Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

[Phatscotty]

Right. And I'm also talking about labor representation. Unions.

Actually, isn't it odd that WI wants people to vote for political representation but they don't want them to have labor representation?

Key Concept: At the expense of the taxpayers, in a struggling economy. The math isn't there anymore.

[patches70]

I side with the unions. I always side with the people.
It's our right to collectively bargain and it's our right to strike. Trying to stop that is... communist? Local news said they are protesting the provisions of the bill that will take away their right to collective representation on several issues.

Yes, the government wants to be able to lay people off when they run out of money...

You are kinda right, and it really does suck for these teachers etc, but this is part of "sucking it up" Everyone else is doing it. They are not special. You know how bad the economy is. It is not unreasonable to ask these employees to contribute 5% to their own pensions. I know there's more to it, and maybe the missing politicians should be in the legislature trying to negotiate.

Not to mention, the fear of not having your job for life with benefits for life is definitely motivation to put a bit more effort into the job you are doing.

And if somehow the unions get what they want and maintain the status quo as it stands now, then pretty soon about 5,000 of them will get laid off!

So, which will it be? Start actually paying some of their own pensions and insurance or take a chance of being one of the 5,000 state employees to be laid off?
Doesn't matter what one thinks or ideology is, or how one wishes it should be, but that there just isn't the money to pay. Something has to give.

[thegreekdog]

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.

I'm pretty sure that they're willing to compromise if it will keep them in existence.

Like the teachers union in New Jersey? Oh wait, sorry, that was a rhetoric statement.

If the Republicans of WI were the best for Wisconsin's schools, then they're prolly the ones who received campaign donations.

I'm not sure what you mean, but when Democrats from across the state and all over the United States are angry, it appears to me that the Democrats are the ones receiving campaign donations from state employees unions. But I could just be really cynical.

How is $53K a year a better deal than private workers? Good teachers deserve better.

Goddamn right good teachers deserve better! But it's clear that with tenure and other such measures, it doesn't matter if a teacher is good or not. What matters is the strength of the union and the length of service. A plumber probably works twice as much as a teacher and makes less than $53K, so I'm really sick of teachers crying poor. Oh and the plumber pays for his own health insurance and his own retirement benefits.

Look dude, I'm not saying I disagree that there are other things that need to be done. But state employee pensions, salaries, and health insurance are gigantic expenses. I think Wisconsin has something in the range of 300,000 state employees (only 25,000 are protesting by the way... and some of those people aren't actually Wisconsin state employees... but I digress). This is something that will work to help balance the budget. It needs to be passed in Wisconsin.

I also think Wisconsin needs to keep the tax measures it passed effective for 2009. There needs to be other cuts as well. And perhaps they should raise taxes, too. All those things need to happen, but the state employees need to tighten their belts too.

[Phatscotty]

I side with the unions. I always side with the people.
It's our right to collectively bargain and it's our right to strike. Trying to stop that is... communist? Local news said they are protesting the provisions of the bill that will take away their right to collective representation on several issues.

Yes, the government wants to be able to lay people off when they run out of money...

You are kinda right, and it really does suck for these teachers etc, but this is part of "sucking it up" Everyone else is doing it. They are not special. You know how bad the economy is. It is not unreasonable to ask these employees to contribute 5% to their own pensions. I know there's more to it, and maybe the missing politicians should be in the legislature trying to negotiate.

Not to mention, the fear of not having your job for life with benefits for life is definitely motivation to put a bit more effort into the job you are doing.

And if somehow the unions get what they want and maintain the status quo as it stands now, then pretty soon about 5,000 of them will get laid off!

So, which will it be? Start actually paying some of their own pensions and insurance or take a chance of being one of the 5,000 state employees to be laid off?
Doesn't matter what one thinks or ideology is, or how one wishes it should be, but that there just isn't the money to pay. Something has to give.

