February 2011

02/24/2011: 

 

OUR EIGHTH BLOGOVERSARY: UPDATES FROM THE FOURTH REICH. It would be so nice to celebrate our longevity with a happier theme, but since we're now living under the worst American despot in history all of that has fallen by the wayside.

Recent developments:

An American Fascist: A Look Behind the Curtain at Wisconsin's New Dictator

Madison Police Chief Noble Wray: Walker? You'd Best Explain the Riot You Wanted to Start in My Town

Madison "Mayor Dave": Really, Governor? You Wanted Something Ugly on the Capitol Sqaure?

The clock is ticking until January 2012 when this scumbag is history. And hopefully behind bars for a very, very long time.

Posted by Alois on  

Comments

[Deb]

I must be daft or something, I'm STILL not seeing the "fascism." Sorry. Nor do I see any genuine threats of violence. Tell me, where do you stand on Mike Capuano's call for the streets to get "bloody?" Is it OK for Union supporters to draw blood, but not the other way around? Just asking.

[ligneus]

Me too Deb. I see the result of the election when on the State level the Republicans made great gains and are now putting into place the programs they campaigned on and which the people voted for. The profligacy of the Dems has to be paid for and the sooner someone tackles it the better.
As for the Dem Senators hiding out in Illinois, can you imagine the screams had the Reps pulled a stunt like that?
Also needing attention is the incestuous relationship between the Dems and the Unions.

[ligneus]

Of course it is an attack on the public unions, the question is do you think it's a justified attack? I think it is, just witness the huge deficits the US and the States are running and note that it is Dem led States that are in the worst shape. I you love America you must know it can't be allowed to continue.

[ligneus]

A Windsor radio station is conducting a poll:

Wisconsin is moving to strip the state's public employees of collective bargaining rights. Do you support the move?

Check it out.

[Pete (Alois)]

It's really pretty simple.

For as long as anyone can remember, working for the public sector was a trade-off. You made lower wages than equivalent jobs in the private sector, but you had better benefits (usually) and better job security (always).

We have seen how responsibly the private sector has utilized the great freedoms they've had since the Reagan days--they just about drove the US economy off a cliff, permanently.

And let's not forget that selfsame private sector did this after systematically robbing their employees of wage increases and good benefits (those perks went to the upper echelons only).

Now Walker and his minions are telling the public sector: "We screwed up in the private sector, so now you're going to be asked to pay the price right along with us. If we can't have decent wages and benefits, neither can you."

I call BULLSHIT on that.

The private sector has already showed that it can't function without government oversight. Have we already forgotten in just three years what they've done to this country through sheer greed and overreaching?

That's not the way it's supposed to happen in ideal democratic capitalism--but that's the way it DID happen. No way in hell that the public sector should be expected to pick up the tab. That's the same old private-sector trick (popular since the '80s) of expecting more and more and paying less and less for it. Scottie Walker wants wonderful state services for the people of Wisconsin--and he wants to pay state workers minimum wage and gut their healthcare benefits.

I call BULLSHIT on that too--you'd better believe it.

[ligneus]

From Mark Steyn.

That’s what “collective bargaining” is about: It enables unions rather than citizens to set the price of government. It is, thus, a direct assault on republican democracy, and it needs to be destroyed. Unlovely as they are, the Greek rioters and the snarling thugs of Madison are the logical end point of the advanced social democratic state: not an oppressed underclass, but a spoiled overclass, rioting in defense of its privileges and insisting on more subsidy, more benefits, more featherbedding, more government.

Big Unions fund Big Government. The union slices off two per cent of the workers’ pay and sluices it to the Democratic Party, which uses it to grow government, which also grows unions, which thereby grows the number of two-per-cent contributions, which thereby grows the Democratic Party, which thereby grows government… Repeat until bankruptcy. Or bailout.

[buzz]

"The private sector has already showed that it can't function without government oversight. Have we already forgotten in just three years what they've done to this country through sheer greed and overreaching.
"Without governement oversight? WITHOUT government oversight?

Wow. Impressively obtuse.

[bdn]

Pete, Deb,

Whether you agree or disagree with what Walker is doing (I strongly disagree), I would hope we could all agree to drop the Hitler analogies and recognize Walker's professed role model for these actions. It's not Hitler, it's Reagan.

Pete, what you despised about the '80s and what Deb admired are two sides of the same coin, and I would argue that coin was minted during the PATCO strike in 1981. You can draw a straight line from that strike to what's happening in Madison today. To the Randian supermen like Reagan and Greenspan, unions, pensions, social security, medicare, medicaid... They all look like creeping socialism.

My grandfather worked for the town of Albion as a road man for 40 years (hi Deb, it's Brad..) For the first 10 years he had no pension and no retirement benefits. One night the town of Albion voted (3-2 was the vote if I remember correctly) to include him in the state pension system. He worked his tail off for Albion, and was never a wealthy man. However, he was able to retire with dignity and lived to a ripe old age largely because of the decision Albion made to honor his hard work.

I think we all understand that times are tough, and unions all over the country have made concessions to this reality. But that's clearly not what this fight is about. This is about breaking the unions, just like it was in 1981. Walker is using the Reagan playbook. I think its important that those on either side of this issue recognize that fact, and give appropriate credit where due.

