Bipartisan recall efforts in Wisconsin

[Bob78164]

It appears that efforts to recall the eight Republican senators who are eligible for recall are ahead of schedule. I'm not aware of any announcement from Republicans regarding their progress on collecting signatures for the recall of the eight Democratic senators who are eligible for recall. --Bob

[Bob78164]

According to this e-mail, the majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate will refuse to count committee votes cast by any of the 14 Democratic senators. I have no idea where he thinks he gets the authority to ignore votes cast by duly elected members of his house, but that's what he says he'll do. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

According to this e-mail, the majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate will refuse to count committee votes cast by any of the 14 Democratic senators. I have no idea where he thinks he gets the authority to ignore votes cast by duly elected members of his house, but that's what he says he'll do. --Bob

Perhaps because they still remain in contempt of the senate, as he states. I would assume, based on the text of the letter, that the law holds that any member held in contempt cannot vote. At least that's what it suggests to me. And I'm not a lawyer.

Is there any doubt that this whole shebang is an organized and orchestrated effort to undo the results of the last election?

[Bob78164]

According to this e-mail, the majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate will refuse to count committee votes cast by any of the 14 Democratic senators. I have no idea where he thinks he gets the authority to ignore votes cast by duly elected members of his house, but that's what he says he'll do. --Bob

Perhaps because they still remain in contempt of the senate, as he states. I would assume, based on the text of the letter, that the law holds that any member held in contempt cannot vote. At least that's what it suggests to me. And I'm not a lawyer.

Is there any doubt that this whole shebang is an organized and orchestrated effort to undo the results of the last election?

It seems to me profoundly undemocratic for the Republicans to claim the authority, based on nothing more than a majority vote, to ignore votes case by duly elected members of a legislative body, thereby depriving all of their constituents of the representation to which they're entitled. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

According to this e-mail, the majority leader of the Wisconsin Senate will refuse to count committee votes cast by any of the 14 Democratic senators. I have no idea where he thinks he gets the authority to ignore votes cast by duly elected members of his house, but that's what he says he'll do. --Bob

Perhaps because they still remain in contempt of the senate, as he states. I would assume, based on the text of the letter, that the law holds that any member held in contempt cannot vote. At least that's what it suggests to me. And I'm not a lawyer.

Is there any doubt that this whole shebang is an organized and orchestrated effort to undo the results of the last election?

It seems to me profoundly undemocratic for the Republicans to claim the authority, based on nothing more than a majority vote, to ignore votes case by duly elected members of a legislative body, thereby depriving all of their constituents of the representation to which they're entitled. --Bob

Well we seem to have a difference of opinion then. I think it's profoundly self serving and undemocratic for a group of duly elected members of a state's governing body to flee their state to avoid a vote that they know they would lose because their party was voted out of power, thus causing the whole state government to come to a halt. Then to add to the insult to the voters that put them there, they orchestrate a campaign, on a bogus and demagouged foundation, to try and undo the results of the last election. They have cost an already bankrupt state a lot more money with their stunt, and are impeding progress on trying to fix a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. Maybe you call that statesmanship. To me it's throwing a childish tantrum.

They didn't seem to be worried about providing representation to their constituents when they were in an Illinois hotel now, did they?

[Bob78164]

Well we seem to have a difference of opinion then. I think it's profoundly self serving and undemocratic for a group of duly elected members of a state's governing body to flee their state to avoid a vote that they know they would lose because their party was voted out of power, thus causing the whole state government to come to a halt. Then to add to the insult to the voters that put them there, they orchestrate a campaign, on a bogus and demagouged foundation, to try and undo the results of the last election. They have cost an already bankrupt state a lot more money with their stunt, and are impeding progress on trying to fix a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. Maybe you call that statesmanship. To me it's throwing a childish tantrum.

Even if I agreed with that viewpoint, how does it justify depriving them of their votes now?

In any event, I believe you have your facts wrong. Leaving the state called a lot of public attention to an issue that might otherwise have slipped below the radar. It did not cost the state money, Governor Walker's hysterical proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.

They didn't seem to be worried about providing representation to their constituents when they were in an Illinois hotel now, did they?

