Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

[Juan_Bottom]

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

Quite a few politicians have been two-faced like this. They fanatically support public unions but are against private ones for the convenience. I think we've all been learning a lot since the controversy first hit the radio.

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!

That's probable. I think that's why they're hunting down the independent now that I think about it... I might have been thinking of how crazy the situation in Tennessee was. This whole conversation is flipped. Instead of concentrating on what we all already agree on, and that's that the union employees need to lose some benefits, what we should be discussing is how right it is to outlaw public unions. That's where all the controversy lies with the Dems. We know it's a very old political safe-guard to boycott votes to keep them from happening. Whether everyone agrees with it or not anyway, it's our founder's 'revolutionary thinking' that gave it to us.

[Symmetry]

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

But it did happen- as you know, those unions who spent money on Walker's campaign rather than their union members aren't having the same rules applied to them.

No idea about FDR, and I'm not sure I care really. I'm pretty sure he's not running, but then again he was elected plenty of times without running anyway. He has the record, right?

[Phatscotty]

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

But it did happen- as you know, those unions who spent money on Walker's campaign rather than their union members aren't having the same rules applied to them.

No idea about FDR, and I'm not sure I care really. I'm pretty sure he's not running, but then again he was elected plenty of times without running anyway. He has the record, right?

oh yeah, your'e right. I still want to find a couple stories on this with specifics. not asking for any, I already know Ezra is on deck. I'll find some and come back, probably tomorrow.

[Phatscotty]

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

Quite a few politicians have been two-faced like this. They fanatically support public unions but are against private ones for the convenience. I think we've all been learning a lot since the controversy first hit the radio.

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!

That's probable. I think that's why they're hunting down the independent now that I think about it... I might have been thinking of how crazy the situation in Tennessee was. This whole conversation is flipped. Instead of concentrating on what we all already agree on, and that's that the union employees need to lose some benefits, what we should be discussing is how right it is to outlaw public unions. That's where all the controversy lies with the Dems. We know it's a very old political safe-guard to boycott votes to keep them from happening. Whether everyone agrees with it or not anyway, it's our founder's 'revolutionary thinking' that gave it to us.

outlaw? That's a bit much. I think curb, limit, and reduce is more like it. Right now, it is actually the opposite of outlaw ie you must join the union and pay dues, if you want that job. Walkers bills offers a choice to the employees. I'm leaning towards freedom rather than outlaw. The democrats who are boycotting the law are in direct violation of WI's constitution, and police and state troopers are looking for them. I think there are better ways to handle the situation*. Of course, those ways do not allow the unions to confiscate the capitol building...They are going to pass it anyways. The democrats really, truly need to get back to work and represent those very same people who are protesting. The more I look at it, the more this whole thing stinks.

Teachers closing down schools: The teachers did not need to be at the capitol during the day. The vote is not happening either way. They should have worked and then went to protest.
Doctors handing out bogus sick notes: Really, what are the children in Wisconsin learning? and from who?
Democrats running away from their responsibilities: These are the same people who passed a bunch of spending before Walker was elected and turned a 130 million whatever into a 3.6 billion deficit, in just 2 years!
Show me what Democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like! And we totally support our Democrats halting Democracy!

info I found that is related

One of the 14 Democratic state senators who fled Wisconsin rather than vote on a bill taking away collective bargaining rights said that he fears Republicans might find a way to vote on a key part of the measure without them.

Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach told The Associated Press on Monday that Republicans could attempt to attach the part of the proposal taking away collective bargaining rights to an unrelated bill and pass it Tuesday.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said Sunday the state Senate might come into session to take up appointments and other bills Tuesday, but he didn't say which ones.

The 19 Republicans can't act on the bill as Gov. Scott Walker proposed it because it has a fiscal impact, which requires 20 senators to be there.

Democrats plan to offer more than 100 amendments* in the state Assembly to Gov. Scott Walker's plan taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights for Wisconsin's public workers.

Democratic Minority Leader Peter Barca said Monday that Democrats plan to debate the bill starting Tuesday morning, but he didn't know when it would actually come up for a vote.

Barca said Democrats had 50 amendments ready to introduce and were drafting more. He said it will take "hours upon hours" to work through the bill.

Wisconsin's senate majority leader said the chamber will convene to pass non-spending bills and act on appointments Tuesday even if minority Democrats remain out of state.

Republican Sen. Scott Fitzgerald told The Associated Press on Sunday that he would be reviewing which bills and appointees to schedule for action. He said senators can't wait around "twiddling their thumbs" until the Democrats return.

Fourteen Democrats traveled to Illinois last week to delay action on a budget bill that would effectively eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Republicans need 20 of 33 members to have a quorum to pass any spending bill but only a simple majority of 17 for other items.

[spurgistan]

Wait - scotty, you're blaming Wisconsin Democrats for turning the projected surplus they had when they got voted out into what we got now? Bold, sir. Bold. That's blaming Clinton for the Bush economy all over again.

