Wisconsin Gov. Walker Threatens To Deploy National Guard Against Unions

And again, there's something suspicious about that argument. Basing a two-year projection of costs on one month (has it even been that long?) of actual performance of a policy that works on the idea of luring in new business (thus taking time to get going) isn't reasonable. Again, I don't know who suggested the analysis was based on that, whether it was Dem detractors or an admission from the Gov., but either way it doesn't make sense.

The analysis you link is fishy itself. First off, the first link didn't work for me, so I don't know what the 'below columns' were (what you cited below it, or on the web page), but my suspicion is that the average salary cited includes school administrators. That's just a minor clarifying item in case something I post later doesn't jive with your link. Anyway, what's fishy to me is the other jobs you cited. Of them all, the only ones that weren't manager positions were Mechanical Engineer and Registered Nurse. Most people don't have jobs like that. You could probably compare those jobs to the school administrator pay, but if you want a real comparison, compare the pay of teachers to the people those people manage. Then add in benefits (which I don't think were considered in that 'pay' analysis).

I admit I've never been a teacher, but I thought they were salary positions? Meaning you get payed for getting the job done, whether it requires 'homework' or not.

This is actually something I want to address. Apparently, last year (I think) this teacher's union tried to force the government to add ED pills (Viagra) to the insurance coverage. Apparently this wasn't the first time they had tried to add expensive and unnecessary things to their benefits. I know I've heard of similar stuff in other places. Do you think the governor could be acting this way because he believes the unions have gotten too much power, and know it, and have shown a history of abusing it? That he's trying to control future budget as well? I've also read different analyses of the bill (haven't found the actual text yet). The supporters are all saying it only bans collective bargaining on certain issues, like medical benefits, not across the board. I don't know if that's true, but if so it does change the dynamic somewhat.

Something else that I found recently, and I don't know how up to date it was, but as of Jan. 5th, Gov Walker's bill wasn't going to give any tax breaks to the much demonized 'Big Industry'. It only applied to companies with gross income of $50,000 or less. Before that, it was 50 employees or less. That's a tax break on small business, not 'big industry'. Of course, as I said, I don't know if that changed at some point.

Only about 12% of the US workforce is unionized today. The other 88% aren't being walked all over.

 

Actually there isn't anything suspicious about that argument.

The report was written by the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which ...

That's not your 'Dem detractors' but simple public servants working for the Wisconsin legislature. But since you feel there is something suspicious, they ... hmm ... probably ... must all be unionised and ... biased Yes! Let's ignore this vile liberal screed obviously penned by Dem detractors! It cannot possibly be true*

Spoiler

PS: * ... because if it was, Walker is an a**, and since what must not be cannot be ... noooo, clearly, it must be Dem detractors. Who has ever heard about Republicans and 'Starve the Beast' ... Well, they are THAT reckless.

 

Those seem to be good ball park figures for what teachers make. It is true that a first year teacher will only make in the 30s, but once you've been there for a few years, you make considerably more. My wife is an elementary school teacher, and you pretty much know how much money everyone in the building is making, because it's based on the number of years working and your education.

In Maryland, you get standardized raises each year until you've been there 15 years. At that point, you've hit the max salary, and you only get a raise when the contract is re-negotiated (usually every 5 years). This is MUCH different than the way most companies work - there is no cap placed on wages at any point, and someone who has worked for a company for 30 years is usually making more than someone who worked there for 15 years.

The other aspect of your salary is your education, and there are 3 levels: Bachelor's degree (that's the lowest - you cannot even be a teacher in Maryland without one), Bachelor's degree with 30+ credit hours (meaning you've taken about another 30 credits worth of teaching specific courses in addition to your BA), and Master's degree (which is 48 additional credit hours).

As I said, you know how much everyone is making because it's in the contract. In Maryland, a 15 year teacher with a Master's degree earns about $75K per year. But that's the ceiling unless you're in the administration. And I don't find that particularly excessive (and it should be pointed out that my wife has not taught for 15 years, nor does she have a Master's degree so her annual salary is considerably less).

