The President announces spending freezes that affect federal employees who have no collective bargaining rights whatsoever, and its ok.
A Republican Gov. attempts to cut costs to the budget by removing collective bargaining rights for health care only, and all of the sudden there is outrage.
I've got to be misunderstanding this entire issue. Someone please set me straight. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are indeed misunderstanding. Why do you think that all Walker has done is "remov(e) collective bargaining rights for health care only?"
Please tell me you haven't been listening to Fox News. They have been lying about this from Day One.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Just saw this little gem today:
"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan Link
Revisionist history regarding Reagan is certainly in vogue right now in the Republican party. But who cares? Just about every notable president has been through that treatment.
Just the other day I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Americans don't run away, apologize, or bow to kings." I couldn't help but think, "Well that rules out Washington (the runner), Clinton (I'm only sorry I got caught), and J. Adams (who bowed to George the III to his face no less.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The President announces spending freezes that affect federal employees who have no collective bargaining rights whatsoever, and its ok.
That is right. He is trying to cut federal spending in ways that are legal and do not remove options from the people. The federal employees do not complain en-mass because most public servants want to help serve the public, and if sacrificing future income helps--they help.
quote:A Republican Gov. attempts to cut costs to the budget by removing collective bargaining rights
But removing collective bargaining rights do not cut costs. It allows the government to require sacrifices from the public servants, or to fire them en-mass. Those options may help balance the budget, but removing collective bargaining does not.
If fact, it will cost several million in federal highway grants. These are lost due to federal law that says any states that remove workers rights from workers during a grant, lose that grant funding. There are multi-millions in highway grants which will be lost because the Republican's would not even allow a small amendment that would have exempted highway department employees.
But I digress.
Every money savings thing that the state could use the lack of collective bargaining to take, was willingly offered by the unions. Pay some for healthcare? Sure. Pay for our own retirement, sure. The governor refused these offers. It was obvious he just wanted to crush the union.
quote: for health care only,
.
Wrong. The bargaining was cut for health care, retirement, safety issues, overtime and mandatory overtime, vacation time, forced time off without pay, etc, etc.
The ONLY thing that they are now allowed to bargain for is salary. And that is capped at the rate of inflation.
So if the union pleads real hard, they can get you the status quo. If they fail, you earn relatively less money every year. If they really fail, you earn physically less money every year. And that is before you are forced to pay more for healthcare, retirement, etc. Take home pay--used for rent, food, medicine, etc will most likely decline over the next few years.
Note, Public Service Unions have good benefits because its easier for elected officials to pay little today and offer big later. They can crow about keeping salaries down.
Now the politicians want to take away those benefits, and cut even more into the public servants pay.
quote:and all of the sudden there is outrage.
You are taking away options from people. There is outrage.
You are breaking contracts with people.
When the government threatened to take away or diminish the giant bonuses made by Wall Street bankers who's banks the government was spending billions to bail out, there was outrage.
"You can do that. You would be breaking a contract."
Some how breaking a contract for a banker who drove the economy to ruin is cause for outrage, while breaking the contract for public servants is cause for celebration.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, care, for starters. And point these things out when we can.
My experience has been that people who praise Reagan as the God of Conservatism, often have little interest in *actually* discussing his views and actions as president. They are much more attached to the idea of there being a great president who was perfectly conservative than actually discussing the man, or conservatism as a philosophy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when does someone's disinclination to hear the truth diminish our obligation to speak it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Since when does someone's disinclination to hear the truth diminish our obligation to speak it?
There are many situations when this is the case. As a missionary all you needed to say was, "I don't wish to talk with you." And I was obligated to just let you leave without speaking the truths I was voluntarily there to tell people. Jesus himself said to his missionaries that he sent out, "If your peace return unto you, you shall leave that house." Meaning if your truth is not being received, you are not obligated to keep speaking.
If somebody does not wish to hear the truth, and they are perpetuating a lie, then there is an obligation to state the truth, and disassemble the lie. If somebody tells me something that isn't true, and I indicate that and they don't wish to actually discuss it, then protocol dictates I do not continue talking about it.
