The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that we only pay the salaries of public employees, but that those of private employees are no concern of ours or are not in any way borne by us is quite mind bogglingly illogical to me, quite frankly.

Why is it any concern of yours again as to what some private client of mine and I agree will be my billing rate?  Why is it any concern of yours, or the public, whether we agree on $250 an hour, or $500 an hour?  And why is it any concern of yours whether I make 200K per year, or 600K, if all paid by private clients?

The way in which I would pay for it depends on who the client is (I'm not sure what type of attorney you are so please forgive my ignorance in that regard). If he's a representative of a corporation that sells products or services, the legal expenses are going to be paid for by higher prices. If he's paying you for a criminal defense, it doesn't have nearly as much direct impact, but increases in the going rate for such services does make them that much more inaccessible to those unable to pay the fees.

I could go on, but again, there is no magic reason why public sector wages are the only ones we pay.

But public sector wages are the only ones in which we cannot easily make individual decisions on whether to pay.  If a private company pays more to its employees than another does, causing it to have have higher prices to generate the same profit, I can easily choose to buy from the other company.   (Note, I may choose to pay the higher price if I perceive that the first company has higher quality as well.)  If I live in Wisconsin, then to change my government service provider, I would have to move, which can be a costly endeavor, especially if I have already put down roots.  Despite that, as the last few censuses have shown, people are generally leaving the higher cost states for less expensive ones.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1 year salary for 30 days of work..... Can someone explain to me what the purpose of an 'emeritus' program is?

You are being inconsistent.  They aren't being a full year's salary under your usual method of calculating their salary, which includes benefits.  Since they are already getting those benefits as "retirees" and don't get double benefits, they are being paid considerably less than a year's salary to be available as emeriti.

As for what the purpose is besides gouging money from their employer, one reason might be to encourage older teachers to retire, tho I agree getting paid at that rate seems excessive for that purpose.  Another would be to have a pool of experienced teachers available to either mentor new teachers or act as substitute teachers who can do more than just babysit a class for a day.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Personally, I differentiate between the words salary and compensation. 'Payment' might mean either of the 2, but imo salary is quite clearly cash/income based.

Don't bother trying to hide behind what the meaning of is is.  If anti-union conservatives are going to complain about what teachers are being paid, all I ask is that you be consistent about which yardstick is used to measure payment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Dems bolted because Walker and the GOP refused to negotiate or busting unions.  The GOP claimed that this was about the budget, but this proves this was never about the budget or fiscal issues.  On top of that the way they passed it was absolutely nuts and was blatantly illegal.

As Obama himself said, "Elections have consequences".  Why on earth should the one party have to negotiate with the other if they control both houses and the executive other than potential fears of what will happen to them in the next election.  Pouting because the winners weren't willing to agree to do what the losers wanted them to is idiotic whether it happens in Washington or Madison.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should we have to let Republicans have free reign in Wisconsin or anywhere else, especially considering what Republicans did to health care reform among other things.

Because the Republicans have control of both houses in the Wisconsin Legislature and the governors mansion, that's why, just as the Democrats had the control of both houses of the U.S. Congress and the White House in 2009-2010.  This debate over how the majority shouldn't do anything without listening to the minority has sadly reminded me of how both parties treat federalism.  Whichever party is not in control of DC is always supportive of giving power to the States up until the moment they take control of DC.