Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

[Juan_Bottom]

Republican states have lower wages and less benefits. How is that a better job? They also have lower average IQ's and higher obesity rates. And minority's in Republican states have their ballots lost or thrown out at a rate 14x higher (and higher still on reservations) than in blue states. Zing!
But that's not the point. It's not about Republicans and Democrats.

Well unless this conversation turns to a Republican "interpretation" of the Constitution for the state of Wisconsin, which is something that I touched upon but ultimately chose to ignore. I really don't want this to be a conversation about who's better, Republican's or Democrats. Dems are great at supporting the poor and Rep are great at balancing budgets.

[thegreekdog]

All unions do support Democrats, except that private employee unions (say the Auto Workers Union or the Electrical Workers Union, which is super powerful here in Philadelphia) are negotiating with companies (who, ostensibly, lean toward the Republicans). In the situation of state employees, if the Democrats are running the government, two people with the same interests are negotiating with each other. This is hardly a negotiation. And, frankly, I would bet dollars to doughnuts one of the reasons the state employees in Wisconsin have such a sweetheart deal is because they were negotiating with Democrats.

The converse of this is when Republican's are in control. They're supported by corporations who get tax breaks... which are subsidized by taxing the middle and lower class.
Still, I don't know where the answer lies, I just know there are certain lines that can't be crossed.

It's a little different. I would say corporations and private employee unions are similarly situated. Democrats in power are going to benefit unions, Republicans in power are going to benefit companies. While I do have an issue with this kind of bribery... I mean, campaign contribution... it is different than a state employees union negotiating their agreement with a legislature that is pro state employees union.

[Night Strike]

Republican states have lower wages and less benefits. How is that a better job? They also have lower average IQ's and higher obesity rates. And minority's in Republican states have their ballots lost or thrown out at a rate 14x higher (and higher still on reservations) than in blue states. Zing!
But that's not the point. It's not about Republicans and Democrats.

Republican states have much smaller budget deficits (if not surpluses) and much lower unemployment. Democratic states don't lose ballots: they make up ballots like Al Franken winning the Senate seat. We could go about this all day, but it's irrelevant to the fact that Wisconsin unions and Democrats are failing to make their share of sacrifices, like the leader of their party called for everyone to do.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, your version of "sacrifices" is to forever give up their right to collectively bargain with the government, as guaranteed by the first amendment. That's more than a just a sacrifice, that's a crucifixion for the state's budget. It's unfair, unethical, unAmerican, and therefor immoral as well. The right thing for the governor to do would have been to negotiate. The unions have said all along that they aren't fighting to keep their benefits and the Governor of WI keeps trying to twist it around to say that they are. The Democrats themselves tried to negotiate. When the Republican majority refused, they boldly left. It's not about making sacrifices, it's about taking away people's rights.

[spurgistan]

Republican states have lower wages and less benefits. How is that a better job? They also have lower average IQ's and higher obesity rates. And minority's in Republican states have their ballots lost or thrown out at a rate 14x higher (and higher still on reservations) than in blue states. Zing!
But that's not the point. It's not about Republicans and Democrats.

Republican states have much smaller budget deficits (if not surpluses) and much lower unemployment. Democratic states don't lose ballots: they make up ballots like Al Franken winning the Senate seat. We could go about this all day, but it's irrelevant to the fact that Wisconsin unions and Democrats are failing to make their share of sacrifices, like the leader of their party called for everyone to do.

Earlier Friday, Marty Beil, head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, said his members would agree to pay more of their pension contributions and health insurance benefits as Walker is demanding. But Beil said his union would never agree to give up decades-old bargaining rights.

Beil's union is part of AFSCME, the largest state and local employee union in Wisconsin, which represents 68,000 workers for the state, Milwaukee, Milwaukee County and other municipalities. An AFSCME spokesman said Beil was speaking for all the group's union locals in the state.

If this wasn't about crushing unions, that's a good deal for the governor. The union agrees to give up certain benefits while retaining the right to bargain collectively, and you know, continue to exist. Seeing as the blown surplus is simply pretext for more Reaganite union-crushing, it's hard to believe Democrats would act in good faith, either.

