Why Wisconsin’s Scott Walker Must Win [Archive] - HungAngels

View Full Version : Why Wisconsin’s Scott Walker Must Win

Ben

03-07-2011, 02:56 AM

http://www.humanevents.com//img/2_smallpersonimage_93.gif

671 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42058#disqus_thread)
Comments (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42058#comments)

Why Scott Walker Must Win
by Patrick J. Buchanan (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Patrick%20J.+Buchanan)

03/01/2011

The anti-democratic methods President Obama's union allies are using in Wisconsin testify to the crucial character of the battle being fought.

Teachers have walked off in wildcat strikes, taking pupils with them. Doctors have issued lying affidavits saying the teachers were sick, a good example of ethical conduct for the school kids.

Thousands of demonstrators have daily invaded the Capitol, chanting, hooting, banging drums. Hundreds have camped out there and refused to leave so the Capitol building can be cleaned.

(http://oascentral.humanevents.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/humanevents.com/article/L23/1363025978/Middle/EaglePub/adsales_27258-SF_HEMR_AF-0204/2011-0301_300x250_AgoraFin-PSF_Terrorist_Obama.jpg/526a5a6c315531304c59454141546774?x)

Is this democracy in action? Is this what 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green went out to see that Saturday morning in Tucson?

Picketers have carried placards with the face of Gov. Scott Walker in the cross hairs of a gun sight. He has been compared to Hitler, Mussolini, Mubarak. Democrats have fled the state to deny the elected Wisconsin Senate a quorum to vote.

Such tactics cannot be allowed to triumph in a republic.

Why is the left behaving with desperation? Because it senses what this battle is all about. Not just about pay, but about power.

The Republicans are not only resolved to guarantee government workers pay a fair share of the cost of their pensions and health care. They are in a purposeful drive to disarm and demobilize the tax-subsidized armies of the Democratic Party and end sweetheart deals between unions and the poodle politicians they put into office.

"Walker wants to end collective bargaining," is the wail.

Actually, what the governor wants to end is the scandalous practice of powerful unions raising millions and running phone banks and get-out-the-vote operations for politicians who thank them with wages, benefits and job security no private employer can match.

Since the 1960s, government unions have been able to sit behind closed doors with the politicians they put in office and write contracts, the cost of which is borne by taxpayers who have no one at the table.

They call this collective bargaining. A more accurate term is collusive bargaining. And Walker means put an end to the racket.

When Ford sits down with the UAW, Ford negotiators represent the executives, directors and shareholders. Should they give away the store and Ford have to raise prices, and be undercut by Honda, all Ford workers, shareholders and executives suffer.

This is a healthy adversary procedure where Ford and the UAW each represents the interests of those who sent them, and both share a stake in keeping Ford prosperous.

When government unions sit down with the politicians they put into office, the relationship is not adversarial. It is not healthy. It is incestuous. And taxpayers must pay the cost of their cohabitation.

Gov. Walker also seeks to end the practice of having the state government collect union dues from state workers.

Indeed, why should a Republican administration collect dues for the benefit of union bosses who constantly labor to see to it those Republicans are not re-elected? Let the unions collect their own dues.

Walker would also require public service employee unions to hold annual elections by secret ballot to determine if state workers want the union to represent them, or if they would prefer to have their deducted union dues put back in their paychecks.

Legislators submit to voters every two years.

Why ought not unions to do the same?

In Wisconsin, the die is cast and Walker cannot yield.

For if he yields, the state and its 3,000 cities, counties, towns and school districts will be forever at the mercy of these unions.

If he yields, it will be a triumph for the tactics of intimidation, wildcat strikes and mass demonstrations to block legislative action.

The senators who fled will come home heroes, and Walker will have broken the hearts of the people who put their faith in him.

If Walker yields, governors and legislators across America will read the tea leaves and back away from taking on government unions. That means higher and higher taxes, as in Illinois, and eventual sinking of the states into unpayable debt and default.

The correlation of forces is in Walker's favor. Time is on his side. When you are holding a winning hand, you do not offer to split the pot.

After his opponents invaded the Capitol, called him Hitler, fled the state, and tried to shout down and shut down the legislature with raucous demonstrations, what other cards do they have left to play?

Walker has recalled Ronald Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers as an example of how a strong leader must stand up even to a popular union when it is wrong.

There is an earlier example. When the Boston police went on strike and criminals ran amuck, and Sam Gompers came to the defense of the cops, Gov. Calvin Coolidge sent a telegram to that founding father of the American labor movement, "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time."

Scott Walker cannot lose this fight, because his country cannot afford to have him lose it.

Ben

03-07-2011, 03:08 AM

I should add: I don't agree with Pat Buchanan. But I thought it'd provoke an interesting discussion. (I agree with Buchanan about free(r) trade. Pat Buchanan is against free trade and the offshoring of American jobs. But we don't have free trade. I should underscore what Adam Smith said about free trade. The absolute core of free trade is the free circulation of LABOR. Meaning: you can go anywhere you want.) And here is an interesting article written by the conservative economist Paul C. Roberts:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/harsh_truth.htm

Jackal

03-07-2011, 04:46 AM

hippifried

03-07-2011, 05:04 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzpffffth!!!

Oh. Buchannan's spoutin' off again? Wake me up if anything relevant happens.

onmyknees

03-07-2011, 05:54 AM

Actually, the first part is a beautiful example of democracy(which Buchannan despises , preferring the USA to be a republic through and through, yet goldbricks to pretend he is with democracy in the 21st century). It worked in India, Egypt and Tunisia, maybe the plutocrats and corporations will lose their iron grip and everyone else can participate.

I agree the Hitler posters/comments are OTT, although I am not sure how Buchannon even sees this as insulting given his Holocaust denial, support for amnesty for war criminals like Barbie and his blaming of the Allies for WWII. Why hasn't he said anything about Beck's ad Nazium attacks on Fox? He points out a few protestors and politicians words invoking Hitler comparisons yet Obama as Hitler/Nazi was ubiquitous at his Tea Party rallies/protests and Broun has made the comments too.

He is also a liar and ignoramus on history, as usually, in regards to the Boston police strike. Completely incomparable to WI. Thankfully there are real historians today to keep the truth alive from such pop culture mendacities.

Interesting...You attact the writer for some past positions and writings, but you barely touch on his arguments. Why I wonder? It's typical of your ilk to attack the messenger, but I see no retort to his point. Typical Liberal. Personal attacks...

So let's try this....You obviously have no afinity for PB, and I can understand that, but you fall back on personal attacks and motives. I suppose that's why you identify yourself as Jackal? I prefer Peggy Noonans take on this...or will you try to take her down too? Her article presents some eye opening facts...read on Mr. Closemind.

Public Unions Get Too 'Friendly'

They resemble 'On the Waterfront' more than 'Norma Rae.'

By PEGGY NOONAN
When you step back and try to get a sense of the larger picture in the battle between the states and their public-employee unions, two elements emerge. One seems small but could prove decisive, and the other is big and, if I'm seeing it right, carries significant implications.

