Wisconsin's Governor Walker and the possibility of a recall

Nice find, Trashie - looks like they've done a good job of giving an overview, for folks who haven't been closely following the events of the past year (which I think is most folks). Makes me wish we had continued our New Yorker subscription.

In other news, the GAB has said they'll be requesting additional time to review the petitions. No idea how much additional time they'll be hoping for, but it'll be discussed at the March 12th GAB meeting.

Unsurprisingly, the Walker camp has applauded the delay.

Challenger appears:

Wisconsin State Journal[/url]]Meanwhile, Patrick O'Brien, 49, of New Glarus, said Wednesday that he plans to challenge Walker in a Republican primary. O'Brien, a house husband whose wife works for the state, said he voted for Walker in the last gubernatorial primary because he thought Walker was a moderate Republican.

O'Brien said he is an independent who has voted for Republicans in the past but accused Walker of being extreme, inflexible and not straightforward with voters.

"I thought he was running as a brown bag Republican," O'Brien said. "What we were getting was a brown shirt Republican."

O'Brien said he would work to promote and help grow the dairy industry in Wisconsin. "I want farmers to be able to join the state health insurance program at the cost to the state," he said.
O'Brien's entry to the race may not further delay a recall election because a Democratic primary is expected anyway. Two Democrats, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, are challenging Walker, and Secretary of State Doug La Follette also may get in the race.

Interesting question: if Walker loses the primary, does he still appear on the ballot?

Wisconsin State Law §9.10(3)(c)[/url]]The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the original filing of the petition. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.

I'm assuming that "candidate" doesn't preclude the possibility of an incumbent losing the primary challenge, but the language is less than totally clear. We're well past the resignation window, either way.

Center for Media and Democracy has done an analysis of "Verify the Recal"l data. The results are fairly scathing. Well worth reading the entire (brief) piece, but here's one highlight:

Even if the 55,608 signatures True the Vote deemed “ineligible” with questionable methodology were not counted, it would have little impact, as hundreds of thousands would need to be struck to prevent a recall.

The main reason True the Vote asserts the recall campaign was a failure is because of 228,940 signatures they marked “for further investigation.” Only after discounting all of these signatures were they able to claim that the recall campaign did not reach the requisite 540,000 signatures. The group made this claim without ever asserting that the signatures requiring “further investigation” should actually be discarded. A review of the signatures apparently flagged "for further investigation" in their report reveals many valid signatures.

True the Vote says the signatures marked "for further investigation" are those "that were partially marked through, illegible, possibly false, mismatched, or otherwise compromised." In their data set, it appears that signatures marked as "questionable" are those True the Vote believes require further review. Browsing through the entries deemed “questionable,” it is difficult to believe any of these signatures would be struck.

Some recall signatures appear to be deemed "questionable" for imperfect handwriting (See: signature from Kristie Wherritt page 9010). Some appear to be flagged for date corrections. (See: signature from Chandler Charles page 9151). Some appear perfect in all respects (See: signature of James Schneider page 9002, signature of Brandon Kohl, page 9151).

It seems very hard to believe these signatures would actually be deemed ineligible under Wisconsin law, or under a fair, genuinely nonpartisan review process. Again, these are not isolated examples, but appear very similar to errors in the rest of the group’s “findings.”

Governor Walker decides he likes trains, as long as it costs the state money?

Huntington said the state will begin negotiating with Union Pacific for the purchase of the rail corridor at the end of the month. The last time the state was in negotiations with Union Pacific to purchase that line was in 2010.

Back then the DOT had planned to buy the line using federal stimulus funds, but the plan fell apart once Walker took office and returned the $810 million in stimulus money that was earmarked for the construction of a high-speed passenger train between Milwaukee and Madison.

If the line is purchased this time, it will be with state money.

The GAB today announced they will recommend the following dates for our gubernatorial recall.

Primaries (for Democrats, as well as Republicans if Walker gets a challenger): May 15
Recall Election: June 12

Democrats are understandably upset, as these dates, coupled with the voting eligibility changes imposed by 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 (the Voter ID law) will likely result in significantly lower voter turnout among the student population.

These recommended dates are two weeks beyond the limit specified by law, but given our current State Supreme Court I'm not optimistic that clearly-written and applicable statutes will be considered if they are contrary to the GOP's agenda.