[Woodruff]

I'll caveat the next paragraph by indicating that I have not heard this on any media outlet or from the governor or protestors. Also please keep in mind that I agree that at a base level the union and the Wisconsin government should spend their time compromising at this point since it has become clear that what the governor wants to get passed will not get passed:

Let's say, for example, that Democrats are in control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. Let's say the union contract with the state is up. Keeping in mind that the majority of the union leadership (probably all of them) are Democrats... keeping in mind that the unions probably gave campaign contributions only to the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature and the governor... keeping in mind that the unions gave nothing to the Republicans... keeping all that in mind, where is the bargaining going on? If both sides of the table agree that the union employees should receive a free pension and free health insurance, is there really collective bargaining occurring? This is the point I'm trying to make about stripping away collective bargaining rights for everything other than salary. If the Democrats are in charge, I do not think there is much bargaining going on. The conversation is, "What do you want union people who helped us get elected?" "Well Mr. Governor, we want 100% of our pensions paid for by taxes." "Okay."

Again, I did not hear this from the governor, but I believe this is the problem. Let's say the unions negotiate and say "We'll pay 12% of our health insurance and 50% of our pensions." What happens when Democrats are in control again? Does that all go away?

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but Wisconsin will be in another budget crisis sooner rather than later.

This presumes that the budget crisis in Wisconsin was caused by the unions. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

[thegreekdog]

I'll caveat the next paragraph by indicating that I have not heard this on any media outlet or from the governor or protestors. Also please keep in mind that I agree that at a base level the union and the Wisconsin government should spend their time compromising at this point since it has become clear that what the governor wants to get passed will not get passed:

Let's say, for example, that Democrats are in control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. Let's say the union contract with the state is up. Keeping in mind that the majority of the union leadership (probably all of them) are Democrats... keeping in mind that the unions probably gave campaign contributions only to the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature and the governor... keeping in mind that the unions gave nothing to the Republicans... keeping all that in mind, where is the bargaining going on? If both sides of the table agree that the union employees should receive a free pension and free health insurance, is there really collective bargaining occurring? This is the point I'm trying to make about stripping away collective bargaining rights for everything other than salary. If the Democrats are in charge, I do not think there is much bargaining going on. The conversation is, "What do you want union people who helped us get elected?" "Well Mr. Governor, we want 100% of our pensions paid for by taxes." "Okay."

Again, I did not hear this from the governor, but I believe this is the problem. Let's say the unions negotiate and say "We'll pay 12% of our health insurance and 50% of our pensions." What happens when Democrats are in control again? Does that all go away?

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but Wisconsin will be in another budget crisis sooner rather than later.

This presumes that the budget crisis in Wisconsin was caused by the unions. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

I'm presuming nothing of the sort. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. I don't know what caused the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

That being said, now that you've brought this up, here's what I do know. What I do know is what causes budget crises generally - spending more than the government takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue... say the federal government). Clearly, Wisconsin is spending more than it takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue). Clearly, Wisconsin spends money on pensions and health insurance for state employees. Clearly these items are part of the spending portion of the "crisis calculation." Clearly, therefore, there is at least some evidence that the SPENDING on the state employees' pensions and health insurance was at least remotely (your word) one of the probably myriad causes of the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

[Symmetry]

All unions do support Democrats, except that private employee unions (say the Auto Workers Union or the Electrical Workers Union, which is super powerful here in Philadelphia) are negotiating with companies (who, ostensibly, lean toward the Republicans). In the situation of state employees, if the Democrats are running the government, two people with the same interests are negotiating with each other. This is hardly a negotiation. And, frankly, I would bet dollars to doughnuts one of the reasons the state employees in Wisconsin have such a sweetheart deal is because they were negotiating with Democrats.

All Unions? Are you sure? I was under the impression that firefighters and police unions had supported Walker during his election campaign, and were exempt from changes that would weaken unions.