[Pete (Alois)]

Buzz--

Your dimness is nothing short of incredible. I suppose you actually believe in your dark heart that TOO MUCH gov't oversight is what enabled Wall Street and the idiot banks to drive this country to the brink of financial oblivion? And the government would have benefitted from this... how???

bdn--nice post, very thoughtful.

[Deb]

Pete,
You are a friend, so I'm going to TRY to be as polite as I can here, but I'm with lig on this one, I really am.

There are FACTS that are being misrepresented here, by you and by the unions and union sympathizers. Here they are:
1) Walker is allowing union employees to collective bargain for wages. This--compared to some other states (and Federal workers btw) is quite generous.

2) I cannot find a single thing *outside of union literature, er, propaganda, talking about "rationing" healthcare. In fact, Walker is trying to encourage union employees to use their union dues to buy their OWN policies outside the trusts set up by the union. Ultimately, once Obamacare goes into effect, Walker won't be allowed to institute his own "rationing" program if it doesn't pass muster with the Sec. HHS, so I'm at a loss to understand what you're worried about or referring to. And not for nothing, "rationing" happens in the private sector TOO, with companies we pay for out of our OWN dollars, and it will happen more, for a wide variety of reasons (not least of which is a doctor shortage) once Obamacare starts.

3) The Koch brothers have less than nothing to do with Walker other than they gave him some political donations (as they did with several GOP candidates). Their contributions, however, pale in size and scope with union donations to Democrats, in WI and nationally. They will NOT benefit financially from the energy tax breaks as the union alleges. This is just a FACT. They have never even MET Walker.

4) The protesters railing against the Koch brothers had better start demanding divestiture b/c their own pension funds are INVESTED with them!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260979/wisconsin-state-employees-should-have-some-koch-and-smile-christian-schneider
Have a Koch and a smile! ;) I'll take them seriously when they put down their signs and call their union rep and demand that their money (which by all accounts has GROWN b/c of the Kochs) is IMMEDIATELY divested and put into something more worthy of their cause, something perhaps like an Aaron Sorkin screenplay.

5) FDR didn't believe in collective bargaining for gov't workers and wouldn't even give them the right to do it in the FIRST place. Is he like Hitler too?

6) How is it right to insist on a "right" to collectively "bargain" with people who often are, but more importantly *can be* bought and paid for with money collected in union dues, but originally provided by taxpayers? What kind of "bargain" is that for the taxpayer? When the person with whom you are "negotiating" owes you his job, who is representing the taxpayers who'll foot the bill? Answer? NO ONE. It's a circle, a one-way street, and it's inherently *UNDEMOCRATIC.*

7) If unions serve a vital purpose in *protecting employees from ABUSE* they will not be "busted" simply by making dues-paying "voluntary" or by eliminating the collective bargaining process for BENEFITS. If such changes could break them, one would have to ask, what good are they then? Is their ONLY purpose to come in and harangue politicians they've helped elect into giving their members more money (translation: into LYING to them b/c there's no way a politician serving a short term can promise, really PROMISE, a guaranteed pension or benefits for decades to come)? The union will NOT be "illegal" it will merely be voluntary to join and pay, and no longer will the union be able to stack the deck against the taxpayer by gaming the system to put in place "negotiators" who are predisposed to give them whatever they want, for their OWN job security you understand. And by FORCING every worker who works for the state to join the union and pay dues, the union is COMPELLING them to contribute to this pool of money in exchange for employment. Since when did the words "compulsory" and "mandatory" fit with "freedom" and "democracy?"

8) Healthcare rationing is coming, for all of us. I am unfamiliar with (and cannot find reliable unbiased information corroborating your allegations about) Walker's alleged plans, but I did find out that he is suggesting that perhaps union employees would rather use their dues to buy their healthcare policies, rather than do with less by upping their contribution. He's also said--and I confirmed through research--that right now, union teachers are required to purchase plans through a special "trust" that costs the state much more than it otherwise would in private plans. But he's NOT outlawing the trust, just trying to open up the choices so those who want to pay less CAN, or those who want different options can, or the state can offer a less expensive option and pass the savings on to the employee. It's up to the employee to read the fine print to figure out which one best fits their needs (you know, how it is in a FREE private society?).

9) Have you so fully converted to the union mindset that you agree with your fearless leader Marty that your "rights" supercede private property rights of Wisconsonites? Please answer, I'd really like to know where your mind is. Also, do you agree that it is impossible to have dignity in employment in the private sector? Because if you do, agree with either of those statements, then I'm going to start to suspect that the union is a CULT and they have stolen your brain, and a friend I dearly cared about along with it.

[ligneus]

I suppose you actually believe in your dark heart that TOO MUCH gov't oversight is what enabled Wall Street and the idiot banks to drive this country to the brink of financial oblivion? And the government would have benefitted from this... how???

Pete, Do you not know of the Community Re-investment Act brought in by Carter I believe? This forbade banks to 'discriminate' against residents in the 'red line' districts, so called because they were poor areas and therefore high risk for lenders. This act was expanded by Clinton to force banks to make sup prime loans, aided by physical pressure from organisations like ACORN.
I don't have time to provide links but you can google it.
As for 'what's in it for the government, a. it's a strategy of the left to make as many people as possible dependent on government largesse, [known as other people's money] who will be captive Dem voters and b. these people are ideologues who really believe they are doing good but because they are economically illiterate and they don't see unintended consequences. Their 'oversight' distorts the market and lets loose a whole bunch of greedy people on all sides who will take advantage of the government stupidity.

