Indiana House Democrats leave state, Wisconsin style

Feb. 22, 2011 11:04 a.m. | Now Democratic lawmakers from another state seem to be leaving their homes for Illinois.

House Democrats in Indiana are leaving the state rather than vote a bill that would modify collective-bargaining for some workers there, according to the Indianapolis Star.

A source told the paper that Democrats from that state's lower chamber are headed to Illinois, though the paper notes that some might go to Kentucky.

Only two of the 40 Democrats were on the Indiana House floor when the chamber convened Tuesday.

The lack of Democratic House members showing up at the Capitol in Indiana prevents the Republican majority from having a quorum

Group starts recall process against 8 Democratic senators

Feb. 22, 2011 11:02 a.m. | Madison — A Utah-based group has started the process to recall eight Wisconsin Democratic state senators from office.

American Recall Coalition filed the paperwork Tuesday with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. The group has 60 days to collect the required signatures to force a recall vote.

The group needs roughly 16,000 signatures to recall a senator, although the exact number varies based on how many votes were cast in the governor's race in the targeted district.

All 14 Senate Democrats left the state last week to avoid voting on a Republican-backed bill taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees.

Protesters have been calling for the recall of Gov. Scott Walker, but he must be in office at least a year before that can start.

Fugitives?  While they are not in accordance with the rules of procedure, I'm not aware they are actually "fugitives".

Utah?

What happened to the arguments against outside entities getting involved?  

Maybe they are following the example our President has set. ?

yeah, pandering to that outrageous fringe base that has this quirky little belief that gov't needs a reality check, that they must STOP FRICKIN' SPENDING MONEY WE DON"T HAVE, and to not think short term, but long term

I don't know nationwide 63.8% I think is a vast majority.  And I did conceed that Wisc. is different.  The problem I'm having is that this union issue is being used to justify changes in States (like Fla. which is a right to work state) that do not have the same union issues as Wisc.

The inherent fear/annimosity of unions is being exploited by those that want to justify changing the current retirement and benefits in Fla.  And it's being effective.  The general public is in favor of changing the system in Fla. because of, in a large part, what they see as improper union influence.  In a State with very little union influence on the public sector.

So, I guess whether or not my statement is "inaccurate" depends on if you've read my previous statements where I was talking about Fla. and how the Wisc. issue is being used in other states, and whether you believe that 68% is a "vast majority" or simply a "super majority" or just a "large majority" or just a "majority".

mass quote, may not have been directed at you personally.  Teachers are an interesting anomoly in the public sector.  By and large,  public school teachers get paid far more than private school teachers.  And, I must conceed that the reason for this is the teachers unions.

Interestingly enough private schools, especially Catholic Schools, consistently out produce public schools ( on average) while spending less per child on education.  Private schools can be more flexible with curriculum because they are not bogged down in public school board rules, and they can remove under performing or non-performing teachers with very little effort because of the lack of unions.

So, yes teachers are one of the areas of the public sector where you will see higher pay than the private sector.  Now, take a look at other areas...

And it's difficult when we are talking about numbers because at times you end up comparing apples to oranges.  Is there an actual comparison for law enforcement or firefighters in the "private sector"?

  To get a truly accurate measure you must compare like backgrounds with like experience and like jobs.  Thus in my industry you would have tom compare a litigation attorney with 15 years experience in the private sector with a similarly situated public sector employee.

Again, I can't speak nationally, however in Fla., in my industry the pay disparity between like situated attorneys is staqgering.

And of course there are those annomolous salaries in the public sector that stick out, but the problem I have with pointing these out is they tend to be focused on and the perception becomes that these salaries are the norm rather than what they truly are, the exception.

I'm just curious...it seems to me ( and correct me if I'm wrong) that a natural result of the call for "smaller government" necessarily requires a diminusion of government provided services.  Whether it's the total elimination of some services or the reduction in "quality" of services due to a reduction in budget and man power.

Are there any government provided services that you as a citizen would be willing to do without?

One of the problems I have with the "smaller government" view is the seeming inconsistency with peoples positions.  They don't want any reduction in services or service quality, but expect the government to continue to do the same with less money.  Even in the private sector this doesn't work.  You can't expect the same services or even in some cases increased services while at the same time requiring the government to expend or opperate on a reduced budget.

So...what does "smaller government" look like?  What services should be eliminated or scaled down?

heck, I don't care if you're not a resident...feel free to chime in....but I don't see how what I wrote and what you wrote are mutually exclusive.....as I wrote in an earlier post, tax breaks are not something that have to be "paid for" - it is simply letting people keep more of their own money.  If the gov't refuses to acknowledge that they aren't taking in more taxes yet it continues to spend like crazy and therefore create deficits it is the gov'ts own fault.

Including Abe Lincoln?