[Symmetry]

I'll caveat the next paragraph by indicating that I have not heard this on any media outlet or from the governor or protestors. Also please keep in mind that I agree that at a base level the union and the Wisconsin government should spend their time compromising at this point since it has become clear that what the governor wants to get passed will not get passed:

Let's say, for example, that Democrats are in control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. Let's say the union contract with the state is up. Keeping in mind that the majority of the union leadership (probably all of them) are Democrats... keeping in mind that the unions probably gave campaign contributions only to the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature and the governor... keeping in mind that the unions gave nothing to the Republicans... keeping all that in mind, where is the bargaining going on? If both sides of the table agree that the union employees should receive a free pension and free health insurance, is there really collective bargaining occurring? This is the point I'm trying to make about stripping away collective bargaining rights for everything other than salary. If the Democrats are in charge, I do not think there is much bargaining going on. The conversation is, "What do you want union people who helped us get elected?" "Well Mr. Governor, we want 100% of our pensions paid for by taxes." "Okay."

Again, I did not hear this from the governor, but I believe this is the problem. Let's say the unions negotiate and say "We'll pay 12% of our health insurance and 50% of our pensions." What happens when Democrats are in control again? Does that all go away?

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but Wisconsin will be in another budget crisis sooner rather than later.

This presumes that the budget crisis in Wisconsin was caused by the unions. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

I'm presuming nothing of the sort. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. I don't know what caused the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

That being said, now that you've brought this up, here's what I do know. What I do know is what causes budget crises generally - spending more than the government takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue... say the federal government). Clearly, Wisconsin is spending more than it takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue). Clearly, Wisconsin spends money on pensions and health insurance for state employees. Clearly these items are part of the spending portion of the "crisis calculation." Clearly, therefore, there is at least some evidence that the SPENDING on the state employees' pensions and health insurance was at least remotely (your word) one of the probably myriad causes of the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

Also, this should all be reversed in the Wisconsin case. Taking less in taxes than the government is spending. The budget was generally ok- certainly better than many other states, until a series of tax cuts for businesses created a deficit, now being used to attack all unions who didn't support Walker's election campaign.

As an addition, it seems that the Unions have agreed to all of the financial terms asked for, but not the removal of their rights. This has been rejected. Still about the economy?

[thegreekdog]

All unions do support Democrats, except that private employee unions (say the Auto Workers Union or the Electrical Workers Union, which is super powerful here in Philadelphia) are negotiating with companies (who, ostensibly, lean toward the Republicans). In the situation of state employees, if the Democrats are running the government, two people with the same interests are negotiating with each other. This is hardly a negotiation. And, frankly, I would bet dollars to doughnuts one of the reasons the state employees in Wisconsin have such a sweetheart deal is because they were negotiating with Democrats.

All Unions? Are you sure? I was under the impression that firefighters and police unions had supported Walker during his election campaign, and were exempt from changes that would weaken unions.

I did not hear this, but VERY INTERESTING! They are exempt from the changes, which maybe is the evidence that they supported Walker during the campaigns. In which case... hmm.

[thegreekdog]

I'll caveat the next paragraph by indicating that I have not heard this on any media outlet or from the governor or protestors. Also please keep in mind that I agree that at a base level the union and the Wisconsin government should spend their time compromising at this point since it has become clear that what the governor wants to get passed will not get passed:

Let's say, for example, that Democrats are in control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. Let's say the union contract with the state is up. Keeping in mind that the majority of the union leadership (probably all of them) are Democrats... keeping in mind that the unions probably gave campaign contributions only to the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature and the governor... keeping in mind that the unions gave nothing to the Republicans... keeping all that in mind, where is the bargaining going on? If both sides of the table agree that the union employees should receive a free pension and free health insurance, is there really collective bargaining occurring? This is the point I'm trying to make about stripping away collective bargaining rights for everything other than salary. If the Democrats are in charge, I do not think there is much bargaining going on. The conversation is, "What do you want union people who helped us get elected?" "Well Mr. Governor, we want 100% of our pensions paid for by taxes." "Okay."