The seemingly small thing is that the battles in the states, while summoning emotions from all sides, are not at their heart emotional. Yes, a lot of people are waving placards, but it's also true that suddenly everyone's talking about numbers; the numbers are being reported in the press and dissected on talk radio. This state has a $5 billion deficit; that state has projected deficits in the tens of millions. One estimate of New Jersey's bill for health and pension benefits for state workers over the next 30 years is an astounding $100 billion—money the state literally does not have and cannot get. The very force of the math has the heartening effect of squeezing ideology right out of the story. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or a conservative, it's all about the numbers, and numbers are sobering things.
The rise of arithmetic as a player in the drama is politically promising because when people argue over data and hard facts, and not over ideological loyalties and impulses, progress is more possible. Governors can take their stand, their opponents can take theirs, and if they happen to argue the budget problem doesn't really exist, they'll have to prove it. With numbers.
The big thing that is new has to do with the atmospherics of the drama.

Let's look for a second at one of the most famous battles, in New Jersey. A year ago Chris Christie was sworn in as the new governor. He immediately faced a $10.7 billion deficit and catastrophic debt projections. State and local taxes were already high, so that if he raised them he'd send people racing out of the state. So Mr. Christie came up with a plan. He asked the state's powerful teachers union for two things: a one-year pay freeze—not a cut—and a modest 1.5% contribution to their benefit packages.
The teachers union went to war. They said, "Christie is trying to kill the unions," so they tried to kill him politically. They spent millions on ads trying to take him down.
And it backfired. They didn't kill him, they made him. Chris Christie is a national figure now because the teachers union decided, in an epic political drama in which arithmetic is the predominant fact, to ignore the math. They also decided to play the wrong role in the drama. They decided to play the role of Johnny Friendly, on whom more in a moment.
If the union leaders had been smart—if they'd had a heart!—they would have held a private meeting and said, "Look, the party's over. We've done great the past 20 years, but now taxpayers are starting to resent us, and they have reason. They're losing their benefits and footing the bill for our gold-plated plans, they don't have job security and we do, taxes are high. We have to back off."
They didn't do this. It was a big mistake. And the teachers union made it just as two terrible but unrelated things were happening to their reputation. In what might be called an expression of the new spirit of transparency that is sweeping the globe, two documentaries came out in 2010, "The Lottery" and "Waiting for Superman." Both were made by and featured people who are largely liberal in their sympathies, and both said the same brave thing: The single biggest impediment to better schools in our country is the teachers unions, which look to their own interests and not those of the kids.
In both films, as in real life, the problem is the unions themselves, not individual teachers. They present teachers who are heroic, who are creative and idealistic. But they too, in the films, are victims of union rules.

Marlon Brando in a scene from 'On The Waterfront' with Lee J Cobb.

http://si.wsj.net/img/BTN_insetClose.gif

More Peggy Noonan

That's the unions' problem in terms of atmospherics. They are starting to destroy their own reputation. They are robbing themselves of their mystique. They still exist, and they're big and rich—a force—but they are abandoning the very positive place they've held in the American imagination. Polls are all over the place on union support, but I'm speaking of the kind of thing that is hard to quantify and that has to do with words like "luster" and "tradition."
Unions have been respected in America forever, and public-employee unions have reaped that respect. There are two great reasons for this. One is that unions always stood for the little guy. The other is that Americans like balance. We have management over here and the union over here, they'll talk and find balance, it'll turn out fine.
But with the public-employee unions, the balance has been off for decades. And when they lost their balance they fell off their pedestal.
When union leaders negotiate with a politician, they're negotiating with someone they can hire and fire. Public unions have numbers and money, and politicians need both. And politicians fear strikes because the public hates them. When governors negotiate with unions, it's not collective bargaining, it's more like collusion. Someone said last week the taxpayers aren't at the table. The taxpayers aren't even in the room.
As for unions looking out for the little guy, that's not how it's looking right now. Right now the little guy is the public school pupil whose daily rounds take him from a neglectful family to an indifferent teacher who can't be removed. The little guy is the beleaguered administrator whose attempts at improvement are thwarted by unions. The little guy is the private-sector worker who doesn't have a good health-care plan, who barely has a pension, who lacks job security, and who is paying everyone else's bills.
This is a major perceptual change. In my lifetime, people have felt so supportive of unions. That great scene in the 1979 film "Norma Rae," in which the North Carolina cotton mill worker played by Sally Field holds up the sign that says UNION—people were moved by that scene because they believed in its underlying justice. When I was a child, kids bragged if their father had a union job because it meant he was part of something, someone was looking out for him, he was a citizen.
There were hiccups—the labor racketeering scandals of the 1950s, Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters. But they served as a corrective to romanticism. Men in groups will be men in groups, whether they run a government or a union. Budd Schulberg and Elia Kazan captured this in their 1954 masterpiece, "On the Waterfront," in which Terry Malloy, played by Marlon Brando, stands up to the selfish, bullying union chief Johnny Friendly. Brando's character testifies to the Waterfront Commission and then defiantly stands down Johnny and his goons. "I'm glad what I done today. . . . You hear me? Glad what I done."
We're at quite a moment when public-employee unions remind you of Johnny Friendly. They're so powerful, such a base of the Democratic Party, and they must think nothing can hurt them. But they can hurt themselves. And they are. Are they noticing?

</DIV>

onmyknees

03-07-2011, 05:56 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzpffffth!!!

Oh. Buchannan's spoutin' off again? Wake me up if anything relevant happens.

Nah....I think I prefer you the way you are 98% of the time.....
comatose ! :dancing:

trish

03-07-2011, 07:41 AM

YouTube - 'America Is NOT Broke': Michael Moore Speaks in Madison, WI -- March 5, 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw&feature=player_embedded)

Cuchulain

03-07-2011, 04:44 PM

Ahh...Pat Buchanan, Hunter Thompson's old drinking buddy - which is pretty much the only good thing I can say about Pat. Well, ok, I'll admit he does tell some pretty good political stories about his days with Nixon.

Interesting that Ms. Noonan says " We have management over here and the union over here, they'll talk and find balance, it'll turn out fine", but "When union leaders negotiate with a politician, they're negotiating with someone they can hire and fire." Let's talk about balance. I pointed out in another thread that when highly-paid corporate lobbyists sit down with politicians, it's the same scenario. Corporate money (especially since the Supremes' disastrous Citizen's United decision) can and does elect and defeat politicians. Corporate money is MUCH bigger than union money. Corporate interests are frequently antithetical to the interests of labor...and taxpayers...and consumers...and the environment - which are all the same thing, really. Noonan says "taxpayers aren't even in the room" when public union contracts are negotiated. They sure as hell aren't in the room when the Big Business lobbyists are strong-arming legislators.

Politics is a dirty business. Unions learned early on that they needed political power to survive and make progress. Now they are painted as thugs because they use the system the same way the other side does. Make no mistake - unions are not as powerful as the Big Money boys they oppose. They provide a weak counterbalance at best. Corps are the 800lb gorilla in the room - 1500lb grizzly bear might be a better analogy since Citizens United. But, as the old lady in the little mining town said about the red hair, "it's better than none". Yes, I'm lumping public and private sector unions together, because killing one effectively kills the power of the other.

