called Elite?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 10, 2011 5:06 PM
Comment #319891

SD wrote: “And answer me this, while you’re at it. Why is it okay for Republicans to play on people’s envy of better paid middle class and working class workers, but Democrats are wrong for pointing out the much greater, and growing distinction between all working class and middle class wages, and those of the Rich? If it follows that making more money as a union member is bad, how is it any better for execs to pull down millions in compensation, even if they’re leaving a company in disgrace?”

As I’ve state numerous times and on numerous websites, a person should be paid by what value they bring in the marketplace. Seniority rights and collective bargaining take away one’s ability to get compensated far more if their performance and/or skill set differentiate them from the masses.

In other words, many public-sector workers should (and could) be paid thousands more in salary based on their skill/education/performance, but aren’t because of collective bargaining rules and arrangements.

It’s a race to mediocrity. A good public school teacher with requisite experience and education should be paid upwards of $100k or more! I do not begrudge anyone a high salary.

However, health benefits and pension plans that are inconsistent with reality and/or inconsistent with what the private sector in said geographic location should pay, is a whole other matter. Wisconsin’s benefits/pension scheme is way out of whack - the Dems dared not to negotiate that fact UNTIL Gov. Walker upped tha ante. Only then did they cry uncle.

Ultimately, this whole mess will amount to ‘Much Ado About Nothing.’ But until that day arrives, the hyperbole, class-warfare narrative, Koch Bros and other exaggerations will be spun haphazardly.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 10, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment #319892

Here are a few exerps from Stephen’s article dated:

“November 12, 2008
The Liberation of the GOP, The Responsibility of The Democrats…

The Republicans as they are now, are obsolete for most of the country. I don’t say this to gloat, but to point out a hard reality. The Republicans at the top are likely going to slowly but surely pass from power. Their day is over. That isn’t to say that new Republicans can’t come along to reinvent the party for the new century. They’ll have to get beyond their parents and predecessor’s conservatism, though.
One of the main problems with the current Republican party is that it’s essentially a coalition, an alliance to oppose liberals as it’s constituted now. It could not be what it was without taking the fight to Democrats on a constant basis. it’s no accident that the party came apart and rearranged itself in a circular firing squad following it’s successful attainment of full majorities and the presidency together, nor that it could temporarily rally the troops to oppose the prospect of full liberalism in Washington. How could this not occur once the liberals were defeated?
A party on such a political war footing could not demobilize so quickly. The trouble was, the Republicans were never monolithic, and regardless of how much Republicans talked about a permanent majority, George Bush was up there undermining virtually every faction’s legitimacy. The solution in every faction’s collective mind was essentially to double down on whatever their particular belief was, and purify the party of whatever other faction they considered heretics. This only has become more intense as the Republicans have lost the majorities in Congress, and now lost the White House.”

Stephen, do you want to amend these predictions about the Republican Party? If not, then we must assume you don’t have a very good track record on predictions, because everything you posted as the failures of the Republican Party are the very things that caused them to take the House and almost take the Senate only 4 months ago…

I believe everything Stephen says, should be taken with a grain of salt. Don’t you just hate those pesky achieves? I wonder if we can find Stephen’s predictions about a post 2008 Democrat agenda? Hmmmm…

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #319893

Royal Flush-
Yes, we took two polls, as a matter of fact. They’re called the 2006 and 2008 elections. You’re on my case for ignoring results? Or, more recently, polls that have Walker upside-down in the job rating? Kasich, too?

My God, how much of a filter does FOXNews have you on?

tom humes-
Don’t play stupid word games. There was collective bargaining there. That’s what it was. You can redefine it all you want to, but the Republican Party has just sided with taking money out of the pockets of working Americans. Do you realize that many of the people you’re siding against are more popular than the people you’re siding with?

Why else would you need all the propaganda, all the appeals to wage envy (which is, in your eyes, more appropriate than class envy)?

1776-
I use words like bull**** because they are descriptive of what your people push on us. If I’m wrong, show me how the Bush Tax Cut extension balances the budget. Show me where your economically destructive spending cuts even begin to make up for all the money you insisted on handing back to the rich.

You folks keep on appealling to the Middle class on the basis of the notion that all this spending you plan to cut goes to poor people who don’t deserve it. Leaving aside that many of the poorest states are red states, too, (making many of the people you appeal to patrons of that generosity), many of the middle class people are the real beneficiaries of that money, as they go on Medicare and Social Security.

Kind of fun, isn’t it, BSing people into harming their own interests? Oh, that’s right, it’s not politically correct to say that intelligent people can be deceived.

Well, decieved people have been. Tell me, with all that union busting your folks did with the private unions in the midwest, how are those states doing economically? Did those concessions win them back their factories? Did letting the environment be despoiled get their jobs back from China?

The people of the midwest have been sold a bill of goods by the Republicans, a bill that said that if we did good for the Rich and powerful, if we sacrificed our priorities, and improvements that benefited us, if we kept our cars running on fossil fuels, and our plants on coal, we’d all be better off.

Mister, we got screwed. Your promised economic recoveries only benefited those who were already better off. The rust belt only got more rusty.

So screw continuing the charade. Screw buying this bull**** anymore. America’s economy will not get better on the backs of the consumers who support 2/3rd of the economic activity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 5:31 PM
Comment #319894

1776-
No, they’re finished, sooner or later. If I were to amend it, I would say that the Republicans only prolonged the suffering that would get this particular generation of Republicans kicked out for good.

With Hispanics picking up more of a percentage of the population, with the youth going dramatically more liberal, the best your party will do is cling to the generation and the demographic majority that’s diminishing with the coming years.

Americans will have enough of the politics of panic, sooner or later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #319895

Tom Humes makes a great point in comment #887. The WI citizens are not dumb. In fact Wisconsin in general is a very well-educated state with one of the best state universities in the country (Univ. Of Wisconsin).

The overwhelmingly partisan union-backers are just that - mostly union workers, out-of-state union and/or Dem supporters. The rest of Wisconsin’s citizenry is not happy about these shananigans. Especially in light of the difficult economic times all workers have endured over the past 3 years. WI taxpayers see what’s going on in their state; they see the childish actions of elected state democratic senators, they know union bosses collude with and obfiscate reality from the taxpayer, they know most of the ‘White Noise’ is from afar (Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Richard Trumka, OFA, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz among others).

The most riduculous part about all this is that the union workers will be able to keep his or her union dues ($600 to $1000 per/yr) and they don’t see that benefit.

The average WI taxpayer knows the score all too well. I’ve read a lot of their opinions via many WI blogs and WI newspapers online. It’s too easy to watch what’s going on via the narrative that the liberal media wants to portray. One should look beyond that meme.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 10, 2011 5:39 PM
Comment #319896

1776:

Our politicians are doing what we want them to do. We are not being hoodwinked. The independents are in agreement with what the bold, Conservative Republicans are doing.