[Phatscotty]

Wait - scotty, you're blaming Wisconsin Democrats for turning the projected surplus they had when they got voted out into what we got now? Bold, sir. Bold. That's blaming Clinton for the Bush economy all over again.

The 11-13 budget was passed in 2010, by a Dem house, Dem senate, and Dem governor. Walker has been in office for 40 days. You think Walker spent 3.6 billion dollars already?
The lame duck congress in WI passed a ton of spending bills, including sweetheart deals for the public unions.

In fairness, I will concede your next response about cutting taxes. 117 million dollars in tax cuts. 3.6 billion in spending over the next 700 days.


There is a reason Wisconsin flipped it's entire gov't.


Your assertion is not the point I was trying to make or focus on or blame. It's just reality. Lame ducks do it all the time, Democrat and Republican alike. My point is not who is to blame, and certainly it is not only Democrats. This is the same thing as in Federal Congress, although that's a much shorter time. The previous Congress, in December, set all the spending for the first 6 months of 2011. Certainly you would not hold the 112th responsible for the spending put in place before they even arrived?

[Night Strike]

This is the same thing as in Federal Congress, although that's a much shorter time. The previous Congress, in December, set all the spending for the first 6 months of 2011. Certainly you would not hold the 112th responsible for the spending put in place before they even arrived?

LOL

Just wait until the 2012 election season. For some reason, I think the Republican House will still get blamed.

[Phatscotty]

This is the same thing as in Federal Congress, although that's a much shorter time. The previous Congress, in December, set all the spending for the first 6 months of 2011. Certainly you would not hold the 112th responsible for the spending put in place before they even arrived?

LOL

Just wait until the 2012 election season. For some reason, I think the Republican House will still get blamed.

They better get moving. Perhaps 10 states hitting the brink and making drastic cuts is just the national conversation they need.

[Woodruff]

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.

The budget was previously sound. Until recent huge tax cuts made it unsound. Having little if anything to do with the unions. This is about crushing the unions that did not support Walker, and that is ALL this is about. It's not about balancing the budget. That's just the hammer he's trying to wield to make it happen.

[Phatscotty]

The budget was previously sound. Until Walker made it unsound. Having little if anything to do with the unions. This is about crushing the unions that did not support him, and that is ALL this is about. It's not about balancing the budget. That's just the hammer he's trying to wield to make it happen.

How did Walker make it unsound? Hungry for facts.

[Woodruff]

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.

The budget was previously sound. Until Walker made it unsound. Having little if anything to do with the unions. This is about crushing the unions that did not support him, and that is ALL this is about. It's not about balancing the budget. That's just the hammer he's trying to wield to make it happen.

How did Walker make it unsound? Hungry for facts.

You are correct - I did some research while you were posting and realized that it was the previous house that made the tax cuts. I had already edited my post by the time you made yours. Sorry about that.

Regardless, everything in my post now is accurate.

[Night Strike]

This is the same thing as in Federal Congress, although that's a much shorter time. The previous Congress, in December, set all the spending for the first 6 months of 2011. Certainly you would not hold the 112th responsible for the spending put in place before they even arrived?

LOL

Just wait until the 2012 election season. For some reason, I think the Republican House will still get blamed.

They better get moving. Perhaps 10 states hitting the brink and making drastic cuts is just the national conversation they need.

I still think the best comment thus far out of this entire situation is Walker's retort to Obama: that he should deal with his massive federal deficit before he tries to interject himself in a state's budget.

[Phatscotty]

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.

The budget was previously sound. Until Walker made it unsound. Having little if anything to do with the unions. This is about crushing the unions that did not support him, and that is ALL this is about. It's not about balancing the budget. That's just the hammer he's trying to wield to make it happen.

How did Walker make it unsound? Hungry for facts.

You are correct - I did some research while you were posting and realized that it was the previous house that made the tax cuts. I had already edited my post by the time you made yours. Sorry about that.

Regardless, everything in my post now is accurate.

okay, so 117 million in tax cuts was it? What number did you see?

[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.

The budget was previously sound. Until recent huge tax cuts made it unsound. Having little if anything to do with the unions. This is about crushing the unions that did not support Walker, and that is ALL this is about. It's not about balancing the budget. That's just the hammer he's trying to wield to make it happen.

What are the recent "huge tax cuts?" Do you know what they are? Do you know what they are supposed to do?

Let me take another tack... are you suggesting that it is okay to have the 2009 tax burden (keeping in mind that 2009 marked the first year that Wisconsin went to combined reporting, in itself a large tax burden) with 2009 spending levels without the tax cuts? Is this sound economic and fiscal policy?

In any event, you may be right. If he wanted to truly balance the budget, he'd lay off 10% of the state employees in addition to doing what he's trying to do. That's what I would be asking for if I was in Wisconsin.

And, although symmetry thinks this is a strawman, elections are elections. If the people of Wisconsin did not want this to happen, they would have voted for someone else. If they do not approve of these measures, they will vote for someone else. That's how the representative process works.