Teacher unions don't just bargain on wages and benefits. They argue over class size and other factors which directly impact the quality of education provided in our schools. I'm all for cleaning up the system as long as it's done in a balanced way. The only ones who fit the 'John Friendly' model in Wisconsin are the Koch brothers, who gave Walker his marching orders.

Cuchulain

03-07-2011, 04:58 PM

A couple other points:

'An April 2010 report by the Center for State & Local Government Excellence - a nonpartisan, Washington-based group with Republicans and Democrats on its board of directors - found that in 2008, state workers nationwide earned 11 percent less and local workers earned 12 percent less than private workers with comparable education levels.
The same study found that in Wisconsin between 2000 and 2008, total compensation for state and local workers was less than comparable private sector workers.'
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=6nYFkghz

'The fight in Wisconsin is over Governor Walker’s 144-page Budget Repair Bill. (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf) The parts everyone is focusing on have to do with the right to collectively bargain being stripped from public sector unions (except for the unions that supported Walker running for Governor (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/scrooge-ism_in_wisconsin_part.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)). Focusing on this misses a large part of what the bill would do. Check out this language, from the same bill (my bold):
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
The bill would allow for the selling of state-owned heating/cooling/power plants without bids and without concern for the legally-defined public interest. This excellent catch is from Ed at ginandtacos.com (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2011/02/21/stand-and-deliver/) (who, speaking of Madison, took me to the Essen Haus (http://www.essen-haus.com/) on my 21st birthday, where the night began to go sideways). Ed correctly notes:
If this isn’t the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don’t know what is. It’s like a highlight reel of all of the tomahawk dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term “public interest” as “whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is.”
In case it isn’t clear where the naked cronyism comes in, remember which large, politically active private interest loves (http://www.kochind.com/ViewPoint/climateEnergy.aspx) buying up power plants and already has considerable interests in Wisconsin (http://www.kochind.com/factsSheets/WisconsinFacts.aspx). Then consider their demonstrated eagerness (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/big-surprise-not-gov-walker-is-a-creature-of-koch-industries/) to help Mr. Walker get elected and bus in carpetbaggers to have a sad little pro-Mubarak style “rally” in his honor (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116519738.html). There are dots to be connected here, but doing so might not be in the public interest.
It’s important to think of this battle as a larger one over the role of the state. The attempt to break labor is part of the same continuous motion as saying that the crony, corporatist selling of state utilities to the Koch brothers and other energy interests is the new “public interest.”'
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/

NYBURBS

03-07-2011, 07:40 PM

I'm all for cleaning up the system as long as it's done in a balanced way.

This would be my position also. There are real budget issues all over the nation, and corrections need to be made, but singling out the public labor unions for derailment will only do a disservice to the rest of us. The government uses its authority to favor certain institutions and businesses, at the expense of others, and usually via money that is raised by mandatory taxes. I have my issues with unions, but ending collective bargaining while at the same time keeping the corporate welfare state is no way to go about achieving meaningful reform.

What is taking place right now equates to cannibalism, and it's unfortunate, but not surprising, that the Tea Party is aligned with the Governor of Wisconsin in this. That movement started as a protest to the corporate bailouts and TARP, but the neo-cons got their hands in it and now it's just another tool of those that helped get us into this financial disaster.

Before we go throwing regular people to the wolves, perhaps we can look at some other means of gaining back lost revenue. Stop spending money to buy weapons and equipment for foreign militaries, end these nonsensical and unwinnable wars, close down our bases in Europe and the rest of the world (Europe and Japan are completely capable of defending their own interests), and end all tax exemptions (including ones for religious groups). Start with those and then we can all sit down and talk about the remaining deficit.

Jackal

03-07-2011, 10:07 PM

Oh ok, telling the truth is off limits? Pat Buchanan has a long history of Holocaust denial and Nazi sympathy and he wrote an article attacking protestors who used signs featuring Hitler, which I agree is OTT. It is a bit like Mark Foley upset that someone mentioned sexting, given his past, it is hypocritical at best. His own sleaze brings him down and it sticks to him like tar on a road. I addressed his simpleton "points." It is beautiful to see real democracy in the USA for the first time in decades, like it has occurred recently in Tunisia. Peaceful protests against the targeting of teachers and union busting, this is the political activism of MLK, I love it and I want to see workers' rights stand strong.

Walker put Wisconsin in debt with his tax cuts, refuses to settle for compromise(teachers willing to give some consessions in pay despite already being paid below the national avg for teachers by 7K) and wants to strip their legal rights for the sake of the budget despite the fact it has nothing to do with the budget. He has not done this to unions that overall supported him, because he is abusing his position for political gain. He will be recalled in a year when it is first possible.

Oh and onmyknees, nice ad hom while criticizing me for supposedly doing the same, which was the entire article in the first place despite Beck, Fox, Tea Party, etc. I suppose that is "typical" of closeted neocon McCarthyists. And the jackal is my favorite animal, I used to see them in the wild often.

YouTube - "GLENN BECK HAS NAZI TOURETTES!" - Lewis Black Steamrolls Glenn Beck! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk)

Faldur

03-07-2011, 11:06 PM

Walker put Wisconsin in debt with his tax cuts,

I think that statement is a bit disingenuous, how does a $137 million in tax cuts cause a $3.6 billion deficit in two years? Those tax cuts may or may not be a good idea, but Walker is desperate to get business back into the state so he has more tax payers.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

trish

03-08-2011, 12:55 AM

onmyknees

03-08-2011, 01:49 AM

[QUOTE=Jackal;892960]Oh ok, telling the truth is off limits? Pat Buchanan has a long history of Holocaust denial and Nazi sympathy and he wrote an article attacking protestors who used signs featuring Hitler, which I agree is OTT. It is a bit like Mark Foley upset that someone mentioned sexting, given his past, it is hypocritical at best. His own sleaze brings him down and it sticks to him like tar on a road. I addressed his simpleton "points." It is beautiful to see real democracy in the USA for the first time in decades, like it has occurred recently in Tunisia. Peaceful protests against the targeting of teachers and union busting, this is the political activism of MLK, I love it and I want to see workers' rights stand strong.

Walker put Wisconsin in debt with his tax cuts, refuses to settle for compromise(teachers willing to give some consessions in pay despite already being paid below the national avg for teachers by 7K) and wants to strip their legal rights for the sake of the budget despite the fact it has nothing to do with the budget. He has not done this to unions that overall supported him, because he is abusing his position for political gain. He will be recalled in a year when it is first possible.

Oh and onmyknees, nice ad hom while criticizing me for supposedly doing the same, which was the entire article in the first place despite Beck, Fox, Tea Party, etc. I suppose that is "typical" of closeted neocon McCarthyists. And the jackal is my favorite animal, I used to see them in the wild often.