If somebody is in a frenzied state of mind and they say something that is patently false, I might be better served to try and calm them, rather than argue the point then and there.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The impression that I got from your post was that it was not worth the bother of even mentioning lies about history because people are going to do it anyway. And, yes, I do think that there are people who read this forum who would be surprised at President Reagan's opinion of unions. And that he was the president of a union once.
Of course, it is also worth wondering whether the quote about unions was made before President Reagan had his enormous change of politics but as he was talking about Poland, probably not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I do think it's likely that there are conservatives who read this forum who would be unaware of that quote and that stance of Regan's. I also think there are liberals who read this forum who would be interested in hearing the quote purely for the entertainment value it provides regarding this situation and the tendencies of conservatives to invoke Regan all the time. I also think the quote might be of interest to those who later have conversations about this and can have the quote at their disposal to use.
But at root, there's no reason that a conservative can't hear that quote and proceed to think one of two things:
1) I was wrong about Regan, I should probably stop using him as an example of a great conservative.
2) Maybe I'm wrong about unions, if Regan loved them, maybe at the very least I shouldn't hate them so.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The impression that I got from your post was that it was not worth the bother of even mentioning lies about history because people are going to do it anyway...
Which is strange because in that same post I went on to discuss why somebody's bumper sticker was woefully ignorant of history. Can't a guy just throw his hands in the air once in awhile?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. I have been throwing up my hands for most of the thread. I hope I didn't give the impression that we shouldn't do anything, though, futile as it may be.
I didn't realize that you minded the bumper sticker.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, hey, that open meeting laws thing? The courts didn't agree with the GOP that the surprise "special session" invalidated the public notice requirements, and has issued an injunction, barring the newly passed anti-union bill. Well then!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
here is a blog that talks about something interesting despite unironically using the word 'rethuglican:' the return of McCarthy style witch hunts related to the analysis of this event: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/hi_joe.php
quote:Wisconsin Republicans stunned the nation today when they published Governor Scott Walker’s anti-union bill in seeming violation of a restraining order. The legislation was enjoined from publishing by a judge who ruled that Republicans violated the Open Meeting law when passing it. By publishing their anti-union legislation and turning it into law, Scott Walker and the Republicans may have killed the bill.
quote:But what the Wisconsin Republicans have really done by publishing the anti-union bill is kill their own legislation. By publishing the bill, the Republicans have made it easier to fight in court, because it is now law and hence, can now be permanently overturned.
The Wisconsin State Journal reported:
quote:By doing so, Pines said, the bureau made moot the actions currently before the state Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals. He said that would actually simplify the case that District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has to make on the alleged open meetings violation by a legislative conference committee, now that he doesn’t have to worry about whether a judge has the authority to stop legislation before it takes effect.
“I suspect that if Judge Sumi was willing to take up a (temporary restraining order) against publication I suspect she’d do the same thing on enforcement (of the new law),” Pines said.
Pines said it also opens up legal channels for other groups who have been waiting to challenge the law but had to wait until it was enacted, like Madison Teachers Inc., which plans to file its own lawsuit on Monday. He said it has not been decided whether MTI will seek a restraining order or injunction barring enforcement of the law.
“This is going to unleash a tsunami of litigation,” Pines said.
The irony here is that they didn’t kill their bill by passing it without the necessary quorum, violating state Open Meeting laws or publishing it in violation of a judge’s order; they killed it with their own hubris. Now that it’s published, it is much easier to have it stopped permanently. It can and will be fought on all of the above grounds as well as countless others — amounting to a “tsunami of litigation” against the anti-union law.
Yup. Or something.
hatrack, y u no talking about wisconsin
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From The Fine Article that kmbboots linked:
quote:After the board meeting, two committees considered the idea of reducing the number of credits needed to graduate from high school. The panels gave a mixed response, which means it’s up to the full board to decide. The committees also considered reducing the number of classes that higher-achieving students can take. There was no action on that idea.
I'm not sure that these measures are a direct result of Walker's actions. It sounds like the budget decisions Wisconsin schools are facing are nearly identical to the issues Kansas schools are facing. The budget issue, for many states, is driving cuts to education.