Well, my wife has looked into this as well. At least as far as Maryland is concerned, the salary in public schools is almost always higher than in a private school. Which you'd expect seeing as how public school get funds from the county and state. The bottom rung of the pay scale are parochial school - there the pay is not only less, it's considerably less.

I'm happy for your sister. We should move to Florida. My wife never makes it home by 4pm, and she always has to bring work home with her.

I know a LOT of teachers. Your sister is the only example of a teacher who makes it home by 4pm and doesn't have a ton to do when she gets home. All of the teachers I know may only be WORKING AT SCHOOL for 6* hours a day, but I assure you that when you factor in the work they do at home during the week and on weekends, they are logging in far more than 40 hours in a typical week.

*Incidently, in my wife's school, she is required to be present from 8:15 to 3:45, with a half hour lunch. Sounds like a 7 hour day to me.

My wife's students also attend "specials" for about an hour per day. If your sister can get all of her grading and lesson planning in with a hour per day, she has super-human capabilities.

 

Snook

I don't believe you addressed my point that the unions are actually outspent when you add up other groups that spend money against them-which is why most of the democrats that ran against republicans this year were outspent (including in the elections for governor and US Senator).

Also with the joke that the "citizens united" court case happens to be companies can spend directly against their employees unions.

Granted with all the money flowing around it makes me suggest that public funding for elections should be used (it counters union, corporate, millionaire, and billionaire-like Walker's Koch Bros supporters-funds to an extent).

I'm curious who referred you to the propaganda/professional half-truth producers bunch known as the "MacIver Institute" anyway.




Anyway things are a bit calmer, I've noticed that the poor police (it got cold) outside the capital building have gone to 4 man patrols for the most part.

I'm putting a running list about the lies that have been said about the protesters.:

1. That children were being used as human shields.
2. That they block others from using bathrooms unless they support unions.
3. That they damaged or put graffiti on the walls of the capital building.
4. The implication that they were mostly bussed in from out of state.


I know there are more to be added-if I hear it right somebody on Fox was trying to connect the protest to the Muslim Brotherhood....?!

I'm having a bit of trouble adding some of the pictures I've taken to a new photo album on this website. But I'll try to do that still.

There was a moderate republican state senator who proposed having a the ban on collective bargaining last only 2 years. The governor-in his calm I've said my lie and I'm not changing, apologizing, or attempting to reform way-said no.






Oh, plus there is questions over provisions that relate to selling state owned powerplants or their operations in no bid contracts. This of course would not involve oversight from the state legislature.

And there may even be a provision in the budget repair bill that essentially says that if the current liar of a governor does something it is to be recorded as in the interest in the public good.

Maybe that last one is rumor but if it isn't I have to ask what the bounds of the propaganda that is associated with this guy are.


There are rumors though, some of which have been are wrong on this side (that they attempted to get people to leave the capital building overnight) or that protesters were going to get kicked out yesterday. Granted one of the organizers told me if the number of people drops to a low enough level (really low) then they would try to kick everyone out but there are still too many people for that to happen.

About teachers and their time-I talked with s teacher who had given a test to his class and I asked if there went his weekend (correcting them)-his response was there went 2 or 3 weekends.


Oh, and the state senate republican leadership is really trying to stick it to the senate democrats. Personally by proposing rules suggesting they have to come to the state senator floor to receive paychecks if they aren't present for 2 sessions. And legislatively by putting forwards a law that would be the most restrictive in the nation in terms of what qualifies as usable photo ID in order to vote (college IDs with names and photos don't count and neither did/do US passports) with provisions relating to paying for IDs for poor people (to ensure those who were broke didn't loose their right to vote as citizens) removed.


Plus a Utah group seems to be trying to arrange for Wisconsin state senate democrats to face recall elections. I doubt that will work for my democratic state senator and if there is a recall election I will vote him back in-even if he is in a different state right now.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/arti...ll-effort-8-Democrat-State-Senators-Wisconsin

 

@pplr

I didn't know I needed to address anything. If what you say about spending in the last election cycle is true (and I don't doubt it) it just goes to show that people who were motivated behind the GOP stepped up to the plate and really opened up their bank accounts. I'm sure in other election cycles it has been the other way, did you complain about it then?