To me, in a nutshell, these protesters are saying "We don't care about anyone or anything except for ourselves and our special benefits"

I even heard them singing "We shall overcome" today. seriously, wtf This is economics. They bit off more than other people are willing to chew for them.



We are witnessing a major fail in the system. This time, we borrowed too much...

[thegreekdog]

Quick question: If you're going to merge all threads about a particular topic, regardless of perspective, don't you think you should alter the title to something less incendiary? I mean, keeping all discussion about a particular event in one place is a good concept and all, but to force anyone who would like to discuss that topic to do so under an obviously biased title seems unfair, to say the least.

Perhaps, the next time the RNC is happening, I should start a thread about it, but title it something like, "RNC plagued by low moral values, and aborted fetus' on rye", and then insist that any further thread about stuff happening at that particular convention should be merged into my horribly inflammatorily-titled thread.




I guess that wasn't as quick as I'd hoped, but I hope I made my point.

Hmm... interesting point. I'm not sure if this has come up before (at least not with me as a moderator). I'll see if I can change the thread title.

[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.

I'm pretty sure that they're willing to compromise if it will keep them in existence.

Like the teachers union in New Jersey? Oh wait, sorry, that was a rhetoric statement.

If the Republicans of WI were the best for Wisconsin's schools, then they're prolly the ones who received campaign donations.

I'm not sure what you mean, but when Democrats from across the state and all over the United States are angry, it appears to me that the Democrats are the ones receiving campaign donations from state employees unions. But I could just be really cynical.

How is $53K a year a better deal than private workers? Good teachers deserve better.

Goddamn right good teachers deserve better! But it's clear that with tenure and other such measures, it doesn't matter if a teacher is good or not. What matters is the strength of the union and the length of service. A plumber probably works twice as much as a teacher and makes less than $53K, so I'm really sick of teachers crying poor. Oh and the plumber pays for his own health insurance and his own retirement benefits.

Look dude, I'm not saying I disagree that there are other things that need to be done. But state employee pensions, salaries, and health insurance are gigantic expenses. I think Wisconsin has something in the range of 300,000 state employees (only 25,000 are protesting by the way... and some of those people aren't actually Wisconsin state employees... but I digress). This is something that will work to help balance the budget. It needs to be passed in Wisconsin.

I also think Wisconsin needs to keep the tax measures it passed effective for 2009. There needs to be other cuts as well. And perhaps they should raise taxes, too. All those things need to happen, but the state employees need to tighten their belts too.

I hope to see 50,000 Tea Party+ supporting the measures needed to save the state, and hopefully set an example for fiscal responsibility for everyone else to aim for. We can almost hear the businesses leaving Minnesota and going to WI. If they can get these cuts, WI best days are ahead of it. Sucks for Minnesota though. Heck, I will just join my friends across the river!

[thegreekdog]

I disagree PhatScotty... this is a conflict for the people of Wisconsin alone. The president should not get involved. The non-Wisconsin unions should not get involved. The Tea Party members outside of Wisconsin should not get involved.

It's probably going to happen in the state I work in and the state I live in soon enough. I'll be there for those protests/rallies if they happen. And some of my best friends (teachers) will be on the other side.

[Phatscotty]

I disagree PhatScotty... this is a conflict for the people of Wisconsin alone. The president should not get involved. The non-Wisconsin unions should not get involved. The Tea Party members outside of Wisconsin should not get involved.

It's probably going to happen in the state I work in and the state I live in soon enough. I'll be there for those protests/rallies if they happen. And some of my best friends (teachers) will be on the other side.

When Organizing for America IS busing in protesters from the other counties, cities, and states, I fight fire with fire. Plus I want to be there. I want to see it, rather than hear about it through filters. I want to talk to the people, and meet new people.

There is only one reason the Senators are on the run. So that the protesters can have maximum impact.