This is what all the GOP’ers want huh? Okay then, how about this? I guess this is what you all wanted too?:

Madison Firefighters Union President Calls For General Strike

Seems to me that all these “bold” wealthy conservatives need to be schooled on some of the old lessons they’ve obviously forgotten from our nations past:

1. There is Power in a Union.
2. An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!
3. Bosses Beware — When We’re Screwed, We Multiply.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 5:43 PM
Comment #319897

stephen

you said

“Sorry, fellow. There’s a certain extent to which you can push change before you tick off enough people to lose popularity.”

there’s a lot of truth in that statement. that’s what november 2010 was all about.

Posted by: dbs at March 10, 2011 5:43 PM
Comment #319898

Stephen, you are correct about this statement, “with the youth going dramatically more liberal”; but what you fail to realize is that when these youth, who’s heads are filled with mush while in the public school system and liberal universities, become part of the work force and watch the government misuse their tax dollars, they become conservative.

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 5:45 PM
Comment #319899

Kevin writes; “It’s a race to mediocrity. A good public school teacher with requisite experience and education should be paid upwards of $100k or more! I do not begrudge anyone a high salary.”

You are absolutely correct. Seniority rules, not competence, dedication or ability.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 5:51 PM
Comment #319900

Americans will have enough of the politics of panic, sooner or later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 10, 2011

So saith the wise one…lol

The defeated are always talking about the next election.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #319901

1. There is Power in a Union.
2. An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!
3. Bosses Beware — When We’re Screwed, We Multiply.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 05:43

1. Power to intimidate those they serve?

2. Merely a race to mediocrity.

3. Bosses Beware…um, that would be the taxpayers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment #319902


dbs, that is what the 2006, 2008, and the 2010 elections were about. It is what the 2012 elections will probably be about.

There is a possibility that elections in 2011 will be about that as well.

Posted by: jlw at March 10, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #319903

Henry, If any of my elected officials are making over $300,000.00 a year they are getting it under the table not through my tax dollars and they will probably end up like those politicians from Bell,Ca. if cought. The Mayor of the city in which I used to live only made $110,000.00. As far as teachers pay I agree with Kevin a GOOD teacher should be paid well not some mediocre one all because they have tenure. I don’t care who gets tax write offs as long as they are liget.

Posted by: KAP at March 10, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment #319904

It’s hilarious how tough the righties like to talk, and how incredibly stupid and blind they seem to be. I’d really love to see just how “tiger blood” they’d be during a general strike when they could suddenly no longer count on government workers — you know, people like firefighters, paramedics and EMTs, police officers, state troopers, garbage collectors, teachers etc., etc doing their jobs.

They’re always talking about how much they despise all these government employed union members — so it’d be very interesting to see how much they’d enjoy having to live without any of them…

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #319905

Adrienne writes; “They’re always talking about how much they despise all these government employed union members…”

I challenge you to post one quote from someone on the right saying they “despise all these government employed union members.” As for a “general strike” by those in the public sector…it’s illegal and just a liberal mentally disordered hallucination.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #319906

Adrienne, Don’t forget the right to work states are doing fairly well.

Posted by: KAP at March 10, 2011 6:59 PM
Comment #319907

Union members are taxpayers. Government workers are taxpayers. Working people are taxpayers. This is not about unions v taxpayers. That’s obviously a false dichotomy. It is about busting unions, because working people cannot protect themselves unless they organize, and that is what unions are all about. Right to work states are not doing better. I’m in OR, and right to work laws are horrible. Basically, a person can be fired anytime without cause (the only exceptions being sex & age discrimination, which are easily sidestepped).

So, this is about busting unions. There are a small group of very, very wealthy taxpayers that want to continue sending working people on the downward spiral we have all seen since the 80’s. The spiral will bottom out when American workers reach equivalency with Indian workes and Chinese workers. Corporations want to see this too. It’s called “free trade,” but trade has nothing to do with what is happening. American workers without unions stand no chance. Within our lifetimes, working people used to have a reasonable expectation of obtaining retirement and medical coverage through their employers in exchange for their long term loyalty. Now, that is almost non-existent. People are encourage to believe such benefits are unfare or some sort of undeserved entitlement. Within our lifetimes, one wage earner used to be able to supporta family. Now it takes two.

We are seeing class warfare, economic warfare, and it is very viscious because a lot of money is involved. Unless working people stand together, the downward spiral will continue.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2011 7:12 PM
Comment #319908

I worked for a major railroad for 36 years and was a member of the IAM union. We had a no strike clause and could strike only after months of cooling down periods. This made it virtually impossible to stike for a contract. We normally settled for 3 to 4 years contracts and in 36 years our contracts were normally settled anywhere from 6 to 12 months before they expired. Or in other words, the rail carriers refused to negotiate a contract until it went before a presidential labor relation board. We were not allowed to strike because of national security. The same as the military cannot strike. Even at that, I made a very good living at my job and enjoy a great retirement. I personally believe that state and federal workers should not be unionized, but if they are, I believe they should not have the right to strike. It would create a national security problem. I also believe the employees should have the right to choose to belong to the union or not. If I had had a choice I would have opted out of the union, but I was in a closed shop. Meaning I had no choice. I didn’t like the way the union used our dues and I didn’t like the idea my dues were supporting politicians that I would not vote for. JMHO.

Liberals love to blame Reagan for breaking the air traffic controllers union, but they also had a no strike clause for national security reasons and paid the price. I don’t blame Reagan at all.

Posted by: Beretta9 at March 10, 2011 7:12 PM
Comment #319909

Thank you Beretta9, sounds like a fair assessment of your experience to me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 10, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #319910

phx8, wasn’t it Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA?

“So, this is about busting unions. There are a small group of very, very wealthy taxpayers that want to continue sending working people on the downward spiral we have all seen since the 80’s. The spiral will bottom out when American workers reach equivalency with Indian workes and Chinese workers. Corporations want to see this too. It’s called “free trade,” but trade has nothing to do with what is happening. American workers without unions stand no chance. Within our lifetimes, working people used to have a reasonable expectation of obtaining retirement and medical coverage through their employers in exchange for their long term loyalty. Now, that is almost non-existent.”

True, true, but what is the real reason corporations are moving to foreign countries? Who is really at fault? I often hear the left blaming Republicans and corporations for the problem:

“February 28, 2008
Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas?
When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.


We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.


Oil Company Tax Breaks?
Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.


Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.


Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.”

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_breaks_does_the.html



Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #319911


This is in reality the latest in a series of successful attacks on the middle class by wealth.

“Since I am from Ohio I can tell you Kasich is very popular.”

Since I am from Ohio I can tell you that Kasich is not all that popular in the state. As a matter of fact, more than half of the Ohio voters preferred someone else as governor and that is in a state that has been predominantly a red state.

In what would be considered the honeymoon period for Gov. Kasich his approval rating has fallen to 30%. Did Governor Strickland ever have an approval rating that low?

If I can say one thing favorable of Kasich it is that he will have to go a long way to out graft the Taft Administration.

Which party is most responsible for Ohio’s problems, the party that controlled the governorship and the Ohio Assembly for the last two years or the party that has dominated Ohio politics for decades?