What irritates me is the choice to take action that reduces the *quality* of education. I suppose kmbboots and I agree on this subject. It would be a cold day in you-know-where (or, a hot day in Wisconsin) when the sports programs were eliminated, rather than the advanced coursework opportunities. I know that I might as well rail against a brick wall on this subject, for all the good that it will do overall, but it still rankles me.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Walker and the Republican Assembly passed 3 bills (2, 3, and 7) all of which reduced the taxes collected and played a large part in creating the budget issue.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it a direct result? Yes, but not the whole story...there's more to it, of course, but I don't believe that it would have happened without Walker's actions. I am a teacher in the Kenosha district who was just let go - and in my case, no chance to be rehired because of the type of contract I was on.
Here's a quote from the news release by the district's Superintendent:
*********
quote: A $555 per pupil reduction in state aid resulting from the governor’s Budget Repair Bill, a $10.96 million structural deficit, the loss of federal programs totaling $6.8 million, and $3.8 million to provide for necessary budget increases will result in a $29 million budget deficit for the 2011/2012 school year. KUSD did anticipate some reductions in funding, but, like other school districts throughout Wisconsin, the reduced revenue is greater than anyone expected. “There’s no doubt significant cuts will have to be made”, said Dr. Michele Hancock, KUSD Superintendent of Schools.
The credit reduction is more than it might seem. It is not only an attempt to reduce the number of credits that is required for graduation, it reduces the number of credits ALLOWED to be taken by students. The specific application of the policy would be that all students in high school would be required to take a "study hall", but not required to be at school during that study hall. So students who already had their 7 credits for that semester would then not be allowed to add anything else (such as art or music). This then further reduces the number of staff needed as those class sizes go down with the added "benefit" of not needing a certified teacher to supervise a study hall.
A total of 375 layoff notices were issued in the district, and all teachers working on a letter of appointment (generally those who were hired while finishing state certification if they were originally certified outside of the state, or had been out of teaching for a while) were dismissed without possibility of recall (this number not included in the 375 layoff notices). There were 109 teachers in the district on these letters. 212 positions will be cut from those 375 layoff notices, but it's unclear whether those will include teachers who retire and are not replaced.
It's a tough time to be a teacher right now - I just moved up to Wisconsin from Illinois because of the problems Illinois was having with education, and Wisconsin seemed much more stable - and it was when I moved up here less than a year ago...
[ April 21, 2011, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Don Domande ]
Posts: 51 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The credit reduction is more than it might seem. It is not only an attempt to reduce the number of credits that is required for graduation, it reduces the number of credits ALLOWED to be taken by students. The specific application of the policy would be that all students in high school would be required to take a "study hall", but not required to be at school during that study hall. So students who already had their 7 credits for that semester would then not be allowed to add anything else (such as art or music). This then further reduces the number of staff needed as those class sizes go down with the added "benefit" of not needing a certified teacher to supervise a study hall.
Well, that's a novel way to cut costs: abdication from your own time coverage requirements.
Who wants to bet most of the 'study halls' are desired at first or last period?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My nieces are in that district and are losing some great teachers and classes. They love school and were in tears.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Massachusetts appears to be holding steady. Which means "fringe" services are getting trimmed. A wealthy Boston suburb cut all it's school librarians from elementary and middle schools, replacing them with library assistants/volunteers.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention: Walker's going after libraries here, too. Our local library's had its budget cut by 40%.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Justice Bradley, one of two women on the court, is accusing Justice Prosser, the Republican justice who was narrowly re-elected after serious investigation into voter fraud, of wrapping his hands around her neck and choking her after she demanded he leave her office during a heated argument about the competence of the Chief Justice (the other woman on the court), whom Prosser detests and has sworn to destroy. Apparently this was witnessed by at least five other people, including other justices, but at least two of them are saying that Bradley attacked Prosser first in some way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You can sign more than one petition if they are for different organizations. If you think you have been scammed, you can also sign at the offices.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You can sign more than one petition if they are for different organizations. If you think you have been scammed, you can also sign at the offices.
Maybe I missed it, but where do these few individuals claim to even be associated with the tea party? The title says the "Tea Party" plans premeditated felony, as if there is a large portion of the millions of tea party supporters who are planning on getting people to sign fake petition which they will then destroy.