Tea Parties are a blast, and I wouldn't miss it as tomorrow is ground zero for the Tea Party policy in action. I understand your point, and I respect it, but we are not going to lose this battle, and what happens in WI affects MN. Rational, calm people are going to be in short supply tomorrow, and I'm going to make sure there is more calm and conversation than there would be if I was not there. Plus, I have a knack for spotting infiltrators. It's the same reason the cheating and abuse mods keep asking me "How in the world did you know he was a multi?"

Only difference is, me and my buddy are making the drive, and nobody is paying for it. Grassroots are Grassroots.

[Phatscotty]

The Times, They are a Changin

[Woodruff]

I side with the unions. I always side with the people.
It's our right to collectively bargain and it's our right to strike. Trying to stop that is... communist? Local news said they are protesting the provisions of the bill that will take away their right to collective representation on several issues.

I certainly agree with this...the right to collectively bargain really is very important. By the same token, the members of the various unions need to seriously consider how their situations are affecting the larger whole.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, "as long as I get mine" seems to be the overriding principle.

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.

Which frankly doesn't make sense to me. They should be allowed to negotiate for anything that applies to the job, benefits or otherwise. The key here is that the union membership has to hold the union representatives accountable for "keeping it real", as it were...recognizing the realities of the situation. But to outlaw the ability to negotiate anything regarding the job salary/benefits is ludicrous in my opinion.

(I recognize that you and I are largely in agreement here, and that you were only pointing out what he is trying to do and not necessarily what you view as the appropriate action.)

I disagree PhatScotty... this is a conflict for the people of Wisconsin alone. The president should not get involved. The non-Wisconsin unions should not get involved. The Tea Party members outside of Wisconsin should not get involved.

Absolutely correct.

When Organizing for America IS busing in protesters from the other counties, cities, and states, I fight fire with fire.

Then you obviously have no problem with Al Qaeda moving into Iraq. I mean, after all, they're just moving in because we moved into Iraq, right?

[Night Strike]

Quick question: If you're going to merge all threads about a particular topic, regardless of perspective, don't you think you should alter the title to something less incendiary? I mean, keeping all discussion about a particular event in one place is a good concept and all, but to force anyone who would like to discuss that topic to do so under an obviously biased title seems unfair, to say the least.

Perhaps, the next time the RNC is happening, I should start a thread about it, but title it something like, "RNC plagued by low moral values, and aborted fetus' on rye", and then insist that any further thread about stuff happening at that particular convention should be merged into my horribly inflammatorily-titled thread.




I guess that wasn't as quick as I'd hoped, but I hope I made my point.

Hmm... interesting point. I'm not sure if this has come up before (at least not with me as a moderator). I'll see if I can change the thread title.

Bah humbug. The only thing incendiary about my title was the fact that it was true.

[Juan_Bottom]

I side with the unions. I always side with the people.
It's our right to collectively bargain and it's our right to strike. Trying to stop that is... communist? Local news said they are protesting the provisions of the bill that will take away their right to collective representation on several issues.

Yes, the government wants to be able to lay people off when they run out of money...

You are kinda right, and it really does suck for these teachers etc, but this is part of "sucking it up" Everyone else is doing it. They are not special. You know how bad the economy is. It is not unreasonable to ask these employees to contribute 5% to their own pensions. I know there's more to it, and maybe the missing politicians should be in the legislature trying to negotiate.

Not to mention, the fear of not having your job for life with benefits for life is definitely motivation to put a bit more effort into the job you are doing.

I'm completely right, the First Amendment guarantees you the right to collectively petition the government. I have no problem with what the state is trying to do to save money, but I am 110% against them trying to outlaw collective bargaining of any kind. If they were only targeting the pensions or retirement benefits or whatever, we wouldn't have an issue here. The state has every right and a sacred duty to try to save money.

The missing politicians were given three days to familiarize themselves with the bill, and then the vote was forced. The Dems were still trying to dispute the bill when the vote was called. So they left, amide applause from onlookers. Honestly, this is how I believe the American Democracy/Republic is supposed to be run. It's what our founding fathers intended, and it's what they themselves had done.

