Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Iron Donkey

38643

, Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

I just heard this comment -
"Governor Walker said he is willing to consider changes that would benefit all UW campuses."

Hmmmmm, kinda curious to what that means.

Edited by 1stTimeTri 2011-02-22 3:24 PM

My Race Log

Expert

3126

Boise, ID

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

JSA - 2011-02-22 1:43 PM

Force - 2011-02-22 2:34 PM

mattb1 - 2011-02-22 1:46 PM Indiana has joined the fun. What did Illinois do to deserve this. We have huge problems of our own.

Cheeseheads are trend setters

Seems they have to go somewhere with a Democrat governor for fear of being rounded up and sent back. Really, I read an article that said that. I'm not clear if that means there is some sort of law about such things or that they are looking for/expecting a sympathetic ear in their hideout.

Well, if Illinois hasn't thrown out Jay Cutler yet, then chances are they will let anyone in ...

Hey-Oh!

Winner!

My Race Log

Master

1529

Living in the past

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

State senate changes rules - Any Senator absent from the floor more that two days consecutively can no longer have their paycheck direct deposited. In that case, they must be present on the senate floor and receive their check directly from the Senate leader. The senate voted 3-2, party line, of course. The voting on the measure took place using paper ballots so the Democrats could vote from out-of-state.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116686109.html

Werent' these guys in hiding or something? So we transfered the ballots using some dead drop somewhere? Should I be laughing or scratching my head?

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Force - 2011-02-22 4:52 PM State senate changes rules - Any Senator absent from the floor more that two days consecutively can no longer have their paycheck direct deposited. In that case, they must be present on the senate floor and receive their check directly from the Senate leader. The senate voted 3-2, party line, of course. The voting on the measure took place using paper ballots so the Democrats could vote from out-of-state.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116686109.html

Werent' these guys in hiding or something? So we transfered the ballots using some dead drop somewhere? Should I be laughing or scratching my head?

Doing a bit more reading, the quorum requirement of 20, is only for budgetary bills. Non-budgetary bills/motions can still be voted and passed by the current senate of 19 members.

On a related note to my earlier post about unions, I think this other article at the site you linked above is a reasonable common ground:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116663409.html

My Race Log

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

The problem is that even if this goes through, according to the governor it would only take care of about $300m of the $3b deficit. Since everyone seems to agree that this is serious enough that everything should be on the table it seems like the only sensible thing to do is to sell the Packers since they're publically owned. And what better time than when they're at the height of their value...

My Race Log

49

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

drewb8 - 2011-02-22 5:06 PM The problem is that even if this goes through, according to the governor it would only take care of about $300m of the $3b deficit. Since everyone seems to agree that this is serious enough that everything should be on the table it seems like the only sensible thing to do is to sell the Packers since they're publically owned. And what better time than when they're at the height of their value...

NEVER! As a shareholder, I will exercise my rights to block such an attempt ... wait ... what??? ... Packer stock has no value, cannot be re-sold, and ownership grants virtually no rights??? ... crap ...

Also:

Based on the original "Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation" put into place in 1923, if the Packers franchise were to have been sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining money would go to the Sullivan Post of the American Legion in order to build "a proper soldier's memorial." This stipulation was enacted to ensure the club remained in Green Bay and that there could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholders. At the November 1997 annual meeting, shareholders voted to change the beneficiary from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay Packers Foundation, which makes donations to many charities and institutions throughout Wisconsin.

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

JSA - 2011-02-22 5:58 PM

drewb8 - 2011-02-22 5:06 PM The problem is that even if this goes through, according to the governor it would only take care of about $300m of the $3b deficit. Since everyone seems to agree that this is serious enough that everything should be on the table it seems like the only sensible thing to do is to sell the Packers since they're publically owned. And what better time than when they're at the height of their value...

NEVER! As a shareholder, I will exercise my rights to block such an attempt ... wait ... what??? ... Packer stock has no value, cannot be re-sold, and ownership grants virtually no rights??? ... crap ...

Also:

Based on the original "Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation" put into place in 1923, if the Packers franchise were to have been sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining money would go to the Sullivan Post of the American Legion in order to build "a proper soldier's memorial." This stipulation was enacted to ensure the club remained in Green Bay and that there could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholders. At the November 1997 annual meeting, shareholders voted to change the beneficiary from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay Packers Foundation, which makes donations to many charities and institutions throughout Wisconsin.

