Who is watching Wisconsin?

[Anonymous]

and I'd add that the other groups that lobby clearly derive benefits from their lobbying, but still they are not in a management-labor relationship when it comes to negotiating labor agreements. It is a much more direct relationship where the lobbying produces a certainty, not a possibility.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If you look at your argument in a vacuum, it makes a bit of sense. However, the world is not a vacuum. In the real world, union campaign cash competes with other campaign cash. Otherwise, every elected official would be pro-union and that is simply not the case. Even within the Democratic party, there are anti-union constituencies. The votes and the cash of those groups competes with that of the unions. The Supreme Court, in all its wisdom, decided that corporations are people and can also contribute to elections. Surely you are aware of the amount of money spent by the likes of the Koch brothers. As a result, a fake Koch brother was able to get Wisconsin's governor to take his phone call without hesitation.

You favor a world in which workers are left to be fed to the dogs, while corporations and wealthy individuals control our elected officials. All of this because some prison guards in California have a great deal. But, let me ask you this, have you considered applying for a job as a prison guard? Because, if they have such a great deal, I assume that you would want in on it.

[Anonymous]

I don't get the obsession with Koch. For every conservative big-money donor, there are 5 liberals. I don't have the list in front of me, but I recalled seeing Soros (obviously), and then many of the dot-com billionaire crowd (perhaps the google founders?). It will be interesting to see how corporations spend their money. Typically they try to spread it around as they have to answer to shareholders and can't favor one party to an extreme.

But as for your larger point, no I don't worry that corporations will be unchecked because (1) we have labor laws in this country (thanks to the unions) and (2) I have no problem whatsoever with private unions provided you don't HAVE to join in order to get the job. A private union does not negotiate with someone they have in their back pocket.

[Anonymous]

I will just assume that you do not know enough about public unions and is therefore just spouting rhetoric. I bet you did not know that police unions negotiate on behalf of their members to get needed bullet proof vests, reasonable notice of shift changes, cola increases, etc. Teacher unions negotiate classroom sizes on behalf of their members and firefighter unions negotiate the number of members who should respond to fires on the backtruck, protective scba gear and due process procedures when its members are accused of violating organizational policies. Everyone is caught up on salaries and pensions, but that is not the only criteria for unions. Frankly, I think the average Joe Blow has too little respect for hardworking public servants. Well, that is until they need them. My husband, bless his heart, earned a Master's Degree and gave up a lucrative career in finance (boring but profitable) to do police work. Go figure, he actually drank the kool-aid about public service and helping people. Perhaps, now that he understands that the people he risk his life for everyday views him and all public servants with such disdain, he will go back to something more financially lucrative. Here is hoping that he will take his talents for stategizing, project managing, analyzing, budgeting, etc somewhere else. What kind of service would Joe Public receive if all public sector employees with options did this.

[Anonymous]

It is getting really crazy now. Walker is actually resorting to terrorist tactics! Return or I'll start firing workers. Next resolution they will pass will probably be to hold the families of the missing Democrats hostage and they'll start assassinating them one at a time until they return.

Really, how on earth is Walker going to try to spin this as positive for himself or his party?

The MADE me fire you! They wouldn't negotiate!

[jsteele]

It's incredible what's happening. I watched a bit of Fox News and it was like watching an alternative universe. No wonder watching Fox makes you stupid.

[Anonymous]

No money left. Sorry. And there will never be. The ability to borrow is coming to an end. All the baby talk, whimpering, whining, running away, tantrums, thrashing around, is over. Reality is upon us and liberalism can't deal with it.

[Anonymous]

It's funny how when the money runs out the more liberals resemble Linda Blair.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how when the money runs out the more liberals resemble Linda Blair.

I think that was Fox's footage from California. It was actually Linda Blair.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I don't watch Fox news. How are they spinning this? I mean they clearly must be trying to say how Walker is being reasonable - what is their spin? I'm curious because I can't even imagine how you'd go about spinning this in a positive light for Repubilcans. Are they still trying to claim that the unions haven't accepted the financial cuts?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I don't watch Fox news. How are they spinning this? I mean they clearly must be trying to say how Walker is being reasonable - what is their spin? I'm curious because I can't even imagine how you'd go about spinning this in a positive light for Repubilcans. Are they still trying to claim that the unions haven't accepted the financial cuts?