I noticed you didn't mention George Soros in your list of billionaires who are spending their money to reshape our country. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part.

One man's MacIver Institute video is another man's Young Turks/John Stewart/Bill Maher etc. The video I posted was more about the government hearings when they were discussing the upcoming buget. To me that can be taken more seriously then some smarmy guy discussing his opinion.

 

When it comes to budgets, I have to have a lot of confidence in someone to buy it when they say "It's just not in the budget!" To me that's code for "I didn't PUT it in the budget because I don't think it's important, so screw you!" When governments pour millions, billions even, into BS foreign wars, sensitivity training to make minorities feel good, pork barrelling projects that benefit huge conglomerates, grotesque raises for politicians and then turn around and say they can't fund kindergarten programs because it's "just not in the budget!" I call foul on that crap. PUT it in the g-d budget and make some cuts to the useless crap.

 

I kind of agree. The difference is when you are comparing local budgets to national budgets. National budgets are so large that I doubt anyone actually knows what is in them. Local budgets are easier as they focus on schools, emergency services, and social services. When a local budgeter says the money isn't there, I tend to believe them.

 

LKD,
your distrust is perfectly justified. Since it is apparently not the first time Walker tries to pull something like this off:

It's an emergency! Trust me!

Handy for Walker, the arbiter’s ruling against his measures didn’t come down until last month — after Walker had been sworn in as governor.

Some buddy of Matt Tabibi did a phone on Walker and called him in the guise of arch-reactionary, union-busting and Tea Party/ GOP financing billionaire (and Walker campaign donor) David Koch, and kept him talking.

​

Have fun. Walker's office has already admitted that he was pranked, so the recordings are genuine.

 

I shouldn't be surprised that Dem politicians from MA are protesting in Wisconsin

Spoiler

The only time people in Massachusetts care about what’s happening in Wisconsin is when Tom Brady’s playing on Lambeau Field. So why did hundreds of Bay State government workers show up to protest Wisconsin’s governor at Beacon Hill yesterday?

One word: Money. Your money.

The battle over government employees and collective bargaining endangers the entire foundation of Massachusetts politics: Unions use their members’ cash and labor to elect and protect pro-union hacks who then vote to give more money and power to unions. Eisenhower might have called it the “Union-Political Complex.”

Its raw political power is the reason even FDR opposed unionization of government workers.

A guy who could work with Joe Stalin didn’t want to work with Joe the Unionized School Employee.

The reason is obvious. Private unions don’t elect their bosses. Public unions do. They elect the selectmen, councilmen and reps who negotiate “against” them on pay and benefits.

Imagine a divorce settlement in which your attorney is also your soon-to-be ex, and you’ve got a good idea of how this works.

As Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute reports, unions like the National Education Association and AFSCME are among the nation’s top 10 biggest political donors. And unlike big givers in the private sector who play both sides, 95 percent of government workers’ donations has gone to Democrats who are far more likely to raise taxes and boost spending, Malanga notes.

We’ve seen it in Massachusetts under Gov. Deval Patrick, even as private sector unemployment has risen and average citizens have seen their wages fall. And the divide is growing.

Most private-sector workers don’t get health care from their employers after they retire, for example, but government workers get their “employers” — we taxpayers — to cover a lifetime of health care: 85 percent of the premiums for those who retired recently, and 90 percent if they retired pre-1995.

Then there are those generous pensions, which Massachusetts government workers insist they pay for themselves. Wrong. They pay, at best, 85 percent and the rest is picked up by taxpayers who work two jobs, have no pensions and — unlike government workers — can actually be fired if they’re lousy at their jobs.

There are no $100,000-a-year garage attendants — excuse me, “parking utility technicians” — in the private sector. Only at Massport. And the Pew Center for the States reports that Massachusetts has a $22 billion unfunded pension liability — one of the nation’s worst.