Well, you know, if they changed the benficiary once they can change it again, and in private industry when times get bad, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to sell off assets just to stay afloat, why should publically owned institutions be any different? After all the gov keeps saying how broke the state is, seems fair that everyone should share the burden. Besides, 'LA Packers' has a certain ring to it...

That's intersting though about the beneficiary, I didn't know that. Would've been one helluva war memorial!

My Race Log

Master

1529

Living in the past

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

coredump - 2011-02-22 5:02 PM

Force - 2011-02-22 4:52 PM State senate changes rules - Any Senator absent from the floor more that two days consecutively can no longer have their paycheck direct deposited. In that case, they must be present on the senate floor and receive their check directly from the Senate leader. The senate voted 3-2, party line, of course. The voting on the measure took place using paper ballots so the Democrats could vote from out-of-state.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116686109.html

Werent' these guys in hiding or something? So we transfered the ballots using some dead drop somewhere? Should I be laughing or scratching my head?

Doing a bit more reading, the quorum requirement of 20, is only for budgetary bills. Non-budgetary bills/motions can still be voted and passed by the current senate of 19 members.

On a related note to my earlier post about unions, I think this other article at the site you linked above is a reasonable common ground:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116663409.html

Yeah, noticed that too about the quorum. I got that wrong.

My Race Log

Master

1529

Living in the past

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

coredump - 2011-02-22 5:02 PM

Force - 2011-02-22 4:52 PM State senate changes rules - Any Senator absent from the floor more that two days consecutively can no longer have their paycheck direct deposited. In that case, they must be present on the senate floor and receive their check directly from the Senate leader. The senate voted 3-2, party line, of course. The voting on the measure took place using paper ballots so the Democrats could vote from out-of-state.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116686109.html

Werent' these guys in hiding or something? So we transfered the ballots using some dead drop somewhere? Should I be laughing or scratching my head?

Doing a bit more reading, the quorum requirement of 20, is only for budgetary bills. Non-budgetary bills/motions can still be voted and passed by the current senate of 19 members.

On a related note to my earlier post about unions, I think this other article at the site you linked above is a reasonable common ground:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116663409.html

Are you referring to the David Brooks article? Did I miss something in that other than applying the pain as widely as possible? And I mean that question with all sincerity. Maybe I missed some concrete steps he suggested taking.

Given the projected budget gap I see no other alternative than to spread the pain and I would argue the pain is already being applied to the tax payer. I am fully prepared to see decreases in local government services, more fees, higher fees, fewer teachers, larger class sizes, etc. at the same, if not higher tax levels. I WANT to have to make these hard choices - we have not in the past and we have deficits and borrowing costs to prove it.

What I will not accept is a continuation of the system where my tax dollars are laundered through my employees (government workers) and given to third parties (unions) who help elect representatives with whom I disagree on nearly all issues and reflexively want to spend more and take more from my pocket.

The protesters are claiming this bill is a union busting bill. The governor denies it and maybe he truly doesn't think it is. I think the bill sets the course to fix the budget and to do so it takes the teeth out of public unions. Call it union-busting if you want. I support that part of the bill under any description.

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Force - 2011-02-22 8:12 PM

coredump - 2011-02-22 5:02 PM

Force - 2011-02-22 4:52 PM State senate changes rules - Any Senator absent from the floor more that two days consecutively can no longer have their paycheck direct deposited. In that case, they must be present on the senate floor and receive their check directly from the Senate leader. The senate voted 3-2, party line, of course. The voting on the measure took place using paper ballots so the Democrats could vote from out-of-state.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116686109.html

Werent' these guys in hiding or something? So we transfered the ballots using some dead drop somewhere? Should I be laughing or scratching my head?

Doing a bit more reading, the quorum requirement of 20, is only for budgetary bills. Non-budgetary bills/motions can still be voted and passed by the current senate of 19 members.

On a related note to my earlier post about unions, I think this other article at the site you linked above is a reasonable common ground:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116663409.html

Are you referring to the David Brooks article? Did I miss something in that other than applying the pain as widely as possible? And I mean that question with all sincerity. Maybe I missed some concrete steps he suggested taking.

Given the projected budget gap I see no other alternative than to spread the pain and I would argue the pain is already being applied to the tax payer. I am fully prepared to see decreases in local government services, more fees, higher fees, fewer teachers, larger class sizes, etc. at the same, if not higher tax levels. I WANT to have to make these hard choices - we have not in the past and we have deficits and borrowing costs to prove it.