Again, I did not hear this from the governor, but I believe this is the problem. Let's say the unions negotiate and say "We'll pay 12% of our health insurance and 50% of our pensions." What happens when Democrats are in control again? Does that all go away?

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but Wisconsin will be in another budget crisis sooner rather than later.

This presumes that the budget crisis in Wisconsin was caused by the unions. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

I'm presuming nothing of the sort. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. I don't know what caused the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

That being said, now that you've brought this up, here's what I do know. What I do know is what causes budget crises generally - spending more than the government takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue... say the federal government). Clearly, Wisconsin is spending more than it takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue). Clearly, Wisconsin spends money on pensions and health insurance for state employees. Clearly these items are part of the spending portion of the "crisis calculation." Clearly, therefore, there is at least some evidence that the SPENDING on the state employees' pensions and health insurance was at least remotely (your word) one of the probably myriad causes of the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

Also, this should all be reversed in the Wisconsin case. Taking less in taxes than the government is spending. The budget was generally ok- certainly better than many other states, until a series of tax cuts for businesses created a deficit, now being used to attack all unions who didn't support Walker's election campaign.

As an addition, it seems that the Unions have agreed to all of the financial terms asked for, but not the removal of their rights. This has been rejected. Still about the economy?

I thought I had explained this before (at least what I think it's about). Check above... unions negotiating with union supporters on their next contracts... etc.

[Symmetry]

I'll caveat the next paragraph by indicating that I have not heard this on any media outlet or from the governor or protestors. Also please keep in mind that I agree that at a base level the union and the Wisconsin government should spend their time compromising at this point since it has become clear that what the governor wants to get passed will not get passed:

Let's say, for example, that Democrats are in control of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and the governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat. Let's say the union contract with the state is up. Keeping in mind that the majority of the union leadership (probably all of them) are Democrats... keeping in mind that the unions probably gave campaign contributions only to the Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature and the governor... keeping in mind that the unions gave nothing to the Republicans... keeping all that in mind, where is the bargaining going on? If both sides of the table agree that the union employees should receive a free pension and free health insurance, is there really collective bargaining occurring? This is the point I'm trying to make about stripping away collective bargaining rights for everything other than salary. If the Democrats are in charge, I do not think there is much bargaining going on. The conversation is, "What do you want union people who helped us get elected?" "Well Mr. Governor, we want 100% of our pensions paid for by taxes." "Okay."

Again, I did not hear this from the governor, but I believe this is the problem. Let's say the unions negotiate and say "We'll pay 12% of our health insurance and 50% of our pensions." What happens when Democrats are in control again? Does that all go away?

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but Wisconsin will be in another budget crisis sooner rather than later.

This presumes that the budget crisis in Wisconsin was caused by the unions. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

I'm presuming nothing of the sort. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. I don't know what caused the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

That being said, now that you've brought this up, here's what I do know. What I do know is what causes budget crises generally - spending more than the government takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue... say the federal government). Clearly, Wisconsin is spending more than it takes in taxes (or other sources of revenue). Clearly, Wisconsin spends money on pensions and health insurance for state employees. Clearly these items are part of the spending portion of the "crisis calculation." Clearly, therefore, there is at least some evidence that the SPENDING on the state employees' pensions and health insurance was at least remotely (your word) one of the probably myriad causes of the budget crisis in Wisconsin.

Also, this should all be reversed in the Wisconsin case. Taking less in taxes than the government is spending. The budget was generally ok- certainly better than many other states, until a series of tax cuts for businesses created a deficit, now being used to attack all unions who didn't support Walker's election campaign.

As an addition, it seems that the Unions have agreed to all of the financial terms asked for, but not the removal of their rights. This has been rejected. Still about the economy?

I thought I had explained this before (at least what I think it's about). Check above... unions negotiating with union supporters on their next contracts... etc.

Apologies- I wasn't very clear. Do you think the Republican stance, exemplified by Walker, is still about the economy, and that the Democrat side is all about being soft on unions?

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that given that Walker isn't going after unions that supported his election campaign.