The activity they are engaging in is classic trolling, not premeditated felonious behavior. They were "caught" making jokes, jokes of poor-form, true, but still jokes. One in particular seems like he has the potential to actually follow through with his "plan" but the biased manner in which this is being "reported" by politiscoop is ridiculous.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, since it appears that a coordinated FUD campaign has been launched against Politiscoop in an attempt to isolate the people calling for petition fraud from the Tea Party proper (per capax), they've actually written two articles about that.
(Let me note, by the way, that I don't usually recommend Politiscoop as a source, since they're waaay too comfortable jumping to semi-slanderous conclusions. They're considerably too nakedly partisan for me. I'm just using them here because there's a narrative thread.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Update: we managed to get significantly over a million recall signatures for Walker, more than twice what's needed to actually initiate a recall election. Even assuming that a good chunk of the signatures are duplicates or fakes, it's safe to assume that more than a quarter of the state signed a petition to recall him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Update: we managed to get significantly over a million recall signatures for Walker, more than twice what's needed to actually initiate a recall election. Even assuming that a good chunk of the signatures are duplicates or fakes...
Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
I'm trying to think of a way to ask this question that sounds less jerk-y, and failing. So, I know I sound like a jerk, but I'm genuinely wondering because this seems so odd. From what I've seen of you here you seem like a principled, decent guy, and yet election fraud (to me) is really despicable.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you think he meant assuming for the sake of argument?
But even if not, it seems to me that a small amount of fraud is probably inevitable, and not to big a price to pay for getting something done that clearly has strong popular support anyway. The reason we have democracy is so that the government can act in accord with the wishes of the populace, and it's hard to argue that that's not what's happening.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
As many conservatives have been proudly posting about signing petitions with fraudulent names and/or fraudulently obtaining petitions to remove names from lists (and thus indirectly encouraging multiple signatures), I don't believe most of the signatures that'll be challenged are the fault of the people on my side of the issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
Dan, Every petition ends up with a certain number of duplicate and unverifiable (fraudulent) signatures. There are many reasons for this that have nothing to do with disrespect for the law or the honesty and integrity of those who are circulating the petition.
Some of the common reasons a person might sign a petition more than once include:
1. They forgot they had already signed. 2. They thought it was a new or different petition from the one they signed earlier. 3. The person doesn't recognize there is a problem with signing the petition more than once.
When a petition is widely circulated for several months, those honest mistakes, which might seem improbable to you, become highly probable. If you had signed a petition at a fair in October, would you necessarily remember that when you were asked to sign the same petition at a shopping mall in December? If you remembered, would you be certain it was actually the same petition drive? As I understand it, it's completely legal to sign a petition a second time if its being circulated by a different organization, but when all the signatures are tallied, one persons signature can only be counted once. That means some duplicate signatures didn't break any law. If over a couple months, several different organizations asked you to sign the petition, might you be confused over which ones you could sign legitimately?
Some of the common reasons that signatures are found to be invalid which do not equate to deliberate fraud on the part of those who circulated the petition include.
1. A signer has moved since they signed the petition so their contact information is no longer valid. 2. The signer's contact information is illegible or contains some unintentional mistake such as the transposition of digits. 3. The signer deliberately puts down incorrect contact information perhaps out of a concern about privacy or to avoid the social embarrassment of saying no. 4. A signer did not realize they had to be a registered voter in a particular area. 5. A signer was a resident in the area at the time they signed but they have since moved out of the area. 6. Some people smart asses who think its funny or clever or something to sign as "Fred Flintstone", "Karl Marx" or "John Hanncock".
There is no reason to assume that the existence of duplicate and invalid signatures on a petition indicates an attempt at fraud on the part of the organizers or supporters. But even if it did, why do you think Tom should be bothered by the fact that his political views were shared by some unscrupulous people?
In any sizable organization or movement, you are going to find at least a few unscrupulous people and a few idiots. Their presence alone is not an indication of the worthiness of a cause or legitimacy of a position.
If you had been opposed to the recall movement, how much would it have bothered you that a few opponents were on record promoting fraud to prevent the success of the petition?
[ January 18, 2012, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose I'll have to register now. Anyone know when the cut-off is to register to be able to vote in the recall election? I've lived here for about 3 months now, I'm pretty sure I'm eligible.
quote:Does it bother you at all to be allied with people who care more about getting their guy into power than they do about... you know... respecting laws and actual representative democracy?