It's not yet clear whether the GAB would plan to run the state Senate recalls on those dates as well, though they have in the past indicated a preference for running all the recall elections together.

Dimmer you are in or near Madison correct?

The past 2 weeks I have crisscrossed your state a few times, and I noticed a few interesting anecdotes about this recall process.

In Madison and the immediate suburban areas, Recall Walker signs every where, once you get to the rural south western corner of the state, a ton of NO Recall. But once you are an hour out of Madison in either direction you see nothing.

I asked some folks in the Milwaukee area and it was met with apathy same in green bay.

If my small inaccurate, waste of time, sample is indicative of the population of you cheese heads will that play apart in anything going down?

If the line is purchased this time, it will be with state money.

Actually, you could look at that as a highly principled person, refusing money from the Federal government because he knows it's all debt-based, and doesn't want to put the load of paying it back on people who aren't even born yet. If Wisconsin is buying the line outright, without incurring debt to do it, that's overall better for the country than taking borrowed money from the Feds. It's worse for Wisconsin, but keeping the cost local for a local benefit is much more honest.

If Wisconsin borrows the money, well, then it's kind of stupid. There's the slim justification that you know nobody's going to be printing money to pay it back, but that's ... tenuous.

I suspect it was actually just partisan politics, him refusing anything to do with it because it was Obama's idea, but that's not the only possible explanation. It really depends on where the funding comes from.

WiredAsylum wrote:

Dimmer you are in or near Madison correct?

The past 2 weeks I have crisscrossed your state a few times, and I noticed a few interesting anecdotes about this recall process.

In Madison and the immediate suburban areas, Recall Walker signs every where, once you get to the rural south western corner of the state, a ton of NO Recall. But once you are an hour out of Madison in either direction you see nothing.

I asked some folks in the Milwaukee area and it was met with apathy same in green bay.

If my small inaccurate, waste of time, sample is indicative of the population of you cheese heads will that play apart in anything going down?

First up: yes I am in Madison, and you should let me know the next time you're passing by. I'd be happy to meet up for a beer. I should be clear that offer stands for all Goodjers, regardless of political persuasion.

Second: I expect that, broadly speaking, voting patterns will be similar to the 2010 gubernatorial election.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/XNST3.jpg)

I don't believe that many folks who weren't already Walker supporters have jumped on board that bandwagon, but there do seem to be a reasonable number of folks who are unhappy with the take-no-prisoners, slash-and-burn style of government exemplified by Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers.

As I noted almost a year ago, one of the biggest challenges the recall effort faces is keeping folks engaged and motivated over a very long period of time. I'm sure there are folks who have burned out to varying degrees, and efforts like 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 seem pretty clearly to be targeting demographics who traditionally vote for Democrats. I also expect that we're going to see a portion of Walker's war chest be spent on "a pox on both their houses" messaging, trying to discourage people from thinking that who occupies the Governor's mansion makes any real difference.

Recalling Walker will be a tough fight. It's one that we certainly could lose, but not fighting to restore sane political discourse would be a far bigger loss.

The recall isn't about Democrats winning.

It's about democracy winning.

Actually, you could look at that as a highly principled person, refusing money from the Federal government because he knows it's all debt-based, and doesn't want to put the load of paying it back on people who aren't even born yet. If Wisconsin is buying the line outright, without incurring debt to do it, that's overall better for the country than taking borrowed money from the Feds. It's worse for Wisconsin, but keeping the cost local for a local benefit is much more honest.

The President's budget proposal for 2012 put Transportation Department surface transportation funds into a PAYGO status, which would have prevented them from being funded by borrowing.

Robear wrote:
Actually, you could look at that as a highly principled person, refusing money from the Federal government because he knows it's all debt-based, and doesn't want to put the load of paying it back on people who aren't even born yet. If Wisconsin is buying the line outright, without incurring debt to do it, that's overall better for the country than taking borrowed money from the Feds. It's worse for Wisconsin, but keeping the cost local for a local benefit is much more honest.

The President's budget proposal for 2012 put Transportation Department surface transportation funds into a PAYGO status, which would have prevented them from being funded by borrowing.

