Wisconsin Gov. Walker Threatens To Deploy National Guard Against Unions

Remove all ads!

You'd think so but there's still a lot of people in the US that supports unchecked corporate involvement in election funding.

 

How many people will still remember this on vote night, if one party has four times the budget for ads, "editorials" and the best PR money can buy?

Perhaps it will be enough, perhaps not. For now, I can not say if it would benefit either party at the polls - only that I wish tricks like that blew up in the perpetrator's face more often.

 

Walker's numbers have already dropped below 50 percent in Wisconsin and a number of senators are going to be up for recall. But more impotantly, since the Republicans have power, they actually have to make things better in a substantial way, rather than just run the eternal echo chamber of "less government" into everyone's ears, especially when they really are a big government party. This is what the Teas are discovering in Washington. It's a lot easier to run things down, than it is to build them up.

 

The Republicans at least at the decency to cloak the union busting bill (originally) within the context of a budget debate. The end result of this bill was simply to bust the union. The situation was further aggrevated by Walker coming out earlier that day, and saying he was open to compromise (presumably to get the Democrats to come back), when in reality he had no intentions of doing so.

While I agree that the people who are now pissed would have been pissed either way, they would have been considerably less pissed if there was a compromise agreement worked out. The end result would have been that they retained some of their union rights, whereas they pretty much have none now. It's a matter of degree.

 

In an ideal world, both employers (including governments) and unions would be reasonable about things. In this Utopia which I envision, there would be no need for such heavy handed silliness.

But we do not live in such a Utopia. We live in a land where unions make ridiculous, BS demands of employers, and spend more time griping about useless kaka rather than actually doing work. A land where elected officials give themselves Cadillac-grade benefits packages while offering the working class citizens who elected them Tonka-grade benefits packages. I'd say everyone needs to smarten up and start acting in good faith. In good faith is my new motto.

 

I was listening to former CEO, Jack Welch, an out-spoken conservative Republican, speak on the issue. He commented that if a GE plant wanted to bring in a union, they fired the plant management, because it meant that management was not listening to, or respecting the employees. He viewed this as an issue of poor management, rather than "lazy" or greedy empoyees, or one of corporate policy. I believe there is a degree of truth in his comments regarding unionization.

The thing is, it was not that long ago there was a shortage of teachers, and that teachers had to fight to get any kind of decent pay. Now that they have it, they are suddenly "government villians." I think it's a crock to blame teachers, at least entirely, for both fiscal and administrative issues. I believe they are being made scapegoats by worthless politicains. As for Walker, he doesn't give a damn about either issue. This is pure partisan politics for him.

 

Good faith is what unions were created for. Ask your grand-parents if they are still alive. Unfortunately, its groups like the Teamsters and Longshoremen that give most unions a bad name. There are still many unions out there that operate in good faith, but the bigger they grow, the more likely they are evolve into something else entirely... kind of sucks for most of those who join, as most indiviuals are not greedy. But unions that grow also seem to grow leaders with greed. I guess when money is involved, greed just spawns.

 

BoV
one could also argue that the unions like teachers etc stayed honest because there was no point for the Mafia to undermine them because, unlike the teamsters or the longshoremen, they have neither knowledge of nor access to goods worth stealing. Teaching just doesn't lend it self to profitable extortion either.

Chandos,
Walker has said that his approach to religion is to 'trust and obey' God's orders. I heard a speech of him [mp3] and he stressed that iirc four times. That's iirc classic neo-Calvinist dogma. So far so good.

Religion is interesting in this context generally: If Walker is a Christian Reconstructionist like David Barton, frequent guest at Glenn Beck and a 'teacher' at Beck's travesty he calls a 'university', that can be read to mean this: Barton asserts a biblical underpinning for opposition to taxation and deficit spending, they said, amount to theft, a violation of the Ten Commandments. Barton says that the estate tax is “absolutely condemned” by the Bible as the “most immoral” of taxes. Jesus, he said, had “teachings” condemning the capital gains tax and minimum wage.

Barton enlists Jesus in the war against unions and collective bargaining. Two years ago Barton devoted his Wallbuilders Live radio show to celebrating a Supreme Court decision that upheld an Idaho law ending state withholding of public employee union political funds. He called the Supreme Court’s decision “the right historical position and the right biblical position,” and went on to explain why the Bible is anti-union.

According to Barton, the parable of the vineyard [Matthew 20:1-16] making was about “the right of private contract”—in other words, the right of employers to come to individual agreements with each employee. Jesus’ parable, he said, is “anti-minimum wage” and “anti-socialist-union kind of stuff.” Go figure. I certainly never heard it that way in my church.

I.e. for some on the right the fight against unions is about religion; that would also easily explain Walkers uncompromising stance. It's easy to see the appeal and great utility of preachers of that sort of gospel for people like the Kochs: What better motivated tool can one have than a guy who thinks he's doing God's will? They may even share his views, but even if they don't, he's plenty useful. Every cent seeded in a church that supports such religious views may just yield many times that in savings in taxes and wages. They neatly augment more worldly outlets like the Chamber of Commerce or Americans for Prosperity.

Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed in 1990 argued that “God established His pattern for work as well as in the family and in the church,” and cited four Bible passages instructing slaves to be obedient to their masters, including 1 Peter 2:18-19:

He then draws this astonishing conclusion from that:

Riiight. If I was a Mr. Koch I'd buy that man a church or help fund him a radio or tv station.

 

Wow...

Is this guy actually being serious here? I think a piece of me just died from reading that.

I suppose he thinks we should start abolishing every single right people have as workers while we're at it.

