Who is watching Wisconsin?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
public unions, on the other hand, are not fighting with management, but they are negotiating with elected officials who they lobbied to be put into office. It is not an arm's length relationship, and the person paying is not the shareholder (or the executives/management), but the taxpayer.

This is a double standard on many levels. First, once an employee earns their salary, that salary is his (or hers). The idea that someone whose salary is paid for by the government has less freedom regarding how their money is spent is complete BS. If an employee uses his salary to pay union dues, that's his right.

Second, if we accepted your position, what would you say about corporations that receive government contracts? Should General Dynamics be prohibited from lobbying the government because it receives government contracts that are paid for by the taxpayer? Have you seen how many times the military is forced by Congress to purchase weapons that it doesn't want? That's a result of lobbying. Corporations profit from government contracts, then lobby for more government contracts. How is that different than what public employee unions do?

[Anonymous]

Yep 51k with a masters degree...wow we must stop this now! If we can keep 10 percent unemployment, we should be able to knock down some of the lawyer fees that are so high. When it takes 100 hours, tell that employee they will get paid for 90 hours. If you don't like here are 20 other who would love to have your job and I can bring them in as a contractor ie no bennies

[Anonymous]

you are using one example of waste, inefficiency and corruption to defend another? defense lobbying does cost the taxpayers money, no doubt about it. luckily there are other groups lobbying those same members from different perspective, members change with elections and hopefully the secretary of defense can exert more control over his/her budget. But yep, no doubt about it, some defense programs are screwed up. Maybe the line-item veto would help solve that.

But I think public employees unions are much, much worse. 80%+ of the union dues goes to electing representatives who are beholden to the unions, who then negotiate these contracts with the unions. It is a vicious cycle. It is in "management's" best interests to approve the best possible deal for labor. That is not how it works in a free market or a free negotiation. Did you see the benefits promised to California state workers? They are truly obscene. (For the record, I think Wisconsin is a pretty reasonable, well managed state, and probably the wrong state to use for this watershed moment, since they don't have nearly the levels of abuse as unions in other states like California or Illinois).

General Dynamics bidding and lobbying for defense contracts has the possibility for abuse, definitely, but it is not nearly as direct a relationship. The decision to award those contracts is made by more than just the local congressman where the factory is located, and the fact that the other members look the other way so their pet projects can be approved as well is a larger issue.

[Anonymous]

we loan wall street banks a lot of money but they can lobby!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:you are using one example of waste, inefficiency and corruption to defend another? defense lobbying does cost the taxpayers money, no doubt about it. luckily there are other groups lobbying those same members from different perspective, members change with elections and hopefully the secretary of defense can exert more control over his/her budget. But yep, no doubt about it, some defense programs are screwed up. Maybe the line-item veto would help solve that.

So, you recognize the corruption that exists in defense contracting, but you still support that industry's right to lobby? And, are you really serious that you don't believe there are counterweights to public employee unions?

The attack on public employee unions is just a continuation of the same divide and conquer tactics that we see over and over again. If there are abuses by some unions, those abuses should be addressed. You admit that there is corruption in the defense contract industry, but don't propose the elimination of the defense industry. So, why would you destroy all public employee unions?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are using one example of waste, inefficiency and corruption to defend another? defense lobbying does cost the taxpayers money, no doubt about it. luckily there are other groups lobbying those same members from different perspective, members change with elections and hopefully the secretary of defense can exert more control over his/her budget. But yep, no doubt about it, some defense programs are screwed up. Maybe the line-item veto would help solve that.

So, you recognize the corruption that exists in defense contracting, but you still support that industry's right to lobby? And, are you really serious that you don't believe there are counterweights to public employee unions?

The attack on public employee unions is just a continuation of the same divide and conquer tactics that we see over and over again. If there are abuses by some unions, those abuses should be addressed. You admit that there is corruption in the defense contract industry, but don't propose the elimination of the defense industry. So, why would you destroy all public employee unions?

because the defense industry is needed, despite its abuses, to arm our military. I don't think the public employees unions are needed in the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you are using one example of waste, inefficiency and corruption to defend another? defense lobbying does cost the taxpayers money, no doubt about it. luckily there are other groups lobbying those same members from different perspective, members change with elections and hopefully the secretary of defense can exert more control over his/her budget. But yep, no doubt about it, some defense programs are screwed up. Maybe the line-item veto would help solve that.

So, you recognize the corruption that exists in defense contracting, but you still support that industry's right to lobby? And, are you really serious that you don't believe there are counterweights to public employee unions?

The attack on public employee unions is just a continuation of the same divide and conquer tactics that we see over and over again. If there are abuses by some unions, those abuses should be addressed. You admit that there is corruption in the defense contract industry, but don't propose the elimination of the defense industry. So, why would you destroy all public employee unions?

because the defense industry is needed, despite its abuses, to arm our military. I don't think the public employees unions are needed in the least.

this is just sophistry. It's not a question of whether we need a military. It's a matter of whether we need a metastasizing military whose growth has grown out of all proportion to its usefulness, and is killing the country economically.