Dan, Every petition ends up with a certain number of duplicate and unverifiable (fraudulent) signatures. There are many reasons for this that have nothing to do with disrespect for the law or the honesty and integrity of those who are circulating the petition.
Some of the common reasons a person might sign a petition more than once include:
1. They forgot they had already signed. 2. They thought it was a new or different petition from the one they signed earlier. 3. The person doesn't recognize there is a problem with signing the petition more than once.
When a petition is widely circulated for several months, those honest mistakes, which might seem improbable to you, become highly probable. If you had signed a petition at a fair in October, would you necessarily remember that when you were asked to sign the same petition at a shopping mall in December? If you remembered, would you be certain it was actually the same petition drive? As I understand it, it's completely legal to sign a petition a second time if its being circulated by a different organization, but when all the signatures are tallied, one persons signature can only be counted once. That means some duplicate signatures didn't break any law. If over a couple months, several different organizations asked you to sign the petition, might you be confused over which ones you could sign legitimately?
Some of the common reasons that signatures are found to be invalid which do not equate to deliberate fraud on the part of those who circulated the petition include.
1. A signer has moved since they signed the petition so their contact information is no longer valid. 2. The signer's contact information is illegible or contains some unintentional mistake such as the transposition of digits. 3. The signer deliberately puts down incorrect contact information perhaps out of a concern about privacy or to avoid the social embarrassment of saying no. 4. A signer did not realize they had to be a registered voter in a particular area. 5. A signer was a resident in the area at the time they signed but they have since moved out of the area. 6. Some people smart asses who think its funny or clever or something to sign as "Fred Flintstone", "Karl Marx" or "John Hanncock".
There is no reason to assume that the existence of duplicate and invalid signatures on a petition indicates an attempt at fraud on the part of the organizers or supporters. But even if it did, why do you think Tom should be bothered by the fact that his political views were shared by some unscrupulous people?
In any sizable organization or movement, you are going to find at least a few unscrupulous people and a few idiots. Their presence alone is not an indication of the worthiness of a cause or legitimacy of a position.
If you had been opposed to the recall movement, how much would it have bothered you that a few opponents were on record promoting fraud to prevent the success of the petition?
Excellent points I hadn't considered, Rabbit. I don't sign many petitions, so those issues just didn't occur to me.
I am opposed to the recall movement, though not ardently so. Perhaps it would be better to say I have no problem with the recall movement itself, but I generally think Walker has accomplished some laudable successes and hope he is not recalled.
That being said, I have nothing but contempt for the conservatives who tried to sabotage the recall movement, and I'm frankly a bit ashamed to share any of their views. When terrible people share my views, I find it necessary to analyze why and figure out if I am mistaken.
In this case I suspect a lot of them are people who are scared that Walker's opponents are going to use underhanded tactics to get him recalled, and are trying to fight fire with fire. I think that's a terrible approach to take. It doesn't excuse their contemptible actions, either. But it does mitigate my opinion of them as human beings a little bit.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not especially comfortable with recall movements outside of incredibly egregiously bad behavior. I see how many prime ministers Japan has chewed through, and think how could anyone get anything done when people are used to just recalling them at the relative drop of a hat?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not it is good to get things done is dependent on what the things are that they are doing. If you are keeping someone from getting bad things done, that is a good thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit sympathy for BB's point. Recall, impeachment, etc... seem to me methods for dealing with something much more serious than policy disagreements. Even if I actively wished for a leader to be ousted, I would not support a movement to do so before his or her term was up unless their conduct made their authority questionable. Uncosnitutional actions, evidence of significant dishonest in their campaign and the like I would consider reasonable cause to recall. All that said I haven't made up my mind about Walker, I need to learn a lot more, but I do hope to at least be able to vote when the time comes.
quote:Perhaps it would be better to say I have no problem with the recall movement itself, but I generally think Walker has accomplished some laudable successes and hope he is not recalled.
*Wishes there was a puking smiley.* Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps it would be better to say I have no problem with the recall movement itself, but I generally think Walker has accomplished some laudable successes and hope he is not recalled.
*Wishes there was a puking smiley.*
It would get way too much use.
Wasn't somebody complaining about how rude the eye-rolling smiley is? A puking smiley would be so much worse.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