Right. And I'm also talking about labor representation. Unions.

Actually, isn't it odd that WI wants people to vote for political representation but they don't want them to have labor representation?

Key Concept: At the expense of the taxpayers, in a struggling economy. The math isn't there anymore.

It's not up to the taxpayers. People are scared,... and for some reason Americans act cowardly when they are in numbers and they are afraid. Here they are trying to take away their fellow citizen's rights, with no regard for the future or Constitution. But the heart of the matter is that this is still a Constitutional Republic. The will of the majority cannot be forced over the rights of the few.

And if somehow the unions get what they want and maintain the status quo as it stands now, then pretty soon about 5,000 of them will get laid off!

So, which will it be? Start actually paying some of their own pensions and insurance or take a chance of being one of the 5,000 state employees to be laid off?
Doesn't matter what one thinks or ideology is, or how one wishes it should be, but that there just isn't the money to pay. Something has to give.

The state would have every right to lay them off. And they should do more than talk about it, they should really threaten it. But even then I don't think that they can break up the unions. Wisconsin can't afford to not have any teachers.
But anyway, I think it's all just big talk from the governor to try to scare people into following his plan and to make them think he's the good guy.

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.

Yes he is. He's trying to take away the right of collective bargaining for most state employees. It's included in the legislation. I think the only Unions he left alone are private ones, the police officer's and the firefighter's unions. The rest are going to either be eliminated or lose the rights to bargain for several things.
These unions wont really be able to negotiate salaries, because they will be fixed to federal numbers.

So if I outlaw all the parts of a car but the tires, are you still going to pay for gas? Think about that one Dr Phil.

Like the teachers union in New Jersey? Oh wait, sorry, that was a rhetoric statement.

I don't know anything about New Jersey Unions.

If the Republicans of WI were the best for Wisconsin's schools, then they're prolly the ones who received campaign donations.

I'm not sure what you mean, but when Democrats from across the state and all over the United States are angry, it appears to me that the Democrats are the ones receiving campaign donations from state employees unions. But I could just be really cynical.

I'm saying that if the Republican's didn't receive any money from the teacher's unions, then it's because the teachers in Wisconsin thought that the Republicans would hurt the education of students in Wisconsin. The Union grades the candidates based on their stance on the state's education. In Illinois we saw a flip-flop by the state's teacher's union in the governor's election.

I also think Wisconsin needs to keep the tax measures it passed effective for 2009. There needs to be other cuts as well. And perhaps they should raise taxes, too. All those things need to happen, but the state employees need to tighten their belts too.

I don't have a problem with tightening any belts. I was the one who said Wisconsin needed to play hard ball with the Unions, but they can't outlaw your right to collectively bargain on any issue. How many people died in the establishing of that right in the first place?


Nightstrike and the Republicans are trying to twist the issue into being about the budget. They want you to think that these Unions are taking away from the taxpayers of the state and their members are out of touch with reality. The Dems who fled and their supporters are saying the issue is actually about the right of the workers to petition collectively. Don't listen to the Republicans because they are liars. They had a very good opportunity to make a compromise by focusing on the budget and not our natural rights, and they chose to attack the working class under the guise of being their friends.

Bah humbug. The only thing incendiary about my title was the fact that it was true.

It should read "Republican's don't understand anything but money"

There is only one reason the Senators are on the run. So that the protesters can have maximum impact.

Yeah and it's freaking awesome. The lone Independent, and the overriding vote, is asking for the Republican's to make a compromise before he'll show back up to work too. It's really beautiful to see our government functioning the way it was supposed to.

Which frankly doesn't make sense to me. They should be allowed to negotiate for anything that applies to the job, benefits or otherwise. The key here is that the union membership has to hold the union representatives accountable for "keeping it real", as it were...recognizing the realities of the situation. But to outlaw the ability to negotiate anything regarding the job salary/benefits is ludicrous in my opinion.