Well you said nothing of substance on PB's comments, so it would have been difficult to respond in kind. All I was left was comment on your comments. All you pro public sector union supporters take a moment to read this....What is your battle cry going to be when California defaults next ? You think we're making these numbers up? A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS in unfunded liabilities. Think about that. > Look, I'm not anti union, ( but I'm not in love with public sector unions) but the gig is up, the magic carpet ride is over. It was fun while it lasted.....time to take the bitter reality pill . The hacks, double dippers and dead weight must go. The budget numbers don't lie, despite what that blowhard Micheal Moore tells you.

>>>>>> The well-respected and non-partisan Little Hoover Commission drew some conclusions that even many pension reformers have been reluctant to make – namely, that pensions must be reduced for current employees. The state's unfunded liabilities, or pension debt, is estimated as high as a half-trillion dollars. That is the amount taxpayers will owe to make good on pension for current retirees and employees. Most of the debate has centered on reducing formulas for new hires, but as Little Hoover explained, that won't put a dent in the problem.

http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/article/lhlugj-b78765262z.120110305135809000guotphen.2.jpg
Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer for the California Public Employees Retirement System, testifies on the state retirement system during a legislative hearing at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Wednesday, March 2, 2011. A joint hearing of the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee and the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee, took testimony on a recently released report by the Little Hoover Commission that called for an overhaul of the existing retirement system for state and local government employees.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

"The state and local governments need the authority to restructure future, unearned retirement benefits for their employees," according to the report. "The Legislature should pass legislation giving this explicit authority to state and local government agencies. While this legislation may entail the courts having to revisit prior court decisions, failure to seek this authority will prevent the Legislature from having the tools it needs to address the magnitude of the pension shortfall facing state and local governments."

onmyknees

03-08-2011, 03:18 AM

The Wisconsin public employee retirement system is 100% solvent. Whatever deficit there is in Wisconsin, it's not because of the Unions or the retirement system. Walker simply wanted to pass tax cuts and have the tax paying public employees pay for it. Walker ginned up the numbers to support his action. The unions agreed to all the cuts that were asked of them. But that wasn't enough for Walker. He wants to bust the unions by eliminating (not merely limiting in some undefined way) the RIGHT of WI public employees to bargain collectively.

LMAO...That "Think Progress" site you hang out at Trish is guilty of sins of omission once again. You say the fund is solvent. What happens if and when the stock market ( which is where the fund is invested) takes a nose dive? Who makes up the short fall? Correct...The Taxpayer. And next you'll tell me employess fund it. Who funds them ? Correct ...the taxpayer once again. And with a slight of hand a 3 card monty dealer would be proud of...you slide right past the real cost of State employees. Health Care, Vision care, dental care, group life insurance, salary, etc. And who pays that freight? Correct...the taxpayer.

Some Facts...

>·Public employees in Wisconsin are vested in the retirement system immediately, while in Illinois it takes 8 years, 10 years in Indiana, 4 years in Iowa, 10 years in Michigan, 3 years in Minnesota, and 5 years in Ohio

>From 2000 to 2009 taxpayers spent about $12.6 billion on public employee pensions, during the same period public employees contributed $55.4 million.

>Wisconsin taxpayers currently make nearly a 100% payment for the employee portion of the public sector pension contribution. Illinois and Indiana taxpayers contribute the entire employee portion as well, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio pay 0% of the employee contribution.

And this is classic...."Whatever deficit there is in Wisconsin"...Some more facts...

Note the date Trish.....months before Walker was elected this .....

Figure underscores massive challenge facing lawmakers and next governor

e-mail (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/98116689.html#)
print (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/98116689.html#)
By Jason Stein (jstein@journalsentinel.com) of the Journal Sentinel
July 9, 2010 |(143) Comments (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/98116689.html?page=1)
Madison — The state's yawning budget hole has swelled to $2.5 billion, underscoring the massive challenge that awaits the next governor and Legislature, a new report released Friday shows.
The projections (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/Misc/2010_07_09_WI%20Leg.pdf) by the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office show the expected shortfall for the 2011-'13 budget has grown by $462 million from the just over $2 billion that was expected a year ago.
It is one of the biggest projected shortfalls of the past decade, nearly as large as the $2.9 billion deficit that Gov. Jim Doyle faced in his first budget in 2003.
The state has survived other harsh budgets in recent years by relying on billions of dollars in one-time money from the federal government or pots of state cash including the transportation fund, but this time those relatively easy solutions will be tougher to find, said Mark Bugher, former secretary of the state Department of Administration.
"(The next governor) and Legislature are going to have significant challenges because the day of reckoning has arrived," Bugher said. "They are going to have to face up to the notion of cutting spending pretty dramatically or raising fees and taxes or a little bit of both."
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau report showed the potential deficit increased because taxes and fees aren't growing as quickly as expected and because lawmakers approved some modest additional spending and tax cuts at the end of the legislative session in the spring.

Sorry Trish...you're usually a challange, this one was rather easy to swat away. LOL

HUGE FAIL

Faldur

03-08-2011, 04:14 AM

onmyknees

03-08-2011, 05:37 AM

The United States Federal budget deficit for the fiscal year 2007 was $193 billion dollars. The Federal budget deficit for the month of February 2011 was $223 billion dollars. What? Nothing to worry about.. Everything is fine, it will all work itself out, we'll make it up in volume..(whistle, whistle, whistle).

http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg

It's astounding to me really. I'll bet you a bag of doughnuts that if you polled liberal democrats and asked the following question...."do you think there is really a fiscal crisis, or do you think the Republicans are manufacturing this to advance their agenda for political gain, 90% would tell you Conservatives are fabricating this whole thing . But can you blame them? Read the Sunday NYT editorial....they play the music and the libs march in behind. I argue with people constantly about this specifically about the stimulus and the pork projects their towns or cities got as a result. I explain that for every stimulus dollar in goodies they received......43 cents of it was borrowed to be paid back with interest to a foreign country holding the paper.... They simply don't care...it's an annoying piece of abstract information to them. They want stuff because generations of liberal politicians have told them they are entitled to it. Obama puts together this deficit commission and they take months to hash out hard fought, difficult recommendations, but at least give us a roadmap......and have you heard him whisper one word about thier work? What a joke. God or Paul Ryan help us..they may be the only ones who can...

trish

03-08-2011, 07:30 AM

That "Think Progress" site you hang out at Trish is ...There you go again, making stupendously incorrect guesses as to who I am and where I hang out. Another BIG FAIL on that count.

You say the fund is solvent. What happens if and when the stock market...This is not evidence of insolvency, it's an argument that the WI pension system is secure.

And next you'll tell me employess fund it.There you go again, telling us what I'm going to say next. Another BIG FAIL on that count.

Tax payers and union members (who are also tax payers) fund it. Public employees make less than their equally educated counterparts in the private sector. That's because they bargained for benefits and pension security in lieu of more pay. WI was happy to keep a lid on wages and kick the costs down the road...not that there's any problem with that because the pension system remains solvent. Walker just wants to balance the budget on the backs of the public employees and brake the unions to boot.

