Wisconsin State Employees & Budget Cuts

[Symmetry]

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.

If this isn't a racial issue, then why wasn't this a a requirement before? Why should it be now? A pretty loaded question, I know.

But yeah- you and I know that this is about putting hurdles in front of citizens who want to vote.

[Phatscotty]

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.

Democracy will not be prevented. Too bad the democrats there are owned by the unions. WI needs new ones.

[Phatscotty]

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.

okay, all you are really saying is its bad bad bad bad bad bad. Why is it so bad? Just curious here. Why/how does it exclude minorities and poor? Let's talk about the problem.

Will add, someone pretending to be someone else is not the only example of what the bill is trying to fix. just one

[Phatscotty]

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.

Perhaps the democrats fled the state because they are too afraid to cast all No votes.

They are scared JB will call them the party of no

[Phatscotty]

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.

If this isn't a racial issue, then why wasn't this a a requirement before? Why should it be now? A pretty loaded question, I know.

But yeah- you and I know that this is about putting hurdles in front of citizens who want to vote.

Could it be it has to do with legal residence? It wasn't a requirement before because the democrats got rid of it because it benefited them. perfectly normal



meanwhile...

Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest.

[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.

If this isn't a racial issue, then why wasn't this a a requirement before? Why should it be now? A pretty loaded question, I know.

But yeah- you and I know that this is about putting hurdles in front of citizens who want to vote.

Because we know Democrats like to make trumped up charges of racism to stifle debate and force their views through even though people reject them. It's racist to oppose the president, it's racist to oppose border security, it's racist to enact voter IDs, the common line Democrats do in debates is to call their opponents' positions racist. That's why it has not been a requirement before: because racism is always called. And people are finally beginning to call BS on all these false claims.

[patches70]

Because we know Democrats like to make trumped up charges of racism to stifle debate and force their views through even though people reject them. It's racist to oppose the president, it's racist to oppose border security, it's racist to enact voter IDs, the common line Democrats do in debates is to call their opponents' positions racist. That's why it has not been a requirement before: because racism is always called. And people are finally beginning to call BS on all these false claims.

Not to mention that voting is an important civic duty. One may be required to show ID for purchasing cigarettes, to walk into a bar, to operate a motor vehicle. Voting is more important than all those things, so ID should be required. Also, voting integrity is equally important. We have to know, as a society, that those who are voting are indeed who they say they are and that they are actually able to vote.

It is certainly not racist to require a person to provide ID to vote.

[Juan_Bottom]

NS have you ever looked into the claims of the Black Caucus when they call voter ID's Jim Crow? Or even the law's history as a Democratic ploy to keep blacks from voting. It's not a stunt, it's a very real and historical threat.

Democracy will not be prevented. Too bad the democrats there are owned by the unions. WI needs new ones.

I think that threatening Democracy or even taking away a single person's vote is bad enough.

okay, all you are really saying is its bad bad bad bad bad bad. Why is it so bad? Just curious here. Why/how does it exclude minorities and poor? Let's talk about the problem.

Will add, someone pretending to be someone else is not the only example of what the bill is trying to fix. just one

You can check out any of Greg Palast's BBC America pieces on youtube. All of them deal with voter fraud or taking away minorities legal right to vote. He was the first journalist that I ever saw who explained that Jim Kerry actually won the general election. From him I learned that most foreign news services came up with the same thing, even though the American News Corporations buried those stories over here... So then Greg Palast did a piece on who the American news corporations supported, and why. And how that effected the election. I still strongly disagree with him about Hugo Chavez, but he really opened my eyes to voter fraud in this country. He's one of those cool gumshoe-type of reporters who steals IDs and sneaks into private meetings and stuff. He's a cool guy.
I'm just going to quickly gloss everything here.
Republicans keep putting forth the idea of Voter ID. The sales pitch is to keep people from illegally voting under someone else's name. But the really odd thing about this crime, is THAT IT NEVER HAPPENS. You're more likely to find your dead mother casting votes than you are to find someone else casting votes for you. It's a challenge to get anyone to vote once, let alone to vote twice. In 2004, one quarter of a million ballots were cast out under Voter ID laws.* And another odd thing about this, is that there was not a single arrest. The reason for that oddity, is that the votes weren't tossed out because the voter didn't have an ID. And they weren't tossed out because the person was voting illegally. They were tossed out because the voter didn't have the correct ID. According to the EAC, most of these ballots cast out were from "Urban Areas." You and I would just call them black communitys. Georgia for example, passed a law (with Democratic support) requiring voters to have a Voter ID. It costs $20, and you have to have a valid drivers license. Luckily for America, Federal Judges kindly pointed out that Poll Taxes by any name are Unconstitutional.

You guys getting the picture or need I go on? Voter ID laws have always been seen as Racist in origin. In communities where the poor can't afford IDs, requiring addition or "correct" ID's is a great way to eliminate their votes.


*largely in Republican states or states where Republicans controlled the voting process

Perhaps the democrats fled the state because they are too afraid to cast all No votes.

They are scared JB will call them the party of no

Or they fled to keep the vote from happening. We're talking about taking away people's Constitutional rights here, and nothing else. I don't care how badly their budget sucks right now, there is never an ok reason to violate someone's rights.

And it was NS who said "no" first, but c'mon, I don't even think he understands the conversation.

Could it be it has to do with legal residence? It wasn't a requirement before because the democrats got rid of it because it benefited them. perfectly normal

It also benefited the voters, and America's image. They're reporting this stuff in the UK as though the Republican party is so desperate to retain power that they are violating everyone's rights.

Because we know Democrats like to make trumped up charges of racism to stifle debate and force their views through even though people reject them.

I'm no Democrat, but I've read a history book or two. And I am a patriot and a humanist who would never throw away the Constitution. The voter ID laws are immoral to any thinking man or woman.

the common line Democrats do in debates is to call their opponents' positions racist.

Then stop holding back minorities.

[thegreekdog]

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).

It only took the election of a Republican legislature and governor and the threatened cutting of collective bargaining.

I'll ask the question again - why should we let state employees bargain with the people who they got elected? How can this be considered bargaining at all?

On Jim Crow - Jim Crow laws are hardly akin to state employees collective bargaining. As far as I know, the state employees have the same right to vote as everyone else in Wisconsin (and had the same right to vote prior to the election of Governor Walker).

[PLAYER57832]

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.

The impact is less now than it was when first suggested in the south. However, that this adversely impacts poorer voters, others outside the Republican "mainstread" is well documented... and why you generally see these pushes from the Republicans.

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.

And many people refuse to go to businesses that require IDs for what are blatant advertising reasons. Some even (gasp!) have begun to challenge the practice in court

For someone who opposes government intervention, you seem ironicaly naive about the impact of IDs toward a "Big Brother" state. I guess as long as "Big Brother" is a business, its OK? Except... WAIT, it WAS a corporation!

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.

I see, so this is completely different than a plain philibuster, etc.

The FACTS --- the bill in question was pushed through to a vote only 4 days after it was created. Public commenting was cut short so the vote could commence. This had nothing to do with honoring democracy and all about "Republicans are in power and we will do as we wish!"

FURTHER... although they keep trying to claim this is about money, the budget concessions were made a LONG time ago. Its now purely about busting unions and other issues like this voter ID garbage.

Question.. if this bill is so imperative and the Republicans are just "doing their jobs", then why did they have to tack all this superfulous garbage onto an EMERGENCY stop-gap spending bill?

Becuase it really has nothing to do with the budget and all about Republicans jerking their power

NOte, I don't think the Democrats action was great, but its politics. You do what you must to get control. Too bad the Republicans cannot at least be honest about that part.

[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).

It only took the election of a Republican legislature and governor and the threatened cutting of collective bargaining.

I'll ask the question again - why should we let state employees bargain with the people who they got elected? How can this be considered bargaining at all?

On Jim Crow - Jim Crow laws are hardly akin to state employees collective bargaining. As far as I know, the state employees have the same right to vote as everyone else in Wisconsin (and had the same right to vote prior to the election of Governor Walker).

A fair question, but one that can be easily reversed. Corporations provide much the same function on the Republican side. Some attention is being paid to the role of the Koch brothers in Walker's campaign, for example. Both seem to be a kind of abuse of the electoral system, but the rules on the super wealthy are being relaxed, while the rules on unions (who, I would argue, at least represent a greater number of voters in pure numbers- that is not counting sympathisers) are being tightened. All this under the auspice of everyone having to make a sacrifice.

[Aradhus]

I'll ask the question again - why should we let state employees bargain with the people who they got elected? How can this be considered bargaining at all?

Both sides think they're getting a good deal. I believe that's the point of bargaining.

[thegreekdog]

Corporations provide much the same function on the Republican side. Some attention is being paid to the role of the Koch brothers in Walker's campaign, for example.

This is not the same thing as collectively bargaining with yourself. I agree with the premise that special interest groups (whether they be corporations, wealthy individuals, unions, etc.) have too significant an effect on the voting of legislatures such that their interests are more represented than the "average" American. That is an issue and that needs to be addressed, but won't. And I do think Governor Walker will act in the best interests of the people and groups that bribed him... I mean gave him money for his campaign. However, like I indicated, this is a completely different issue from unions collectively bargaining with union supporters.

The situation of unions bargaining with union supporters is more akin to corporations bargaining with Republicans on the fair price of military contracts (which I also have a rather gigantic problem with) in the federal government. I think we can all agree that military contracts are not usually done in the best interest of the American public (but in the best interest of Boeing and the Republicans who received bribes... I mean campaign donations... from Boeing). This thing in Wisconsin is the same in my mind. The difference is (as someone will point out undoubtedly) is that the unions are just groups of poor teachers, not multibillion dollar corporations. I honestly don't give a flying fig as long as my tax dollars don't pay for it the return of bribes... I mean campaign donations.

rules on the super wealthy are being relaxed, while the rules on unions (who, I would argue, at least represent a greater number of voters in pure numbers- that is not counting sympathisers) are being tightened.

Well, that's certainly debatable. While the rules for unions (one union in particular) are being tightened in one state (Wisconsin), the president of the United States has made great strides (in his mind) in helping to eradicate banking and credit care abuse (again, in his mind). While I do not think these are anything more than ways for the banks and credit cards to pass different costs to consumers (a different discussion entirely), there is certainly a hue and outcry among Congress and the general public against "those wealthy Wall Street fatcats." I join that chorus by the way, whether that's important or not.

Anyway, I don't think rules are being relaxed on the wealthy (they've always been somewhat relaxed, but that depends on your definition of wealthy)... but that's a separate discussion (e.g. that senator from some New England state who is an independent going off about how the super wealthy WANT to pay more tax... and citing Bill Gates and some other billionaire... I went on a tirade about this in another thread).

[Phatscotty]

This is what democracy looks like when citizens vote for benefits and treasury, and for the candidate who campaigns on giving out free gov't programs. It's a couple generations deep.

Not to get all anti-progressive here, but the brick wall of entitlement spending is in view. We always knew it was there. I really hoped we would not be doing 200 mph when it comes, but...so be it.

This is true for most Democracies. They end in suicide.

That is why I am glad America is a Republic and hopefully we can remember that again someday.

[Symmetry]

Greek- That was thoughtful reply. I do thing the issues are intermingled. Walker (and I realise now that we're at cross-purposes here to a certain extent as I'm more focussed on the local issues, while you take on the bigger picture) has been arguing that these steps are necessary to balance the budget. That was dishonest. He's also introduced legislation for no-bid sell offs of public assets. I would say that purely serves the political ends of whichever corporation is chosen, or, if you like, the corporation most closely tied to the government. It certainly doesn't benefit the public (no bids!).

Taxes were certainly cut on the wealthy, causing WI's long term deficit. These are the issues that concern me when I see the debate framed as an attack on unions. It's not merely a removal of power, but a transfer.

You're quite right that special interest groups have too much power, but I don't see the solution in taking away from one evil as you add to another.

[thegreekdog]

That was thoughtful reply.

I try to not be a parrott, although I will admit that I come from a different side of this than others (I'm one of those pesky fatcats apparently).

That was dishonest.

I disagree. I believe he told the truth. Did he make the "budget crisis?" Maybe because he provided some tax breaks (see below for the partial list... I cannot recall the third item of his budget), but it is a budget crisis nonetheless.

He's also introduced legislation for no-bid sell offs of public assets. I would say that purely serves the political ends of whichever corporation is chosen, or, if you like, the corporation most closely tied to the government. It certainly doesn't benefit the public (no bids!).

I don't know how those work exactly. If they work like normal leases, then it's a big mistake because Wisconsin will wind up paying more in the end (although, they will be recouping some in taxes I suppose).

Taxes were certainly cut on the wealthy, causing WI's long term deficit.

Taxes were not cut for the wealthy. I'm not sure where you and Woodruff are getting your information but this is simply untrue.

You're quite right that special interest groups have too much power, but I don't see the solution in taking away from one evil as you add to another.

What Governor Walker did do was provide increased credits and incentives for businesses that moved into Wisconsin and created new construction and hired new people. I think that's good for Wisconsin residents. What Governor Walker did do was provide employment incentives. I think that's good for Wisconsin residents. There was one more thing, but I can't remember what it is... but it was not a cut of the rich peoples' taxes.

Did you know that Wisconsin enacted combined reporting for corporate groups (an onerous revenue raiser that has become popular lately) in 2009?

[Woodruff]

Not to get all anti-progressive here, but

You say this as if it would be a change of pace. It really wouldn't be.

[PLAYER57832]

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).

It only took the election of a Republican legislature and governor and the threatened cutting of collective bargaining.

I'll ask the question again - why should we let state employees bargain with the people who they got elected? How can this be considered bargaining at all?

I missed this earlier. It is a good question.
In truth, I think public employees should only have "unions" to promote basic worker safety and similar universal conditions that might not be considered by the average citizen, but which are important. I believe most of us can understand pay and benefits well enough to control that

HOWEVER, this seems to be much more than just an attack on public unions.