What I will not accept is a continuation of the system where my tax dollars are laundered through my employees (government workers) and given to third parties (unions) who help elect representatives with whom I disagree on nearly all issues and reflexively want to spend more and take more from my pocket.

The protesters are claiming this bill is a union busting bill. The governor denies it and maybe he truly doesn't think it is. I think the bill sets the course to fix the budget and to do so it takes the teeth out of public unions. Call it union-busting if you want. I support that part of the bill under any description.

If the pain is to be shared, why does it also cut capital gains taxes (which are already taxed less than income)?

If a government awards a contract to a private company, and that company spends money supporting a candidate who you disagree with, is that likewise "laundering taxpayer money"?

I don't disagree that unions are imperfect. I'm suggesting that the solution is not to completely cripple the unions, as that swings the pendulum fully back to other direction, and there ceases to be a check and balance system. To be careful that you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I posit that it's possible to reform some of the ways that unions are inefficient, but that to completely do away with them is likely to have other unforeseen circumstances in the long term as many of the benefits and rights that we enjoy ( whether we are unionized or not ) have come as a result of the efforts of unions.

My Race Log

Master

1529

Living in the past

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

coredump - 2011-02-22 8:43 PM

Force - 2011-02-22 8:12 PM

coredump - 2011-02-22 5:02 PM

Force - 2011-02-22 4:52 PM State senate changes rules - Any Senator absent from the floor more that two days consecutively can no longer have their paycheck direct deposited. In that case, they must be present on the senate floor and receive their check directly from the Senate leader. The senate voted 3-2, party line, of course. The voting on the measure took place using paper ballots so the Democrats could vote from out-of-state.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116686109.html

Werent' these guys in hiding or something? So we transfered the ballots using some dead drop somewhere? Should I be laughing or scratching my head?

Doing a bit more reading, the quorum requirement of 20, is only for budgetary bills. Non-budgetary bills/motions can still be voted and passed by the current senate of 19 members.

On a related note to my earlier post about unions, I think this other article at the site you linked above is a reasonable common ground:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116663409.html

Are you referring to the David Brooks article? Did I miss something in that other than applying the pain as widely as possible? And I mean that question with all sincerity. Maybe I missed some concrete steps he suggested taking.

Given the projected budget gap I see no other alternative than to spread the pain and I would argue the pain is already being applied to the tax payer. I am fully prepared to see decreases in local government services, more fees, higher fees, fewer teachers, larger class sizes, etc. at the same, if not higher tax levels. I WANT to have to make these hard choices - we have not in the past and we have deficits and borrowing costs to prove it.

What I will not accept is a continuation of the system where my tax dollars are laundered through my employees (government workers) and given to third parties (unions) who help elect representatives with whom I disagree on nearly all issues and reflexively want to spend more and take more from my pocket.

The protesters are claiming this bill is a union busting bill. The governor denies it and maybe he truly doesn't think it is. I think the bill sets the course to fix the budget and to do so it takes the teeth out of public unions. Call it union-busting if you want. I support that part of the bill under any description.

If the pain is to be shared, why does it also cut capital gains taxes (which are already taxed less than income)?

If a government awards a contract to a private company, and that company spends money supporting a candidate who you disagree with, is that likewise "laundering taxpayer money"?

I don't disagree that unions are imperfect. I'm suggesting that the solution is not to completely cripple the unions, as that swings the pendulum fully back to other direction, and there ceases to be a check and balance system. To be careful that you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I posit that it's possible to reform some of the ways that unions are inefficient, but that to completely do away with them is likely to have other unforeseen circumstances in the long term as many of the benefits and rights that we enjoy ( whether we are unionized or not ) have come as a result of the efforts of unions.

To me, the issue is the compulsory nature of the contribution - I MUST pay for the resultant contribution to said union/political party if government workers are unionized. As a citizen, I must use said workers to do government work, these workers are required to pay dues, dues go to a heavily invested and biased third party that contributes to elections of people with whom I generally disagree and historically want more of my paycheck.

The better comparision to what you describe is if there was no union representation of the government worker. I pay the worker to do his/her job through my taxes and receive the services in good faith. What that person (corporation) chooses to do with his pay thereafter is his (its) choice, including contributing to a political party.