It's all explained here:

Looks like the video won't embed, go here.

[Deb]

Brad, let me ask you a question: Did you object when President Obama unilaterally "froze" the pay of federal workers, without so much as a by-your-leave (never mind 61 hours of "rushed" debate, like Walker and the GOP-led legislature had)? Or did you consider that "pragmatic?"

And earlier this week, when he blasted Walker as "assaulting" the unions by taking PART of their collective bargaining (mistakenly referring to them as "rights" while he was at it), did you scratch your head in bewilderment, as I did, curious as to why he wasn't also announcing an immediate effort to grant federal workers their full collective bargaining "rights," and chastising President Carter for "depriving" them of his workers all this time?

And if not, why not? What makes the federal worker less deserving of these so-called "rights?"

Whether your grandfather deserved a solid pension for his labor is beside the point. I like to think my Dad and my husband also "deserve" something for all the money they've made for other people, never mind the services they've rendered and the hundreds of people who are only employed b/c of their efforts, but the difference is, I would not support having some goon TAKE money out of their paychecks to buy politicians who would then use the power of the state (i.e., GUNS, at least in theory) to TAKE said "deserved pension" from my neighbors. Sorry, just wouldn't do it.

The trouble with the arguments that revolve around "feelings" about how nice it is that someone could do a job like your grandfather did and retire and live decently is that they have less than nothing to do with the problem at hand. The state of WI has a MATH problem to solve and the union wants to submit an ESSAY answer. Sorry, that won't cut it. Yes yes, I have feelings, I *care* about people and don't think it's right for anyone to literally have the rug pulled out from under them, but that is so far from what's happening here it's absurd to even talk about it! They get to keep their pensions (wish I could say the same about Social Security that I'll never see, don't see Trumka ranting at Obama about how the gov't has raided THAT trust fund to pay for wars and shit *I* don't want), they get to keep their bargaining rights for wages, they just don't get to bargain for benefits b/c that's where the rubber meets the road, where it's a LOT (IMHO) harder to argue that someone has a "right" or "deserves" to be taken care of in a style SO vastly better than their taxpayer private sector peers. I have yet to hear or read a sound, RATIONAL argument on that point. Tell me why--for example--a public worker making the SAME salary as my husband, doing a job that pays for overtime, and only requires 35 hours a week, with every holiday OFF (or time and a half if not) should be able to "retire" at 55 and collect his FULL PAY for the REST OF HIS LIFE, considering at this point, the "rest of his life" could be 30 more years EASY! When these defined benefit plans were created, people lived to what, 70? If they were lucky? Today you have guys who retire from one public job, collect a pension and then go on to another, in another state (or maybe the same one, depending upon the rules or dept.) and collect another! Or they just go get a job in the private sector and aren't "retired" at all.

How is that right? Never mind that, that's an emotional argument. How is that economically wise? Simply cutting their benefits once, or asking for a measly 15-20% contribution isn't going to cut it. Making sure the rate of increase on benefits can't keep exploding as it has over the past decade is essential to long-term solvency. After all, the ONLY reason this crisis didn't hit when your previous gov was there is that he had stimulus money to HIDE the fiscal disaster he was leaving Walker. The union has been lying and saying there is no budget shortfall. There are teachers saying this (I hope no MATH teachers). I would laugh if it weren't so tragic. Stimulus money is NOT a "surplus," stimulus money isn't even REAL money! You guys are railing against evil Wall Street, but who perpetrated the biggest fraud of all? This administration attempting to BUY loyalty by quickly infusing struggling states with phony cash-flow. It's the fiscal equivalent of the lousy parent who gives their kid everything he wants, then graduation day comes and he says "Ooops, there's no money for college, but how about that CAR I bought you!"

Lies and broken promises, and you attack the one guy to tell you the truth about your fiscal status. Again, I don't know the guy personally, he could be a moron, an asshole, I have no clue. But I do know that he's not "Hitler" and the public workers are WI are not fighting for "rights" because there is no "RIGHT" to collectively bargain. There's currently a law that allows it, a law that can, and probably WILL be rewritten so as NOT to allow it for benefits. Period. If there were a "right" to it, the federal workers and the workers of half the states in the country that don't have it would be protesting right along with you, and guess what? They're NOT.

But dig up Reagan and beat him some more if it makes you feel better. Seems to work well for most liberals I know and knowing Reagan, he could take it.

[Deb]

I found this to be a VERY fair analysis:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/03/collective-bargaining-the-bott

[ligneus]

Evan Sayet has interesting thoughts on unions and collective bargaining and what they inevitably lead to.

[ligneus]

Not sure if I found this here, The Greenlining Institute as its name implies was set up to combat the practice of redlining areas of cities where the banks thought the risks in lending money for mortgages were too high.

[bdn]

Deb,

Happy to respond. On a personal note, good to hear from you (such as this communication is..) I hope and trust all is well in your world.

As for your post, where to begin? I'll restrict this to your response to my post, but if I have time later on I'll respond to your post to Pete.

1) I'll paraphrase your first question: Did Gov. Walker try to ram these changes through? Absolutely. His budget fix was announced on a Friday night (a classic time to dump bad news) and he intended to have it passed by the following Wednesday, which absolutely would have happened if the Democrats wouldn't have fillibustered with their feet. The 61 hours of debate in the assembly was ex post facto to his plan.