Meanwhile, public workers continue to retire in their 50s, (in 2005, the average age of a retiring state worker was 58), get nearly all of their health care paid for by taxpayers, and get a guaranteed pension ranging from 60 percent to 80 percent of their salary.

And when we pensionless paycheck-to-paycheck taxpayers try to do something about it, the unions call us “Hitler” and spend millions electing pliant pols.

If the taxpayers win in Wisconsin, that could change. So forget the Pats. From Beacon Hill to City Hall hacks, they are all Cheeseheads now.

 

"(fake)Koch: Right, right. We’ll back you any way we can. But what we were
thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that — because we
thought about that. The problem — the, my only gut reaction to that
would be, right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely
had it with them, the public is not really fond of this. The teacher’s
union did some polling and focus groups I think and found out that the
public turned on them the minute they closed school down on them for
a couple of days. The guys we’ve got left are largely from out of state
and I keep dismissing it in all my press comments, saying ehh, they’re
mostly from out of state. My only fear would be if there’s a ruckus
caused is that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor
has to settle to avoid all these problems."


Here is a quote out of the discussion. What do you think is going on here.

I think it shows that someone-Walker or someone under him-suggested that someone get into the protest crowd to generate violence and/or commit a crime.

What backed them off the idea was that it may backfire not that someone could be hurt or something damaged.

If you disagree feel free to but it is an interesting situation.



Oh and if you notice he admitted he was promoting the idea most of the protestors were from out of state. I was there and even when unions came in from out of state in a show of support Saturday the majority of people protesting were very much Wisconsinites.

---------- Added 0 hours, 26 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

Actually in most election cycles it has been the GOP candidate who had a larger campaign fund. This was true with each for the races Feingold ran in for the US Senate except the one with Tim Michels (which people figured Feingold had in the bag anyway).

I'll be happy to have Soros and all the other billionaires out of the game of buying influence-the GOP seems to present the most open and staunch barrier to that in my state.

If you thought of the Young Turks as a funny version of Sykes (a local Rush Limbaugh) then you may be correct-though I suspect they don't lie to people as often or with as much financial backing.

The whole point of the MacIver Institute calling itself an "Institute" is because it wants to present itself as an actual research organization-which is misleading.

 

Y'know, even through the caustic vitriol, which seems to be your best side these days, you still don't appear to be reading what I wrote. You didn't notice, for example, that I twice pointed out that it could be an excuse from the governor. No, you'd much rather paint me as 'vile liberal' hater who sees everything as a conspiracy theory.

I still stand by my point, though. Without knowing how successful it'll be at luring in new businesses, any estimate of the cost of the tax cut is next to meaningless.

I'm confused. Was that an actual quote from something, or just someone's perception of what may be behind decisions?

 

I quoted part of the transcript of the phone call between Walker and who he thought was a Koch brother.

On one hand I'm laughing but on the other hand I'm going WTF. I likely was part of the protests when the instigators, if they had been used, would have been active.

It is not most days you expect a political figure to be debating if he wants to have people starting fights with the residents of his own state.

I'm glad he didn't use that option. Though one may ask why it was on the table while making some sort of compromise was not.

Also it makes me wonder about all the other things that can occur within the realm of politics.

 

The case about walker is about as clear as it gets. The Great Wisconsin Budget Crisis™ has been deliberately provoked by Walker, and he is intent to politically exploit it to the fullest. If you need a precedent to believe that, there you are: That he tried it before, pretty much with the same arguments, at the Milwaukee level all but underlines that. But no: Irrelevant!

That you are willing to give him the benefit of a doubt anyway, because you expect that this could be beneficial, appearances may be deceptive, is really something else. You're a salesman's dream become flesh. All it takes to sell you crap for gold is to be of your tribe.

There is no sensible reason to assume that this is not just what it looks like: Deliberate budget wrecking to push through anti-labour reforms and damage the Democratic party base and generate Republican advantages for the next elections. But to you, what walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has feathers is obviously a rabbit, after all, Walker says so. And NOG nods.