Thanks for finding that, Robear - saved me some research time

At the state level, Ulairi and MattDaddy both did a passable job of putting forward the Walker administration's objections at the time in the old "high-speed rail" thread, starting here or thereabouts. Mostly, the objection turned on the ongoing maintenance costs for the rail project.

Fun fact: I'd forgotten about the research I did in that thread. Cost comparisons for rail and highways here and here, for folks who are really interested.

Another story from yesterday that I'd missed: Governor Walker announced that he's set up a legal defense fund. Paperwork is here (warning, PDF) for anyone who's interested.

Walker's complete statement wrote:

For nearly two years, Milwaukee County officials have been examining issues related to former employees of the County. I have repeatedly pledged my cooperation with that inquiry. I also made it clear that no public money has been used, or will be used, to pay for the attorneys needed to review documents and assist me in cooperating.

To fulfill my commitment, I have today formed a legal fund to pay for the expenses incurred in cooperating with the inquiry. The fund will operate in accordance with the Wisconsin law authorizing these accounts, which was passed almost thirty years ago.

What's really interesting about this is that the Walker campaign still claims that he is not a target of the John Doe investigation. That's a bit of a problem, since Wisconsin law only allows politicians to establish legal defense funds if they're being investigated or charged.

Wisconsin Law, §11.64(1)[/url]]Any candidate or public official who is being investigated for, charged with or convicted of a criminal violation of this chapter or ch. 12, or whose agent is so investigated, charged or convicted, may establish a defense fund for expenditures supporting or defending the candidate or agent, or any dependent of the candidate or agent, while that person is being investigated for, or while the person is charged with or convicted of a criminal violation of this chapter or ch. 12.

The author of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel piece I link to at the top of this post had the brilliant idea of asking Michael Maistelman (the lawyer representing Walker aide Tim Russell in his charges stemming from the John Doe investigation) for an opinion. His response? "The only way you can set that up is if you are under investigation or being prosecuted. One can only draw the conclusion that either one of those two things is happening."

That doesn't sound like the "we're playing ball to protect our former boss" response to a reporter's question. Think things are going to get very interesting in the months leading up to the recall election.

The President's budget proposal for 2012 put Transportation Department surface transportation funds into a PAYGO status, which would have prevented them from being funded by borrowing.

When you're earning $50,000/yr, and spending $75,000/yr, you cannot realistically say that any section of the $75K is not being borrowed. If you spend less in any category, it reduces your overall expenditure and overall borrowing directly. If $5,000 of that is being spent on your driveway, then not spending that money directly reduces your borrowing by $5,000.

Saying that part of the Federal budget is 'pay as you go', while other parts are being borrowed, is fiction. All that matters is the amount being borrowed. Which numbers are listed first and which come later matter not a whit... the only meaningful number is the bottom line.

Refusing that grant from the Federal government, in other words, directly reduced borrowing by that much. Now, the Feds might have found something else to borrow and spend the money on, but that's not Wisconsin's fault.

When you're earning $50,000/yr, and spending $75,000/yr, you cannot realistically say that any section of the $75K is not being borrowed.

Are you sure? It seems to me that $50,000 of the $75,000 would not have been borrowed, by definition. And since the funding came out of the part that was not borrowed, the conclusion would seem to be different from your assertion.

Malor wrote:

Refusing that grant from the Federal government, in other words, directly reduced borrowing by that much.

That's not actually true. The money had already been set aside by Congress, and another state (happily) took the grant instead. I don't remember offhand which one - California, maybe?

[Edit: the Wisconsin money was divvied up among 13 states, though California was one of the recipients.]

Are you sure? It seems to me that $50,000 of the $75,000 would not have been borrowed, by definition. And since the funding came out of the part that was not borrowed, the conclusion would seem to be different from your assertion.

That reminds me of my old boss, talking about a store manager he eventually ended up firing. When that guy got a deal on a particular widget that they had already been carrying, he wanted to know which widget was the cheap one, so he'd know the one to sell cheap. He completely didn't get the idea of cost averaging, that getting in some inventory at a good price meant you reduced the average cost across your whole inventory, not that you sold individual items of inventory at different prices.