The government worker union 'checks and balances' who's interests against whom? Government employee vs. tax payer. And that is heart of the matter for me.

I don't buy the contention that there are bigger forces at play that will dramatically tip the balance of power toward the tax payer to the point where government workers are effectively serfs. Further I don't buy that the union provides any greater deserved employment protection than they already enjoy. But even if things starting tipping more toward the tax payer in terms establishing compensation levels, then I'm all for it as I believe that's where this whole budget debate/budget repair bill controversy has to start - the tax payer's ability to pay and a willingness to pay for what.

So we swing a bit too far toward budget austerity, I believe the system will self correct, even with all the perversions, inefficiencies and corruptions that exist in said system. IMO this bill takes out one of the more egregious corruptions.

My Race Log

Champion

4835

Eat Cheese or Die

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 9:04 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 10:00 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 8:55 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 9:49 AM

If the proposed anti-union measures go through, and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings, is that really the direction that those in favor of the bill as-is want to see the state going? Is that really change for the better? Would you rather have Texas' results, or Wisconsin's?

If the proposed anti-union measures are defated and the state is forced to layoff 6,000+ teachers and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings is that really the direction that those opposed to the bill as-is want to see the state going?

See what I did there?

Your statement makes the assumption that only unionized teacher can provide good education. That's a false assumption. However getting rid of 6,000 teachers is going to make education suffer, no question.

The governor has stated that without the changes to benefits that are in the bill, layoffs would happen.

The unions have agreed to all of the benefit changes. If layoffs happen it is not because the unions were unwilling to "share in the pain" and take a benefit cut.

He has also stated that they must eliminate collective bargaining to prevent layoffs. So the unions have agreed to 2 of his 3 points. So yeah, it is on the shoulder of the unions.

Walker said there was “no room for compromise” on the collective bargaining issue. “We’re broke”, said Walker.

But how does collective bargaining cost anything if the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts already? Walker is being a stubborn a$$. He set out a budget that he thinks is ideal. The other side agreed to most of it even though it's painful for them. He needs to be willing to compromise. Collective bargaining it's self doesn't cost any money. Especially when the collective has agreed to his monetary cuts.

My Race Log

Champion

4835

Eat Cheese or Die

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

RedShark - 2011-02-22 11:54 AM

WOW - so the Democrats across the nation who have called the Republicans obstructionists and the party of no are now running and hiding like babies.

Very mature - I am sure this is what the people want. Cowards & Losers - any one of them who will or does run & hide.

I don't think they are cowards or losers. The democratic base in Wisconsin is very much against Walkers bill. The Democratic senators are doing what they need to in order to do accomplish what the Democratic base wants. I'm proud of our Democratic Senators.

YMMV.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

586

Edgewater, CO

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

drewb8 - 2011-02-22 6:11 PM

/>Well, you know, if they changed the benficiary once they can change it again, and in private industry when times get bad, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to sell off assets just to stay afloat, why should publically owned institutions be any different? After all the gov keeps saying how broke the state is, seems fair that everyone should share the burden. Besides, 'LA Packers' has a certain ring to it...

That's intersting though about the beneficiary, I didn't know that. Would've been one helluva war memorial!

I think you are confusing publicly owned (owned by many different shareholders) versus public employees (employees of the city, state, etc.) The Packers are in no way owned by the government. Or are you saying the current shareholders should make the general fund of the State of Wisconsin the beneficiary of any sale and then sell?

My Race Log

Champion

5376

PA

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 9:59 AM

RedShark - 2011-02-22 11:54 AM WOW - so the Democrats across the nation who have called the Republicans obstructionists and the party of no are now running and hiding like babies.

Very mature - I am sure this is what the people want. Cowards & Losers - any one of them who will or does run & hide.

I don't think they are cowards or losers. The democratic base in Wisconsin is very much against Walkers bill. The Democratic senators are doing what they need to in order to do accomplish what the Democratic base wants. I'm proud of our Democratic Senators. YMMV.

You are proud of them? Wow!
This is quite simply, another escalation in the polarization of our political climate. It's reminiscent of, "it's my football and if I don't get to be QB I'm taking it and going home."

