Thread: Anti-Union Bill Set to Pass In Wisconsin; Massive Protests Move Into Day 3

Originally Posted by Oreo

While you're pointing the finger.

Under the Clinton administration everything was DE-REGULATED--including Fannie Mae--Freddie Mac--and the Glass Stegall Banking Act of the 1930's.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Basically to cover all bases--and to help you understand a lot more than what you do.

Our federal government thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--under Fannie/Freddie. This while the Clinton administration--(in the above article) was demanding that banks lower their standard lending practices. Meaning people with no colateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating were given a loan for a new home. At the same time sub-prime mortgages also fully encouraged by Clinton's treasury secretary, Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan were in full swing. Not only that but Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan fully supported and defended the derivitives market--whereas Wall Street were buying up these mortgage backed securities as fast as they could to trade them in the mother of all casino's--hedge funds. All warnings of the incoming financial collapse were completely ignored by both congressional and senate banking boards.

Basically it was the Federal Government that build this house of cards that collapsed--leaving the American taxpayer holding the bag.

Read the article--before you make comments that are just democrat talking points. Most Americans now understand exactly how this happened.

Here's a paragraph in the above article to remember:

perhaps a bad regulation change, tell me, why were nearly all the bad loans written AFTER 2002?

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Unions were the ones pushing crap mortgage securities with AAA ratings?
Unions were the ones who made the housing market crash?
Unions were the ones who haven't done a single thing to regulate wall-street in the aftermath of the crash?
Unions were the ones getting us into multiple overseas wars?
Unions are the ones spending trillions of deficit dollars?
Unions are the FED and Bernanke printing money like its going out of style?
Unions are the reason corporations are sending jobs overseas where labor rates are $0.10 per hour?

I really don't understand how unions have much to do with anything of our current situation. Yes, they cause some pay rates to be higher in some industries ... none of which can compete with $0.10/hour wages paid in China - union or non-union.

Honestly, I'm not much of a union guy, but since corporations have every right to organize people in a for-profit manner, I don't see how unions don't have that exact same right.

Unions and artificial markets in general had a huge hand in this mess.

Really? That's the extent of supporting your claim that unions are responsible for the mess we're in? I find your argument less than compelling.

Having lived in WI for ~10 years, I can say that WI has extremely high property taxes, however the amount of services included in those high taxes is excellent. So if you're a property owner who is a recluse and is healthy, but with no kids, you're getting shafted by the system there. However, if you're a parent with kids and/or involved in the community its actually a pretty good situation. And if you're someone who has extra needs due to accident of birth (or accident after birth) there are lots of social and educational programs to help you cope.

I will also say that Madison in particular is a very liberal area (Dems usually aren't be elected to the city council ... because they're too conservative), whereas the northern half of the state generally is very conservative. However, since the Capital resides in Madison, the liberal environment affects the State government quite strongly. I'll give the Governor credit, he's got balls. He may not be representing his constituents well and obviously wasn't too smart about his political choices so far, but he's got balls. Even Tommy Thompson wasn't that bad, and my opinion of him was that he sucked. I will be amazed if the new Governor wins this battle.

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet, haven't read the whole thread. If so, I apologize. If not, please read Ezra Klein's take on this. As usual, he nails it.

Ezra Klein - Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget

Originally Posted by Ezra Klein

But even that's not the full story here. Public employees aren't being asked to make a one-time payment into the state's coffers. Rather, Walker is proposing to sharply curtail their right to bargain collectively. A cyclical downturn that isn't their fault, plus an unexpected reversal in Wisconsin's budget picture that wasn't their doing, is being used to permanently end their ability to sit across the table from their employer and negotiate what their health insurance should look like.

That's how you keep a crisis from going to waste: You take a complicated problem that requires the apparent need for bold action and use it to achieve a longtime ideological objective. In this case, permanently weakening public-employee unions, a group much-loathed by Republicans in general and by the Republican legislators who have to battle them in elections in particular.