If a 52% win for a Republican in a predominately blue state is a landslide, What is a 49% win for a Republican in a predominately red state? 1176? Kap? Would that be a squeaker or a hard fought win for a very popular politician?

Posted by: jlw at March 10, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #319913

1776,
Clinton certainly deserves blame for signing NAFTA. If it had been all about raising the living standards of Mexican workers to those of American workers, that would have been great. Unfortunately, it meant lowering the standards of Americans to those in Mexico and elsewhere. It’s all done in the name of corporate profit for very large corporations, and while the number of people being enriched is very very small, but the amounts of wealth being accumulated are enormous.

The GOP has launched a number of attacks upon unions throughout the country. They are executing the will of their corporate sponsors. Who would have guessed this would be the GOP agenda during the elections last November? Instead of defending taxpayers they have launched an attack upon most taxpayers, in the name of a very few taxpayers.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #319914

This is what we are dealing with from the left. Read this article and can any liberal condemn these words?

“The Left’s New Tone? “…you will be killed and your familes will also be killed…”

Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)
Thursday, March 10th at 1:30PM EST

Because you believe in freedom and fiscal responsibility, you’ve been told that you are racist hate-monger. Because you rallied and held Gadsen Flags, you’ve been called astroturf. You were blamed for a shooting by an anarchist madman. As you’ve watched in horror as your country has been consumed by collectivist unions and crony capitalists, you’ve been accused of advocating slavery and hypocritically excoriated for rhetoric.
For all of their false accusations, there is nothing, nothing that compares to this [via Drudge]:
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will “get rid of” (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

Where is the Left’s condemnations? Where is the President and his “we thrive together” campaign? Where is Secretary Napolitano and her fight against domestic terrorism?”

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/03/10/the-lefts-new-tone-you-will-be-killed-and-your-familes-will-also-be-killed/

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 10, 2011 8:01 PM
Comment #319915


“True, true, but what is the real reason corporations are moving to foreign countries?”

Because liberals have regulated and taxed corporations, and the unions have demanded so much in wages that corporations are hard pressed to even make a profit in America.

Want proof?

1% (upper class) owns 34.6 % of all privately held wealth.

19% (managerial, professional and small business stratum) owns 50.5% of all privately held wealth.

80% (working class) owns 14.9% of all privately held wealth.

With the workers owning 14.9% of the wealth is it any wonder that wealth would look elsewhere for a better deal.

Posted by: jlw at March 10, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #319916

Baretta9,

All states already prohibit strikes by essential public employee unions, i.e., police, fire, medical, etc. Some states prohibit any strikes at all by public employee unions, e.g., New York. Strikes are not the principal concern for public employee unions.

As for having the right to choose to belong to a union or not, I would remind you that each employee has the right to vote in an election as to whether to unionize or not. If a sufficient number of employees eventually decide that it is not to their benefit, they can legally dump the union.

Interestingly, while you disagree with unions, you made a good living and enjoy a great retirement. The contracts negotiated between your union and the railway provided you by your own admission a good life.

As for political activity of unions, I would agree that they should be limited but only if the other side of the equation (management) is similarly limited. Unfortunately, the trend is moving in the other direction. The Citizens United decision provides corporations, as well as unions, increased latitude in injecting their money into political elections.

Posted by: Rich at March 10, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #319918

Phx8 said:

“The GOP has launched a number of attacks upon unions throughout the country. They are executing the will of their corporate sponsors. Who would have guessed this would be the GOP agenda during the elections last November? Instead of defending taxpayers they have launched an attack upon most taxpayers, in the name of a very few taxpayers.”

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. You talk as if most American workers are unionized. When in reality, according to the Aug. 22, 2008 WSJ, only 7.5% of private workers are union and only 12% of workers including government are unionized. So in reality, a maximum of 12% don’t even match the 20% of Americans who claim to be liberal. The left talks as if they are protecting the rights of all American workers, and it is far from true.

I’m just curious: what part has the EPA played in job loses to foreign countries. I have come to the conclusion that the left only cares about one thing and that is power over the rest of America. They don’t care about workers, minorities, the homeless, wages, benefits, the law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other thing that is important to free Americans. It is all about power and control.

Tell me something; were the police or firefighter unions affected by the changes in WI? Has their union rights been affected? Or is this an attempt to send out misinformation?

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 8:22 PM
Comment #319919

Sorry, here is the link:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/08/percentage-of-union-workers-in-us.html

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #319920

The total number of unionized workers is low, but it because of those unions that companies feel a need to match the benefits that come through labor organizations. Without unions, we would eventually revert to the situation that existed before unions: no minimum wage, no retirement benefits, no medical benefits, no weekends, and so on.

On a net basis, I would argue the EPA creates a net gain of jobs. Restrictions and regulations on air, water, and soil pollution result in a cleaner, HEALTHIER environment, and that in turn attracts employees and businesses.

The public commons of our environment is for the benefit of all, of We the People.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2011 8:35 PM
Comment #319921

“Tell me something; were the police or firefighter unions affected by the changes in WI? Has their union rights been affected? Or is this an attempt to send out misinformation?”

1776,

You know full well that they [police, fire] were inexplicably excluded. Odd, since they represent the bulk of public employee benefits at the local level. In most municipalities, they are the largest general fund budgetary item. So, I guess all public employee unions are not bad. That raises the question as what problems do unions of teachers, garbage men, etc. present that aren’t presented by police and fire? What is the criteria?

Posted by: Rich at March 10, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #319922


“They don’t care about workers, minorities, the homeless, wages, benefits, the law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other thing that is important to free Americans.”

That is exactly right 1776! It would be hard for anyone to say it better.

The wealthy and their corporations don’t give a damn about anything but profits and the power to dominate the rest of us in pursuit of those profits.

Unfortunately the Congress is dominated by unionist liberals and as a result much legislation deregulating the unions has been passed. While the wealthy and their corporations have been systematically crapped upon by the union controlled Congress.

Kevin, I have heard that there is a good chance that the legislation passed will be declared unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Posted by: jlw at March 10, 2011 8:52 PM
Comment #319923

The basic thing about unions is that they do not create any wealth. All they do is take wealth in the form of dues. They are in fact a big business. How long can they continue to take from the working people a fee for letting them belong to a group.

Why is US Steel now #10 instead of their previous #1 position. Union demands caused higher prices and they priced themselves out of a market.

Why is Toyota is on the verge of replacing GM as the largest manufacturer of autos. Why? Union demands for higher wages and benefits that have caused GM to have serious financial problems.

I am not opposed to unions. I am opposed to unions making larger than normal demands for wages and benefits that cause the manufacturers to get priced out of the market.

Why are there fewer employees in many sectors of manufacturing where unions are prevalent? Excessive demands.

SD
“Don’t play stupid word games. There was collective bargaining there.”

Get your head on straight SD. Collective bargaining is two sides hammering out a contract. In the public sector there is no other side. It is the government meeting the demands of the unions. My side (the taxpayer) is never represented at the table.

Now SD don’t play stupid with me. Your just outta your league in this argument.

Posted by: tom humes at March 10, 2011 8:55 PM
Comment #319925

Tom Humes,

Blaming the unions for the loss of American jobs is simply wrong. The US has bled both union and non-union manufacturing jobs to Asia. It has less to do with unions and more to do with global wage arbitration.

Posted by: Rich at March 10, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #319926

Phx8, do you have proof of this statement or is it conjecture?

“The total number of unionized workers is low, but it because of those unions that companies feel a need to match the benefits that come through labor organizations”

On what do you base this statement?

“Without unions, we would eventually revert to the situation that existed before unions: no minimum wage, no retirement benefits, no medical benefits, no weekends, and so on.”

Here is an interesting article that never made the headlines; see if you can find a double standard?

“Paper At Last Finds Unions Hurt Business, When it’s THEIR Business
By Warner Todd Huston | February 21, 2009 | 06:46
The Minneapolis Star Tribune is often called the “Red Star” Tribune by residents of Minneapolis for its long-time, virulently left-wing outlook. Many has been the time when the editorial board of the Star Trib has carried water for political candidates shilling for big labor.
The STrib endorsed Obama for president for his supposed fiscal responsibility as well as his focus on the working classes. It is well known that big labor was solidly behind Obama and have been getting payoffs every week since the January inaugural.
But that was then. Now-a-days the STrib is not so keen on unions. In fact, it is so put off by unions that it is going to court to have its contract with its printers union annulled and asks for new terms to be imposed by the courts to save the paper from going bankrupt. Apparently, unions are fine for politicians as far as the STrib is concerned, but when it is faced with real life union demands, well, the courts are asked to save them from union excess.”


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/02/21/paper-last-finds-unions-hurt-business-when-its-their-business#ixzz1GG0e8YwQ

Re/ EPA; sorry, but EPA rules have always helped to drive companies to countries who do not recognize EPA rules. Your blowing smoke when you say the EPA helps to create jobs, unless you are talking about bloated government jobs.

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #319927

RF:

As for a “general strike” by those in the public sector…it’s illegal and just a liberal mentally disordered hallucination.

Ah, now why does that sound so familiar? Oh wait, I know — claiming that strikes are illegal is exactly what all Parsimonious Pampered Plutocrats and their squadrons of Paid Pinkerton’s have always said! And yet, that has never once stopped a bunch of Pissed-off Proletariats from going on strike in solidarity when they knew they absolutely needed to.

KAP:

Adrienne, Don’t forget the right to work states are doing fairly well.

Ha! That’s hilarious. Thank you for the chuckle, KAP!

1776:

It is all about power and control.

Of course it is — always has been, always will be. Again, we’re all very much aware that this is class war, and that this is nothing other than the age old question: Which Side Are You On? It all comes down to who you think should have power and control. The Wealthy Plutocrats who have always owned everything? Or We the Working People, who have always done all the hard, dirty work while the rich sit around on their asses collecting all the money?

Tell me something; were the police or firefighter unions affected by the changes in WI? Has their union rights been affected? Or is this an attempt to send out misinformation?

Does this question refer to the fact that the Madison Firefighters Union President is calling for a General Strike? If so, maybe you simply can’t grasp the concept of Solidarity? It’s really a very simple concept, this man knows that an injury to one is an injury to all, and if he doesn’t find a way to stand up now, he and all of his firefighter brothers are going be the next in line for the same kind of shabby, completely disrespectful treatment that all these other public workers are getting right now.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2011 10:31 PM
Comment #319929

1776,
Countries that flee the US for other countries with lower environmental standards should not be allowed to do business in this country unless they meet tariffs that even the playing field. The great thing about the US is that anyone can start a new business, and fill the niche of those organizations that choose to go abroad.

To keep out unions, companies will often offer more beneficial terms to employees than they would otherwise offer. This is commonplace.

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2011 10:55 PM
Comment #319930

“It is the government meeting the demands of the unions. My side (the taxpayer) is never represented at the table.”

Absolutely nonsensical Tom. The taxpayer is represented by the same civil service employee that the government is. Such an illogical argument certainly proves Stephen is way out of your league. It’s pure slobberjockey nonsense to think the taxpayer has some special side that is different from the two sides at the bargaining table.That is like thinking the consumer has a side in the bargaining between unions and business. We pay taxes and receive services for these taxes from the teachers, municipal workers and police and fire departments that serve the country so well.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2011 10:58 PM
Comment #319931

Imagine this for a moment:

If the unions made 98% of their political contributions to Republicans instead of Democrats, would the left still be as supportive of collective bargaining?

I think we all know that they would not. They would be screaming from the mountain tops about “corruption” and “back room deals”, and rightfully so. Collective bargaining in the public sector puts unions on both sides of the negotiating table. They negotiate, on behalf of the workers, with the same politicians that they exert an enormous amount of influence over by virtue of their financial support. The process is inherently corrupt and can not possibly result in a fair outcome for the taxpayers.

The truth is that this is not about collective bargaining. That’s what the union leadership has used to mobilize the troops, but the real issue is power. If public sector employees no longer are required to join the union and pay dues, then the union loses a significant portion of its revenue and leverage overnight.

Posted by: Kevin Nye at March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
Comment #319932

Perhaps someone could explain why US automakers have to have bailouts and foreign owned automakers in the US are doing fine? While you’re at it, explain to me why State and Municipal budgets are broken and what part unions play in the problem? In fact, can anyone tell me of any company, state, or municipality that is not in trouble, caused by unions?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 10, 2011 11:33 PM
Comment #319933

KAP,
Since all tax write offs are a gift from “We the People” being liget is a matter of a political question. As far as your Mayor making only $110,000.00/yr. You need to add all the money he raised and spent since those are benefits.

No, Americans might think Public Workers are getting over on the system; however, once the private sector wakes up and realize how bad they are being screwed than I do believe the Republicans are screwed. For if you listen to the mouths of the Talking Heads it is not the Bill Gates and Warren Buffet that are complaining, but folks like the Koch Brothers who are Silver Spoons and wouldn’t have a dime to their name if they had to earn a living.

In fact, I wonder how many Americans today could claim Wealth they have earned without Mommy and Daddy milions or connections? Funny how the Democrats and Republicans don’t dare call out that group for being lazy and useless. Care to challenge Walker and Wisconsin Assembly on if they are smarter than a 5th Grader?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 10, 2011 11:34 PM
Comment #319934

Good point Kevin. I predict a lot of union members opting out of paying dues. You’re right, the corrupt, bloated union bosses are running scared. And the Democrats are afraid of loosing donations.

Posted by: 1776 at March 10, 2011 11:37 PM
Comment #319938

Henry, I worked both union and non union shops and I’d take a non union shop over a union shop any day. I had the same benefits in both but in the non union shop I didn’t have to pay someone to fight for me. I got merit raises not automatic raises like union members get even if they don’t deserve them. In fact I got treated better in a non union shop, so getting screwed NO, IMO union workers are the ones getting screwed. As far as campaign contributions to that mayor, I think it would be illegal to use those contributions for anything other then his campaign so I wouldn’t count that as salary, I was just refering to salary Henry.

Posted by: KAP at March 11, 2011 12:05 AM
Comment #319943

Conservativethinker:

While you’re at it, explain to me why State and Municipal budgets are broken and what part unions play in the problem? In fact, can anyone tell me of any company, state, or municipality that is not in trouble, caused by unions?

People on the right are always making these kinds of assertions, so while you’re at it, where is Your Proof Of This?
The truth is, you have no proof, and you probably aren’t interested in searching out any real information. So you all just keep repeating these rightwing talking points you’ve been fed with nothing whatsoever to back them up.

I know you probably won’t bother to read this, but it’s just an article I was reading the other day for anyone who is actually interested in something more than than empty rightwing talking points and bogus assertions:
Why employee pensions aren’t bankrupting states

Btw, I was just reading this article:
Bargaining Rights Are Human Rights

Seems Walker and those GOP Senators have not only violated the law their state, but have violated International Labor Law and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Here’s a quote:

In the focus on the fight to preserve collective bargaining rights for public employees in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere, the mass media has ignored the international and human rights significance of these battles.
Under international labor law, the right to collectively bargain is considered a fundamental human right. Legislation or executive action to eliminate collective bargaining rights is, therefore, a violation of international law.
Under the Universal Declaration of Human rights (adopted in 1948 by the United Nations), to which the United States is a signatory, the right to bargain collectively is subsumed under the rights to freedom of association and the right to organize into a trade union (Articles 20 and 23). Since the Declaration has been signed and ratified by the United States it is therefore binding on state governments through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2).

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 12:26 AM
Comment #319945

Adrienne-

These crooks met at 1:00 AM, allowed no one near them, and ignored the part of that statute that absolutely required them to give notice of what they were doing 24 hours in advance.

You’re incorrect on all counts. First, they met at 6pm, not 1am. Second, the room was packed with people, including numerous members of the media. Lastly, the 24 hours notice provision applies to when they are in open session, which they were not. They met in a special session, which by Wisconsin Senate Rule 93, does not require any notice (although they still gave two hours notice).

If the Democrats had been doing their jobs instead of usurping the legislative process by hiding out in Illinois, they would have had no problem being available for the committee meeting.

Posted by: Kevin Nye at March 11, 2011 12:47 AM
Comment #319946

Adrienne, tell me you didn’t just put the American people under International and UN Law? Ever heard of the US Constitution, it is the document all military, law enforcement, and politicians sware to uphold. I never swore to uphold Int. and UN law when I served in the military. This is the problem with the left, they don’t have any idea what our founding fathers faught and died for. You accuse me of using rightwing talking points and then quote the HuffPost. Go figure.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 11, 2011 12:48 AM
Comment #319948

Just one more post from mobile. This gets better and better. Read response in middle column.

Kevin, the lefrt does not understand the word “LAW”. To them everything is touchy feely. Adrienne is loosing it.

The post is how the dems got beat at their own game. They packed up their marbles and headed to a protected liberal haven. But while out of town, business continued as usual, and now their mad.

Posted by: 1776 at March 11, 2011 12:58 AM
Comment #319949


Henry, I have worked both union and non union jobs, more nonunion than union, and I have never been paid as much for my labor by the non union employers. To achieve equity in pay meant 60 hours nonunion equals 40 hours union.


Posted by: jlw at March 11, 2011 1:39 AM
Comment #319950

Tom Humes-
If there was no other side to the collective bargaining, was I just imagining the concessions that the Unions said they were willing to make to the Walker Administration?

As for U.S. Steel, the dumping of cheap steel on the world market by asian competitors probably had more to do with it. This, however, would require some to rethink what the meaning of “free market” is. Rethinking such things is politically incorrect for some.

You know, the real reason so many suffer in those states is that corporations try to keep jobs overseas in places where labor is cheaper, safety and environmental concerns are not as important.

The question there, though, might be whether those countries can maintain such low wages and low standards. What happens to our economy when those economies reach parity with our wages?

You’re depending on somebody’s continued willingness to work for those wages. Simple inflation in those growing marekts are going to push the cost of living up.

You’re living in an economic dreamworld, where you can keep burning fossil fuels forever without feeling price shocks, where you can leave a market that nearly self-destructed almost as unregulated as it was before, and expect nothing to go wrong, and where the individual worker, who can be replaced fairly easy, can bargain the same rights as a union that can stand together, denying employers the chance to simply fire the troublemaker not deferring to their terms.

There’s just so much arrogance you can support on such naive propositions before they collapse of their own weight.

I don’t think Wisconsinites are very grateful for what Walker’s done for them. I don’t think they’ll be cheering him on. If he was smart, he should have governed like a moderate, appealed to a broader base in the middle. Instead he’s satisfying folks like you, who by either your admission or somebody elses’s are more liberal than average.

Put in simple terms, the Republicans are daring their audience, their market, to narrow itself. Now the question that should concern you is whether The current delegations at the state and federal level are a new permanent level for the right, or merely a high-water mark, a strong level of participation on your side, and non-participation on ours.

Your side has inspired opposition. You’ve helped make a very clear, and for most, very negative impression of what the Republican party does when it comes to power.

The GOP cannot continue to promise jobs, but only deliver impoverishment and degradation to the nation’s workers. Everybody’s got their breaking point, and some Republican have this odd need to push people until they hit theirs. Then they wonder why people are so angry.

I’ve got this funny attitude, really. I want people to be straight with me.

I don’t think a man’s being straight with me when he hails the passage of a provision which legally had to be regarded as having no significant budget impact to be split off, by saying it indeed would have such an impact. Does the truth get redefined for the convenience of those who want it seen a certain way so they can get what they want?

Or does it just get distorted? The Right in American is so Orwellian these days, and it just makes all the constant charges of hypocrisy towards Democrats all the more galling.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 11, 2011 1:39 AM
Comment #319952

Kevin, am I supposed to take your word for that? Sorry, but I read what I later posted here in several different newspapers this morning. So, if you want me to believe what you say, you’re really going need to provide some links.

As for the rest of you, well the US has been signatory regarding International Law and the UN Declaration of Human Rights — and that means something to me, even thought I know that doesn’t matter to most of you. After all the torture, the renditions, and all of the other atrocities of the past decade, believe me I understand that conservatives think that the signature, the word, or the promise of the USA should now be considered basically worthless.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 2:06 AM
Comment #319953


Speaking of treaties…

The Treaty of Tripoli:

Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The Treaty was ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams.

Posted by: jlw at March 11, 2011 2:07 AM
Comment #319956

“Ever heard of the US Constitution, it is the document all military, law enforcement, and politicians sware to uphold. I never swore to uphold Int. and UN law when I served in the military. This is the problem with the left, they don’t have any idea what our founding fathers faught and died for.”

Conservativethinker,

No, this is the problem with the right. By swearing allegiance to the United States and vowing to uphold the Constitution, you, perhaps unknowingly, also were swearing to uphold all international treaties entered into by the United States as the highest law of the land as well as customary international law (“all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby… .”). In addition, the Supreme Court has long held that customary international law is recognized as a source of law for the United States (see, The Paquete Habana (1900). The law of the sea, war, etc. are examples of customary law. So, having ratified the UN Charter, it terms became a binding legal commitment for the US.

Now, having said that, it is also true that no treaty entered into by the US or any customary international law recognized by US courts can be in contravention to the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be amended or rights granted by it limited or abrogated by international treaties or recognized customary international law. However, it is equally clear that the United States can enter into international agreements having the effect of becoming the supreme law of the land. It can bind itself to international law formally and through custom.

Posted by: Rich at March 11, 2011 8:59 AM
Comment #319957

Rich that is not what Adrienne was talking about. She was saying we are under the UN and International law and we are not. Your own statement says that foreign law cannot supersede the Constitution. We have treaties with other nations, but treaties can and have been broken. China, Russia, African nations, the Middle-East countries, and many more are all members of the UN; are you telling me they are obeying UN and International labor and human rights laws? I don’t think so. I’m sure the left would LOVE to put America under, not only International but also Sharia law. So your attempted arguments to support Adrienne’s lack of knowledge on the subject rings hollow. Going down this road stops where?

“This past April (2010), U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement. Stevens was appointed by President Ford in 1975. President Obama has since nominated Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General, to replace Stevens on the bench.

It is expected that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on Elena Kagan sometime the week of June 28. HSLDA is concerned by some of Kagan’s past writings regarding international law, and its use by U.S. judges.

When Kagan was the dean of Harvard Law School, one of her chief accomplishments was requiring students to take classes in international law during their first year of law school. The reasoning behind this change was revealed in a memo to the Harvard Law School faculty written in 2006 by Dean Kagan and other professors:

Coursework in this area (International/comparative law) should become part of the first year program because, from the start, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe—global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems. Specifically, we recommend the development of three foundation courses, each of which would satisfy the requirement, and each of which represents a door into the global sphere that students will use as context for U.S. law.

When Harvard Law School added international law as a required course, U.S. Constitutional Law became an elective class. This move—and the quote above—seems to demonstrate that Kagan believes courts should look to international law and the laws and precedents of other countries as the lens to use in examining our own Constitution and founding legal documents.

HSLDA believes that this philosophy will come in direct conflict with a Supreme Court justice’s role. Judges should not look to international law and the decisions of foreign nations in order to interpret the U.S. Constitution and apply it to disputes today.

As the Senate begins Kagan’s confirmation hearings, senators need to ask about her views on this important issue. Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) recently explained, “It’s our duty to ensure that the SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] candidate understands the proper role of the Supreme Court in our system of government and will be true to the Constitution and the laws as written.”

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/201006250.asp

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 11, 2011 9:38 AM
Comment #319958

Good points Con. Can you imagine an America where liberals not only controlled the Legislative and Executive, but also completely controlled the Judicial? I dare say we would not recognize this nation. Tell me liberals; is this what you want for America?

Posted by: 1776 at March 11, 2011 9:45 AM
Comment #319963

Commenters:

Please use Kevin L. or Kevin N. when referencing ‘Kevin.’ Otherwise, it gets confusing, even for me - KL ;)

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 11, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #319965

Gotcha Kevin L, didn’t realize there were 2.

Posted by: 1776 at March 11, 2011 12:43 PM
Comment #319970

Conservativethinker:

Rich that is not what Adrienne was talking about. She was saying we are under the UN and International law and we are not.

Actually, what Rich is saying above is exactly what I was talking about. And yes we are. Whenever this nation becomes a signatory to any treaties or UN agreements we are in fact swearing to uphold them. The problem for you is that you either don’t think that our signing on to such agreements should actually mean anything, or you simply don’t what you’re talking about at all. Or perhaps it’s both, and this is why you don’t seem at all embarrassed over the fact that you’re basically spouting a bunch of nonsense.

Btw, Kevin Nye was spouting nonsense above as well. The Senate vote in Wisconsin did indeed hold a surprise vote on that stand alone bill to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights at 1:00 AM and without sufficient notice — in contravention of Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law.

Even though I realize that a lot of you righties don’t actually require any factual proof in order to keep on believing whatever you’ve decided to believe, here’s a link to prove that the comments I made earlier were correct:

Wisconsin House Passes Anti-Union Bill In Surprise 1 A.M. Flash Vote

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #319974

Kevin said: “Second, the room was packed with people, including numerous members of the media.”

Not according to some people:
Wisconsin Politics Become Hotbed of Complaints and Lawsuits

In the wake of the hastily arranged committee meeting to move the collective bargaining bill to the Wisconsin Senate for passage, protesters being forcibly removed from the capitol, and reporters temporarily barred from the building, the formal complaints and lawsuits are starting to fly.
Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 1:13 PM
Comment #319977

Okay Adrienne, answer me this, “are China, Russia, African nations, the Middle-East countries members of the UN”, then answer this, “are they under the same laws and treaties”, then answer me this, “do the abide by these laws and treaties”?

The answer is yes they are, yes they are, and no they don’t.

And you say we are bound by these rules!!! Your statements show your ignorance… At least Rich had enough sense to say the laws cannot supercede the Constitution..

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 11, 2011 1:20 PM
Comment #319978
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca decried the hastily convened conference session as a violation of the state’s open meetings law, which generally requires 24 hours’ notice, and a minimum of two hours’ notice, for meetings.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald did not respond to a request for comment.

At the brief and contentious joint conference session, where Barca was the only Democrat present, he told Fitzgerald, “Mr. Chairman, this is a violation of law! This is not just a rule — this is the law.”

In Wisconsin, GOP maneuver pushes anti-union bill forward

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 1:31 PM
Comment #319979

I see Conservativethinker, so what you’re saying is that because other nations choose to disregard their agreements, we can too, and because their signatures may mean little or nothing, then neither should ours.
I don’t agree.

At least Rich had enough sense to say the laws cannot supercede the Constitution..

You know, I’m getting the sense that you didn’t actually read what Rich said:

no treaty entered into by the US or any customary international law recognized by US courts can be in contravention to the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be amended or rights granted by it limited or abrogated by international treaties or recognized customary international law. However, it is equally clear that the United States can enter into international agreements having the effect of becoming the supreme law of the land. It can bind itself to international law formally and through custom.

I agreed with him.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 1:43 PM
Comment #319984

Adrienne:

Btw, Kevin Nye was spouting nonsense above as well. The Senate vote in Wisconsin did indeed hold a surprise vote on that stand alone bill to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights at 1:00 AM and without sufficient notice — in contravention of Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law.

Yes, the vote was at 1am, but the Open Meetings Law that people are claiming was violated applies to the committee meeting in which they split the bill, not the actual vote which took place 5 hours later.

Kevin said: “Second, the room was packed with people, including numerous members of the media.”

Not according to some people:

I don’t need a news article to tell me that I don’t know what I saw. The video footage of the meeting is widely available and one can clearly see that it was standing room only, which is clearly contrary to the notion that is was held in secret.

Posted by: Kevin Nye at March 11, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #319987

Okay, I’ll stand corrected by Kevin Nye on the time frame of the Senate vote. The article I link to below is claiming that the actual vote took place at 6PM. However on every other count, I will still stand by everything else I wrote. This was a surprise vote, the Senate did not give notice as required by Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin GOP OKs Bill Limiting Collective Bargaining

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #319995

SD

“As for U.S. Steel, the dumping of cheap steel on the world market by asian competitors probably had more to do with it.”

Right out of high school I had a job in a steel fabrication plant. They bought Cold Rold Steel in coil form. They formed the steel into tubular steel. We bought MLX50 steel from McClouth Steel. We also bought steel from Japan. The “cheap steel” was better steel than McClouth. We could buy, transport to port and port to site cheaper than just purchasing McClouth steel. The reason is that the unions had pushed the cost of production so high that it made it better for our company to purchase the way they did. This is but one example. There are a myriad of others.

The unions do not provide wealth they only take it and redistribute it to their cronies.

Posted by: tom humes at March 11, 2011 4:23 PM
Comment #320005

The unions do not provide wealth they only take it and redistribute it to their cronies.

Posted by: tom humes at March 11, 2011

Good comment Tom. Reminds me of liberal government.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2011 6:13 PM
Comment #320030

Adrienne continues to show her lack of understanding f he English language.

I said in a previous remark:

“At least Rich had enough sense to say the laws cannot supersede the Constitution..”

Adrienne responded with this remark by quoting Rich and telling me I didn’t properly understand Rich’s statement:

“no treaty entered into by the US or any customary international law recognized by US courts can be in contravention to the Constitution”

The key word is “CONTRAVENTION”; now let’s see what Webster says:

“con•tra•ven•tion noun \ˌkän-trə-ˈven(t)-shən\
Definition of CONTRAVENTION
: the act of contravening : violation”

Now, let’s look at the word “VIOLATION”:

“vi•o•la•tion noun \ˌvī-ə-ˈlā-shən\
Definition of VIOLATION
: the act of violating : the state of being violated: as a : infringement, transgression; specifically : an infringement of the rules in sports that is less serious than a foul and usually involves technicalities of play
b : an act of irreverence or desecration : profanation”

Now let’s take a look at “SUPERSEDE”:

“su•per•sede verb \ˌsü-pər-ˈsēd\
su•per•sed•edsu•per•sed•ing
Definition of SUPERSEDE
transitive verb
1a : to cause to be set aside b : to force out of use as inferior
2: to take the place or position of
3: to displace in favor of another


Perhaps the all knowing Adrienne could explain to us the difference between “Contravention” and “Supersede”?

I propose that both words mean that Treaties or Agreements between the US and the UN and any other foreign body CANNOT be followed if they transgress irreverence, desecrate, infringe, take the place of, violate, or cause to set aside the United States Constitution.

Adrienne has no problem with other countries, who are part of the UN, violating international laws and human rights, but believes America is required to follow them. Tell me something Adrienne; do you have a problem with the United States paying for, maintaining, and sending our military around the world to fight in every conflict? The rest of the world is part of the UN and is supposed to supply troops for world conflicts. As a liberal, we know you have a disdain for the military and believe it should be the first place to make budget cuts. Liberals also believe we have no right defending countries in every conflict in the world. But it is our responsibility, under the UN agreement you speak of. Why is it alright to disobey one part of the UN treaty/agreement and not the other? We must obey international law but we cannot get involved in world conflicts.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at March 11, 2011 11:50 PM
Comment #320059

tom humes-
A few facts to check: Does Japan have steelworker unions? Yes. So is that the reason? Well, it could also be that American steel companies didn’t keep up with Japan’s automation. You might blame that, too, on the unions, but you could also blame it on the unwillingness of the management to pay for new equipment and facilities. I mean, why do you believe that only union members can make a company uncompetitive by getting too greedy? How many companies see their executives skim millions off the top, while playing numbers games to do so?

You have a fixed set of causes you want to attribute problems to. The trouble is, not everything works out according to your expectations, or mine for that matter. And, for the record, Asian companies did subsidize their steel exports. Did American corporations complain? Some did, but most probably backed it because they wanted to get things cheap. And of course, Republicans felt it was alright to let a major industry go under.

The truth is, free trade as you think of it is a fantasy. The Multinationals, whose interest the politicians, especially the Republicans represented, made sure that all the dumps, the subsidies, and the blocking and tariffing of imports went unchallenged. The banner of Free trade is just what they wave to justify that kind of indifference to our nation’s needs in the world market.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #320060

SD

The time frame was in the 60’s. Things were vastly different then.

You are dealing in what ifs, could ifs, might haves, and maybes.

I don’t deal that way.

Posted by: tom humes at March 12, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #320062

1776-
You being literal?

When I started blogging here, I had a government that had set deliberate policy that created a new deficit. It took us into war in Iraq based on what they should have realized was false information. It stubbornly refused to change policy on Iraq, and kept us in a dead-end strategy until 2006.

I blog here to promote, first and foremost, the value of competent leadership. I do not want politicians in charge who assume by default that government will screw up, and assuming that, do little to keep it from screwing up.

I do not like politicians who politicize their carrying out of policy to such an extend that practical judgments like whether to send armor to refit the troops humvees come second to an Administrations need to look good.

I do not like politicians who treat the Justice department like their own personal political staff, or who take classified information about an intelligence agent, and fling it around to win a debate in the press.

I want people in charge, first and foremost, who take the duties they are given seriously, and do not use the government’s power merely to manipulate the rest of the country politically. If they aim to benefit politically from a program, it should be by benefiting the people of this country, not by creating false appearances.

Beyond that? I believe the government has a role to play in helping us to pioneer new technology, and to push the frontiers, both real and virtual, that this country faces.

I don’t think of government as superhuman, or not needing checks and balances to keep it in check. But I don’t think the Constitution was written so that only policies from today’s conservatives, with their bias about what the law says, what laws should be passed, or whatever else, would be allowed. I think the Republicans are only projecting their own opinion, which the constitution merely places in an equal position to affect policy, with being the constitutional law itself, and its only consistent interpretation.

I think the thing that worked about what the Framers built was that we didn’t purchase liberty at the expense of a government that could govern, or vice versa. Rather than go to one extreme where the government would be too weak to mediate disputes, coordinate the states, levy taxes, or any of that, or go to the other extreme of a government that could simply run roughshod over all of us, they went with a government that could govern when it was appropriate, but which had to respect our freedom otherwise.

At heart, I’m a functionalist. I don’t want bureaucracies too thick to navigate, or laws too complicated to follow. I like Temple Grandin’s view that regulations should be built on results. Like, if you want to require non-slip surfaces, instead of laying out a laundry list of technical requirements, you say, “If cattle slip going through that chute, you fail the inspection.”