I'm still ticked at the R's at the Fed level for passing (again) the Patriot Act provisions and having the audacity to spend $7 million of the taxpayer dollars to sponsor a NASCAR car (claiming Army recruiting.) The actions of the Dems just continues to reinforce my belief that both parties are childish and foolish.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 9:59 AM

RedShark - 2011-02-22 11:54 AM WOW - so the Democrats across the nation who have called the Republicans obstructionists and the party of no are now running and hiding like babies.

Very mature - I am sure this is what the people want. Cowards & Losers - any one of them who will or does run & hide.

I don't think they are cowards or losers. The democratic base in Wisconsin is very much against Walkers bill. The Democratic senators are doing what they need to in order to do accomplish what the Democratic base wants. I'm proud of our Democratic Senators. YMMV.

Would you be proud of the Republicans doing the same thing if it were for a bill with which you disagreed?

My Race Log

Master

1529

Living in the past

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 8:54 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 9:04 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 10:00 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 8:55 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 9:49 AM

If the proposed anti-union measures go through, and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings, is that really the direction that those in favor of the bill as-is want to see the state going? Is that really change for the better? Would you rather have Texas' results, or Wisconsin's?

If the proposed anti-union measures are defated and the state is forced to layoff 6,000+ teachers and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings is that really the direction that those opposed to the bill as-is want to see the state going?

See what I did there?

Your statement makes the assumption that only unionized teacher can provide good education. That's a false assumption. However getting rid of 6,000 teachers is going to make education suffer, no question.

The governor has stated that without the changes to benefits that are in the bill, layoffs would happen.

The unions have agreed to all of the benefit changes. If layoffs happen it is not because the unions were unwilling to "share in the pain" and take a benefit cut.

He has also stated that they must eliminate collective bargaining to prevent layoffs. So the unions have agreed to 2 of his 3 points. So yeah, it is on the shoulder of the unions.

Walker said there was “no room for compromise” on the collective bargaining issue. “We’re broke”, said Walker.

But how does collective bargaining cost anything if the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts already? Walker is being a stubborn a$$. He set out a budget that he thinks is ideal. The other side agreed to most of it even though it's painful for them. He needs to be willing to compromise. Collective bargaining it's self doesn't cost any money. Especially when the collective has agreed to his monetary cuts.

We could flip the argument around and ask why they need these 'rights' if they've agreed to the financial concessions. The 'rights' are solely about compensation, IMO, as they have ample civil service and other laws and regulations that protect the work place.

I'd ask that we be intellectually honest with one another and agree that the union members want to retain their 'rights' to collectively bargain because they will be back at the table in the future, and maybe as early as the next two year budget cycle. And what do you think they'll be bargaining about? Oh, would it be pay and benefits? I think a historical review of the influence of government unions and the collective bargaining process would show a poor stewardship of the tax payer's money.

My Race Log

Expert

1192

Oak Creek, WI

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 8:59 AM

RedShark - 2011-02-22 11:54 AM WOW - so the Democrats across the nation who have called the Republicans obstructionists and the party of no are now running and hiding like babies.

Very mature - I am sure this is what the people want. Cowards & Losers - any one of them who will or does run & hide.

I don't think they are cowards or losers. The democratic base in Wisconsin is very much against Walkers bill. The Democratic senators are doing what they need to in order to do accomplish what the Democratic base wants. I'm proud of our Democratic Senators. YMMV.

Set your emotions aside for a moment... Don't you think that this is setting an awfully dangerous precedent...?!?

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 6:59 AM

RedShark - 2011-02-22 11:54 AM WOW - so the Democrats across the nation who have called the Republicans obstructionists and the party of no are now running and hiding like babies.

Very mature - I am sure this is what the people want. Cowards & Losers - any one of them who will or does run & hide.

I don't think they are cowards or losers. The democratic base in Wisconsin is very much against Walkers bill. The Democratic senators are doing what they need to in order to do accomplish what the Democratic base wants. I'm proud of our Democratic Senators. YMMV.

I'm curious, if you are ok with people breaking the laws/rules for what they believe in would that justy someone kidnapping one of the Dem's in hiding and bringing him back to WI? I mean by using your logic.

As CorDump said in an earlier post, so long as they are willing to accept the penalty for their action.

My Race Log

Iron Donkey

38643

, Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Anyone catch this yet?