Two middle class guys, one a union member and one not are at a function with the Koch brothers. There are thirteen donuts (a baker's dozen) on the buffet table and they're quickly cornered by the Koch brothers. They eat twelve of them. Then they lean toward the non-union worker and whisper, "You should watch that union bastard, he wants half your donut."

Faldur

03-08-2011, 04:48 PM

"Tax Payers", please try and remember this is 51% of the tax paying population. Those in the 48% are excluded as participants. (and if you are feeling picky, 51.5, and 48.5)

8 citizens are at a restaurant with the Koch brothers, everyone eats, drinks and has a merry time. (Yes, Trish even donuts) So the check for the meal arrives, 5 of the people at the table refuse to pay anything for the food and drink they have enjoyed. They even scold the other 5 at the table that it's their right to have free food, and the other 5 should do more to make the meal larger and more plentiful. 3 of the paying 5 get upset and refuse to pay little more than 10% each. That leaves the Koch brothers, with a table full of spoiled brats arguing over who should get more. So the eldest Koch brother is forced to pay for 53% of everyones food and drink, the younger 14%.

Not a family I want to belong to, raise taxes on every US citizen, no one is excluded. Each and every working American family will pay some sort of Federal Income Tax. The free lunch is over.

trish

03-08-2011, 05:37 PM

5 of the people at the table refuse to pay anything for the food and drink they have enjoyed.Bad analogy, the Wisconsin public workers ARE tax payers. They have also conceded to all the financial and benefit cuts Walker asked for. The public workers are definitely not the ones benefiting from the tax cuts.

They even scold the other 5 at the table that it's their right to have free food,Another bad analogy. Once again the food is not free. The public workers, WORK for their pay and PAY TAXES. Moreover, public workers make less than their equally educated counterparts. They are not asking for more than any one else. Corporations on the other hand cheat on their taxes, always utilize loopholes which they lobbied and bribed to get written into the tax code and are always asking for more. There is just no way the middle class union workers are the greedy ones here.

Koch brother is ...a multi-billion-dollar-aire!! And you don't want to be him. Yeah, right. His profits grow exponentially and he's still whining for more breaks.

Sorry, the original joke is more precisely descriptive of the actual situation, but thanks for playing.

Yes, Trish even donutsActually I heard story recently with cookies instead of donuts. I think story works better with cookies:

Two middle class guys, one a union member and one not, are at a function with the Koch brothers. There are thirteen cookies (a baker's dozen) on the buffet table and they're quickly cornered by the Koch brothers. They eat twelve of them. Then they lean toward the non-union worker and whisper, "You should keep an eye on that union bastard, he wants half your cookie."

Faldur

03-08-2011, 09:29 PM

Moreover, public workers make less than their equally educated counterparts.

Complete utter bullshit,

Government worker salaries vs. private sector salaries
Posted March 2nd, 2011 at 1:29 PM by Jon Ham
USA Today reports that North Carolina’s state and local government workers make on average nearly $2,000 more per year than those in the private sector. But, hey. It could be worse. In Rhode Island and Nevada they make more than $17,000 more than poor schlubs in the private sector.

In all, there are 41 states in which public sector workers make more than those in the private sector. The average nationally is a $2,511 gap in favor of public sector workers. That just shouldn’t happen. At least there should be parity, but I’d prefer that public sector workers make less than private sector workers, like, maybe, the $1,800 gap that we see here in North Carolina, only flipped around.

http://www.inforum.com/media/full/jpg/2011/03/01/0302-pay-web.jpg

trish

03-08-2011, 09:46 PM

Those stats say nothing about the education of the worker, so they can neither confirm nor invalidate the assertion that: public workers make less in wages than their corresponding private sector counterparts of equal education... as indeed is the case. You FAIL AGAIN. But here's a cookie as a consolation prize...

Two middle class guys, one a union member and one not, are at a function with the Koch brothers. There are thirteen cookies (a baker's dozen) on the buffet table and they're quickly cornered by the Koch brothers. They eat twelve of them. Then they lean toward the non-union worker and whisper, "You should keep an eye on that union bastard, he wants half your cookie."

Cuchulain

03-09-2011, 01:41 AM

An April 2010 report by the Center for State & Local Government Excellence - a nonpartisan, Washington-based group with Republicans and Democrats on its board of directors - found that in 2008, state workers nationwide earned 11 percent less and local workers earned 12 percent less than private workers with comparable education levels.
The same study found that in Wisconsin between 2000 and 2008, total compensation for state and local workers was less than comparable private sector workers.'
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/cont...tguid=6nYFkghz (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=6nYFkghz)

Cuchulain

03-09-2011, 01:58 AM

"Tax Payers", please try and remember this is 51% of the tax paying population. Those in the 48% are excluded as participants. (and if you are feeling picky, 51.5, and 48.5)

8 citizens are at a restaurant with the Koch brothers, everyone eats, drinks and has a merry time. (Yes, Trish even donuts) So the check for the meal arrives, 5 of the people at the table refuse to pay anything for the food and drink they have enjoyed. They even scold the other 5 at the table that it's their right to have free food, and the other 5 should do more to make the meal larger and more plentiful. 3 of the paying 5 get upset and refuse to pay little more than 10% each. That leaves the Koch brothers, with a table full of spoiled brats arguing over who should get more. So the eldest Koch brother is forced to pay for 53% of everyones food and drink, the younger 14%.

The first 5 got a hot dog. The next 3 got a burger and fries. The Koch boys had lobster, Kobe beef, caviar and the most expensive wine, followed by equally expensive cognac and Cuban cigars lit with hundred dollar bills. The brothers complained bitterly (from behind their army of security guards) about paying the $20 it cost to feed the other 8. They were mumbling about how the ungrateful rabble should have been honored just to sit at the same table with two mighty captains of industry as they skipped out without leaving a tip.

Cuchulain

03-09-2011, 02:10 AM

raise taxes on every US citizen, no one is excluded. Each and every working American family will pay some sort of Federal Income Tax. The free lunch is over.

Does that include the many corporations who frequently pay NO tax?

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.
The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
8/12/08

onmyknees

03-09-2011, 02:33 AM

There you go again, making stupendously incorrect guesses as to who I am and where I hang out. Another BIG FAIL on that count.

This is not evidence of insolvency, it's an argument that the WI pension system is secure.

There you go again, telling us what I'm going to say next. Another BIG FAIL on that count.

Tax payers and union members (who are also tax payers) fund it. Public employees make less than their equally educated counterparts in the private sector. That's because they bargained for benefits and pension security in lieu of more pay. WI was happy to keep a lid on wages and kick the costs down the road...not that there's any problem with that because the pension system remains solvent. Walker just wants to balance the budget on the backs of the public employees and brake the unions to boot.

Two middle class guys, one a union member and one not are at a function with the Koch brothers. There are thirteen donuts (a baker's dozen) on the buffet table and they're quickly cornered by the Koch brothers. They eat twelve of them. Then they lean toward the non-union worker and whisper, "You should watch that union bastard, he wants half your donut."