Likewise, when you are running a deficit, ALL of your expenses are deficit spending, because if you cut ANY OF THEM, your deficit drops. You can't say "this part is regular spending and this part is deficit spending". Well, you CAN, but it's usually fiscally ignorant to do so. It's like failing to understand cost averaging. ALL that matters is the number on the bottom line, not how you sort the numbers above it. And as soon as you get back to zero, then suddenly, none of your spending is deficit spending, because further cutting won't reduce deficits. (however, if you have a debt position, further cutting, and then using surpluses to repay creditors, can be a good idea. This depends on the interest cost of the loans, versus the opportunity cost of repaying the money.)

Now, you can make the argument that if your deficit is going into investment, that it's a smart choice. If you're spending $75K/year on $50K in income, but you're sinking that extra $25K into the stock market, or into building a power plant, that can be a good decision, if your returns are higher than your interest costs. But the Federal government mostly is not investing, and even when they do (and this project probably would qualify), it is often unlikely that overall tax income in future years would ever pay for the cost of the programs.

Deficits aren't, in other words, always bad. But they need to be thought about and analyzed very, very carefully, and we're just not doing that with the great majority of what we're spending. Issuing debts of that magnitude with the sole purpose of stimulating short-term economic activity, rather than generating long-term revenue, is foolish. Even if it's a useful project, it may not be worth the amount it takes to build.

An example: high speed rail from where I was living in the Bay Area directly to my employer at the time would have been superb and useful, for me, but there's no way they'd ever have paid for the cost of the project in fares and my ability to work longer. Scale that up to, say, the Big Dig in Boston -- is the increased efficiency in that city worth the gigantic expense of that project? It would take real analysis to know, but the project could have been a waste of resources and labor that would have been used better elsewhere. Or, it could be generating enough additional economic activity to pay for itself. In the second case, that's a classic example of good debt. Most of the Federal deficit is nothing like that, however.

The money had already been set aside by Congress, and another state (happily) took the grant instead.

Note that I specifically said that unless they found something else to spend it on. That still means that Wisconsin refused to participate in growing the Federal deficit. If that's at the cost of growing their OWN deficit, well, honestly, I'd still call that better than imposing the costs of their spending on other states. It's putting the good of the whole ahead of local needs, something we don't do much of anymore.

Not that I ever see leading conservatives talk like that. I suspect his thought process didn't resemble this at all. But he may accidentally have done the right thing regardless. If you're a Wisconsinite, you might be mad at him, but from the view of pretty much everyone else in the country, that's a better way to handle it. If the benefit of a project is mostly local, then the cost, and the financial risk associated with debt issuance, should mostly stay local.

Cost averaging takes the cost of a lot and averages it across the number of things in the lot, no matter what price they were. But that has nothing to do with the fact that a budget can include income and borrowing, and those two things are separate and distinct. You can keep them separate trivially (just keep them in different accounts, for example) and you *can* pay for some things with income, and some other things with borrowed money.

Enough derail, though. You've made your point pretty clearly.

That's just internal fiction. When cutting any of your expenses will reduce the amount you're borrowing, then all of it is deficit spending. You're lying to yourself about money, which people are very good at doing.

All that ultimately matters is assets versus liabilities, and if you're accruing liabilities faster than you're accruing assets, you're weakening yourself. You can engage in sophistries to hide this truth from the rubes, but that's just lying.

Funny that it took a train topic to derail the thread.

Malor and Robear, you guys mind going to PM (or another thread) with the gedankenexperiment discussion on alternate-universe Walker's hypothetical reasons for turning down nearly a billion dollars of already-appropriated money, earmarked for transit infrastructure improvements?

I am not going to go forward with it, as I said.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

First up: yes I am in Madison, and you should let me know the next time you're passing by. I'd be happy to meet up for a beer. I should be clear that offer stands for all Goodjers, regardless of political persuasion.

Next time I'm near the homestead (Christmas?), you and I need to get a beer sir. Your passion and insightful commentaries in these threads are great to see.

Michael Zenke wrote:

Next time I'm near the homestead (Christmas?), you and I need to get a beer sir. Your passion and insightful commentaries in these threads are great to see.

Don't know whether we're journeying eastwards this year for nondenominational winter gift-exchange day, but whenever we're both in town, I'd love to meet up for a beer.

Two developments I wanted to share.

First up: it looks like we have a date for the recalls. Primaries on May 8, general election June 5.