"Gov. Walker Informed That Bill Targeting Unions May Cost State $46 Million In Federal Funds" -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/walker-unions-wisconsin-protests_n_826908.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=706073

My Race Log

Expert

1192

Oak Creek, WI

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Force - 2011-02-23 9:36 AM

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 8:54 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 9:04 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 10:00 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 8:55 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 9:49 AM

If the proposed anti-union measures go through, and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings, is that really the direction that those in favor of the bill as-is want to see the state going? Is that really change for the better? Would you rather have Texas' results, or Wisconsin's?

If the proposed anti-union measures are defated and the state is forced to layoff 6,000+ teachers and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings is that really the direction that those opposed to the bill as-is want to see the state going?

See what I did there?

Your statement makes the assumption that only unionized teacher can provide good education. That's a false assumption. However getting rid of 6,000 teachers is going to make education suffer, no question.

The governor has stated that without the changes to benefits that are in the bill, layoffs would happen.

The unions have agreed to all of the benefit changes. If layoffs happen it is not because the unions were unwilling to "share in the pain" and take a benefit cut.

He has also stated that they must eliminate collective bargaining to prevent layoffs. So the unions have agreed to 2 of his 3 points. So yeah, it is on the shoulder of the unions.

Walker said there was “no room for compromise” on the collective bargaining issue. “We’re broke”, said Walker.

But how does collective bargaining cost anything if the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts already? Walker is being a stubborn a$$. He set out a budget that he thinks is ideal. The other side agreed to most of it even though it's painful for them. He needs to be willing to compromise. Collective bargaining it's self doesn't cost any money. Especially when the collective has agreed to his monetary cuts.

We could flip the argument around and ask why they need these 'rights' if they've agreed to the financial concessions. The 'rights' are solely about compensation, IMO, as they have ample civil service and other laws and regulations that protect the work place.

I'd ask that we be intellectually honest with one another and agree that the union members want to retain their 'rights' to collectively bargain because they will be back at the table in the future, and maybe as early as the next two year budget cycle. And what do you think they'll be bargaining about? Oh, would it be pay and benefits? I think a historical review of the influence of government unions and the collective bargaining process would show a poor stewardship of the tax payer's money.

for clarification... they would still maintain the ability to collectively bargain wages... by removing the benefits piece though our state govt would have the flexibility to make smart decisions to help ensure the future financial stability of our state... my hope would be that we 'smartly' phase out these defined benefit plans and phase in defined contribution plans... i would happily pay a bit more in taxes if i had comfort that we had a smarter govt that is looking to match revenue and expenses versus just throwing more money at the ever-expanding black hole being created by the current benefit scheme...

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Force - 2011-02-23 9:36 AM

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 8:54 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 9:04 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 10:00 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-02-22 8:55 AM

coredump - 2011-02-22 9:49 AM

If the proposed anti-union measures go through, and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings, is that really the direction that those in favor of the bill as-is want to see the state going? Is that really change for the better? Would you rather have Texas' results, or Wisconsin's?

If the proposed anti-union measures are defated and the state is forced to layoff 6,000+ teachers and Wisconsin begins to drop in the achievement rankings is that really the direction that those opposed to the bill as-is want to see the state going?

See what I did there?

Your statement makes the assumption that only unionized teacher can provide good education. That's a false assumption. However getting rid of 6,000 teachers is going to make education suffer, no question.

The governor has stated that without the changes to benefits that are in the bill, layoffs would happen.

The unions have agreed to all of the benefit changes. If layoffs happen it is not because the unions were unwilling to "share in the pain" and take a benefit cut.

He has also stated that they must eliminate collective bargaining to prevent layoffs. So the unions have agreed to 2 of his 3 points. So yeah, it is on the shoulder of the unions.

Walker said there was “no room for compromise” on the collective bargaining issue. “We’re broke”, said Walker.

But how does collective bargaining cost anything if the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts already? Walker is being a stubborn a$$. He set out a budget that he thinks is ideal. The other side agreed to most of it even though it's painful for them. He needs to be willing to compromise. Collective bargaining it's self doesn't cost any money. Especially when the collective has agreed to his monetary cuts.

We could flip the argument around and ask why they need these 'rights' if they've agreed to the financial concessions. The 'rights' are solely about compensation, IMO, as they have ample civil service and other laws and regulations that protect the work place.

I'd ask that we be intellectually honest with one another and agree that the union members want to retain their 'rights' to collectively bargain because they will be back at the table in the future, and maybe as early as the next two year budget cycle. And what do you think they'll be bargaining about? Oh, would it be pay and benefits? I think a historical review of the influence of government unions and the collective bargaining process would show a poor stewardship of the tax payer's money.