Exactly. See, Woodruff gets it.

[Mr_Adams]

Question, is the public school system right to work in WI? Or do you HAVE to belong to the union? I've read this whole thread, and nobody has addressed this. Not that it effects the budget crisis directly, but it may be something the WI legislator should address.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wisconsin is one of about 30 states with collective bargaining laws covering state and local workers. The Wisconsin Education Association Council, the biggest teachers union in the state, says they understand the budget crisis but feel the legislation will strip away the rights of workers.

"We know these are tough times and we have made it clear to the governor and legislators that we are prepared to do our part to help our state recover. This isn't about protecting pay and benefits - it's about protecting the right to collectively bargain. That's what's being stripped away here - the rights to be represented," council president told ABC News.

Question, is the public school system right to work in WI? Or do you HAVE to belong to the union? I've read this whole thread, and nobody has addressed this. Not that it effects the budget crisis directly, but it may be something the WI legislator should address.

http://www.weac.org/About_WEAC.aspx

Here's WEAC's website, but it doesn't say how to join the union. In Illinois a teacher has to have a certain amount of tenure before they can join the teacher's union. That's an agreement they have with the state.

[Symmetry]

Hmm- I'm getting a different side to this issue in the UK. It doesn't look like anyone has posted this so far, but Wisconsin was running a projected budget surplus of $120 million until about a month ago it seems. Then this Walker guy and a Republican majority took office and gave a load of tax breaks to corporations, thus causing a deficit and a crisis. That seems to be being used as an excuse to take on the Unions. To be fair, the unions which contributed to Walker's campaign seem to have been made exempt from the new rules.

If all this is true, I'd say it puts a bit of a different spin on the Wisconsin situation.

EDIT- Ezra Klein seems to have a fairly balanced take on the figures, with links:
Here

The budget problems for 2011-13 were exacerbated by recent tax cuts. Note, however, that the recently enacted tax cuts don’t affect the current fiscal year. To quote the Legislature’s nonpartisan (and highly regarded) fiscal office, “It is estimated that, together, these three bills will reduce general fund tax collections by $55.2 million in 2011-12 and $62.0 million in 2012-13.” See page 11 of this report (pdf), which also describes the tax cuts. (So, in a technical sense, the tax cuts didn’t create the current-year shortfalls that in turn are creating the specific opening for the 'budget repair bill' [Which is the bill including the collective bargaining restrictions - Ezra]. However, it is true that the tax cuts are worsening the state’s overall budget picture, and it is the state’s overall budget picture – not the current-year picture alone – that the guv is using to justify going after the workers. )

[Phatscotty]

Hmm- I'm getting a different side to this issue in the UK. It doesn't look like anyone has posted this so far, but Wisconsin was running a projected budget surplus of $120 million until about a month ago it seems. Then this Walker guy and a Republican majority took office and gave a load of tax breaks to corporations, thus causing a deficit and a crisis. That seems to be being used as an excuse to take on the Unions. To be fair, the unions which contributed to Walker's campaign seem to have been made exempt from the new rules.

If all this is true, I'd say it puts a bit of a different spin on the Wisconsin situation.

EDIT- Ezra Klein seems to have a fairly balanced take on the figures, with links:
Here

The budget problems for 2011-13 were exacerbated by recent tax cuts. Note, however, that the recently enacted tax cuts don’t affect the current fiscal year. To quote the Legislature’s nonpartisan (and highly regarded) fiscal office, “It is estimated that, together, these three bills will reduce general fund tax collections by $55.2 million in 2011-12 and $62.0 million in 2012-13.” See page 11 of this report (pdf), which also describes the tax cuts. (So, in a technical sense, the tax cuts didn’t create the current-year shortfalls that in turn are creating the specific opening for the 'budget repair bill' [Which is the bill including the collective bargaining restrictions - Ezra]. However, it is true that the tax cuts are worsening the state’s overall budget picture, and it is the state’s overall budget picture – not the current-year picture alone – that the guv is using to justify going after the workers. )

Ezra Klein. The same Ezra Klein who recently said the US Constitution is outdated and "too confusing" because it's over 100 years old?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1LpRkPyUHg

I wonder where this fair and balanced columnist stands. I mainly see him in MSNBC.