2) Did I agree with President Obama's decision to freeze federal pay? I did not. I thought it was a sop to the Republicans, who in any event didn't appreciate the gesture, and the savings derived was nominal. You are correct about the absence of rights for federal employees to collectively bargain, but President Obama did not make that rule nor did he attempt to further limit their rights by fiat.

3) My grandfather's experience was not beside the point. It was precisely the point. My grandfather was an honest laborer who traded a lower salary for better benefits. Your husband or father could have done the same if that was their choice and if they met the qualifications. He took money out of his neighbors pockets? No, he built, maintained, and plowed their damned roads. For pay. Which he earned. Part of which was deferred compensation in the form of a defined pension plan. He retired at 63, not 55, and he earned every red cent. I will make no apologies for the man, nor do I need to. And I will stipulate that the town of Albion got a damned good deal from his labor (in other words, Albion made a wise economic decision).

4) I think a fair minded person looking at the evidence would say that government wages are roughly on par with private sector wages, including benefits. I could cite studies on both sides of the argument (I believe that total public sector wages are probably a few percentage points lower adjusting for education level). However, the argument that government workers are on the gravy train at the general public's expense is a non-starter with me (and don't get me started on trains :).

As for Walker's bill, it is a union bust, plain and simple. You can call it whatever you like, but here on the ground the facts look pretty clear. I'm not a union worker, but I don't like the bill, I don't like his style, I don't agree with his aims, and I'll be at the Capitol on Saturday to make my voice heard.

I do think the Hitler analogies as applied to Walker (or Obama, or officeholder X)are way out of bounds. You know who reminds me of Hitler? Hitler. I'm a strong believer in Godwin's law.

As for Reagan, he is to presidential ratings what Joe Namath is to quarterback ratings: everyone remembers him fondly, no one remembers that he kind of sucked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/

That is all..

Fondly,
Brad

[bdn]

Ligneus,

As far as the CRA being the root of all evil in regards to the housing meltdown, that dog will not hunt.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/12/commentary-subprime-thinking.html

The CRA did play a small part, yes. Fannie and Freddie did not cover themselves with glory to say the least. But the truth is much more complicated, and is not as friendly to the idea of unfettered free markets. The Nick Gillespies of the world are as least as culpable in that mess as Jimmy Carter.

[Deb]

Brad, you can't just brush aside the Fannie and Freddie debacle so easily, sorry. And do tell how our markets are "free?" How do you reason they are "unfettered?"

You've done a great job of casually dismissing arguments we've made here, but I have yet to read your suggested solutions? How would you propose our markets operate so as to protect us from the big bad eeeeeeevil profit-makers?

See, the thing is, lig and I are not arguing that the banks acquitted themselves admirably here, nor are we saying any one thing was 100% to blame, we are simply making the point that the GOVERNMENT had its fingers all over this economic disaster! After all, government created the "corporation," and the really HUGE corporations and banks benefited tremendously from regulations that created barriers for their competitors and that limited their liability when they screwed us, their depositors. And yes, things like the CRA and Fannie and Freddie created DEMAND, that was furthered by rhetoric from the mouths of politicians (i.e., "gov't") on both sides of the aisle. There's nothing "free market" about that. In a "free market," especially an UNFETTERED one, there is no "too big to fail." You screw up, you fail, you screw people, you go to JAIL (HEY! I made a rhyme!)

The Nick Gillespies of the world (you can count me as one of those as I am a libertarian to the core) deplore bailouts and would have let things play out. No, I do not happen to believe the world would have come to an end, Great Depression style, I don't. I think gov't simply didn't want to deal with the pain that would have come, so they kicked it down the road, as per usual. And like all problems they help create, they added to it in the process. Now, instead of those banks going under and small segments of our society being very very badly hurt in the short term, we have our entire country circling the drain, the rule of law utterly ignored by our President, and debt so massive my grandchildren will struggle under its weight. Definitely much better. /eyeroll

If that's the "free market" then yeah, it's pretty hatable. Too bad there's nothing "free" about the incestuous relationship between business and our gov't.

But still, I would like to know how, in your utopia, markets would work instead. How much "regulation" do you think would have prevented what happened, and what do you suppose the unintended consequences of those regulations might have been (have to consider THOSE you know, there is no perfect regulation, someone will always get around it, find a way to USE it to advance their own agenda, BRIBE an underpaid regulator if they must....Those guys who monitor oil rigs sure did a bang up job of preventing what BP did, didn't they??)

I hear so much in the way of criticism from the Democrats and the left of "free markets," and they are so quick to let gov't off the hook when they completely fuck something up, but I almost never see an honest admission of what they really want, no clear proposal regarding what we should have INSTEAD, and definitely no consideration for the unintended consequences of infringing on markets or individual freedoms either. And don't even get me STARTED on the sheer hypocrisy of wanting tons of "unfettered" freedom for union workers to set their own prices, price FIX their labor across state lines, create a monopoly that shuts out all competition and work against the interests of those whose labor makes their jobs possible (through the paying of taxes). Oh no, they are pure as the driven snow, the guardians of the "middle class," as if no one who is non-union is "middle class," that's right, we're all robber barons come to whip them and take advantage of them. It would be funny to think about if it weren't so infuriating, the total lack of self-awareness.