Second: Walker, taking questions from reporters after speaking on supporting Wisconsin's dairy industry, gave what (to me) seems like kind of an odd response about the John Doe case. He said he hadn't been told that he wasn't the target of the John Doe case, but his attorneys had, and that his attorneys asked the GAB about setting up a legal defense fund - in apparent contravention to Wisconsin Law, §11.64(1) which stipulates that only elected officials being investigated or charged may do so.

When asked who told his attorneys that he's not the target of the nearly two-year investigation, he said, "that's what they passed on to me, I didn't ask them specifically."

Walker added, "Again, you're asking a lot of questions about something that ultimately by its nature is, not per my request but per theirs, is something we're not asked to talk about until it's complete."

He announced on Friday that he had formed a legal fund to pay for expenses related to the ongoing John Doe investigation. Wisconsin statutes allow government officials to seek or obtain contributions to so-called defense funds only if they are being investigated for or charged with a violation of either campaign finance or other election laws.

Walker said then that a campaign attorney talked with the Government Accountability Board, and afterward believed setting up the fund was the board's recommendation for how best to proceed.
Walker has said repeatedly that he does not believe he is the target.

GAB spokesman Reid Magney has declined comment, saying the board cannot comment on whether it has given advice to an official.

I'd love to see the advice that was given, and have some clarity on whether it was given under pressure, as was the case with the LRB and Senator Fitzgerald last year.

Governor Walker's most recent fundraising letter (PDF) is a masterwork of playing the victim:

The Union Bosses know that better than anyone and they've vowed to make me pay in a "Recall Walker" election.

They're trying to make an example out of me now but trust me, the true conservative Republican leaders in your state (and nationally) are next.

They have demonstrated their eagerness to ignore reality, disregard the truth, distort my record, question my motives and attack my character for having the courage to try to make government work.

My "Friends of Scott Walker" team is digging in for a tough fight and I'm reaching out to fiscal conservatives from across this great land for help. Your generous contribution to our campaign for $25, $100, $500, or more will help answer the deluge of liberal money flowing into Wisconsin and will allow me to answer the Big Labor funded rampage of attack ads with the truth.

We're cleaning up the mess left behind by decades of reckless spending, careless budgeting, clueless borrowing and shameless wasting of taxpayers' hard-earned money. We're doing what the liberals refused to do: we're doing the right thing for the sake of America's children and grandchildren.

In their selfishness and greed, the Labor Bosses are taking direct aim at hardworking citizens and over-taxed voters who show up for work, play by the rules, do a tough job right and just want a fair shake at success.

For the Union-paid protestors who screamed until their faces were red and painted signs filled with hate-filled threats and profane words, all I can say is that they can yell and curse all they want but I'm not going to back down from my conservative good government efforts.

Walker again uses fictitious shadowy out-of-state involvement in the protests as a whipping boy, in a letter specifically soliciting funds from out-of-state donors. Walker's fundraising was first reported at 50% out-of-state, and had increased to 61% by mid-January. Wonder what the percentage is now?

These are some of the Union-paid protestors, screaming until their faces were red, with their hate-filled signs.
IMAGE(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5521533082_0e69b3dfc6.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5520929497_67778a41ec.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5520872821_056fa7ec37.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5178/5521544090_7b52a3654e.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5521540210_443c6bc7d0.jpg)
IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5054/5516883533_d39ca3a3ae.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5179/5516882061_66df52b5d0.jpg)
IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5256/5520889161_8f2538b847.jpg)

Okay, I guess that last one could be construed as a threat to eat Governor Walker...

Last Friday, the Government Accountability Board certified the recalls against Governor Walker and Lt. Governor Kleefisch. This means that the unlimited-fundraising window Governor Walker has been taking ample advantage of is now closed, and he must abide by normal fundraising laws moving forward. With more than $12 million already raised (a new gubernatorial record for Wisconsin, breaking Governor Walker's own record of $11 million total raised during the 2010 campaign), and individual donations of as much as $500,000 (normal campaign donations are capped at $10,000), he's assembled a massive warchest, and the campaign hasn't really begun.