Ezra Klein, the same guy who's specialty is cracking the Tea Party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090EbpjPF5c not to mention Maddows favorite. This guy wrote a field guide on the Tea Party? yup

[Phatscotty]

Wisconsin is one of about 30 states with collective bargaining laws covering state and local workers. .

I am a union member. I know exactly what going on here, and nobody is even talking about it yet. Of course my union is not the WI union, but they are dealing with the problem before we have to in MN

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?

[Woodruff]

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.

[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

[Woodruff]

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

I wasn't really talking about free speech, you do realize...that whooshing noise you heard? That was you missing the point I was making. Just because a right exists does not mean that right must be imposed against that individual's will.

[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

I wasn't really talking about free speech, you do realize...that whooshing noise you heard? That was you missing the point I was making. Just because a right exists does not mean that right must be imposed against that individual's will.

well, wtf was asking you?

It sounded like you were talking about free speech.

MYOB

[Woodruff]

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

I wasn't really talking about free speech, you do realize...that whooshing noise you heard? That was you missing the point I was making. Just because a right exists does not mean that right must be imposed against that individual's will.

well, wtf was asking you?
It sounded like you were talking about free speech.
MYOB

WTF was asking me what? Were you going to address that point, or is this your realization I was right?

[Symmetry]

Hmm- I'm getting a different side to this issue in the UK. It doesn't look like anyone has posted this so far, but Wisconsin was running a projected budget surplus of $120 million until about a month ago it seems. Then this Walker guy and a Republican majority took office and gave a load of tax breaks to corporations, thus causing a deficit and a crisis. That seems to be being used as an excuse to take on the Unions. To be fair, the unions which contributed to Walker's campaign seem to have been made exempt from the new rules.

If all this is true, I'd say it puts a bit of a different spin on the Wisconsin situation.

EDIT- Ezra Klein seems to have a fairly balanced take on the figures, with links:
Here

The budget problems for 2011-13 were exacerbated by recent tax cuts. Note, however, that the recently enacted tax cuts don’t affect the current fiscal year. To quote the Legislature’s nonpartisan (and highly regarded) fiscal office, “It is estimated that, together, these three bills will reduce general fund tax collections by $55.2 million in 2011-12 and $62.0 million in 2012-13.” See page 11 of this report (pdf), which also describes the tax cuts. (So, in a technical sense, the tax cuts didn’t create the current-year shortfalls that in turn are creating the specific opening for the 'budget repair bill' [Which is the bill including the collective bargaining restrictions - Ezra]. However, it is true that the tax cuts are worsening the state’s overall budget picture, and it is the state’s overall budget picture – not the current-year picture alone – that the guv is using to justify going after the workers. )

Ezra Klein. The same Ezra Klein who recently said the US Constitution is outdated and "too confusing" because it's over 100 years old?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1LpRkPyUHg

I wonder where this fair and balanced columnist stands. I mainly see him in MSNBC.

Ezra Klein, the same guy who's specialty is cracking the Tea Party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090EbpjPF5c not to mention Maddows favorite. This guy wrote a field guide on the Tea Party? yup

If you like, but those do seem to be pretty ad hominem attacks on what seems to be a well researched piece. I appreciate it doesn't quite fit in with the "Boo, unions!" line, but it does deal with the figures.

[Phatscotty]

Tea Party speech in Madison today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t49OQxIri4

[Symmetry]

Tea Party speech in Madison today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t49OQxIri4

Simpsons did it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo