WWTBAM Bored

It looks like the people may get the chance to weigh in directly on the ongoing political battle in Wisconsin. Recall efforts have been organized against 16 of the 33 incumbent state senators -- 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The other 17 senators were elected in 2010 and under Wisconsin law, no recall effort can occur during the first year in office, so this is every member of the State Senate who is eligible to be recalled. --Bob

All this caused by the Democratic representatives that were elected to represent, but have chosen to flee the state rather than do their duty, because they didn't like the probable outcome. Selfish, stupid and arrogant.

IMO all the representatives who have left the state should all be summarily thrown out of office. I am sure there is no law now in effect to allow that to happen, but I think this is one law that should go in the books.

I read too quickly, and thought the first word in the header was Baptist.

Nevermind.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:All this caused by the Democratic representatives that were elected to represent, but have chosen to flee the state rather than do their duty, because they didn't like the probable outcome. Selfish, stupid and arrogant.

IMO all the representatives who have left the state should all be summarily thrown out of office. I am sure there is no law now in effect to allow that to happen, but I think this is one law that should go in the books.

So I assume you believe that every United States Senator that engages in a filibuster should be thrown out of office for being selfish, stupid, and arrogant, as well.

This is a parliamentary tactic that is legal under Wisconsin law.

As usual, you assume wrong. But I defend your right to assume wrong.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:All this caused by the Democratic representatives that were elected to represent, but have chosen to flee the state rather than do their duty, because they didn't like the probable outcome. Selfish, stupid and arrogant.

IMO all the representatives who have left the state should all be summarily thrown out of office. I am sure there is no law now in effect to allow that to happen, but I think this is one law that should go in the books.

And if the people agree with your view, they're probably the ones who will be recalled. But if the people agree instead that the union bill is a classic bait-and-switch -- ramrodding a far-reaching effort that no one campaigned on in an effort to gain political advantage -- then it's the Republicans who may lose.

I think I like what little I've learned about the Wisconsin version of direct democracy. It is designed to be rather difficult to get a recall effort on the ballot. Another possibility that occurs to me is a referendum intended to repeal the union-busting bill. I'm guessing there's some reason that possibility hasn't surfaced yet -- perhaps bills designated as "budget bills" aren't subject to referendum (which would help explain why they need a higher quorum than other bills). --Bob

The people of Wisconsin elected a Republican Governor (against the state's historical leanings) who campaigned specifically to fix the financial state of the state. When he started to do what he was elected to do, the opposition party decided to do what they could to nullify the results of the election.
Regardless of what you say and what you regurgitate, no one is busting any unions. The unions will only have to live by rules that have precedents in many other states. If you look at the state's finances, there is no money to collective bargain for, as the Governor has often stated and proven with FACTS. Anything else is just dema-gouging and special interests trying to protect their piece of a pie that doesn't exist.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The people of Wisconsin elected a Republican Governor (against the state's historical leanings) who campaigned specifically to fix the financial state of the state. When he started to do what he was elected to do, the opposition party decided to do what they could to nullify the results of the election.
Regardless of what you say and what you regurgitate, no one is busting any unions. The unions will only have to live by rules that have precedents in many other states. If you look at the state's finances, there is no money to collective bargain for, as the Governor has often stated and proven with FACTS. Anything else is just dema-gouging and special interests trying to protect their piece of a pie that doesn't exist.

I think you'll find that you're mistaken about the state's historical leanings. I think Wisconsin (at least in the last few decades) has voted for both Republican and Democratic governors in roughly equal measure. And this particular Republican governor will be subject to recall after he has been in office for a year. If he continues in this vein, he may well find himself facing one.

The unions have conceded on the financial issues, even though the fiscal hole was created in the first instance by enacting a tax cut that the state's finances couldn't afford. This isn't about money. This is about breaking unions as a political force. The people of Wisconsin appear to recognize that. And they don't seem to like it. --Bob

Madison -- The leader of Senate Democrats hiding out in Illinois is seeking a face-to-face meeting with Gov. Scott Walker and the Senate GOP leader.

Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said in a letter sent out Monday that he wants to meet with Republicans "near the Wisconsin-Illinois border to formally resume serious discussions" on Walker's budget repair bill. Two other Democratic senators met with Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) last week in Kenosha.

LOL

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117518423.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote:If you look at the state's finances, there is no money to collective bargain for, as the Governor has often stated and proven with FACTS. Anything else is just dema-gouging and special interests trying to protect their piece of a pie that doesn't exist.

