The Wisconsin Governor does not like unions.

MattDaddy wrote:

Low roads:

1) Democrats running away to Illinois.
2) Doctors giving out fake excuses
3) Signs with pictures of Walker with a gunsight on his forehead, calling him Hitler, etc..
4) Calling under a false identity and trying to bait Walker into saying something that could used against him.
5) Union members showing up at the homes of republicans and saying things like "we know what your kids look like".

The Fox lies guy was amusing though.

What low roads do you think the anti-union crowd is engaging in?

MattDaddy wrote:

Low roads:

1) Democrats running away to Illinois.

You understand this was their only recourse to prevent the bill (which not only eviscerates the rights of public-sector workers, but includes provisions for no-bid sale of public assets) from passing without discussion? It's not like any of them were viewing this as a vacation or recreational getaway (to Northern Illinois).

MattDaddy wrote:

2) Doctors giving out fake excuses

As noted previously, it appears this was a spontaneous action by physicians who wanted to support the protesters. I think it was a well-intentioned mistake, and haven't seen any number about how many people took these notes with an intent to use them.

MattDaddy wrote:

3) Signs with pictures of Walker with a gunsight on his forehead, calling him Hitler, etc.

I haven't seen these signs personally - I only saw a single Hitler one photographed (with the backwards swastika making the "L" in Walker). I haven't even seen photos of any gunsight signs, but if any were there they were grossly inappropriate. Had I seen them, I would have spoken to the person carrying them. I understand the frustration a lot of folks feel, but stuff like this is inexcusable and I would try to persuade them to toss the sign.

MattDaddy wrote:

4) Calling under a false identity and trying to bait Walker into saying something that could used against him.

A dumb morning-DJ stunt which may or may not have been done with a political agenda in mind.

MattDaddy wrote:

5) Union members showing up at the homes of republicans and saying things like "we know what your kids look like".

I haven't seen any reporting about this (and I'd love to read your sources). If anybody actually did this, it's completely out of bounds and they're only hurting the cause they're ostensibly fighting for (unless they're actually Walker supporters trying to frame union members, in which case they're earning their keep).

Meanwhile:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...

Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.

EDIT: And it gets better.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...

But his remark raised eyebrows elsewhere because Capuano was among the lawmakers who were calling for cooler political rhetoric after his Democratic colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the Tucson rampage that killed six other people last month.

At the time, Capuano had said the shooting was probably inevitable because of the nation's increasingly heated political rhetoric.

“Many of us were afraid for a long time that something like this would happen, with the level or the tone of the discourse over the last several years," Capuano told WGBH on Jan. 22. "It's gotten violent and personal.”

Stay classy, dude.

MattDaddy wrote:

Low roads:
1) Democrats running away to Illinois.

I disagree here. Wisconsin would only require a simple majority to pass this measure. With any democrats there to make quorum, the heavily Republican supported bill passes as the Republicans have a majority. It would not require 2/3 like many other states, so this is really the only option staunch opponents have to prevent passage or to get bargaining. I would say it has advantages over the filibuster. Saving money on heating oil/gas and electricity for one.

MattDaddy wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

No one said they were bestest buddies. The point was that Walker said he wasn't going to talk to anyone and yet magically finds the time to have a 20+ minute chat with a major campaign contributor whom he proceeds to tell his strategy for tricking the Democrats. The last time I checked, Koch wasn't a Wisconsin citizen or a Wisconsin legislature so Walker really has no excuse for why he picked up the phone when it rang outside of he's bought and paid for.

They do have businesses in Wisconsin, so that gives Walker a reason to talk to him.

http://www.kochind.com/factsSheets/WisconsinFacts.aspx

Let's see. Walker flat out refuses to talk with the state union--representing tens of thousands of Wisconsin residents-- and the Democratic legislature or return their phone calls because he "...cannot negotiate for something where I don't have anything to give" and yet he has time to talk with who he thinks is a single non-Wisconsin resident.

Or, better yet, in the midst of a major political crisis Walker finds the time to talk with a major corporate donor who has absolutely nothing to do or any involvement in said crisis. Way to prioritize.

DSGamer wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

Low roads:

1) Democrats running away to Illinois.
2) Doctors giving out fake excuses
3) Signs with pictures of Walker with a gunsight on his forehead, calling him Hitler, etc..
4) Calling under a false identity and trying to bait Walker into saying something that could used against him.
5) Union members showing up at the homes of republicans and saying things like "we know what your kids look like".