By the way, this is not just Walker but a Republican strategy, so expect to see the same in other Tea Party GOP governed states. That's what all the current Republican enthusiasm about states going bankrupt is about - dire budget crises that justify breaking up existing contracts, like union contracts. Because the money for such things just isn't in the budget (any more, hehe). From the Republican perspective, a fiscal crisis on the state level provides a golden opportunity to defund a key Democratic interest group.

But no, without knowing how successful Walker's cuts will be at luring in new businesses, things are hazy, and it is too early to say anything! And the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, what do they know? Have you ever heard of them before? Maybe they are a Democratic or union front! Detractors!

Preposterous. But of course, I concede that there is the possibility that you understand all that just perfectly fine, but prefer to play that dumb.

 

Well once again it is a U.S. rep from my home state who makes an ass of himself.

At least the WI Governor only discussed it. A Dem Congressman seemed to want to start a riot. PPLR if I were you I would be careful as it is obvious that all of these outside agitators (which you don't seem to believe are there) are looking to start trouble.

 

Yep. No reason to have to at least prove that much any longer. I sort of enjoyed all the phony denials from the so-called "budget hawks" who were defending this as "saving the budget." Now the debate is clearly what it is about, a strategy to break the unions, and thus break the Democratic power base. The message is clear that Democrats and their supporters are not "ONE OF US," according to Walker. That's fine cuz I'm reminded of the Alan Parsons' song, in my response to Walker, "I don't care what you do, I wouldn't want to be like you."

 

It looks like it's going to pass the House. The Senate is next.

 

I swear, Ragusa, you are proving yourself more and more of an idiot with every post. I never gave him the benefit of the doubt. I haven't given anyone the benefit of the doubt in this thread. I've only given them doubts. But, no, you don't care to actually respond to me. You much prefer the strawmen you can conjure up for your own amusement.

The way you and the liberal loons in the media tie everything together into republican conspiracies is frankly mind boggling. I take it back, you aren't becoming more of an idiot with every post, you're becoming more of a quack with every post. Which I guess makes you a duck. Or something. Because, of course, debt hawks couldn't possibly oppose debt-increasing measures for any reason involving a dislike of debt, could they?

And you still haven't gotten the point I was trying to make all along. The point that's as plain as the nose on your face. The point that, if the projected deficit isn't a reasonable projection, there's no reason to bust up unions to save money!!! THINK, Ragusa! Use your brain! If, as I've already admitted is possible several times, the projected defecit isn't based on reality, then there is no real projected defecit, which means there's no reason to cut spending, which means there's no reason to attack unions. That may be one leap of logic too many for you, though.

 

NOG,
when National Review and the Weekly Standard celebrate an idea and pat each others back and say it's an great idea it isn't formulating a conspiracy theory to point out that they do.

The point is also not a balanced budget or being pro-debt - it is simply that with solid tax revenue one can finance the wages the unions already have. Now that cannot possibly be acceptable to a party that has re-defined as their raison d'être to cut taxes ever and always, and to abolish what the Western world considers necessary functions of governance.

Re the deficit, I understood you to doubt the projections of the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Specifically I had this in mind:

 

Interesting aside on the prank call matter ...

Wisconsin is a one party consent state, i.e., you can record a phone conversation with the knowledge of only one participant - in this case, Ian Murphy of The Buffalo Beast.

However, The Buffalo Beast appears to be headquartered in New York, and according to this site, Wisconsin also prohibits inter-state recording of phone calls:

I'm assuming Murphy called from New York and didn't go to Wisconsin to make the call, but I'm not sure of that.

Also, it seems a bit unclear as to what that provision prohibits exactly. Wisconsin law doesn't allow recorded conversations to be used for any civil cases, and only criminal matters related to "homicide, felony murder, kidnapping, commercial gambling, bribery, extortion, dealing in controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, a computer crime that is a felony under s. 943.70, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses," but these only as conducted by law enforcement agencies with the proper authorization. I'm not sure if the inter-state required consent thing further limits only these criminal investiagtions or if it's illegal across the board. These laws can be hard to read and understand.

Regardless, Walker sounds pretty shady, having said all that he did on the phone.