The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Napoleon]

If money made elections, Tom Foley and Linda McMahon would be Governor and US Senator right now. Oh, and Jerry Brown wouldn't have won by a huge margin in California.

[Franzl]

If money made elections, Tom Foley and Linda McMahon would be Governor and US Senator right now. Oh, and Jerry Brown wouldn't have won by a huge margin in California.

It sure doesn't hurt. Otherwise corporations wouldn't be donating those amounts.

[Napoleon]

If money made elections, Tom Foley and Linda McMahon would be Governor and US Senator right now. Oh, and Jerry Brown wouldn't have won by a huge margin in California.

It sure doesn't hurt. Otherwise corporations wouldn't be donating those amounts.

It's kinda stupid though. People won elections with less than half the money spent now only a few years ago. I don't get what's changed other than, well, more money. Wouldn't elections be just as competitive with $100,000 vs. $100,000 as they are with $2,500,000 vs. $2,500,000?

[Franzl]

Yes. And that's precisely why I would be quite willing to discuss spending caps.

[Napoleon]

Caps make sense to me too, my only dilemma is for self-funding candidates.

[Brittain33]

I'm less worried about money making elections than money making policy... some industries can buy Congressional votes by pouring tons of money into an attack campaign, but they also can buy votes by the threat of running campaign ads against an incumbent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To the point on the ultimate legal issue of whether a supermajority quorum is required for all bills fiscal in nature or just some, there is a 1971 formal opinion from the Wisconsin attorney general stating that a bill altering collective bargaining rights isn't fiscal as it is narrowly defined by the relevant Wisconsin constitutional provision and therefore not subject to the supermajority quorum.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773153

Game.  Set.

Game set??  So its game set that Walker and the Republicans lied the entire time with the comment that this was about anything fiscal or budgetary in nature.  This has nothing to do with the deficit whatsoever.  So thanks for proving Walker and the Republicans lied their asses off.

Not to mention the whole breaking the open meetings law.

The full bill IS fiscal in nature, within the meaning of the constitution's super-majority quorum requirement.  The collective bargaining piece of the bill potentially affects budgets, especially county and local ones, down the road, but isn't swept up by the super-majority requirement.  Wisconsin courts have taken a narrow view on what is fiscal for those purposes.  Even incurring short-term debt isn't.

How is this so difficult to understand?

Thanks again for proving Walker and the Republicans lied their asses off.  They were the ones who claimed it was fiscal in nature.  They were the ones that argued it was a budget issue.  They were the ones that argued it was a deficit issue.  With how it was passed, its obvious that it wasn't.  So that shows that Walker and the GOP were lying their asses off when they suggested this was a deficit or a budget issue.  Its not and never has been, this was about Union busting plain and simple and was from the get go.

So you are saying the final arbiter of what has a budgetary impact and what does not, is the parliamentary rules of the Wisconsin State Senate? Do the procedural rules change the impact of the bill's language? When you consider that this was passed primarily for the benefit of "County and city" budgets, it is perfectly reasonable for a law being passed that could impact those one way or the other and have it not fall under the procedural definitions of a fiscal matter which are only in relation to state gov't budgetary matters.

When one looks at it from a purely factural standpoint, there is no lie in saying you are passing something to fix a fscual issue but address it through the standard process because it s not a direct budget issue under the procedures.

Granted your purpose is to score partisan points and trying to create a public outrage over dishonesty because no one likes dishonest politicians, of course. And on this front you are doing well, I might add.

And one more thing. Shouldn't the language of the bill and its likely effects determine its impact on the fiscal situation? I mean if one were to say something has no fiscal impact based solely on the procedure used to pass it, well one would be foolish to be surprised when they realize it in fact does have an impact.

Take for example a hike in the minimum wage. Common sense tells us that it effects tax revenues  from the income tax. However lets say it doesn't meet the definition of a "fiscal matter" in the State Senate procedures (not sure whether it does or not in WI). Does it thus not have an effect on revenues as I mentioned because it doesn't meet those guidelines?

[Ban my account ffs!]

All this shows is that people who work support Democrats.. while those who don't and business interests (like CEOs, lobbyists, and since 2010, the companies themselves) donate to Republicans.

Nice spin.  Do you have any actual evidence of that or are you repeating yet another MSNBC or Talking Points Memo talking point?

The fact at the link I provided is that lobbyists themselves funneled about 69% of their contributions to DEMOCRATS in 2010.  And lobbying groups gave DEMOCRATS double what they gave to Republicans in 2009, the last year for which the Center for Responsive Politics has data. 

Politicians are like whores.  The most corporate money usually goes to the most attractive ones - those closest to the levers of power.  Always has.  Always will.

Of course lobbyists gave to the Democrats in 2010.  They give to the party in power.  They know both parties will pretty much bend to their will.  Who did lobbyists give most to in 2004?