On Jim Crow - Jim Crow laws are hardly akin to state employees collective bargaining. As far as I know, the state employees have the same right to vote as everyone else in Wisconsin (and had the same right to vote prior to the election of Governor Walker).

I thought the crow reference was to the ID bit?

[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).

It only took the election of a Republican legislature and governor and the threatened cutting of collective bargaining.

I'll ask the question again - why should we let state employees bargain with the people who they got elected? How can this be considered bargaining at all?

I missed this earlier. It is a good question.
In truth, I think public employees should only have "unions" to promote basic worker safety and similar universal conditions that might not be considered by the average citizen, but which are important. I believe most of us can understand pay and benefits well enough to control that

HOWEVER, this seems to be much more than just an attack on public unions.

On Jim Crow - Jim Crow laws are hardly akin to state employees collective bargaining. As far as I know, the state employees have the same right to vote as everyone else in Wisconsin (and had the same right to vote prior to the election of Governor Walker).

I thought the crow reference was to the ID bit?

Yup, and of course in this case it's an attack only on collective bargaining for unions that don't usually support Republicans.

[Phatscotty]

what are the areas that they have a right to bargain in? wages, benefits, pensions, and what else? sick days? bereavement?

[PLAYER57832]

what are the areas that they have a right to bargain in? wages, benefits, pensions, and what else? sick days? bereavement?

things like specialized protective equipment for firefighters. Limits to hours worked, minimum staffing requirements, etc (for safety reasons). Primarily a public union should serve to protect individuals against management abuse, but I mean true abuse, harassment.

Mostly, a public union, as opposed to a union for a private corporation, should be a semi objective resource for employees who have issues. Sort of like a cross between an HR in a big company and an attorney. With very limited powers.

[Phatscotty]

what are the areas that they have a right to bargain in? wages, benefits, pensions, and what else? sick days? bereavement?

things like specialized protective equipment for firefighters. Limits to hours worked, minimum staffing requirements, etc (for safety reasons). Primarily a public union should serve to protect individuals against management abuse, but I mean true abuse, harassment.

Mostly, a public union, as opposed to a union for a private corporation, should be a semi objective resource for employees who have issues. Sort of like a cross between an HR in a big company and an attorney. With very limited powers.

do you know which, if any or all, bargaining rights listed here are being taken away in WI.

[PLAYER57832]

what are the areas that they have a right to bargain in? wages, benefits, pensions, and what else? sick days? bereavement?

things like specialized protective equipment for firefighters. Limits to hours worked, minimum staffing requirements, etc (for safety reasons). Primarily a public union should serve to protect individuals against management abuse, but I mean true abuse, harassment.

Mostly, a public union, as opposed to a union for a private corporation, should be a semi objective resource for employees who have issues. Sort of like a cross between an HR in a big company and an attorney. With very limited powers.

do you know which, if any or all, bargaining rights listed here are being taken away in WI.

Any right to bargain at all. And, apparently it is not just public unions.

Also, as was said earlier, the governor wants to claim this is about money, but the monetary concessions were already made. AND, this was rammed through without any real public input. Discussions were cut very short.

Basically, the whole thing stinks.

[Phatscotty]

They said they will make them, it's incorrect to say they have been made. There has been debate for the last 10 days, filled with testimony for 17 hours a day (at least one of the days). Tragically, The democrats are refusing to attend. I would be furious if I lived in WI. Whatever they hope to achieve for their end game, I think it will backfire on them and Democrats may very well not be welcomed back into WI for a few terms. It's not unrealistic. Here in Minnesota our Congress has been democrat for 30+ years. Until 2010 anyways, where the Republicans won both the House and the Senate. Huge strides in MN. We are currently battling over spending billions more or cutting billions now.

[PLAYER57832]

They said they will make them, it's incorrect to say they have been made. There has been debate for the last 10 days, filled with testimony for 17 hours a day (at least one of the days). Tragically, The democrats are refusing to attend.

LOL... I said public debate. Public comments were cut off 4 days after the bill was created, then brought up for immediate vote. The Democrats apparently could not filibuster, but could avoid a quarum. Not saying I agree with the tactic, but still.

I would be furious if I lived in WI. Whatever they hope to achieve for their end game, I think it will backfire on them and Democrats may very well not be welcomed back into WI for a few terms. It's not unrealistic. Here in Minnesota our Congress has been democrat for 30+ years. Until 2010 anyways, where the Republicans won both the House and the Senate. Huge strides in MN. We are currently battling over spending billions more or cutting billions now.

We will see. I don't live in WI. The Republicans have definitely not been acting above board in this one.