If you read Walker's State of the State address, you can watch him hide the ball on what he's doing. "Our upcoming budget is built on the premise that we must right size our government," he said. "That means reforming public employee benefits -- as well as reforming entitlement programs and reforming the state’s relationship with local governments." Not a word on his actual proposal, which is to end collective bargaining for benefits.

If all Walker was doing was reforming public employee benefits, I'd have little problem with it. There's too much deferred compensation in public employee packages, and though the blame for that structure lies partially with the government officials and state residents who wanted to pay later for services now, it's true that situations change and unsustainable commitments require reforms. But that's not what Walker is doing. He's attacking the right to bargain collectively -- which is to say, he's attacking the very foundation of labor unions, and of worker power -- and using an economic crisis unions didn't cause, and a budget reversal that Walker himself helped create, to justify it.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

You're saying that taxpayers should have to pay for a referendum every other day when a local, state, or federal gov't is about to pass something?

Referendums are not held at the federal level, Jason.

I don't know how much additional cost we're really talking here though. Ballot questions are very common as it is and are almost always included in previously scheduled elections. Without reading something to say otherwise, it's probably a safe bet this would be voted on during an already scheduled statewide election.

If the state incurred any costs at all for this, they would probably be extremely negligible.

Originally Posted by Ezra Klein

If all Walker was doing was reforming public employee benefits, I'd have little problem with it. There's too much deferred compensation in public employee packages, and though the blame for that structure lies partially with the government officials and state residents who wanted to pay later for services now, it's true that situations change and unsustainable commitments require reforms. But that's not what Walker is doing. He's attacking the right to bargain collectively -- which is to say, he's attacking the very foundation of labor unions, and of worker power -- and using an economic crisis unions didn't cause, and a budget reversal that Walker himself helped create, to justify it.

Yep. He's not paring down benefits to balance the budget in bad economic times, which would be completely reasonable. He's infringing on the right of the people to organize and negotiate (a form of free speech). I suspect the bill would be/will be declared unconstitutional eventually even if it does pass.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

He's already acting like a dictator by not allowing any discussion or debate on the fact that he wishes to penalize some public unions but not others.

I understand this is mostly about party loyalty for you, ConLib, Dick Martin, etc. but discussion and debate doesn't cease to exist because the party you view as the enemy is following the democratic process which will ultimately led to the passing of a bill you don't support.

He's the elected executive waiting for some of the elected legislature to finish up at the spa so he can sign into law the bill written by the elected legislature and will ultimately be passed by it. That's a dictatorship?

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet, haven't read the whole thread. If so, I apologize. If not, please read Ezra Klein's take on this. As usual, he nails it.

I don't even need to click the link to know that he views everything bad in Wisconsin history the result of Republicans and some combination of Wall Street, corporations, and organized religion or that everything good in Wisconsin history is the result of Democrats and some combination of unions, atheism, and a handful of minority groups.

You read one thing written by Ezra Klein, you've read them all and they're all equally foolish.

This sort of nonsensical partisan WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS and THEY'RE THE ENEMY foolishness is a lot to blame for the state of this country.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

He's infringing on the right of the people to organize and negotiate (a form of free speech). I suspect the bill would be/will be declared unconstitutional eventually even if it does pass.

That just isn't true.

These unions will have the same ability to negotiate as they've always had.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Don't know if anyone's posted this yet, haven't read the whole thread. If so, I apologize. If not, please read Ezra Klein's take on this. As usual, he nails it.

Ezra Klein - Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget

I think he missed it. He, like so many others, have bitten into debating the red herring and have missed the concealed real target completely.

I rarely ever cite a partisan source in my links given they are ordinarily cloaked in bias, but a partisan is someone who knows the art and strategy of partisanship and therefore knows its mechanics.

Hence, I'm linking an explanation of a partisan who knows the tricks and names of the trade exactly as to what's the main motivator going on here.