One reason that there's no money to collectively bargain for is that the governor has already passed a number of tax cuts and other measures designed to decrease state revenue and make it more difficult for subsequent legislatures to raise taxes to deal with future shortfalls.

One of the Democrats is Seven months pregnant with two kids at home. How is today the first I've read of this? That means there's actually a ticking clock on this thing after all...

Also this holds situation must kinda suck for her family. Not a partisan thing, just an observation

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:If you look at the state's finances, there is no money to collective bargain for, as the Governor has often stated and proven with FACTS. Anything else is just dema-gouging and special interests trying to protect their piece of a pie that doesn't exist.

One reason that there's no money to collectively bargain for is that the governor has already passed a number of tax cuts and other measures designed to decrease state revenue and make it more difficult for subsequent legislatures to raise taxes to deal with future shortfalls.

Yes, SSS, I'm SSSSUUUUURRRRE it is designed to decrease the state's revenue. Of course we all know the answer to everything is to raise taxes on the rich. That way the rich people of Wisconsin can fund the retirement of all the teachers, which is how it should be, right? So what if it drives business out of the state, and takes money out of everyone's pocket, just as long as the people that work for the state don't have to sacrifice a little. That's the main thing.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:[J]ust as long as the people that work for the state don't have to sacrifice a little.

You can say it as often as you like, but it still won't be true. The unions have conceded on the financial issues. This is now all about political power. And the people of Wisconsin do not appear to agree with the governor. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:[J]ust as long as the people that work for the state don't have to sacrifice a little.

You can say it as often as you like, but it still won't be true. The unions have conceded on the financial issues. This is now all about political power. And the people of Wisconsin do not appear to agree with the governor. --Bob

Then what are they STILL PROTESTING about? Obviously they haven't conceded.

And it is about power. Who runs the state of Wisconsin? The elected representatives or the teacher's unions?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:[J]ust as long as the people that work for the state don't have to sacrifice a little.

You can say it as often as you like, but it still won't be true. The unions have conceded on the financial issues. This is now all about political power. And the people of Wisconsin do not appear to agree with the governor. --Bob

Then what are they STILL PROTESTING about?

The gratuitous attempt to break their unions under the false guise of budget-balancing. --Bob

To be honest, I still don't totally understand the situation. Anybody want to try and give me a short non-partisan version of the debate?

clem21 wrote:Anybody want to try and give me a short non-partisan version of the debate?

Good luck getting that around here.

clem21 wrote:To be honest, I still don't totally understand the situation. Anybody want to try and give me a short non-partisan version of the debate?

The proposed bill would end the rights of public employee unions to bargain on any issue other than wages, and they could only bargain on wages up to the increase in the cost of living. The bill would force all employees to affirmatively opt into the unions annually, or they would not be part of the union. The proposed bill would exempt from these requirements a handful of unions. Democrats note that the exempted unions were the only public employee unions that endorsed the current governor for election.

I don't understand the procedural details, but the fact that the state is now running a deficit somehow made it possible for the bill to be presented as a budget bill. The Republicans have enough senators for a quorum to act on non-budget bills, so there must be some reason they don't want to push the bill through on that basis. I speculate that doing so would make the bill subject to referendum. --Bob

Here, let me fix that for you....

Bob78164 wrote:

clem21 wrote:To be honest, I still don't totally understand the situation. Anybody want to try and give me a short non-partisan version of the debate?

The proposed bill would end the rights of public employee unions to bargain on any issue other than wages, and they could only bargain on wages up to the increase in the cost of living.

A restriction that has many precedents. Aside from that, many, myself included, blieve strongly that people who are directly employed by the government should not be represented by unions. That is a conflict of interest, since the money they are being paid is from the public treasury, collected from other people. Who sets the compensation for government employees, the people who were elected to do it or the public union? It's akin to Congress setting their own salaries, which is bad enough.

The bill would force all employees to affirmatively opt into the unions annually, or they would not be part of the union..

Of course that is double speak. What he really means to say is that the bill would give you the choice of joining the union or not. We can't have freedom of choice when it comes to unions, can we? Especially not in the area of where their political donations go.

The proposed bill would exempt from these requirements a handful of unions. Democrats note that the exempted unions were the only public employee unions that endorsed the current governor for election.

Would you expect the democrats to say otherwise?

I don't understand the procedural details, but the fact that the state is now running a deficit somehow made it possible for the bill to be presented as a budget bill.