And they will answer to their constituents for that decision. But how are their constituents supposed to respond when senators elected by other districts decide that the senators they duly elected aren't entitled to vote? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Well we seem to have a difference of opinion then. I think it's profoundly self serving and undemocratic for a group of duly elected members of a state's governing body to flee their state to avoid a vote that they know they would lose because their party was voted out of power, thus causing the whole state government to come to a halt. Then to add to the insult to the voters that put them there, they orchestrate a campaign, on a bogus and demagouged foundation, to try and undo the results of the last election. They have cost an already bankrupt state a lot more money with their stunt, and are impeding progress on trying to fix a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. Maybe you call that statesmanship. To me it's throwing a childish tantrum.

Even if I agreed with that viewpoint, how does it justify depriving them of their votes now?

In any event, I believe you have your facts wrong. Leaving the state called a lot of public attention to an issue that might otherwise have slipped below the radar. It did not cost the state money, Governor Walker's hysterical proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.

They didn't seem to be worried about providing representation to their constituents when they were in an Illinois hotel now, did they?

And they will answer to their constituents for that decision. But how are their constituents supposed to respond when senators elected by other districts decide that the senators they duly elected aren't entitled to vote? --Bob

Bob, how are the constituents of the 14 dems supposed to respond when they decide to boycott their job and deprive them of representation? Did all of the 14 get elected by 100% unanimous elections? Assuming the contempt of the senate violation mandates that no votes be counted from the offending senator until restitution is received or a penalty of some kind is paid, do you advocate even more flauting of the law? Below is the section of the Wisconsin State Code. Though it is a matter of debate, I could make a case that the dems violated two of the below offenses, and they are getting off easy with a breach of their priveleges:

13.26 Contempt. (1) Each house may punish as a contempt,
by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its
members; but only for one or more of the following offenses:
(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring
such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member’s
privilege from arrest.
(b) Disorderly conduct in the immediate view of either house
or of any committee thereof and directly tending to interrupt its
proceedings.
(c) Refusing to attend or be examined as a witness, either
before the house or a committee, or before any person authorized
to take testimony in legislative proceedings, or to produce any
books, records, documents, papers or keys according to the
exigency of any subpoena.
(d) Giving or offering a bribe to a member, or attempting by
menace or other corrupt means or device to control or influence
a member’s vote or to prevent the member from voting.
(2) The term of imprisonment a house may impose under this
section shall not extend beyond the same session of the legislature.

[Bob78164]

Bob, how are the constituents of the 14 dems supposed to respond when they decide to boycott their job and deprive them of representation? Did all of the 14 get elected by 100% unanimous elections?

They, too, are subject to recall, either now or next year.

Assuming the contempt of the senate violation mandates that no votes be counted from the offending senator until restitution is received or a penalty of some kind is paid, do you advocate even more flauting of the law? Below is the section of the Wisconsin State Code. Though it is a matter of debate, I could make a case that the dems violated two of the below offenses, and they are getting off easy with a breach of their priveleges:

13.26 Contempt. (1) Each house may punish as a contempt,
by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its
members; but only for one or more of the following offenses:
(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring
such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member’s
privilege from arrest.
(b) Disorderly conduct in the immediate view of either house
or of any committee thereof and directly tending to interrupt its
proceedings.
(c) Refusing to attend or be examined as a witness, either
before the house or a committee, or before any person authorized
to take testimony in legislative proceedings, or to produce any
books, records, documents, papers or keys according to the
exigency of any subpoena.
(d) Giving or offering a bribe to a member, or attempting by
menace or other corrupt means or device to control or influence
a member’s vote or to prevent the member from voting.
(2) The term of imprisonment a house may impose under this
section shall not extend beyond the same session of the legislature.

What the Democrats did doesn't come close to violating any of these provisions. And there is nothing in this statute permitting a simple majority of a house to deprive any member of voting rights.

What the Republicans are doing here would be something like deciding that "abuse" (defined by the majority) of the filibuster constitutes obstruction of Congress, and then inventing as a punishment the deprivation of the "guilty" member's voting rights. If the Democrats did something like that, you'd be outraged, and so would I. But that's what's going on here as well. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob, how are the constituents of the 14 dems supposed to respond when they decide to boycott their job and deprive them of representation? Did all of the 14 get elected by 100% unanimous elections?

They, too, are subject to recall, either now or next year.