The Fox lies guy was amusing though.

1. Every Democratic bill that has moved through the US Senate has been threatened with a filibuster since Obama took office.

3. Do I even need to mention how many times Democrats are compared to Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden? Do I need to mention the calls of traitor over the last decade? Do I need to mention that literally Obama has been equated with Hitler by the Tea Party over and over and over again.

4. Republicans just wiretap the phones.

5. Once again, wiretapping, shouting at people who disagree with you at public forums. Bringing guns to public events.

You don't really want to have a contest over which "side" is the most unhinged, do you? I'm not a Democrat. I'm Libertarian if anything. Even so, I feel embarrassed for you watching you create a list of things the other side has done and often to more extreme degrees.

Someone asked for specifics, I gave some. Isn't this the same "oh yeah, well the other side does x,y, & z" that gets slammed if the tables a turned? Didn't someone else in this thread make the comment about two wrongs making a right? Guess those rules only apply in one direction.

KingGorilla wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:

Low roads:
1) Democrats running away to Illinois.

I disagree here. Wisconsin would only require a simple majority to pass this measure. With any democrats there to make quorum, the heavily Republican supported bill passes as the Republicans have a majority. It would not require 2/3 like many other states, so this is really the only option staunch opponents have to prevent passage or to get bargaining. I would say it has advantages over the filibuster. Saving money on heating oil/gas and electricity for one.

So if you can't win, run away. Classy move. What happened to "elections have consequences"?

They do have other options, like proposing amendments, which would delay a vote and at least let their voices be heard. That's what the assembly has been doing for the past 2 days. They have written over 115 amendments so far.

It's still a low road to take.

They do have other options, like proposing amendments, which would delay a vote and at least let their voices be heard.

It's my understanding that this was not an option; the bill was up for vote, and had they attended the session, allowing the quorum, it would already be passed.

If, as a legislator, you find something extremely objectionable, and your mere presence would allow it to happen, how can it be moral to show up?

Malor wrote:

If, as a legislator, you find something extremely objectionable, and your mere presence would allow it to happen, how can it be moral to show up?

It is a representative democracy. Sometimes you lose. The best option is to let the Republicans hang themselves and work for the next election to reverse these grievances.

To be clear, I do not approve of busting the governmental unions. I do think that they need to share the pain of cuts. I also believe that the taxpayers need to share that pain through higher taxes.

MattDaddy wrote:

So if you can't win, run away. Classy move. What happened to "elections have consequences"?

They do have other options, like proposing amendments, which would delay a vote and at least let their voices be heard. That's what the assembly has been doing for the past 2 days. They have written over 115 amendments so far.

It's still a low road to take.

Nope. If even a single Democrat had remained, the bill would have been immediately passed. Leaving the state was their only way to allow time for the public to discuss the bill. The Assembly tried to pull a fast one on the 18th by meeting early (before any Democrats were present) and doing a voice vote to prevent Democrats from introducing any amendments to the bill. The vote was rescinded when the Democrats came into the chamber (still before the meeting was supposed to begin), and called the Republican leadership on the carpet.

Elections do have consequences, but there is such a thing as acting in bad faith. Having 50% +1 doesn't give anyone a mandate to abridge the democratic process.

Greg wrote:
Malor wrote:

If, as a legislator, you find something extremely objectionable, and your mere presence would allow it to happen, how can it be moral to show up?

It is a representative democracy. Sometimes you lose. The best option is to let the Republicans hang themselves and work for the next election to reverse these grievances.

Some things are near impossible to reverse. Getting back those union rights would be very difficult. In the end I think the point is that the Democrats stalled as long as they could using every tactic possible. If the unions are busted than at least they can say next election that they tried whereas the agenda of the Republicans has become crystal clear. They don't care about balanced budgets. They care about busting unions and privatizing govt. to whatever extent they can.

You can go back to Wisconsin's voucher program to see how that panned out and the road map is pretty clear. Every bad thing predicted came to be.

I wonder what the consequences / benefits would be if the Unions used their most powerful weapon and went on strike. I realize that they bargained away their right to do that years ago with the government, but given that the government is now going back on their promise, I would consider it an appropriate move.

What happens when the police, firefighters, and teachers all stay at home?

Seth wrote:

What happens when the police, firefighters, and teachers all stay at home?