[thegreekdog]

Apologies- I wasn't very clear. Do you think the Republican stance, exemplified by Walker, is still about the economy, and that the Democrat side is all about being soft on unions?

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that given that Walker isn't going after unions that supported his election campaign.

I never thought it was about the economy. I think it's about politics. If Democrats were in office the unions would keep the pension and health insurance benefits and there would be tax increases. I'm not trying to say that the governor or the Republicans are saintly or anything. I'm simply pointing out that one of the ways that the Wisconsin budget can be balanced is to make the unions throw some loot in (and for the unions to stop getting better deals than their private counterparts). And, as some of my liberal friends were wont to say during the first two years of the Obama administration, WE WON BITCH... NOW SUCK IT! (yes, some of my friends actually said that). In other words, if people wanted higher taxes to balance the budget, they would have elected someone else to the governorship. So, the people can protest, I have no issue with that (although, as I indicated above, I do have an issue with people from out-of-state protesting). What I do have an issue with is the Democrats leaving the state. What if the Republicans had left Congress when the president was trying to pass the healthcare bill?

[Symmetry]

Apologies- I wasn't very clear. Do you think the Republican stance, exemplified by Walker, is still about the economy, and that the Democrat side is all about being soft on unions?

I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that given that Walker isn't going after unions that supported his election campaign.

I never thought it was about the economy. I think it's about politics. If Democrats were in office the unions would keep the pension and health insurance benefits and there would be tax increases. I'm not trying to say that the governor or the Republicans are saintly or anything. I'm simply pointing out that one of the ways that the Wisconsin budget can be balanced is to make the unions throw some loot in (and for the unions to stop getting better deals than their private counterparts). And, as some of my liberal friends were wont to say during the first two years of the Obama administration, WE WON BITCH... NOW SUCK IT! (yes, some of my friends actually said that). In other words, if people wanted higher taxes to balance the budget, they would have elected someone else to the governorship. So, the people can protest, I have no issue with that (although, as I indicated above, I do have an issue with people from out-of-state protesting). What I do have an issue with is the Democrats leaving the state. What if the Republicans had left Congress when the president was trying to pass the healthcare bill?

The unions seem willing to throw the loot in, but that offer was rejected. The issue is over the rights of unions to bargain collectively (not, of course, the unions who supported Walker- they should be allowed to maintain their political strength).

[thegreekdog]

The unions seem willing to throw the loot in, but that offer was rejected. The issue is over the rights of unions to bargain collectively (not, of course, the unions who supported Walker- they should be allowed to maintain their political strength).

The issue is over the right to bargain collectively about items other than salary. Let's be clear on that.

And yes, you are correct. He's taking the strength away from his opponents, but his supporters retain their strength. He's also balancing the budget and helping ensure that at least some expenses associated with those particular unions will not increase the size of spending again. And while you may have a problem with this, as I had a problem with the bailouts or the healthcare bill, surely you think that elections should be the method to sort these problems out and not elected representatives boycotting elections?

[Symmetry]

The unions seem willing to throw the loot in, but that offer was rejected. The issue is over the rights of unions to bargain collectively (not, of course, the unions who supported Walker- they should be allowed to maintain their political strength).

The issue is over the right to bargain collectively about items other than salary. Let's be clear on that.

And yes, you are correct. He's taking the strength away from his opponents, but his supporters retain their strength. He's also balancing the budget and helping ensure that at least some expenses associated with those particular unions will not increase the size of spending again. And while you may have a problem with this, as I had a problem with the bailouts or the healthcare bill, surely you think that elections should be the method to sort these problems out and not elected representatives boycotting elections?

They're boycotting a vote, not an election. I find the whole thing weird, but don't forget that they were elected too. They do seem to be representing a large number of people with their actions. I would argue that the procedures should be changed, once of course the Republicans decide that gaining a simple majority is not a mandate to stop talking to anyone.

As for the bailout and healthcare, I'm certain that if a procedural loophole could have been found by opponents, then it would have been taken. So, kind of a strawman on that argument, no?