[Symmetry]

Actually, what I thought was a strawman was the argument that opponents of the bail out and healthcare reform did not resort to procedural shenanigans to de-rail the process. I think they would have if they could.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, what I thought was a strawman was the argument that opponents of the bail out and healthcare reform did not resort to procedural shenanigans to de-rail the process. I think they would have if they could.

Is there a quorum requirement in the US house or senate? If so, this is the shenanigan. I don't even think the Republicans did a filibuster (which is another procedural shenanigan)... although maybe they couldn't.

[Symmetry]

Actually, what I thought was a strawman was the argument that opponents of the bail out and healthcare reform did not resort to procedural shenanigans to de-rail the process. I think they would have if they could.

Is there a quorum requirement in the US house or senate? If so, this is the shenanigan. I don't even think the Republicans did a filibuster (which is another procedural shenanigan)... although maybe they couldn't.

The couldn't part would be my line of thinking. They certainly weren't able to filibuster on healthcare. The quorum aspect, just don't know. I suspect it might part of the rules (it is in many governmental processes around the world), but it's more difficult for a national body than a local one I would think. But yeah- no idea.

[Phatscotty]

Actually, A "House Call" was as far as we got. People may have tried, but nobody really got inside the U.S. House of Representatives. We did surround the building though.

House Call 11-5-09 (doctor hurts his back lifting the Health Care Reform Bill)

This is how Pelosi handled it.

[spurgistan]

Actually, what I thought was a strawman was the argument that opponents of the bail out and healthcare reform did not resort to procedural shenanigans to de-rail the process. I think they would have if they could.

Is there a quorum requirement in the US house or senate? If so, this is the shenanigan. I don't even think the Republicans did a filibuster (which is another procedural shenanigan)... although maybe they couldn't.

When you hear "didn't vote for cloture," that's filibustering. It's technically not closing debate on the issue. Because the time of Senators is so valuable these days, you never see the one guy talking like in Mr. Smith, because that would also necessarily involve the 60 senators wanting to close debate to be present. It's a procedural shenanigan. To say nothing of placing holds, which is so weird and Senate-specific I don't even get what purpose it serves in a republican (small-r) government. I've said it before, f*ck the Senate.

[Juan_Bottom]

So, the Republican majority passed the controversial Jim Crow "Voter ID" law without any Democrats present. The reality of what's happening in WI is becoming apparent very quickly. It's not about the Wisconsin budget, it's about keeping the Democrats out of power. No wonder the Dems are having such a hissy fit. Black and Hispanics rights groups are having a shit-fit too. The legislation has been challenged in the past, and it held up in court.

For those of you who don't know, ask a member of the Black caucus what "voter ID" legislation is really about. Historically, it was an idea that the Southern Democrats had to keep minorities (blacks) from voting. There is no need at any time ever, for any voter ID. There has never been a case of someone posing as another person to vote. You can watch dozens of Gregg Palast videos on youtube on this topic.

Now, I'm not saying that the Republican party is a racist party (though they have to be to pass this) but I am saying that they are an opportunistic party. If keeping blacks from voting will keep them in power, then so be it.

[Symmetry]

Jim Crow is a bit strong, but it was a bill clearly designed to exclude the poorest of citizens, or more generously- the less educated. That does mean predominantly minorities and it does mean predominantly Democrat voters. But yeah- they know what they're doing, and if "balancing the budget" is all they need to say to get people on side, well...

[PLAYER57832]

It seems that the unions in question already conceded to the cuts in pay, etc. So, its no longer about the budget, it is totally about busting the unions.

[Symmetry]

They conceded the cuts in pay and benefits a while ago. Yeah- this is about busting unions (not those that contribute to Republican causes of course).

[Night Strike]

Requiring a picture ID is not racist. Heck, even illegal immigrants can get valid drivers licenses in many states, so it's not like it has a huge effect. Many businesses require photo IDs to conduct business, so it makes sense that it would also be required to make sure a person is who they say they are when they come to vote.

By the way, that's the consequences of Democrats running away from their jobs: things get done that they don't like. The Republicans shouldn't be expected to roll over just because the Democrats aren't responsible. It looks like we know who the really party of No is.

[Juan_Bottom]

NS, it will exclude probably 11% of minority votes, and 1% of white votes. 11% is not only a huge number in comparison to 1%, but it's also enough to swing elections. It's common knowledge that this is a tactic designed to exclude minorities from elections. It's right in there with "Felony Purges" right before elections, that somehow dump thousands of legally registered voters, all of whom are Black, NA, or Hispanic. Add that to the national average of minorities having their votes cast out at 14x the rate of white ones, and you can see why I call would the Republican party racist.

Looks like the Republican party is the party of "No." No blacks allowed that is. No one is asking the Republicans to roll over, we're asking them to stop attacking the working class and minorities. The Dems aren't running away from their job, they're doing what the founders had intended. They're doing their job.

EDIT
AND again, there has never been a case of someone pretending to be someone else to cast a vote. It's never happened. So not only are the Republican's adding to the size of the government again, but just knowing this should make you suspicious of their true intentions.