My bet? Public support quickly erodes and Walker is able to push through all his dream legislation more or less unopposed. The fact that they've offered to make all the financial concessions in return for protecting the right to unionize is a risky strategy, but the longer Walker goes without agreeing to even discuss that option the more clear it becomes that budgetary concerns are a sideshow for the real agenda (destroying public-sector unions in WI).

Dimmerswitch wrote:

My bet? Public support quickly erodes and Walker is able to push through all his dream legislation more or less unopposed.

I fear that you may be right. The years of solidarity have long since been replaced with the years of "I'm gonna git mine."

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Elections do have consequences, but there is such a thing as acting in bad faith. Having 50% +1 doesn't give anyone a mandate to abridge the democratic process.

Bad faith is skipping town when you don't get your way. They are following the democratic process. The democrats who ran away are the ones preventing it.

Malor, the assembly has been debating for 2 full days based on amendments. It's up to them to propose them first. Too bad the Senate dems thought the better idea was to run and hide. A consequence of thier actions will be that layoff notices will be sent out next week. if the bill isn't passed. The budget will be balanced one way or the other. It can't be avoided by hiding.

51% is still a majority. What is the magical good faith percentage? 55? 60? 90? Those are the rules. If they really wanted to be nasty, Walker could simply decertify the union. They could have also voted on a number of other issues without the dems present. Things like voter ID and conceal & carry.

MattDaddy - Why are police and fire exempt? They are public servants and have unions too.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Seth wrote:

What happens when the police, firefighters, and teachers all stay at home?

My bet? Public support quickly erodes and Walker is able to push through all his dream legislation more or less unopposed. The fact that they've offered to make all the financial concessions in return for protecting the right to unionize is a risky strategy, but the longer Walker goes without agreeing to even discuss that option the more clear it becomes that budgetary concerns are a sideshow for the real agenda (destroying public-sector unions in WI).

I will hazard a guess that his real agenda is to be able to balance the budget along his / his party's ideals, and collective bargaining makes that hard to do. While I disagree with his decision, I'm not going to attribute actual MALICE to his actions unless I see much more explicit proof.

Also granted, I have not been looking for that proof.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Seth wrote:

What happens when the police, firefighters, and teachers all stay at home?

My bet? Public support quickly erodes and Walker is able to push through all his dream legislation more or less unopposed. The fact that they've offered to make all the financial concessions in return for protecting the right to unionize is a risky strategy, but the longer Walker goes without agreeing to even discuss that option the more clear it becomes that budgetary concerns are a sideshow for the real agenda (destroying public-sector unions in WI).

I will hazard a guess that his real agenda is to be able to balance the budget along his / his party's ideals, and collective bargaining makes that hard to do. While I disagree with his decision, I'm not going to attribute actual MALICE to his actions unless I see much more explicit proof.

Also granted, I have not been looking for that proof.

Wisconsin is looking at a budget surplus this year, so it definitely isn't motivated by balancing the non-existant deficit.

goman wrote:

MattDaddy - Why are police and fire exempt? They are public servants and have unions too.

I can answer that question, they supported the governor in the last election.

MattDaddy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Elections do have consequences, but there is such a thing as acting in bad faith. Having 50% +1 doesn't give anyone a mandate to abridge the democratic process.

Bad faith is skipping town when you don't get your way. They are following the democratic process. The democrats who ran away are the ones preventing it.

Malor, the assembly has been debating for 2 full days based on amendments. It's up to them to propose them first. Too bad the Senate dems thought the better idea was to run and hide. A consequence of their actions will be that layoff notices will be sent out next week. if the bill isn't passed. The budget will be balanced one way or the other. It can't be avoided by hiding.

51% is still a majority. What is the magical good faith percentage? 55? 60? 90? Those are the rules. If they really wanted to be nasty, Walker could simply decertify the union. They could have also voted on a number of other issues without the dems present. Things like voter ID and conceal & carry.

There isn't a good faith percentage, and I'm not sure how you think I'm taking that stance. Good faith is demonstrated through actions, and my point about the ambush voice-vote was that the Assembly Republicans were not acting in good faith. Even if they had a 99% majority, it would have been wrong to meet early and have a vote without the 1% having the opportunity to have a voice.

The Senate Democrats left the state because they felt that was the only way to buy enough time for there to be debate about the bill. Had they remained, the bill would have been pushed through without any discussion.