[thegreekdog]

They're boycotting a vote, not an election. I find the whole thing weird, but don't forget that they were elected too. They do seem to be representing a large number of people with their actions. I would argue that the procedures should be changed, once of course the Republicans decide that gaining a simple majority is not a mandate to stop talking to anyone.

Sorry... I mistyped. I would note that it is required by the Wisconsin constitution that the Democratic senators be in attendance. So, this is not a case where the procedures need to be changed; this is a case where the procedures already in place need to be followed.

As for the bailout and healthcare, I'm certain that if a procedural loophole could have been found by opponents, then it would have been taken. So, kind of a strawman on that argument, no?

Sure, a loophole is fine. Skipping a vote is not a loophole (as indicated above). So, no, no strawman.

Also - I personally would not support this sort of loophole crap if it was reversed.

[Symmetry]

They're boycotting a vote, not an election. I find the whole thing weird, but don't forget that they were elected too. They do seem to be representing a large number of people with their actions. I would argue that the procedures should be changed, once of course the Republicans decide that gaining a simple majority is not a mandate to stop talking to anyone.

Sorry... I mistyped. I would note that it is required by the Wisconsin constitution that the Democratic senators be in attendance. So, this is not a case where the procedures need to be changed; this is a case where the procedures already in place need to be followed.

As for the bailout and healthcare, I'm certain that if a procedural loophole could have been found by opponents, then it would have been taken. So, kind of a strawman on that argument, no?

Sure, a loophole is fine. Skipping a vote is not a loophole (as indicated above). So, no, no strawman.

Also - I personally would not support this sort of loophole crap if it was reversed.

Fair enough- I read the mistype as suggesting that they were avoiding the consequences of the elections. You make many fair points about the procedure. I find myself torn on this point. Clearly the Republicans are aiming for a kind of gerrymandering of the way that Wisconsin's electoral structure is run, but yes, government shut downs are bad for all involved.

[Phatscotty]

The Republican governor didn't try to sit down with the unions and re-negotiate, he tried to outlaw them.

Seriously? Again with the rhetoric. He's not trying to outlaw unions. He's trying to limit the ability of unions to negotiate for anything other than salaries. In other words, he wants to stop the state employees from having the ability to negotiate for stuff like state-funded pensions or state-funded health insurance.

He's not really that interested in fixing the budget crisis:
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions

good article, good points. I just want to add there is more to it than balancing the budget. There is also the issue of Public sector unions giving millions of dollars to democrat politicians. There is nothing wrong with this on it's face, but where the problem lies is that plenty of Independent and Conservative Union workers, who pay dues, do not wish for their money to go to Democrats, and given that in WI you basically have no choice but to join the union of you want a certain job. If this union would just spend the dues on the union members, a lot of this would have never happened.

What I'm saying in a nutshell, if you are not a Democrat and you work in a union in WI, your dues go against your own interests (to Democrats).

[Juan_Bottom]

Ahhh, boycotting the vote has been a strategy since the olden times. The founding fathers intended it to be. Hasn't anyone postulated why there would be a rule requiring a certain number of representatives from each party be in attendance in order to take a vote? Everyone intended it to be a protective filibuster of sorts.
Don't quote me here, but wasn't it Reconstruction Tennessee where the governor had the Republican state senators marched into the capitol building at gunpoint? Just so that they would be in attendance to make his passage of bills legal.
Plus, just because the Republicans have the majority vote does not mean that they are right. It means that they are sticking together. From the local polling it looks like everyone is supporting the unions.

[Phatscotty]

Ahhh, boycotting the vote has been a strategy since the olden times. The founding fathers intended it to be. Hasn't anyone postulated why there would be a rule requiring a certain number of representatives from each party be in attendance in order to take a vote? Everyone intended it to be a protective filibuster of sorts.
Don't quote me here, but wasn't it Reconstruction Tennessee where the governor had the Republican state senators marched into the capitol building at gunpoint? Just so that they would be in attendance to make his passage of bills legal.
Plus, just because the Republicans have the majority vote does not mean that they are right. It means that they are sticking together. From the local polling it looks like everyone is supporting the unions.