"There you go again, making stupendously incorrect guesses as to who I am and where I hang out. Another BIG FAIL on that count."

Well now that's astonishing Trish because Think Progress had almost a word for word copy of your post....so here's what I conclude..It's group think gone wild !!!!! LMAO..If they copied you, then it's thier fail, if you "borrowed" a few lines from them, well.....let's just say.........FAIL !

"Public employees make less than their equally educated counterparts in the private sector. "

Enormous FAIL..not true in Wisconsin, and many other states. You thing a Catholic School teacher makes anywhere near a tenured teacher in a Wisconsin public school?????/. Wow Trish...you're research is shoddy lately !!

But even if it wasn't..........those days are gone forever. Turn out the lights Wisconsin Public Sector Unions..........The Party's over !!!!!!!

trish

03-09-2011, 05:41 AM

Catholic School teachers do not bring down the private average enough to negate the fact that public employees make less than their equally educated counterparts in the private sector. Wow, onmyknees, are you that much of an idiot??? Walker's stone wall is showing cracks. Time to party.

Faldur

03-09-2011, 06:43 AM

Sorry Cuch Wisconsin teachers make far above their public sector counter part. It's undeniable, matter of public record.

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf

But it really doesn't surprise most of us that progressives would deny this and for that fact even go as far as saying Wisconsin doesn't have a financial problem. After all they are in charge of this administration that racks up more debt monthly, than previous administrations did in two years. $223 billion dollar in debt in 30 days, more than the fiscal years 2006, and 2007 combined.

JPeterson

03-09-2011, 07:55 AM

Cuchulain

03-09-2011, 05:19 PM

Sorry Cuch Wisconsin teachers make far above their public sector counter part. It's undeniable, matter of public record.

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf

No. Here's the study I cited earlier: http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/final_out_of_balance_report_april_2010.pdf
Read it. See table A2 for Wisconsin info.

The reason your study shows Wisconsin teachers making more than their private sector counterparts with equal levels of education is because Niederjohn takes 'days worked' into account. He's saying that IF teachers worked a full year like most people, they WOULD be making more than workers in the private sector. So we should take teachers pay and chop it by 20 - 25% because they don't work as many days as private sector employees? Should they collect Unemployment Comp during the summer? Sounds like a huge disincentive to become a teacher to me. How many teachers would we have if schools all over the country adopted that model?

Niederjohn also compares private teacher salaries to those in public schools. Please. Of course union jobs pay better than non-union. That's why people join unions. Go down to your local pub and tell any union worker that his pay should drop to non-union levels. Let us know the response...after you get out of the hospital.

Odelay

03-09-2011, 08:18 PM

I'll give Buchanan this... at least he's speaking truth about what Walker's aims are. This has nothing to do with the Wisconsin budget process. This is all about gaining a permanent advantage over Democrats. Republicans have figured out that they can do this state by state, and they may end up being successful.

Faldur

03-10-2011, 02:49 AM

Bill passed this afternoon, "Moving On"..

http://collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Night_at_the_Museum/night_at_the_museum_movie_image__2_.jpg

trish

03-10-2011, 07:42 AM

No...moving backwards. The bill "passed" illegally and the courts will toss it out.

Faldur

03-10-2011, 09:06 AM

Kind of like Obama Care?

trish

03-10-2011, 05:19 PM

No, I'm not whining like you little boys did when both houses legally convened and respectively passed the Health Care Bill which aims to support poor and middle class families and provide them with the affordable quality care that the private sector and the prior republican administrations failed to provide. I'm just suggesting that since Scott Walker stripped away the bargaining rights of half his middle class constituency, in an illegally convened meeting the Wisconsin courts may be disposed to declare that passage null and void. In the last week poll after poll in Wisconsin showed that the citizens are against taking away the collective bargaining rights of the public workers. Recalls on something like eight republican representatives have been initiated and a number of moderate republicans have indicated their willingness to back away from Walker's proposal to get rid of collective bargaining. The passage of this bill in dark hours, in an unannounced meeting (what was supposed to be, by Wisconsin law, a public meeting announced with 24 prior notice) was a last desperate attempt by Walker to exercise his own private ideology in spite of what the people of Wisconsin were saying loudly and clearly.

See the difference?

Faldur

03-10-2011, 05:23 PM

Sorry nope.. and I would replace "respectively passed" to "deemed passed". It was a travesty of justice, and has been judged unconstitutional. Maybe the republicans should have just left the country and let the tea party folks trash the capitol for three weeks?

See the difference?

trish

03-10-2011, 05:30 PM

It was a travesty of justice, and has been judged unconstitutional.Oh stop whining already you little wanker. It has also been found to be constitutional. It's still in the courts and it will be the courts that decide, not you, whether it is constitutional or not. Just like it will be up to the courts in Wisconsin to decide the constitutionality of Walker's bill.

Faldur

03-10-2011, 08:32 PM

Lol, I assure you there is no whiner in me. And yes it is up to me to decide, I have just declared myself Pope of the USA.

And back to WI, a nice heart felt email going out to all Senators with (R)'s next to their name, must be a Tea Partier sending them you think? Maybe they came from Sarah Palin?

From: XXXX
Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM
To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen
Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!
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!!!!

onmyknees

03-11-2011, 02:23 AM

Ben

03-11-2011, 03:14 AM

Scott Walker, Reagan's self-appointed heir

The real story of Wisconsin is the Republican right's long war to refashion American society without unions

Mark Weisbrot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/markweisbrot)

guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Thursday 10 March 2011

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/12/2/1259769808320/RONALD-REAGAN-MARGARET-TH-001.jpg Like Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan broke the power of trade unions and set the US on a rightward path that has lasted decades. Photograph: AP