It's a strawman to suggest that I'm saying the opposite though, which appears to be your argument and Pete's, that I (and lig) are letting private industry off the hook and blaming unions and gov't 100%, we're NOT. Never said that. BOTH are culpable, obviously, and one could even argue--if one wanted to split hairs--that private industry in the case of the real estate bubble (or ALL bubbles for that matter) was more to blame in quantitative terms because obviously they were the ones working overtime to design new ways to take advantage of or get around regulations for fun and profit. It's EASY to blame them because they're so conscious about their misdeeds. But that's not the same thing as saying gov't played a "small" role or was blameless, or that all their regulations were neutral and would have worked just dandy if not for the evil greed of the corporations. The two work in concert, and one reason I'm so adamant about smashing the liberal's infatuation with gov't is that it's so completely irrational. There is ZERO evidence that what they claim is true--that gov't has our best interests at heart, or that intentions even fucking matter when it comes to regulations. RESULTS, OUTCOMES, MATH, REASON, LOGIC, those things matter, and where gov't is concerned, all I see lately, from them and from their ardent supporters on the left, are EMOTIONS. As I said, hand them a math problem, they hit you with an essay about the "poor" and the "children" and how people like lig and Nick and I "don't care" or worse--WANT them to suffer. It's as infuriating as it is wrong, but it's also a big waste of hot air. Insulting us won't fix the problem, it does NOTHING except possibly make the problem worse. People hear these emotional appeals and go into deeper denial about the problems we face, they defer even TALKING about fixing entitlements, military expenditures/wars, education, etc...until the NEXT crop of "public servants" arrives on the scene. They complain bitterly about how "something needs to be done by someone!!!" But the minute "someone" tells them "Hey, truth is, we spent too much, everyone has to cut back, it's gonna HURT, but if we don't do this it's gonna hurt MORE," they call that person a dictator.

Americans in general have had a pretty cushy ride for the past fifty plus years. We've been unwilling to make personal sacrifices to fix problems that will affect us all eventually, and we want everyone ELSE to suffer before WE do. We literally HATE each other across class and political lines, and then we harrumph down in our chairs and pat ourselves on the back and say the OTHER guy has it all wrong.

Well here's what I say: The market is not now nor has it been for over 200 years "unfettered" or "free." So you can take that tired old meme and throw it where it belongs, on the ashe heap of history. ALL political parties are to blame, both private and public interests must contribute and change and suffer if we're to survive as a first world nation, and simply pointing out the flaws or misdeeds or corruption of one side--especially to those vigorously defending it using mostly emotional appeals and "you're MEAN" arguments--is NOT the same as *defending* the other side OR forgiving them their sins. The straw man, if it were up to me, would be burned at the stake. I'm THAT sick of its use.

So if you have something other to say that will help me understand how
a) public unions are good for EVERYONE, taxpayers included
b) there's no conflict of interest whatsoever between their ability to collectively bargain for benefits in the distant future and the taxpayers needs
c) WI's budget deficit can be closed, not just this year but ongoing, without touching union privileges (I refuse to call them "RIGHTS," just b/c it's legal to do something doesn't make it a "right." It's legal to drive, but it ain't a "right" not in perpetuity or like a human right as the unions allege)
d) the so-called "free market" should be more regulated so as to protect us all from greedy criminals out to steal from us (be they public or private)
e) Why the PRIVATE sector is uniquely guilty of this greed and corruption while the public one is pure and innocent and has our best interests at heart, always

I'm pretty much done. I'm sick of the hypocrisy and denial so blatantly obvious in these labor disputes. I'm sick of class warfare and envy. My three kids can't even go to CHURCH without hearing how GUILTY they should feel because they're white and not poor (yes, we had a "guest" speaker who decided, in honor of black history month, to berate us on not doing enough specifically for the poor BLACK man in this country, cuz I guess poor WHITE people should fend for themselves--my 7 year old spent the rest of the day insisting we give away everything we have to the "poor black people" and trying to figure out a way to hide her WHITE skin. And no, I am NOT kidding).

I came to this thread because Pete is a friend and I wanted to read what he had to say about all this, since he is as close to it as anyone. And what did I find? Rants comparing the duly elected governor of the state of WI compared with a genocidal maniac, and his policies, which, whatever their flaws, are hardly akin to slavery and murder, trashed without any suggestion for how to better solve the problem and, what's more, how to afford what he wants IN PERPETUITY, because pensions require that you now, you make a promise to people for decades out, that's pretty HUGE, you better be able to make good on that, and if you can't, you owe it to the people to tell them the TRUTH about how that might not be possible.

Reading this thread and other "arguments" about why Walker is evil is like listening to my KIDS bitch about me saying "NO, there are no more animal crackers." I keep saying no, and rather than saying "Hey, let's make some" or something else constructive, they writhe around on the floor screaming and yelling and blaming ME for disappointing them, for being too MEAN to give them the non-existent animal crackers.

Now maybe I am blind, maybe I am stupid, maybe they're really in there, hiding behind the Wasa, but until one of my screaming children climbs up on a ladder and points them out to me, and they're really there, not just an empty box, or a box with two or three, but with enough for all of them, I--in my stupidity and blindness (NOT MEANNESS) am not gonna see them. We can go on like that forever, being angry with each other, yelling and screaming and insisting WE are right, or we can work together. You say Walker isn't trying, isn't working with the union or the Dems, well, from where I sit, they're not even TRYING to work with him. And why should he want to work harder to compromise with people who compare him with Hitler. I wouldn't bother, such people aren't serious, aren't interested in solutions to problems, only in venting their spleens.