Why should there be no bargaining in the public sector?

Public employees should simply be told what their salary is and to go shove it if that's not good enough? Is that going to attract the employees you want?

Wisconsin spends a lot on education it is true. It also outperforms most other states in every measure I can find ( ACT/SAT scores, NAEP standardized testing, ... ). How is that poor stewardship?

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

My Race Log

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

jneugeba - 2011-02-23 8:05 AM

drewb8 - 2011-02-22 6:11 PM />Well, you know, if they changed the benficiary once they can change it again, and in private industry when times get bad, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to sell off assets just to stay afloat, why should publically owned institutions be any different? After all the gov keeps saying how broke the state is, seems fair that everyone should share the burden. Besides, 'LA Packers' has a certain ring to it...

That's intersting though about the beneficiary, I didn't know that. Would've been one helluva war memorial!

I think you are confusing publicly owned (owned by many different shareholders) versus public employees (employees of the city, state, etc.) The Packers are in no way owned by the government. Or are you saying the current shareholders should make the general fund of the State of Wisconsin the beneficiary of any sale and then sell?

Yeah, but the stock is basically valueless (redemption price is minimal, no divdends are ever paid and it cannot appreciate in value) which means the team in effect 'belongs' to the community in general - no stock holders would lose any money if the team were sold. So just change the beneficiary to the general fund and voila! There goes a huge chunk of the $3b budget deficit. After all, desperate times call for desperate measures right? I know the article is basically tongue in cheek, but I think the point of shared sacrifice is a valid one.

My Race Log

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

bscharff - 2011-02-23 9:41 AM

graceful_dave - 2011-02-23 8:59 AM

RedShark - 2011-02-22 11:54 AM WOW - so the Democrats across the nation who have called the Republicans obstructionists and the party of no are now running and hiding like babies.

Very mature - I am sure this is what the people want. Cowards & Losers - any one of them who will or does run & hide.

I don't think they are cowards or losers. The democratic base in Wisconsin is very much against Walkers bill. The Democratic senators are doing what they need to in order to do accomplish what the Democratic base wants. I'm proud of our Democratic Senators. YMMV.

Set your emotions aside for a moment... Don't you think that this is setting an awfully dangerous precedent...?!?

Some state reps walked out from the constitutional convention.

Abe Lincoln (Whig/Republican) once jumped out a window trying to keep Democrats from getting a quorum for a vote he disagreed with.

It's absolutely an extreme measure, but it's hardly without precedent.

My Race Log

49

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

But how does collective bargaining cost anything if the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts already? Walker is being a stubborn a$$. He set out a budget that he thinks is ideal. The other side agreed to most of it even though it's painful for them. He needs to be willing to compromise. Collective bargaining it's self doesn't cost any money. Especially when the collective has agreed to his monetary cuts.

No. I have dispelled this myth a few times now and will do it again.

The unions "agreed" to the 5.8% WRS contribution and the 12% health care contribution. However, those concessions have sunset clauses for 2013, which means they are only in effect until then.

By retaining collective bargaining rights, in a mere 2 years, we would be right where we are now. In the words of Gov Walker: "Doesn't work."

In addition, there are a plethora of other economic issues involved in collective bargaining: retiree health insurance, sick leave, overtime, call-back hour guarantees, just to name a few. Simply agreeing to pay the WRS and health insurance does not address all the issues.

Then there are "hidden costs" addressed in this action that no one is considering. Let me give you an example. Let's say in the private sector, you have some event or activity from 6-7 p.m. one night. Your employer can say "instead of working from 9-5, come in today from 11-7, so we can cover this event." Makes sense, right?

Cannot do that in the public sector. In the public sector, the union contract will specify the work day and most likely says 7-3 or 8-4 or 9-5. So, if the municipality has an even from 6-7 p.m., it cannot simply adjust the work day. It must pay those employees regular pay for the "normal" work hours, and pay them overtime for the additional hours. Also, most likely, there is a "minimum callback requirement" where an employee is "guranteed" a certain number of hours if called back after normal hours. So, even though the municipality only needs these workers for 1 hour (6-7 p.m.) they may have to pay for 4 hours at time and one-half.

This is just one of many, many economic issues involved in collective bargaining that people who do not work with union contracts on a daily basis do not understand.

Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 20)

REGISTER TODAY