. . . Rachel Maddow laid out very well in her opening segment how this struggle going on now in Wisconsin and other states is not about whether the state of Wisconsin has a financial crisis. It doesn't. This is about busting the largest organization that organizes, gets out the vote and raises money for the Democratic Party, the public sector unions. . . .

Rachel Maddow: Protests in Wisconsin Are About the Survival of the Democratic Party | Video Cafe

. . .

Maddow stated what Wisconsin is really about, “What’s happening in Wisconsin right now is not about a budget. This is about elections. This is about the Republican Party going after the institutions that make it possible for Democrats to win elections in America.”

She touched on the post-Citizens United power of big money in campaigns, “Organization, committees, pacs, political parties that can make big-impact political moves, that can keep up or even outspend the organizations on the other side. You know, there’s a reason that all those oil billionaires that Karl Rove has on speed dial, there is a reason those oil billionaires don’t just make their own individual I’m an oil billionaire campaign contributions. They pool all of their money in Karl Rove’s American Crossroads organization, so then Karl Rove can make multimillion-dollar impact moves in election years.”

Maddow broke down the numbers to show why Republicans unions matter to the Democratic cash supply, “In 2008, the groups that spent the most money on elections that year were the Chamber of Commerce, the giant right-wing pac Freedoms Watch, the National Rifle Association, and, hey, wait, what are all those weird little initials? Oh, yes. Service Employees International Union. And the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the public employees union. In 2010, post Citizens United, 7 of the 10 top spending groups were all right wing. Chamber of commerce, both the Karl Rove groups, Americans for Job Security. All of these right-wing groups. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top ten were the public employees union, the SEIU, and the teachers union. That’s it. Unions are the only competition republicans have in electoral politics. Post Citizens United, conservatives look at this and they smell blood. I mean, compare this to ’08. They have knocked the unions down to sixth and seventh place. Without unions, essentially all of the big money and politics would be right-wing money. All of it. That is not hyperbole. All of it. Unions are the only players. They are the only fish of any size on the liberal side. This decides who wins elections and who loses them.”

She continued, “And if Republicans can use public policy to destroy their only competition for big political money, if they can use public policy to destroy the only major institutions that help Democratic causes at election time, then Republicans can run the table. Beyond just the money, though, a move like this also destroys the get out the vote and organizational capacity of union, which makes a huge difference on Election Day. If you were a Republican politician and you had the chance to dismantle an organization like that, an organization that was helping the other side, wouldn’t you do it? What’s happening in Wisconsin right now is about republicans vest democrats. It is about elections.”

. . .

Rachel Maddow Reveals the Hidden Truth Behind the Wisconsin Protests

(video segment linked therein)

I always wonder why so many people consistently violate the most common and self-evident reasons for moves like this: "cui bono" (To whose benefit?) as well as "follow the $$$$."

It's about the GOP using its new powers in the state, given it now controls both the legislative and executive branch, to cripple the Democrats there for the future in elections. She nailed it as to why that is the case if you watch or read the linked segments.

Originally Posted by Donahue

I don't even need to click the link to know that he views everything bad in Wisconsin history the result of Republicans and some combination of Wall Street, corporations, and organized religion or that everything good in Wisconsin history is the result of Democrats and some combination of unions, atheism, and a handful of minority groups.

You read one thing written by Ezra Klein, you've read them all and they're all equally foolish.

This sort of nonsensical partisan WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS and THEY'RE THE ENEMY foolishness is a lot to blame for the state of this country.

Ah, yes the classic "I don't understand the source, so I'm going to badmouth it" approach.

wasn't is the hero of the left, president Barrack Obama who said "Elections have consequences", well here are you consequences.

O'Sullivan Bere, you make the case.

What interested me is that the fire fighters, police, and state troopers are exempted from the union-busting bill, and they also are the only unions who supported the Republicans.

I always wonder how it works out when an organism befriends its natural enemy. Why would Hispanics vote Republican? Why is there a Log Cabin group in the Republican Party? What is at work that makes people vote against their own best interests?