So please, point out my blindness with SPECIFICS, not emotions, not more links to OPINIONS, until then, find someone else to blame for your missing animal crackers.

[Deb]

Some facts about Fannie and Freddie's role:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre

Some "inconvenient" truths about the WI budget (and to be fair, about WI teacher pay):
http://factcheck.org/2011/03/wisconsins-baffling-budget-battle/

As I've said, I'm not posting here b/c I necessarily "agree" with all of Walker's bill, but rather because I think the *debate* (if we can even call it that) on the subject has been so absurdly hyperbolic, largely on the union side, and because of that, the divide in this entire country has only deepened. Walker now looks like a "hero" to those who may only agree with some of his proposals if they understood them better, simply b/c he's standing firm against people who are behaving like spoiled unruly children, not serious concerned citizens, and the unions look like "heroes" to their members when in fact, they may not have been or be acting in the best interests of their members by pushing the governor to be so entrenched in HIS position. They can say all day long that leaving the state is the "heroic" thing to do, but the Democrats are only delaying the inevitable, and wasting public money (not to mention risking thousands of WI union jobs). For every person applauding them in WI, there are at least two in other states, especially right-to-work states, appalled by their behavior, believing (as I do) that they are THWARTING the democratic process, not exemplifying it. Everyone says if they come back, Walker will just pass the bill and there will be no further debate and that will be that, and at this point, after two long weeks of them being AWOL, he just might. But truth is, he could do it NOW without them if he wanted to:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261182/new-strategy-wisconsin-michael-potemra
Now it's *possible* he doesn't know about this, after all, as many keep reminding us, he didn't go to college (and everyone KNOWS people who didn't go to college are automatically utterly incompetent and should be consigned to digging ditches.../eyeroll), but presumably he is surrounded by people who DID, and maybe someone somewhere (in the grand Koch conspiracy maybe? /eyeroll) has told him about it), so maybe--just maybe--he's NOT doing that, and wouldn't do that b/c even HE knows doing so would net HIM some pretty unfavorable opinion in all but the most die-hard conservative quarters. And even if he did that, don't you think the union would have more solid ground to stand on calling him a "dictator" who won't allow debate? Of course, I sure do wonder where they were when the Democrats in Congress were ramming Obamacare down our throats using procedural gimmicks and shutting the GOP out completely, but I digress....

Point is, when you start looking at FACTS, and doing a little serious political analysis, based on precedent rather than emotion, and giving your opponent SOME benefit of the doubt that he means what he says about being willing to hear ALL suggestions (you think the country wouldn't be more sympathetic if the Dems came back, having widely publicized rational reasonable alternatives to the Walker bill, and were shut down THEN? If so, that's pretty SAD), it becomes harder to maintain the self-delusion that you are always right and your opponent is always wrong. And we wouldn't want THAT now would we? /eyeroll

[Deb]

Sums up my point nicely:
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576175290387698846.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj

Yes, it's by the dreaded Peggy Noonan (I can literally FEEL Brad cringing from 1000 miles away ;) ), but well worth the read, her points are well-taken. The unions and their supporters ignore them to their detriment.

[Deb]

One more lie debunked:
http://factcheck.org/2011/03/walkers-tax-cuts/

I do so dearly love factcheck.org

[Pete (Alois)]

ALL of you from out o' state (especially that "Buzz" moron from Mitch Berg's blog) suffer from the "it's all theoretical to me" syndrome.

Let me break it down for ya--I live here.

I was a state employee from 1995-2006 (IT / network support guru). When I left state service in 2006, I made $42,000 a year--private-sector people doing similar work at the time made between $75K and $150K (look it up if you don't believe me). I had my salary frozen TO THE PENNY between 2000 and 2005, after Jim Doyle became governor and started his campaign against state employees (Tommy Thompson, his longstanding Republican predecessor, thought the world of state employees and said so many times).

I also watched as my unit of 8 people was cut in half in 2005. That's right--we had four people to support 2200 employees in the Department of Revenue. That was a completely untenable situation, which is why I left to take a job in the private sector (which lasted all of TEN MONTHS before the billionaire funding my employment got bored and cut everybody loose).

Everybody I know in state service, my wife included, has watched their salary and benefits erode for years. Now the Walkerites are whining that "you've still got it better than the private sector!" That's because private sector employees these days work for SLAVE WAGES and have NO BENEFITS, and why the private sector has DESTROYED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's pretty simple, folks. Spare me the bullshit arguments--what is it about what I'm saying that you don't understand? I don't WANT to work for slave wages and have no health insurance, and you'd better damned well believe that the people who plow your roads and clean up your streams and pay your unemployment benefits are entitled to be decently compensated for the work they do. And if YOU don't feel fairly compensated? Then you took a devil's bargain, and shame on you for wanting to take that out on decent, hardworking public servants.

[ligneus]

The 'out of state' jibe puts me in my place specially since I'm not just out of state but out of country! But a couple of broad points, how come all the states and cities that are to all intents and purposes bankrupt have been Democrat controlled while Republican controlled states are doing not badly at all?
"By their fruits shall ye know them".

On the regulation question, see Peter Foster's One Flew Over the Regulator's Nest, published in today's National Post.