How many f-ing nuclear carrier groups do we need again? 7? 8? 9? As the song goes, "the only answer is more, more, more."

[Anonymous]

no, I am actually in favor of cutting the defense budget dramatically. But that said, we do NEED a military and an industry to support them. (but I don't think cutting carrier groups is the way to do it - rather cut the expensive new weapon systems, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close bases in Germany and Japan, and lower the number of active duty troops).

I don't see ANY evidence of how we need public unions. If public workers choose to belong, that should be their right. Personally, I'd think it a waste of $900/year and I'd rather put that money to my retirement.

[Anonymous]

with the improvements in missile and subs, there are a lot of concerns about how vulnerable a carrier group are going to be inthe next few years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no, I am actually in favor of cutting the defense budget dramatically. But that said, we do NEED a military and an industry to support them. (but I don't think cutting carrier groups is the way to do it - rather cut the expensive new weapon systems, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close bases in Germany and Japan, and lower the number of active duty troops).

I don't see ANY evidence of how we need public unions. If public workers choose to belong, that should be their right. Personally, I'd think it a waste of $900/year and I'd rather put that money to my retirement.

And therein lies the problem. We never cut defense to a reasonable level because, as in your case, some ridiculously large number of carrier groups is non-negotiable. For someone else, it's the ridiculous redundancy of the various service branches. When does the Coast Guard get it's VTOL version of the JSF? Same with base closings: everyone's for closing them, just not this particular one. Lots of waste to cut--it's just impossible to cut any specific program or base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:no, I am actually in favor of cutting the defense budget dramatically. But that said, we do NEED a military and an industry to support them. (but I don't think cutting carrier groups is the way to do it - rather cut the expensive new weapon systems, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, close bases in Germany and Japan, and lower the number of active duty troops).

I don't see ANY evidence of how we need public unions. If public workers choose to belong, that should be their right. Personally, I'd think it a waste of $900/year and I'd rather put that money to my retirement.

And therein lies the problem. We never cut defense to a reasonable level because, as in your case, some ridiculously large number of carrier groups is non-negotiable. For someone else, it's the ridiculous redundancy of the various service branches. When does the Coast Guard get it's VTOL version of the JSF? Same with base closings: everyone's for closing them, just not this particular one. Lots of waste to cut--it's just impossible to cut any specific program or base.

no, the military when confronted with firm demands finds a way to get things done. many rounds of base closings makes this clear. I'd say I "rather" they not cut carriers, because I think they are effective especially if we close many of the overseas land bases. But if they determine that a $400B budget (for example) cannot support the current number of carriers then cutting some should be on the table. Nothing should be off the table. Did we have less carriers under Clinton when we cut the defense budget dramatically after the Cold War and before 9/11?

[Anonymous]

no, the military when confronted with firm demands finds a way to get things done. many rounds of base closings makes this clear.

Respectfully, that's begging the question. I'm not blaming the military for not cutting costs. The military has no power to do that. Politicians appropriate money for weapons systems. On very rare occasions the political class manages to make cuts to the defense budget, but overall the effect is one of ratcheting up. Military leaders (and the civilian leadership) make recommendations for cuts, and those requests are ignored. The politicians fight to keep these white elephants in their districts because the jobs are critical, as the people rarely have any other option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

no, the military when confronted with firm demands finds a way to get things done. many rounds of base closings makes this clear.

Respectfully, that's begging the question. I'm not blaming the military for not cutting costs. The military has no power to do that. Politicians appropriate money for weapons systems. On very rare occasions the political class manages to make cuts to the defense budget, but overall the effect is one of ratcheting up. Military leaders (and the civilian leadership) make recommendations for cuts, and those requests are ignored. The politicians fight to keep these white elephants in their districts because the jobs are critical, as the people rarely have any other option.

so your point is that elected officials make irrational and fiscally irresponsible decisions because of local pressure? I agree. Which is why I'd rather they not directly negotiate with their main constituency group that works tirelessly to get them elected. The vast majority of union dues goes to elect pro-union politicians, correct? and the majority of special interest money flowing into local Democratic candidates comes from organized labor, correct? just doesn't appear to be an arm's length transaction. not exactly UAW vs GM.

[Anonymous]

Lots of folks(corporations, unions, private individuals) lobby the government. Most give money or time to elected officials. They get good returns on their money and time- that's why they do it. You seems you only object to the unions doing it.
Federal gov salaries and bennies are not out of line with the private section...when was the last time you heard of someone leaving the private sector to cash in for the government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of folks(corporations, unions, private individuals) lobby the government. Most give money or time to elected officials. They get good returns on their money and time- that's why they do it. You seems you only object to the unions doing it.
Federal gov salaries and bennies are not out of line with the private section...when was the last time you heard of someone leaving the private sector to cash in for the government?

I agree that federal salaries and benefits are pretty reasonable. One reason is because federal workers cannot collectively bargain over benefits, and their salaries are set by law. State and local benefits, are in some cases, way out of line with the private sector. Again, I don't think Wisconsin is that bad. Not nearly as bad as CA, IL or NJ.