 

It certainly is a ... most reactionary reading of the bible, from a guy who was instrumental in getting Bush 43 elected no less.

As for Reed being honest, well, I don't really think so. To paraphrase: He is famous for, in collaboration with Jack Abramoff, mobilizing Christians opposed to gambling to shutter casinos. For that Reed was usually paid by other casinos who had a financial interest in eliminating their competitors.

Abramoff found a way to protect him against critics and the likely fury of his own Christian followers -- who might have been upset if they had discovered that Reed was being paid by gamblers to do their bidding -- by laundering the Indian casino payoffs to Reed by routing them through other organizations, including Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform ... you get the idea. He was engaged in a kind of spiritual fraud: telling his supporters that he was opposed to gambling when, in fact, gambling was making him rich.

If he had no qualms about being paid with gambling money to oppose gambling, selling it to the sheeple flock with the argument that gambling is godless - why shouldn't he, too, let himself be paid with anti-union money to be against unions, naturally on grounds that unions are godless?

It is an open and very pertinent question to what extent such arch reactionary and at least nominally religious teachings are being supported by or actually serve corporate interests. As I said, if I was a Koch (to use the name as a generic term), I'd make sure folks like Ralph Reed or David Barton have a platform that doesn't suffer from lack of funds.

 

I think the Wallbuilders guy you referred to may have also been part of a very misleading fake documentary that tries to encourage black people today to vote against the democratic party because the democratic party of well over a century ago was pro-slavery. Keep in mind that since then the Democratic party and GOP have essentially switched places in terms of who advocates for African Americans and that the Dixiecrats (pro-segregation) who held office largely joined the GOP during the last century.

Here is another bit for the news.

The a state Senate GOP leader, Scott Fitzgerald, had this to say about Democratic senators abilities now that they have returned (and been thanked for their efforts by a thousands of people).

"They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded"

The last bit about votes, I believe, was in reference to the ability to vote in committee rather than on the floor of the state senate.

Is this how it is done elsewhere?

Also I would put forwards the argument that, unlike a state senator who gets punished for corruption or some other misdeed, what these state senators were doing is defending the views of the majority of the state against an unnecessary (this is not an emergency where there is no time to consult the public or that the public misunderstands the need to act and do so with speed) and dishonestly presented act.

EDIT:

Lawyers, politics, fellow but less hardline republicans, that he was acting like a jerk in pubic view, or perhaps a combination thereof has gotten to Scott Fitzgerald.

So the fines, removal of ability to vote in committees, and a few other things he was doing against state senate democrats have dropped. The state senate democrats have agreed not to leave again in similar fashion.

 

Reminds me of that old communist era joke "Everything in the name of Man, everything for the good of Man - and we all know who that Man is." It's convenient to have a pool of old political jokes to recycle, but I wish they weren't so applicable twenty years after...

 

It trickles on:

Yeah, God bless all right. How was it about that part in the ten commandments about lying? As egregious as this is, on the plus side, Walker didn't do it (because it was impractical*, not because it would have been unethical - no problem there), and that that prosecutor had the good sense to step down (well, after claiming he had been a victim of identity theft first.). In brief, two things one should appreciated because they can't be taken for granted.

Spoiler

* Just to recap on that, from the prank call:

 

Ragusa - Supposedly "both sides" do such things. So it's quite OK, even though this has been going on at times with the Republicans since the days of Richard Nixon. Even more to the point, one side does it's lying and cheating in the name of God. THAT should be more reassuring for the devout followers.

Speaking of which, there was nothing more amusing than hearing convicted liar, Ollie North, complaining this week that Obama "failed to properly consult congress" about Libya. Who says "rehabilition" doesn't work?

 

Speaking of old tricks something else has come up.....

(Actually more than one thing but since we are on the topic of old tricks....)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/118692894.html

A professor wrote an opinion piece that I guess irked my lying governor.

And also did some research that may or may not have hinted at where some of this legislation (written from out of state?) was coming from.

The response is to go on a fishing expedition against the guy hoping that one can dig up something to criticize him on and perhaps hurt him professionally.

I'll point out that while I generally support open government-which is why the emails in the professors public employee email should be turned over.

But this wasn't to make sure public employees were using their email in the way they should.

It seems to be to try to punish someone who may have revealed something.



And Chandos.

While I would love to do it sooner some of the state senators-most pointedly many of the new GOP state senators-are protected, by law, from a recall election until a year from taking office has passed. Just like Walker.

There are some state senators up for recall and those recall elections will likely happen this year (petitions are already going around for it).

And there are over 100,000 people who have agreed to start petition for a recall election of Walker when we are allowed to (towards the end of this year).

 

Chandos,
North was convicted for perjury, lying to congress, not for not asking. Obama's sin is that he didn't ask congress. You see, it's about the process. Had he asked Congress for war with Liberia and had he then attacked Libya, that would have been fine with North, since truthfulness is a different matter entirely from procedure. Also, odds are that one half of congresspersons wouldn't have noticed the difference anyway, while the other half would have noticed but would probably have approved anyway.

And as for Obama having to ask congress ... as far as Republican views on executive authority go, ugh, ah, can't remember anything about that, Sir. They're bipolar on that matter. With Republicans out of government the pres has to ask if he may take a piss, pretty please, and with Republicans in power ... ugh, ah ... unitary what? Unitary executive branch? Beats me. Doesn't ring a bell.

 

Guess which state you are NOT hearing about? The reason should be easy: because Republicans don't want to talk about it!!!

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

 

They might, but the current budget deficit is expected to be $25 billion.