Examples of regulatory pretension in the face of glaring failure are legion. Did the Basel I and Basel II agreements do nothing to prevent the 2008 banking crisis? Then the answer is obviously Basel III! Did the G20’s Financial Stability Forum — set up in 1999 to ensure that nothing like the Asian financial crisis could ever happen again — provide no stability? Just change its name to the Financial Stability Board (and lard on a few more levels of trans-global bureaucracy). Did “prudential” regulation fail more comprehensively? No problemo. Let’s have some Macro-prudence. Meanwhile, surely the ne plus ultra of wild-eyed regulatory aspiration is taxing global industrial emissions to control the weather.

Why do people not fall about laughing at these repeated failures and ever-mounting pretensions? Why do regulators never flag in their high hopes for a regulatory Holy Grail? Because we — and they — are (among many other cognitive shortcomings) as dumb as doorknobs when it comes to comprehending how economies work.

Worse, regulators, by definition, have no idea how dumb they are. They suffer from “illusions of competence.” These guys and gals are not like Canada’s Worst Handyman, a klutz who thinks he is competent to put up a set of shelves. They would regulate humanity at every level from the global to the domestic. For example, Agenda 21, the doorstop wish list that emerged from the vast 1992 UN conference in Rio, wanted both to regulate global climate and make sure men shared with the housework (I wish I was joking).

[Deb]

Pete, again, there aren't words strong enough to express my revulsion at what your last private sector boss did to you, nor do I think you have been treated fairly by the state (nor have I ever said otherwise). My point--or rather my *question* is, since you DO have collective bargaining (as does your wife), and your complaint currently is that Walker plans to take it AWAY from you, what are you losing exactly? If collective bargaining hasn't stopped your wages from eroding, or prevented you from being underpaid for your work (or overworked in general, presumably without overtime?), what is it going to do to prevent it moving forward? I'm not trying to be glib, I really want to know why it is that you want to see compulsory union membership continue and collective bargaining for wages AND benefits remain in place for all public employees, in perpetuity?

As I understand it, there are wildly different situations even within the state of WI, different school districts pay different amounts, and different towns too. University employees are another story. I may not live in the state, but I "get" that much, it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. What we "out-of-staters" don't understand is the claim that it is the PRIVATE SECTOR'S FAULT that underpaid/undercompensated public employees aren't getting what they deserve. I would understand the loyalty to the unions *better* if the misperception that state workers get BETTER deals were true! If it's NOT true, then why the loyalty? And how--I mean technically HOW--do private sector workers shoulder the blame for your situation? Because they make more? I'm not following. Also, in one breath you said we make MORE out here in the private world, and in the next you claim we are getting "slave wages." Which is it?

I don't know how it is in WI, but my husband works as a technical consultant here in Charlotte, and he is amply and fairly compensated for his time and talent. His benefits are nearly gold-plated, considering what's out there--family healthcare plan with low deductibles and co-pays, generous tuition reimbursement, 401K matching, cell-phone and internet connectivity expenses paid for by the company, 4 weeks paid vacation, it's like a dream-come-true really. He even gets something called an "earned-hour-bonus" which means he not only gets a percentage of the earnings for every hour he works over 35 core hours, he gets a percentage of the profits derived from the labor of every co-worker he gets "hired" by his client. IOW, he gets paid for getting OTHER people work, so he does. He is responsible for and rewarded for finding other people jobs and mentoring or managing them afterwards. As such, he gets paid, in a way, as much or as little as he wants, depending upon how much or little he wants to work beyond what's expected of him as the minimum. If I wanted to design a company for him to work for, I couldn't do a better job honestly, and they are in 14 states and 17 countries too, so he's not alone in finding really GOOD private sector work, even in this economy. Some would say he's "lucky," and I suppose that's true, to a point, but I would say luck is what you make it. He was being ABUSED in MA, totally and utterly, underpaid, and treated like shit b/c he didn't go to an Ivy school, talked down to and passed over, despite being smarter than virtually everyone he worked with and for, and he was sick of it. But guess what? In that city, in that STATE, there were only a tiny handful of decent companies in the market for his talents, and they weren't hiring b/c the economies there couldn't support it. So we moved--left a house we just bought 11 mos prior, that we'd spent a bunch of blood sweat tears (and MONEY) renovating, took a big LOSS on it b/c the market there had already tanked, moved away from family and friends and doctors (I was 7 mos pregnant) and with toddler in tow, LEFT for greener pastures. Best move we ever made.

I'm not telling you all this by way of saying "hey, you should move," I'm simply saying that I think your claim that the private sector ruined America is also based on regional myopia. Where you are, things SUCK, and they just suck MORE than in other states, and you've decided that's how it is for EVERYONE, and that the only way out is to cling to the union, but then you say you're being mistreated NOW, and prior to Walker, so I'm confused. How will this protect or help you? You have every reason to be angry and frustrated with things right now, I get that, I just think you're laying blame on the wrong people and pinning your hopes and loyalty on the wrong people.

The truth is, even for my husband, the only "employer" you can count on NOT to screw you is YOU.

There is so much emotion, and like I said earlier, very little discussion about what WILL fix this situation. OK, let's say you're right and the budget can be balanced without taking away anything you hold dear, how? What's the right answer? Facts show even canceling those tax cuts won't do it, not even close, so what then? Where is the money coming from? The problem won't be fixed by blame, it won't be fixed by bumper stickers or placards, and given that DEMOCRAT Doyle wasn't any better with money (or treating people properly sounds like), I wouldn't pin my hopes on Walker's "replacement" either. So what then?