With the latest turn of events in Wisconsin (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-wisconsin-idUSTRE72909420110310?pageNumber=2), Republican state senators have circumvented the need for a quorum vote on Scott Walker's budget bill by leaving out the fiscal clauses and passing the new laws curbing collective bargaining rights for state and public employees. This dubious tactical manoeuvre strips away the pretence that Walker and his GOP allies have hitherto maintained that the legislative package was necessary to close the state's budget deficit: Walker's objective is, as protesters in Madison have argued all along, to break the last vestige of organised labour strength in the US – the power of public sector workers to organise and negotiate collectively. Stated or not, Walker's ambition is to complete what Ronald Reagan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ronald-reagan) began 30 years ago.
But the legislative chicanery in Madison's Capitol smacks of desperation. It may yet prove that the right in the US has overreached in its attack on public sector unions, provoking the left/liberal base of the Democratic party, a popular uprising in Wisconsin (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/2/as_demonstrators_remain_locked_out_wisconsin) and elsewhere (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/2/thousands_protest_anti_union_bill_in), and a backlash among the public. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Wisconsin voters disapproving (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_governor_walker_43_approval_rating) of Governor Scott Walker by a margin of 57% to 43%, with 48% saying they "strongly disapprove". But there are also some positive lessons that American progressives and liberals could learn from the right's political strategy.
It is not just that these rightwing governors like Scott Walker and John Kasich (Ohio), and other Republican leaders, are willing to take risks and fight for what they want. It is also that they fight for structural reforms – reforms that change the political terrain so that it will be more favourable for the next battle and for the "long war" to which they are committed.
Undermining and destroying collective bargaining rights is one of the most important structural reforms that any rightwing government in a developed country can win. And it is not just because, as has been widely noted, that unions contribute money to the campaigns of Democratic candidates. It is much deeper than that. Organised labour is relatively weak now, but for more than a century, it has been the most important force for positive economic reforms in the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa), from the eight-hour work day, to health insurance and Medicare (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/14/4/62.full.pdf), social security, pensions and minimum wages. The labour slogan, "Unions: the folks who brought you the weekend", is a true but vastly understated historical reality in America.
Ronald Reagan understood this very clearly when he fired 12,000 air traffic controllers soon after taking office in 1981 to break their strike and begin a new era of labour suppression, in which private sector workers all but lost their rights to organise unions (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dropping-the-ax-update-2009-03.pdf). His agenda was so radical that it scared many conservatives – which was one reason he lost the 1976 Republican nomination. Even after he won the presidency in 1980, much of the business class was not convinced that it was possible to revert to 19th-century labour relations – until Reagan did it. Unions were 20% of the private sector labour force when Reagan was elected; they are 6.9% today.
Crushing organised labour was essential to a number of Reagan's other historic achievements, including launching the most massive upward redistribution of income and wealth in US history. During the 25 years after he took office, the after-tax real (inflation-adjusted) income of the richest 1% would more than triple (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2789), while the average American's income would barely grow at all. But there was so much more that he accomplished in the world of rightwing ideas – on foreign policy, tax reform and more. Without much of a mandate from voters, Reagan was nonetheless a president who transformed the world, perhaps more than any single person in the second half of the 20th century. Unfortunately for the world, the changes that he led made most people worse-off – and in places like Central America, tens of thousands were killed (http://prernalal.com/scholar/Noam%20Chomsky%20-%20Turning%20the%20Tide%20%20U.S.%20intervention%2 0in%20Central%20America%20and%20the%20Struggle%20f or%20Peace.pdf) by the dictators, death squad governments and "freedom fighters" that he championed.
Contrast the leadership of Reagan and even today's far less skilled Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans) to their counterparts on the Democratic side. Bill Clinton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/clinton) also fought for structural reforms. His top legislative priority during his first year in office was fighting for Nafta, which helped to further undermine labour in the United States. By creating the World Trade Organisation (http://secure.citizen.org/t/10694/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=789&t=&store_item_KEY=111) and implementing welfare reform and financial deregulation, Clinton continued the rightwing structural changes of the Reagan era – so much so that there wasn't much left for George W Bush to do when he took office. Bush tried to go after social security, but was defeated. (Clinton had a very similar plan for partial privatisation and cuts to social security, but had also backed off under political pressure.)
Now we come to President Obama, who really did have a mandate for change, as the majority of the electorate finally rebelled against nearly four decades of rightwing reforms (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/after-four-decades-finall_b_142511.html) and the pain and anxiety caused by the Great Recession. One structural reform that Obama had promised in his campaign to support was the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have gone a long way towards restoring the collective bargaining rights (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/efca101.html) that Reagan had destroyed. President Obama quickly backtracked on this promise.
On healthcare, Obama also retreated from his pledge to support a public option – which was not so much a structural reform in itself as merely an opening to the structural healthcare reform that this country needs. Real healthcare reform would be a vital progressive structural change, not least because it would eliminate the long-term deficit problem (http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html) in the United States and thereby remove the main pillar of the rightwing budget cuts agenda.
The list could go on, but my point is not to attack Obama. He is simply representative of Democratic political leadership after nearly four decades of rightward drift, which has been helped along by conservative structural reforms. This is something that the pundits get wrong every day: it is not because this is an inherently conservative country that liberal leadership is so weak. Although polling results fluctuate widely with media coverage and the framing of the polling questions, for decades there have been polls showing majorities in favour of real healthcare reform (Medicare for all), deep cuts in military spending, an end to US military intervention abroad, increased taxes for the rich, government spending to increase employment (as needed now) and most of the progressive agenda.
The problem lies not in the people but in the corridors of power, in the media and the Congress and the many institutions – including liberal ones – that have been shifted rightwards by strategic efforts over the last 40 years. That is why progressives find themselves fighting defensive battles, as in Wisconsin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/wisconsin) – while the right, which has neither the presidency nor the Senate – plays offence. It will take some time to get to the point where progressive structural reforms are on the agenda.
But that time will come, and the mass uprisings in support of collective bargaining are a great and inspiring start where new leadership and organising will emerge. Inshallah (God willing), as they say in Egypt.

onmyknees

03-11-2011, 05:00 AM

Scott Walker, Reagan's self-appointed heir

The real story of Wisconsin is the Republican right's long war to refashion American society without unions

Mark Weisbrot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/markweisbrot)

guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Thursday 10 March 2011
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/12/2/1259769808320/RONALD-REAGAN-MARGARET-TH-001.jpg Like Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan broke the power of trade unions and set the US on a rightward path that has lasted decades. Photograph: AP