[cinyc]

All this shows is that people who work support Democrats.. while those who don't and business interests (like CEOs, lobbyists, and since 2010, the companies themselves) donate to Republicans.

Nice spin.  Do you have any actual evidence of that or are you repeating yet another MSNBC or Talking Points Memo talking point?

The fact at the link I provided is that lobbyists themselves funneled about 69% of their contributions to DEMOCRATS in 2010.  And lobbying groups gave DEMOCRATS double what they gave to Republicans in 2009, the last year for which the Center for Responsive Politics has data. 

Politicians are like whores.  The most corporate money usually goes to the most attractive ones - those closest to the levers of power.  Always has.  Always will.

Of course lobbyists gave to the Democrats in 2010.  They give to the party in power.  They know both parties will pretty much bend to their will.  Who did lobbyists give most to in 2004?

You are arguing with yourself, not me.  You initially wrote "All this shows is that people who work support Democrats.. while those who don't and business interests (like ... lobbyists, and since 2010, the companies themselves) donate to Republicans."  Either lobbyists always donate to Republicans or give to the party in power.  Which is it?

[Torie]

Regarding the stripping of power of public employee unions without the quorum requirement, that was always on the table. The Pubbies really, really, wanted to package it as part of a fiscal save Wisconsin from BK thing (Pubbies can read polls too),  and the parties were negotiating about the price of letting the Pubbies have their conflation. The price the Pubbies were offering, was apparently not high enough for the Dems, so the Pubbies had a choice of just waiting the Dems out, and hoping something would happen to get them back, or biting the bullet, and abandoning their conflation act. They choose the latter.

Yes, this is all my personal speculation, but I am almost sure this is what happened. Yes I am.

[Badger]

You're failing to so the exact same argument applies to corporations. Why not let any money spent on contribution to political candidates be prorated to employees or shareholders and be "voluntary" for the workers or investors decide whether that money will be spent.

For all your bloviating about the evils of "union big money", Krazen, you're amazingly silent on the significantly larger amount of money spent by corporations and extremely wealthy individuals like the Kochs on the GOP. Are you fine with there being no counterbalance to that money.

No, it doesn't at all.

If I am a shareholder of Microsoft and I don't like it, I can sell my securities and be done with Microsoft for good. If I am a union member and I don't like the union, I can quit the union, but they still have the right to confiscate as much money from my paycheck as they choose to.


The rest of this is the fiction that public sector union pigs counterbalance anything. They don't. All they do is feed at the trough and demand more and more taxes on the working class, which is why Jon Corzine utterly gutted property tax relief throughout NJ even as unemployment was skyrocketing. The NJEA doesn't really care about what Walmart or any company does, one way or another.


The unions had no problem ramming through their own agenda in your own state. But I'm glad to see more crocodile tears from crying Ohio Democrats; it makes me laugh.

And funny how this being "rammed through" in 1983 hasn't caused any notable public outcry outside GOP party hacks and Chamber of Commerce lobbyists. This matter wasn't brought up in Ohio's recent election campaign either. Nor was there any great public hue and cry to get rid of this awful system, it was merely a wish list of large corporations.

Note the opposite occurring now that repeal is looming. The public back the unions---even among non-unionized households.

[krazen1211]

And funny how this being "rammed through" in 1983 hasn't caused any notable public outcry outside GOP party hacks and Chamber of Commerce lobbyists. This matter wasn't brought up in Ohio's recent election campaign either. Nor was there any great public hue and cry to get rid of this awful system, it was merely a wish list of large corporations.

Note the opposite occurring now that repeal is looming. The public back the unions---even among non-unionized households.

Blatantly ignoring and lying about the history of Ohio Democrats is funny? I guess I missed the joke.

Part of Kasich's campaign was the repeal/modification of the AFL-CIO power grab of 1983. And of course, he won, and the Democrats got shellacked.

The protests are a mere bunch of loudmouths. The Republicans there had the silent majority on their side in November 2010, and they will in the next election.

If you want to believe that party line ramming is and should only be a 1 sided affair, you might as well just say so. It's not an invalid position.

[Badger]

And funny how this being "rammed through" in 1983 hasn't caused any notable public outcry outside GOP party hacks and Chamber of Commerce lobbyists. This matter wasn't brought up in Ohio's recent election campaign either. Nor was there any great public hue and cry to get rid of this awful system, it was merely a wish list of large corporations.

Note the opposite occurring now that repeal is looming. The public back the unions---even among non-unionized households.

Blatantly ignoring and lying about the history of Ohio Democrats is funny? I guess I missed the joke.

Part of Kasich's campaign was the repeal/modification of the AFL-CIO power grab of 1983. And of course, he won, and the Democrats got shellacked.