I feel very strongly that there is enough attention on this issue now that the union and the Democrats in hiding would have a VERY big audience for their suggestions. If they pulled out a balance sheet right now, Charles Grodin style, and said "You need 137 billion? Here's your 137 billion, and not just for this one year, but through 2015" the entire country would be on your side, instantly.

Point is, Walker HAS a way to get that money. You hate it, you think it's wrong, immoral, etc...fine, I'll refrain from making any value judgment. From where I sit in hypothetical land, I think collective bargaining with state employees is wrong and immoral and undemocratic, and not much--least of all emotional testimonials, compelling and frustrating to me personally though they are--is going to change my mind on that. We have a *philosophical* difference of opinion that has nothing to do with me not living in your state, I feel the same for EVERY state ,and federal workers. But let's leave that aside and just look at THIS situation in WI because it is WI's to solve and I don't live there and frankly, b/c I believe so strongly IN state's rights, I really don't care if WI wants collective bargaining to remain a "right" FOREVER. I'll just never move there ;) What I DO care about is that WI's troubles are bleeding across state lines and becoming a national argument and one that threatens the very core of what I believe this country stands for. Guys like Trumka want us to believe that only if we as a NATION support the same philosophy that the people of WI want will we be a "free" country. I couldn't disagree MORE. And he is using the power and money collected from the good people of WI (in part) to further this idea, and I'm sorry, I will fight that as hard as I can so I don't wake up someday unable to vote with my FEET and move to a state in which markets are allowed to be free and taxpayers have a seat at the bargaining table.

I would love to hear your response.

[Pete (Alois)]

Deb--

Actually, my response to what you've written above is fairly simple.

Yes, I may be suffering from a touch of "regional myopia"--and maybe it comes from my unwillingness to believe what Doyle and now Walker have done with Tommy Thompson's "Wisconsin Miracle." Everybody I know here in the private sector--EVERYBODY--has been laid off at some point or another since 2006 (when the recession began in earnest in WI). Just yesterday in the paper, the headlines were that WI employers were preparing for massive layoffs (I almost said "yawn") because of the spike in oil prices. You're sure right about everything here sucking the big one. My wife has said many times that if she wasn't so close to retirement, we'd move. Amen to that. I'd rather live just about anywhere else at this point.

Your husband has a dream job. I don't know anybody around here, especially in the private sector, who has a job that's even remotely similar salary- and benefits-wise. He'd better hang onto it (unless jobs like that grow on trees in NC???).

My point about the private sector is that it USED to be a much better place to work than the public sector, as recently as about ten years ago for some companies (and twenty years ago for others). But at some point, rampant greed began to destroy most private-sector companies, and the "duty to shareholders" began to evolve in ridiculous directions like laying off the geese who laid the golden egg (i.e. produced the product) in order to show "savings" to the shareholders. Benefits were slashed to the bone. I can't think of any companies in these parts that offer their employees affordable health insurance--which is why Gov. Thompson (bless his heart) came up with BadgerCare--another state program high on Walker's hit list. Hell's bells, we CAN'T have low- to moderate-income families able to afford health insurance, can we?

Here's my plan to close the budget hole in three years. Conservatives won't like it, but oh well. Put a $1 toll on I-90 and I-94 at the state's borders. That will affect Wisconsinites and our legions of tourists equally. They've already had a $1 toll at the Illinois border for years--believe me, we're used to it.

Also--collect $5 per month from every man, woman, and child in the state to go into a "close the hole" fund. That would be $15 per month for our family--even in our considerably painful financial situation, we'd be glad to pay it if we could see the light at the end of the tunnel. I've already factored in the fact that you can only count on receiving this money from roughly 4 million of WI's 5.5 million people. You know and I know that about 1.5 million will wheedle that they can't afford it, or they spent it on beer, or the dog ate their homework. Whatever--use 4 million and do the math.

Walker loves to shit out of his mouth about "shared sacrifice"--but the "shared sacrifice" he's talking about is DESTROYING FAMILIES. Other than the symbolic funds discussed in the above paragraph, our family can't AFFORD anymore of Walker's "shared sacrifice." And that's why unions, ironic as it may be, are the ONLY thing standing between Scott Walker and our family's being on the street--that's right, ON THE STREET. When my wife is in Walker's fourth tier for health insurance, we won't be able to afford health insurance (unless we want to lose our very modest small-town house). And he's already made it plain that school bus drivers who work for school districts, like myself, had better get ready to look for private sector jobs (no private-sector school bus provider in southern Wisconsin offers health insurance to their employees). We are all squarely in Walker's sights, and the only thing saving my job for the time being is that Walker has to respect the union contract we approved a year ago this month (we voluntarily froze our salaries to save the school district money).

Bear in mind that I became a school bus driver because our wonderful private sector companies were not interested in hiring a 50-year-old man with 20 years of progressively demanding IT experience. When they heard I wanted to make $50K, they laughed. They were still laughing when I asked for $40K. Then $30K. I went through a YEAR of that bullshit. Then I went down the road to the little barn where they were looking for school bus drivers and got a CDL.

Scott Walker had better keep his fucking hands off me and my family. We have already suffered ENOUGH. Have I made my case?