Quite a big one, and mainly because they promised a lot of people a lot of things. Now the ones that cannot possibly get all that they were promised are fighting tooth and nail to keep what they think is theirs.

The Republicans have enough senators for a quorum to act on non-budget bills, so there must be some reason they don't want to push the bill through on that basis. I speculate that doing so would make the bill subject to referendum. --Bob

Perhaps because they don't play games with rules, but who knows?

Well I could do without the snark, but I thank you both for your explanations.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

The bill would force all employees to affirmatively opt into the unions annually, or they would not be part of the union..

Of course that is double speak. What he really means to say is that the bill would give you the choice of joining the union or not. We can't have freedom of choice when it comes to unions, can we? Especially not in the area of where their political donations go.

Your implication here is inaccurate. No employee is required to join the union. Under current law, any employee who wants to opt out of the union can do so. They already have choices. --Bob

Maybe I'm math challenged, or I don't understand the doublespeak used in government operations. Someone tell me where I'm wrong, but let's look at Wisconsin's problem by going up one level to the federal government.

I heard a report this morning that the federal deficit for the month of February was 200 BILLION dollars. OK. I believe that means that the federal government SPENT 200 billiion dollars more than it took in. If that is accurate, that means, if I'm doing my math correctly, and it's difficult with such big numbers, I might have misplaced a zero or two, that to make up the difference for February, each and every man woman and child in the US would have to chip in about $600 for February. So if we go the route of raising taxes, that means everybody would have to step up with an extra $7200 dollars this year to keep the Federal Government running at it's current pace. And that does not take into account the debt we already have accumulated, which is in the TRILLIONS.

Does this not scare anyone? And this doesn't even include the state, like Wisconsin, that they live in, most of which have a problem similar to the Federal Government's. I don't think raising taxes is the answer. I think that the whole structure needs to be looked at and made more efficient and lean. Wisconsin is an example. We need to do a lot bigger things than asking teachers to pay more of their share towards their healthcare and retirement, but all hell breaks loose when it happens.

Bob78164 wrote: Your implication here is inaccurate. No employee is required to join the union. Under current law, any employee who wants to opt out of the union can do so. They already have choices. --Bob

No employee is required to "join" the union. He or she nevertheless is required to pay union dues. Since those funds then may be used by the union for purposes the dues-paying, non-member does not approve, the word "choices" is misleading if not inaccurate.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Does this not scare anyone? I don't think raising taxes is the answer. I think that the whole structure needs to be looked at and made more efficient and lean.

The only president in recent history to balance a budget was Bill Clinton who did so by intelligent raising of taxes. We survived, and the 90s were a prosperous period with low unemployment.

Republicans never think that raising taxes is any part of an answer although it was part of the only answer that's worked in a century. And proposing willy nilly spending cuts overlooks two big things. First, the effect that significant spending cuts will have on our national quality of life. Second, the effect that significant spending cuts will have on a still struggling economy. Like it or not, the federal government serves as the biggest customer for private goods and services in this country. If the government stops buying, the effect will be the same, or worse, as occurred when individuals stopped buying three years ago.

Much of the reason for the ballooning deficit is the fact that tax revenues have shrunk because of the tough economy. Unemployed people and bankrupt businesses pay little or no income tax. People who aren't spending money because their income has dried up pay much less sales tax. Houses that have lost value due to the market crash generate much less property tax.

The biggest culprit in the deficit hasn't been Bush and Obama's wild spending (although that hasn't helped). It's the fact that our revenue has dried up considerably due to the tough times. Our main concern now (and frankly the only legitimate reason to postpone leting the Bush tax cuts expire) is to get the economy back on its feet, generating tax revenues. Then balancing the budget through an intelligent combination of tax hikes and spending cuts will be a lot easier and a lot less painful on all of us.

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: Your implication here is inaccurate. No employee is required to join the union. Under current law, any employee who wants to opt out of the union can do so. They already have choices. --Bob

No employee is required to "join" the union. He or she nevertheless is required to pay union dues. Since those funds then may be used by the union for purposes the dues-paying, non-member does not approve, the word "choices" is misleading if not inaccurate.

Nonmembers of a union are not required to pay union dues. If they don't join the union, they will probably be ineligible for union provided benefits such as negotiated discounts with third parties, and they can't participate in union activities. They are required to pay a fee that covers the portion of their dues that goes towards collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and other services that benefit them as an employee.