Assuming the contempt of the senate violation mandates that no votes be counted from the offending senator until restitution is received or a penalty of some kind is paid, do you advocate even more flauting of the law? Below is the section of the Wisconsin State Code. Though it is a matter of debate, I could make a case that the dems violated two of the below offenses, and they are getting off easy with a breach of their priveleges:

13.26 Contempt. (1) Each house may punish as a contempt,
by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its
members; but only for one or more of the following offenses:
(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring
such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member’s
privilege from arrest.
(b) Disorderly conduct in the immediate view of either house
or of any committee thereof and directly tending to interrupt its
proceedings.
(c) Refusing to attend or be examined as a witness, either
before the house or a committee, or before any person authorized
to take testimony in legislative proceedings, or to produce any
books, records, documents, papers or keys according to the
exigency of any subpoena.
(d) Giving or offering a bribe to a member, or attempting by
menace or other corrupt means or device to control or influence
a member’s vote or to prevent the member from voting.
(2) The term of imprisonment a house may impose under this
section shall not extend beyond the same session of the legislature.

What the Democrats did doesn't come close to violating any of these provisions. And there is nothing in this statute permitting a simple majority of a house to deprive any member of voting rights.

What the Republicans are doing here would be something like deciding that "abuse" (defined by the majority) of the filibuster constitutes obstruction of Congress, and then inventing as a punishment the deprivation of the "guilty" member's voting rights. If the Democrats did something like that, you'd be outraged, and so would I. But that's what's going on here as well. --Bob

Bob, this was NOT a filibuster. There are specific provisions in the Wisconsin State Statutes about the legislators responsibility to attand sessions. Deliberately boycotting sessions is an offense, it is not a filibuster. And by doing so they prevented members from voting and directly intended to disrupt the proceedings of the state legislature.

[Bob78164]

The Republicans have backed down. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Not that I would have agreed with such a move, but since the Democratic Sernators are technically still in contempt, is with-holding their right to vote in committee as "punishment" for said contempt allowable under Wisconsin law or Wisconsin Senate procedure?

Because if it is...then that's where the GOP would have "gotten their power" to do this.

[Bob78164]

Not that I would have agreed with such a move, but since the Democratic Sernators are technically still in contempt, is with-holding their right to vote in committee as "punishment" for said contempt allowable under Wisconsin law or Wisconsin Senate procedure?

Because if it is...then that's where the GOP would have "gotten their power" to do this.

I don't know, but I'm strongly inclined to doubt it, specifically because it makes power grabs of this nature far too easy. (As an aside, I don't see that the statute flock quoted justifies the contempt finding.) Just whip together a majority, start holding your opposition in consent for any reason you can contrive, and you've effectively stripped them of their right to vote in committee.

By the way, Public Policy polling has been released showing three of the senators who are facing recall petitions trailing races against generic Democrats. That's the exact number that would be necessary to flip control of the chamber. Two additional recall targets hold narrow leads against generic Democrats but are running below 50%. --Bob

[Jeemie]

I didn't think so either.

But I just thought I'd ask, in case anyone knew.

You never know with Wisconsin, though.

I lived there for a while while briefly attending grad school (I don't know if they are now, but when you are a TA when starting grad school in Wisconsin, you end up in a union! The short time I was there was the only time I was ever in a union. And it was NOT my choice).

The whole state is nuts!!!

[Bob78164]

I didn't think so either.

But I just thought I'd ask, in case anyone knew.

You never know with Wisconsin, though.

I lived there for a while while briefly attending grad school (I don't know if they are now, but when you are a TA when starting grad school in Wisconsin, you end up in a union! The short time I was there was the only time I was ever in a union. And it was NOT my choice).

The whole state is nuts!!!

That must have happened sometime after 1983, when I was a TA at UW -- Madison. (I left for UCLA after that semester.) --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Voters swept Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez out of office by a stunning margin Tuesday, capping a dramatic collapse for a politician who was given increased authority by voters four years ago to clean up much-maligned county government but was ushered out in the largest recall of a local politician in U.S. history.

The spectacular fall from power comes after two years of missteps, ranging from granting top staffers big pay hikes to construction of a publicly funded stadium for the Florida Marlins to implementation of a property-tax rate increase that outraged an electorate struggling through an ugly recession.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/15/2 ... z1GmGebVX0

[AlphaDummy]

The whole state is nuts!!!