They are portraying the protesters as "union thugs". They managed to get some video of people in medical outfits handing out passes for sick leave and one Fox reporter claims a protestor hit him. So, the story is a bunch of lazy teachers lying about being sick, violent union thugs, and protesters that are destroying everything. The protesters -- for good reason -- really and truly hate Fox so they are always screaming like banshees around the Fox camera and reporter. The guy does look like he could be lynched (yeah, sue me for using that word) at any time. O'Reilly went so far as run video of protesters in California because they couldn't find video of violence among the protesters in Wisconsin. His ploy failed when people noticed palm trees in the video. In response, protesters in Wisconsin have started bringing inflatable palm trees to the capital building.

Also, Fox keeps portraying the Democratic Senators who are in Illinois as cowards who are disrupting the democratic process and refusing to recognize that elections have consequences.

[Anonymous]

they are "spinning" it as elections have consequences, and the majority is entitled to legislate if the votes are there.

they are also "spinning" it by clearly describing the differences between public and private unions, and the consequences of collective bargaining. the financial concessions are a drop in the budget - most of the deficit will be fixed by cutting aid to local governments. And those municipalities will need the same rights to trim benefits or make other changes in order to remain solvent.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:they are "spinning" it as elections have consequences, and the majority is entitled to legislate if the votes are there.

Does Fox take this same position with regard to the filibuster in the US Senate? Does Glen Beck go berserk when a small minority of Republican Senators brings work in the US Senate to a halt?

Anonymous wrote:they are also "spinning" it by clearly describing the differences between public and private unions, and the consequences of collective bargaining. the financial concessions are a drop in the budget - most of the deficit will be fixed by cutting aid to local governments. And those municipalities will need the same rights to trim benefits or make other changes in order to remain solvent.

Does Fox point out that there wouldn't be a deficit if Walker had not given large corporations a tax break? Does Fox point out the differences between unions that opposed Walker -- and hence are covered by the proposed law -- and unions that supported Walker and get to keep their collective bargaining rights?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they are "spinning" it as elections have consequences, and the majority is entitled to legislate if the votes are there.

Does Fox take this same position with regard to the filibuster in the US Senate? Does Glen Beck go berserk when a small minority of Republican Senators brings work in the US Senate to a halt?

Anonymous wrote:they are also "spinning" it by clearly describing the differences between public and private unions, and the consequences of collective bargaining. the financial concessions are a drop in the budget - most of the deficit will be fixed by cutting aid to local governments. And those municipalities will need the same rights to trim benefits or make other changes in order to remain solvent.

Does Fox point out that there wouldn't be a deficit if Walker had not given large corporations a tax break? Does Fox point out the differences between unions that opposed Walker -- and hence are covered by the proposed law -- and unions that supported Walker and get to keep their collective bargaining rights?

#1, filibusters are an allowed parliamentary procedure per the rules of the US Senate. Change the rules, but play by the rules.
#2, the tax cut has nothing to do with the two-year deficit, but certainly is a viable argument with respect to the current smaller deficit. that has been covered extensively on Fox News. The myth that certain unions were protected because of their support for Walker has been disproved.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
#1, filibusters are an allowed parliamentary procedure per the rules of the US Senate. Change the rules, but play by the rules.

Depriving a parliamentary body of a quorum is also playing by the rules. Otherwise, a quorum wouldn't be required. Editing to add, has Fox News reported that Abraham Lincoln once jumped out of a second floor window in an attempt to deprive Illinois Democrats of a quorum?

Anonymous wrote:
#2, the tax cut has nothing to do with the two-year deficit, but certainly is a viable argument with respect to the current smaller deficit. that has been covered extensively on Fox News. The myth that certain unions were protected because of their support for Walker has been disproved.

This "myth" has only been disproved on Fox News. In the real world, three out of four unions that supported Walker are protected (and the fourth is partially protected).

Has Fox also convinced you that there are palm trees in Madison?

Yet, another edit. Another thing Fox News did was totally reverse the results of a Gallup poll. The actual results showed the public siding with the protesters. Fox flipped the numbers for their report.