I think that’s the best way: hybridize the market’s ability to adapt to various situations, come up with multiple different solutions and test them, with the government’s authority to require certain results.

I think regulation on Wall Street and in business should allow people the information they need to judge the risk they’re taking. If such information is kept from them, then the market’s a joke, and too many of the investors will be maladapted to the market’s conditions as a matter of course. And when that happens, people don’t invest.

I want derivatives traded openly, with people made aware of just how the banks they’re invested in are obligated and entangled with other institutions. When the fortunes of an economy depend on something that nobody but the bank itself knows exists, then nobody can gauge their risk properly.

I do not believe the absence of public regulation equals the presence of real incentive for the private concerns to self-police. Forgive me, but during my lifetime, there have been a litany of failures and collapses that have led me to conclude that speculative interests, without proper regulatory checks on them, are apt to overheat markets badly and cause collapses when their price run-ups prove unjustified. I think there’s too much high-risk, low-productivity activity going on, and that has to be reined in.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #320063

tom humes-
Sorry, but when nature gave me a brain that was capable of logically sorting out the world, of testing ideas in my head before I tried them out in reality, I didn’t look the gift horse in the mouth.

The quality of your decision making depends on the quality of your theories. If your self-description is accurate, you’re simply acting as a consumer of somebody else’s theories, rather than a developer of your own ideas, and your own perception.

As an American, I think we’re obligated to bring the quality of our ability to hand information and learn things up to the maximum we’re capable of. At least, that is, if we want to have real control over our lives. If we don’t examine the principles by which we live, we might as well not be free.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2011 3:29 PM
Comment #320084

SD

As usual, SD, a lot of presumptions, assumptions, guessing, and thinking you know me. And I don’t deal the same way you deal. There is one of your assumptions. That because I am different I am wrong. Let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Posted by: tom humes at March 12, 2011 8:05 PM
Comment #320085

Well Stephen,I am glad you only represent one vote and in the minority at that..

Posted by: 1776 at March 12, 2011 9:23 PM
Comment #320088

SD - A friendly word of advice:

Your litany of personal beliefs in comment #062 will most likely come back to haunt you. In other words, don’t put yourself in a box philosophically. When you gain a few years, you’ll likely feel differently about many of these beliefs and thus your words and statements will ultimately reveal yourself as a flip-flopper or a person who changes his mind too often.

Thus, these affirmations may negatively affect you either as a writer/blogger or as a potential politician, if you so choose to run for elected office in the future.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 12, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #320106

tom humes-
Yes, a bunch of bluster about how I’m wrong, but no real premises for the conclusion you offer.

1776-
Why are you glad? Do you believe that banks should leverage themselves up to their eyeballs in a way their investors never see disclosure on? That they should be capable of defrauding and deceiving customers, as they’ve been demonstrated to have done, that there shouldn’t be any regulation of a sector in which most of our wealth lays, and from which much of our wealth disappeared?

Kevin L. Lagola-
Sigh. If more people took Emerson seriously when he said a false consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, we’d be in better shape.

Consistency is no virtue when the only consistency you have is with yourself.

We all have to deal with this world as it comes to us. We do not get to figure it out all in advance. If I contradict what I’ve said before, I’m better off explaining what changed my mind than expressing nothing out of the fear that I might be inconsistent with myself in the future.

Using your standards with elected officials is a bad idea. You won’t get people who are truly flexible, or truly consistent in a useful way. You’ll just get the people who are too hard-headed to admit defeat on an idea.

We’ve already seen somebody like that, what they did. We should get people who are willing to contradict themselves to correct mistakes, or erroneous beliefs, rather than the ones who will stick to a talking point even while the consequences of their bad idea wear on the good fortunes of this country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2011 9:29 PM
Comment #320109

SD

Did you forget his name? BHO? Someday maybe before the rapture you will wise up instead of just trying to be a loose lip.

Posted by: tom humes at March 13, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #320117

tom humes-
I don’t believe in the Rapture. I believe that at the end of the world, we’ll all be judged together, as equals in the eyes of God, and the difference will be in our hearts, not merely on our lips.

As for wising up? I can’t say that what I see policy-wise out of the GOP will turn out well, having seen the same policies fail. Their economic policies brought about a terrible failure. Their fiscal policies are responsible for the vast majority of the debt they now hold against Democrats. Their war policies have left us fighting two wars with no clear end in sight for either.

We were told we’d know the tree from its fruits. Do I need to taste every fruit on the tree, and continue to eat from it every season from here to eternity to earn the right to dissent? Your people have proven themselves unwise, naive in your assumptions. That, or your leaders never told us the full truth of their intentions.

Error insisted upon doesn’t improve in its correctness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2011 10:05 AM
Comment #320121

SD

When the rapture occurs you will believe.

Dissent is one thing. Saying something is a fact when it is not is not dissent.

You continually blame one side for failure and rarely admit that it is both sides that have caused the failure of our government doing what it is meant to do. That is an “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude. There is too much evidence to show that both political parties have brought us to the brink of financial bankruptcy and I will add moral bankruptcy. There are individuals who are ignorant about our Constitution who make the decisions we live with daily. An example. The “brilliant” Chuck Shumer saying the three branches of government are the administration, the house and the senate. He never corrected that remark.
There are people who do not know their responsibility under the Constitution who make decisions daily that affect us all. There are people who do understand the responsibilities and are trying to right the ship of state to be what it is supposed to be. Those people today are few. Narcisistic behavior is rampant in The US Congress. When those narcisists show up for work, things happen that do not benefit our country. Case in point. The decision makers should proceed to use those natural resources in our country that would bring the cost of energy down. The middle east is dictating what our price of energy is. To some that is ok. For the American people that is entirely wrong.

When you write, it is from the left thought pattern. It is not from the American people perspective. Others on WB see it the same way. You mix opinion with “facts”. When you discern the difference you will be a better adversary.

If you think earning the right to dissent is proper then continue on working to earn. To me dissent is a right that is not earned, it is part of my American citizenship and heritage. Just don’t mistake dissent with everything you write is correct and those on the “other side” are wrong because they don’t agree with your alledge “facts”.

Posted by: tom humes at March 14, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #320164


Will the social justice Christians be raptured or don’t they qualify as real Christians?

Can a socialist be a Christian or does he have to convert to capitalism before he can be a Christian?

Posted by: jlw at March 15, 2011 3:11 AM
Comment #320186

A Christian is a personal choice some people make and is only between that person and God. 80% claime to be christian in this country, but only less than 10% believe the Bible to be true. That means 70% need to reconcile what they are and what they believe.

The answers to your 2 questions would be find someone who fits the bill and examine their response in depth. Wbich is that more questions must be asked. The simplest one is define a christian. I have my opinion on the questions, but it is opinion and it is based upon Bible teaching.

Posted by: tom humes at March 15, 2011 11:54 AM
Post a comment