Other information from the certification:

931,053 Walker recall signatures submitted total
26,114 signatures struck by staff (presumably for invalid addresses or improperly filled-out forms)
4,001 signatures struck as duplicates
5 signatures struck as fictitious: Adolf Hitler, Mick E. Mous, Donald L. Duck, Fungky Van Den Elzen, and I Love Scott Walker Thanks. Fungky Van Den Elzen turned out to be a real person, and has since been restored to the recall rolls. No word on whether Mr. Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop signed the recall petitions, though.

So far, four Democrats have announced their intention to challenge Governor Walker. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, Secretary of State Doug La Follette, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (who narrowly lost to Walker in the 2010 election).

Dimmerswitch wrote:

So far, four Democrats have announced their intention to challenge Governor Walker. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, Secretary of State Doug La Follette, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (who narrowly lost to Walker in the 2010 election).

None of these feel like a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination to me. My slightly-informed opinion is that Barrett is probably the only one that has name recognition outside of Madison. However, he already lost once to Walker. Falk hit the ground running awhile ago and did a decent job running Dane County but I fear her union ties may come back to bit her in the end.

Dimmerswitch, what say you on potential contenders?

Trashie wrote:

Dimmerswitch, what say you on potential contenders?

Secretary of State Doug La Follette - seems like a good guy, don't know much about his politics. Grand-nephew of great Wisconsinite Fighting Bob La Follette, for what that's worth. Think his biggest issue is name recognition.

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk - she's definitely hit the ground running. Seems to have put together a reasonable organization, and won early endorsements from several major unions. I think she's vulnerable to the inevitable "Dane County vs. 'real' Wisconsin" narrative, and her close association with the unions may hurt her among undecideds.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett - biggest vulnerability has got to be the "oh, Democrats are just doing recalls because they didn't like the results" narrative. He supported (at least parts of) 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, and was telling Republicans how to pass the bill even as our State Senators desperately fought against it. I'm not sure how many folks out there support Act 10 but would be willing to vote against Walker, but he might be able to peel away some supporters.

State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout - name recognition's an issue, but she was one of our 14 state Senators who crossed the border into Illinois to fight 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. Vinehout's historically not great on women's health - she has tried to walk back some of those positions, staking out the (Bill) Clinton position that abortions should be "legal, safe and rare."

I have to admit a little disappointment neither Jon Erpenbach or Peter Barca are running, but the fact is Democrats could run a sack of stinging nettles, and still be in a position to elect a better Governor for our state than Scott Walker.

Governor Walker will face a challenger in the Republican primary.

A different kind of candidate might soon see his name on the recall ballot challenging Gov. Scott Walker in the Republican primary next month.

His motto? "Arthur Kohl-Riggs: Less of a joke than Scott Walker."

Kohl-Riggs, 23, says he hopes to run not just as an alternative to the controversial governor in question, but as a second option for those, like him, who do not feel "energized" by Walker's democratic challengers.

It is worth pointing out that (unlike the fake Democrats the Wisconsin GOP keeps running), Mr. Kohl-Riggs is not doing this under the auspices of the Democratic party. That said, I think this tactic is shoddy when the Republicans do it, and don't like it here, either.

Gov. Walker quietly signs several controversial bills into law

Including:

  • A repeal of the state's law requiring comparable pay across genders for comparable work;
  • A repeal of the state's sex education law, which required that minors be taught scientifically accurate information about sex.
  • A law banning abortion coverage for women in the state's upcoming Obamacare program, except for cases of medical necessity, rape, or incest. (ie, if you're a slut, you don't get coverage.)
  • A bill requiring women seeking abortions to undergo a physical exam and to consult with a doctor alone, away from friends and family, "to make sure she's not being pressured into a decision".

Going to post something on this in the War on Women thread.

I can't tell whether legislation like this is being passed as part of a push to do as much damage as possible before the recalls (in the hopes that it will take decades of Democratic control to roll everything back), an attempt to rile up the base ahead of the recalls, or simply believing their rhetoric.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I can't tell whether legislation like this is being passed as part of a push to do as much damage as possible before the recalls (in the hopes that it will take decades of Democratic control to roll everything back), an attempt to rile up the base ahead of the recalls, or simply believing their rhetoric.

If he was attempting to rile the base it would have been released with a bigger fanfare. I am starting to think he really does believe the rhetoric.