The budget repair bill is filling in the shortfall Walker and the Republicans created in January. It's a manufactured crisis, being used as a political opportunity. If it were about the budget, surely Walker would have taken the unions up on their offer to accept all the salary and benefit changes in return for protecting the right to unionize?

I will hazard a guess that his real agenda is to be able to balance the budget along his / his party's ideals, and collective bargaining makes that hard to do.

Again, echoing what others are saying: there is no budget crisis in Wisconsin. The only reason they're at all short of money is because the governor jammed through a tax bill giving big corporations a substantial break, and now he's using that manufactured deficit as an attempt to break the unions.

goman wrote:

MattDaddy - Why are police and fire exempt? They are public servants and have unions too.

Because of the threat of walkouts similar to what some teachers did last week. You'd have chaos (in certain areas at least) if the Police walked out for a week.

I have a feeling that they will eventually need to share some of the pain at some point. Just not sure how or when.

As for the theory that he spared them because they supported him: The Milwaukee Police supproted Walker, but the statewide they supported Barrett.

The budget shortfall is real, and is not the GOPs fault:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/

BTW, the Journal Sentinal is notoriously left leaning, so don't try the "it's a right wing source" excuse.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

I do not think that anyone is saying it is the GOPs fault around here, rather they are using the shortfall as an excuse to push through an anti-union agenda.

I love when facts are mutable. It makes debate doubpleplus good.

As DSGamer pointed out last week, Wisconsin does have a very real budget deficit on the horizon. At the risk of repeating myself:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Wisconsin, like pretty much everywhere, has a lot of difficult decisions to make in the coming years. There will be painful cuts and higher taxes. I feel that the cuts should be structured so they have the least impact on the people most in need, and that the tax burden be structured so that the people most able to afford it are paying a larger percentage. I know some folks have different opinions about where those lines should be drawn, and I think there is room for reasonable disagreement and discussion.

If this bill were about the budget, surely Walker would have taken the unions up on their offer to accept all the salary and benefit changes in return for protecting the right to unionize?

goman wrote:

PS I am so glad I live in California.

gross.

MattDaddy wrote:
goman wrote:

MattDaddy - Why are police and fire exempt? They are public servants and have unions too.

Because of the threat of walkouts similar to what some teachers did last week. You'd have chaos (in certain areas at least) if the Police walked out for a week.

I have a feeling that they will eventually need to share some of the pain at some point. Just not sure how or when.

As for the theory that he spared them because they supported him: The Milwaukee Police supproted Walker, but the statewide they supported Barrett.

SHARE SOME PAIN?!? Are private corporate executives sharing pain? Or is just for public sector employees.

PS I am so glad I live in California.

Moreover, according to this the bill includes provisions that restrict how membership dues can be collected, and requires that unions be voted into existence every year. That has nothing to do with balancing budgets.

The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the state's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.
Dimmerswitch wrote:

As DSGamer pointed out last week, Wisconsin does have a very real budget deficit on the horizon.

Yeah, that's funny that I said that on page 2 and I still stand by it. This is one of those debates where the ideologies are so calcified that there is no room for actual debate.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Wisconsin, like pretty much everywhere, has a lot of difficult decisions to make in the coming years. There will be painful cuts and higher taxes. I feel that the cuts should be structured so they have the least impact on the people most in need, and that the tax burden be structured so that the people most able to afford it are paying a larger percentage. I know some folks have different opinions about where those lines should be drawn, and I think there is room for reasonable disagreement and discussion.

If this bill were about the budget, surely Walker would have taken the unions up on their offer to accept all the salary and benefit changes in return for protecting the right to unionize?

Exactly. That's what's so frustrating about the ideological purists who are infecting this debate with pure rhetoric. There is a real budget crisis. It demands real solutions. Mostly, though, it demands that adults from all political persuasions get together and talk about what we can afford to cut and what we can't afford to cut. Who can take a pay cut and who can't. And then make those tough decisions and move forward. Unfortunately adults are in short supply.

goman wrote:

SHARE SOME PAIN?!? You are full of it. Are private corporate executives sharing pain? Or is just for public sector employees.

PS I am so glad I live in California.

People criticize them all the time. Are you going to belittle the hurt that all that teasing causes? Yes, they have money to soften the blow, but when you're constantly beat up verbally by politicians and comedians all the mansions in the world can't make things better.