I understood it's not a certain number from each party, jut a certain number. I could be wrong, but I think they need 20 people in WI total. 19 Republicans present!

[Phatscotty]

I just wanted to ask though, you said collective bargaining rights are guaranteed under the first amendment. Why are there 20 states who do not have collective bargaining laws? And why has not the AFL CIO sued those states and force them to uphold the constitution?

This makes zero sense. Just because I have the right to free speech does not mean I am required to speak.

There is more to the first amendment than just free speech, and I don't think that's what he meant when he said Article 1. MYOB

He's onto something when he talks about Free Speech. Many local governments take that away by requiring protesters to acquire "permits" in order to hold protests, and then they can only protest in "designated zones." That's not having the Freedom of Speech. Our government works exactly as George Carlin said that it does when he said "You have no 'rights' in this country. All you have are privileges."

I agree here, that's total BS. However, there does need to be something or some rules to make sure peoples allotted times are respected and that 4 different groups don't show up at the same time. I'd work with ya on this

[Symmetry]

The Republican governor didn't try to sit down with the unions and re-negotiate, he tried to outlaw them.

Seriously? Again with the rhetoric. He's not trying to outlaw unions. He's trying to limit the ability of unions to negotiate for anything other than salaries. In other words, he wants to stop the state employees from having the ability to negotiate for stuff like state-funded pensions or state-funded health insurance.

He's not really that interested in fixing the budget crisis:
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions

good article, good points. I just want to add there is more to it than balancing the budget. There is also the issue of Public sector unions giving millions of dollars to democrat politicians. There is nothing wrong with this on it's face, but where the problem lies is that plenty of Independent and Conservative Union workers, who pay dues, do not wish for their money to go to Democrats, and given that in WI you basically have no choice but to join the union of you want a certain job. If this union would just spend the dues on the union members, a lot of this would have never happened.

What I'm saying in a nutshell, if you are not a Democrat and you work in a union in WI, your dues go against your own interests (to Democrats).

Nah, if they'd spent it on Walker's campaign it wouldn't have happened to them.

[Phatscotty]

Republican states have lower wages and less benefits. How is that a better job? They also have lower average IQ's and higher obesity rates. And minority's in Republican states have their ballots lost or thrown out at a rate 14x higher (and higher still on reservations) than in blue states. Zing!
But that's not the point. It's not about Republicans and Democrats.

Republican states have much smaller budget deficits (if not surpluses) and much lower unemployment. Democratic states don't lose ballots: they make up ballots like Al Franken winning the Senate seat. We could go about this all day, but it's irrelevant to the fact that Wisconsin unions and Democrats are failing to make their share of sacrifices, like the leader of their party called for everyone to do.

ya dude, the box full of ballots found in a trunk, and a few other weird things, DID happen here. Soros has a lot invested in MN and pawns all over the place.

[Phatscotty]

The Republican governor didn't try to sit down with the unions and re-negotiate, he tried to outlaw them.

Seriously? Again with the rhetoric. He's not trying to outlaw unions. He's trying to limit the ability of unions to negotiate for anything other than salaries. In other words, he wants to stop the state employees from having the ability to negotiate for stuff like state-funded pensions or state-funded health insurance.

He's not really that interested in fixing the budget crisis:
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions

good article, good points. I just want to add there is more to it than balancing the budget. There is also the issue of Public sector unions giving millions of dollars to democrat politicians. There is nothing wrong with this on it's face, but where the problem lies is that plenty of Independent and Conservative Union workers, who pay dues, do not wish for their money to go to Democrats, and given that in WI you basically have no choice but to join the union of you want a certain job. If this union would just spend the dues on the union members, a lot of this would have never happened.

What I'm saying in a nutshell, if you are not a Democrat and you work in a union in WI, your dues go against your own interests (to Democrats).

Nah, if they'd spent it on Walker's campaign it wouldn't have happened to them.

That won't happen. Did you know that FDR was ardently opposed to public unions? just curious