The protests are a mere bunch of loudmouths. The Republicans there had the silent majority on their side in November 2010, and they will in the next election.

If you want to believe that party line ramming is and should only be a 1 sided affair, you might as well just say so. It's not an invalid position.

Polls show the majority--both silent and otherwise--oppose Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin. I haven't seen any polls from Ohio yet, but its telling that unlike 1983 a quarter of Ohio Senate Republicans even opposed and voted against SB5 here the other week.

If you know how monolithic and united the Ohio GOP was even compared to other states, the fact a quarter of them bailed (one was even replaced on a committee by the caucus to get the bill out of committee) should tell you where "the silent majority" stands here.

[Sbane]

If money made elections, Tom Foley and Linda McMahon would be Governor and US Senator right now. Oh, and Jerry Brown wouldn't have won by a huge margin in California.

It tends to affect policy making more than elections, which is more important imho.

[The Dowager Mod]

Got my layoff notice today.

[© tweed]

Got my layoff notice today.

God bless you

[Marokai Backbeat]

Got my layoff notice today.

[Dgov]

Gallup has a new poll out on "Union favorability" using a positive/negative word association

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146588/Republicans-Negative-Democrats-Positive-Describing-Unions.aspx

To summarize, Unions are associated with "negative" words more than "positive" words 38-34, though this doesn't compare directly with some of the other polls taken (so they're not mutually exclusive).  Democrats are under 50% positive on Unions, Republicans are under 60% negative on Unions, and it looks like (from averages) that true unaffiliated are essentially in-between.

[opebo]

Got my layoff notice today.

WisconsinGurl, a qualified (teaching license) American citizen teacher can make $3,500/month in Bangkok at a any of the many very-high end international schools.  There is a huge and unsatisfied demand for this type of teacher, and you would make double what an ordinary teacher would make, because of your qualifications.  Female teachers are especially in demand. 

You will also receive a one month bonus at the end of the year and at least 2 months holiday.  Some schools will give you a free apartment.  Total compensation averages about $45,000/year in a country where taxes are about 5%, a very well located basic apartment is $200/month and a large luxury condo is about $600/month (Bangkok prices).

Obviously you can make double this in the Middle East, with much more paid for (free accomodation, etc., but quality of life in Bangkok is excellent.

[krazen1211]

Polls show the majority--both silent and otherwise--oppose Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin. I haven't seen any polls from Ohio yet, but its telling that unlike 1983 a quarter of Ohio Senate Republicans even opposed and voted against SB5 here the other week.

If you know how monolithic and united the Ohio GOP was even compared to other states, the fact a quarter of them bailed (one was even replaced on a committee by the caucus to get the bill out of committee) should tell you where "the silent majority" stands here.

That's telling, but not of the silent majority. Rather, its more telling about the power of the AFL-CIO and the AFSCME to be bullies, and the fact that the Ohio GOP is rather overextended in the legislature. Ohio Senate Democrats, as far as i can tell, are reduced to the Mahoning Valley and the black seats, and they got shellacked in the entire rest of the state.


There's no need to speculate though. It's going to referendum soon enough

[Nichlemn]

Can someone explain to me why public unions are needed? Why can't the legislature dictate compensation levels and the voters can decide if they're insufficient, just like for any other spending?

Full post on the issue on another forum

[opebo]

Can someone explain to me why public unions are needed? Why can't the legislature dictate compensation levels and the voters can decide if they're insufficient, just like for any other spending?

Full post on the issue on another forum

Democracy does nothing whatever to protect workers, niclemn, and your idea that a certain amount of compensation is 'overcompensation' is baseless and subjective.

[Nichlemn]

Democracy does nothing whatever to protect workers, niclemn,

So are you claiming that public workers should be protected from wage cuts even if a majority of voters supported them, or that representative democracy should be curbed from being able to make unpopular wage cuts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, political debates are inherently subjective. But baseless? There is plenty of public choice literature about the phenomenon of rent-seeking. The general idea is that lobby groups are able to achieve privileges for themselves because the benefits to them are concentrated, whereas the costs are diffused through numerous taxpayers who individually have little incentive to attempt to stop it.

Now, this doesn't show that public employees are "overcompensated" (even if we could agree on a definition of that). Perhaps, in the absence of unions, public employees would be "undercompensated" and so union power simply balances out whether would cause the low compensation. But without knowing the size of these effects, it's possible that it goes too far. If you're coming up with a theory for why democratic forces reduce public employee compensation below the optimal, it's disingenous if you don't consider the ways that democratic forces may also increase it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is plenty of public choice literature about the phenomenon of rent-seeking.

There's public choice writings on almost everything, but most of us choose not to take that lunacy seriously.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can someone explain to me why public unions are needed?

For much the same reason trade unions are needed in other industries. To represent the workforce, to defend its rights and to argue on its behalf.