[jarnon]

By the way, Public Policy polling has been released showing three of the senators who are facing recall petitions trailing races against generic Democrats. That's the exact number that would be necessary to flip control of the chamber. Two additional recall targets hold narrow leads against generic Democrats but are running below 50%. --Bob

How do recalls work in Wisconsin? The only recall I know about is California Governor Gray Davis. They first voted to recall him, then had a wide-open election for a new Governor. In Wisconsin, does a candidate of the other party run against the Senator being recalled?

[Bob78164]

By the way, Public Policy polling has been released showing three of the senators who are facing recall petitions trailing races against generic Democrats. That's the exact number that would be necessary to flip control of the chamber. Two additional recall targets hold narrow leads against generic Democrats but are running below 50%. --Bob

How do recalls work in Wisconsin? The only recall I know about is California Governor Gray Davis. They first voted to recall him, then had a wide-open election for a new Governor. In Wisconsin, does a candidate of the other party run against the Senator being recalled?

I don't know how it works in Wisconsin. In California, the recall election ran side-by-side with the election to replace Governor Davis in the event he was recalled. --Bob

[Bob78164]

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools.

Maybe someone else, whom I think you admire, can persuade you to rethink your position regarding unions. --Bob

[Jeemie]

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools

What pisses me off, as someone who volunteers in the schools often and sees firsthand what goes on there, the most about posts like this is far too often they are made by people who don't have the slightest clue as to what goes on in schools or how hard the teachers work.

And they say stupid things like "Maybe if we gut their budgets, that will lead to innovation in teaching".

[Spock]

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools.

Maybe someone else, whom I think you admire, can persuade you to rethink your position regarding unions. --Bob

ROFLMAO-Be careful with that reach buddy-you could really hurt yourself.

[Beebs52]

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools

What pisses me off, as someone who volunteers in the schools often and sees firsthand what goes on there, the most about posts like this is far too often they are made by people who don't have the slightest clue as to what goes on in schools or how hard the teachers work.

And they say stupid things like "Maybe if we gut their budgets, that will lead to innovation in teaching".

Actually, I volunteered about 11 years out of the 13 years I stayed at home with my kids. (I was lucky to be able to do that.) I was involved in everything from elective stuff, to kindergarten to fifth grade to musicals to pretty much everything. I do think educational sorts of bureaucrats are overpaid. Our community has a TREMENDOUS volunteer community and that is KEY. Parents. Like that. I think teachers are almost like preachers and it's a calling. I KNOW how hard they work. That has nothing to do with union bullshit. Most parents would increase a teacher's salary but balk at other stuff.

Again, perhaps unions are outdated. All my life I've negotiated my salary regardless of the position I was negotiating for. So. Butch up. I would imagine you'd be surprised at what parents might okay via their school boards if unburdened by unions.

[flockofseagulls104]

As a taxpayer and theoretical boss of both the government executives and the government employees, the public union is a middleman I don't want to pay for. It adds no value and drives costs up. I will let the government executives set the compensation structure for the teachers, and if they don't like it, perhaps they can set up their own schools and set their own compensation levels. Perhaps then they would be motivated to do a better and more efficient job in educating our children. And if the government can't get any teachers to work for what they're willing to pay, perhaps they could consider a voucher system to encourage the development of good private schools

What pisses me off, as someone who volunteers in the schools often and sees firsthand what goes on there, the most about posts like this is far too often they are made by people who don't have the slightest clue as to what goes on in schools or how hard the teachers work.

And they say stupid things like "Maybe if we gut their budgets, that will lead to innovation in teaching".

Stupidity is thinking we can go on forever spending more money than we take in and thinking we can just take more money from those who are productive, but we cannot possibly cut the spending side. But when the rubber hits the road and cuts are proposed, it's always "Don't cut mine!!!!'

[Bob78164]

Stupidity is thinking we can go on forever spending more money than we take in and thinking we can just take more money from those who are productive, but we cannot possibly cut the spending side. But when the rubber hits the road and cuts are proposed, it's always "Don't cut mine!!!!'

Current tax rates are at historical lows, particularly for those at the top end of the income spectrum:



Here's the source of the chart and a more detailed explanation. Blue areas show historically low tax rates. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

That chart shows that the tax burden is pretty flat. I kinda like that.

And just because the rate may be at a historical low doesn't mean that it's bad. It could be that it was historically inflated and the current rate is better optimized.