With the latest turn of events in Wisconsin (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-wisconsin-idUSTRE72909420110310?pageNumber=2), Republican state senators have circumvented the need for a quorum vote on Scott Walker's budget bill by leaving out the fiscal clauses and passing the new laws curbing collective bargaining rights for state and public employees. This dubious tactical manoeuvre strips away the pretence that Walker and his GOP allies have hitherto maintained that the legislative package was necessary to close the state's budget deficit: Walker's objective is, as protesters in Madison have argued all along, to break the last vestige of organised labour strength in the US – the power of public sector workers to organise and negotiate collectively. Stated or not, Walker's ambition is to complete what Ronald Reagan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ronald-reagan) began 30 years ago.
But the legislative chicanery in Madison's Capitol smacks of desperation. It may yet prove that the right in the US has overreached in its attack on public sector unions, provoking the left/liberal base of the Democratic party, a popular uprising in Wisconsin (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/2/as_demonstrators_remain_locked_out_wisconsin) and elsewhere (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/2/thousands_protest_anti_union_bill_in), and a backlash among the public. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Wisconsin voters disapproving (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_governor_walker_43_approval_rating) of Governor Scott Walker by a margin of 57% to 43%, with 48% saying they "strongly disapprove". But there are also some positive lessons that American progressives and liberals could learn from the right's political strategy.
It is not just that these rightwing governors like Scott Walker and John Kasich (Ohio), and other Republican leaders, are willing to take risks and fight for what they want. It is also that they fight for structural reforms – reforms that change the political terrain so that it will be more favourable for the next battle and for the "long war" to which they are committed.
Undermining and destroying collective bargaining rights is one of the most important structural reforms that any rightwing government in a developed country can win. And it is not just because, as has been widely noted, that unions contribute money to the campaigns of Democratic candidates. It is much deeper than that. Organised labour is relatively weak now, but for more than a century, it has been the most important force for positive economic reforms in the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa), from the eight-hour work day, to health insurance and Medicare (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/14/4/62.full.pdf), social security, pensions and minimum wages. The labour slogan, "Unions: the folks who brought you the weekend", is a true but vastly understated historical reality in America.
Ronald Reagan understood this very clearly when he fired 12,000 air traffic controllers soon after taking office in 1981 to break their strike and begin a new era of labour suppression, in which private sector workers all but lost their rights to organise unions (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/dropping-the-ax-update-2009-03.pdf). His agenda was so radical that it scared many conservatives – which was one reason he lost the 1976 Republican nomination. Even after he won the presidency in 1980, much of the business class was not convinced that it was possible to revert to 19th-century labour relations – until Reagan did it. Unions were 20% of the private sector labour force when Reagan was elected; they are 6.9% today.
Crushing organised labour was essential to a number of Reagan's other historic achievements, including launching the most massive upward redistribution of income and wealth in US history. During the 25 years after he took office, the after-tax real (inflation-adjusted) income of the richest 1% would more than triple (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2789), while the average American's income would barely grow at all. But there was so much more that he accomplished in the world of rightwing ideas – on foreign policy, tax reform and more. Without much of a mandate from voters, Reagan was nonetheless a president who transformed the world, perhaps more than any single person in the second half of the 20th century. Unfortunately for the world, the changes that he led made most people worse-off – and in places like Central America, tens of thousands were killed (http://prernalal.com/scholar/Noam%20Chomsky%20-%20Turning%20the%20Tide%20%20U.S.%20intervention%2 0in%20Central%20America%20and%20the%20Struggle%20f or%20Peace.pdf) by the dictators, death squad governments and "freedom fighters" that he championed.
Contrast the leadership of Reagan and even today's far less skilled Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans) to their counterparts on the Democratic side. Bill Clinton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/clinton) also fought for structural reforms. His top legislative priority during his first year in office was fighting for Nafta, which helped to further undermine labour in the United States. By creating the World Trade Organisation (http://secure.citizen.org/t/10694/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=789&t=&store_item_KEY=111) and implementing welfare reform and financial deregulation, Clinton continued the rightwing structural changes of the Reagan era – so much so that there wasn't much left for George W Bush to do when he took office. Bush tried to go after social security, but was defeated. (Clinton had a very similar plan for partial privatisation and cuts to social security, but had also backed off under political pressure.)
Now we come to President Obama, who really did have a mandate for change, as the majority of the electorate finally rebelled against nearly four decades of rightwing reforms (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/after-four-decades-finall_b_142511.html) and the pain and anxiety caused by the Great Recession. One structural reform that Obama had promised in his campaign to support was the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have gone a long way towards restoring the collective bargaining rights (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/03/efca101.html) that Reagan had destroyed. President Obama quickly backtracked on this promise.
On healthcare, Obama also retreated from his pledge to support a public option – which was not so much a structural reform in itself as merely an opening to the structural healthcare reform that this country needs. Real healthcare reform would be a vital progressive structural change, not least because it would eliminate the long-term deficit problem (http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html) in the United States and thereby remove the main pillar of the rightwing budget cuts agenda.
The list could go on, but my point is not to attack Obama. He is simply representative of Democratic political leadership after nearly four decades of rightward drift, which has been helped along by conservative structural reforms. This is something that the pundits get wrong every day: it is not because this is an inherently conservative country that liberal leadership is so weak. Although polling results fluctuate widely with media coverage and the framing of the polling questions, for decades there have been polls showing majorities in favour of real healthcare reform (Medicare for all), deep cuts in military spending, an end to US military intervention abroad, increased taxes for the rich, government spending to increase employment (as needed now) and most of the progressive agenda.
The problem lies not in the people but in the corridors of power, in the media and the Congress and the many institutions – including liberal ones – that have been shifted rightwards by strategic efforts over the last 40 years. That is why progressives find themselves fighting defensive battles, as in Wisconsin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/wisconsin) – while the right, which has neither the presidency nor the Senate – plays offence. It will take some time to get to the point where progressive structural reforms are on the agenda.
But that time will come, and the mass uprisings in support of collective bargaining are a great and inspiring start where new leadership and organising will emerge. Inshallah (God willing), as they say in Egypt.

Jesus Ben....Can you do any better than this guy? I didn't get 2 paragraphs into this dribble and found huge holes in this guys slanted thesis. First off....the left has a habit of sins of omission, and this guy's no different. No one is trying to do anything to "labor unions" as he continually laments. It's public sector, ( not private sector) tax payer funded unions....don't confuse the two, but I understand why the guy attempts to do that. Strength in numbers....an old union mantra.

Secondly, your guy fails to mention Reagan was a member of a union for many years. And I often marvel as these phonies rewrite history. Tell me what Reagan was supposed to do....allow a small group of disgruntled air controllers to disrupt the travel , economy, safety, and commerce of an entire nation? Cave into their demands paving the way for ever other public sector union to hold the nation hostage to their demands. That's why NY has the Taylor laws. The air traffic controllers played chicken and lost. Period. Regan also understood that by huge majorities the rank and file voted for him despite the advice and advocacy of almost every union leader in the country, but those members had no say in what candidates their dues went to support.
Next he sites the polls in opposition to Walker to bolster his case. Hmmm,,what are we to make of the fact that polls now, and then showed a majority of Americans against Obamacare? Where was this pinhead then spouting poll data? Do we govern by polls, or do we elect leaders?

Thirdly....When is this whiner and his kind going to face the fact elections have consequences? They lost both State houses and the Governorship. They got walloped. Suck it up. Obama won and conservatives went about working within the system ( the courts and the ballot box) to repeal Obama care. Word to the Wisconsin liberals....win the next election, but until then...fight your good fight and take your fucking lumps along the way.
Fourth...He maligns John Kasich, yet he has a short memory. Kasich was the driving force along with Clinton and Gingrich in providing the nation with balanced budgets for the first ( and last) time in generations. How novel...remember balanced budgets Ben?
Fifth...Another sin of omission...He conveniently overlooks the fact that it was a liberal democrat that left the State in dire financial straits. Would Walker have been able to pull this off if the former governor had left with a balanced budget? Probably not.....so vent you anger at him !!

Next...this guy dives off the deep end and looses focus as he goes into a rant about Reagan. Ben...tell this guy The Gipper's been dead for years, and maybe he forgot the incredible outpouring at his funeral, or the fact that Americans rate him the 3rd best president of all time. This guys off the rails!

And then this little nugget buried in the text..."The list could go on, but my point is not to attack Obama" ...............Ya think ?????? LMAO

In conclusion....it's a Huff Post type hit piece that does little to advance the standing, or position of unions in this country. It's an intellectual FAIL. It lacks facts and substance and is laced with demagoguery. Your homework assignment is to find a better representation of your position.

Ben

01-19-2012, 04:28 AM

One Million Signatures to Recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:

One Million Signatures to Recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZG-mrgrr-k)