The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

It won't look good if the Dems are AWOL while bill after bill is passed. But we shall see. As I said, it is a mere tactical nuke, that the "big one."

Bills the Senate Democrats wouldn't be able to stop anyway.

[Brittain33]

If the state senate had the votes to abolish collective bargaining now, they could "go nuclear" and do it. They have no reason not to strip that out from the fiscal bill and pass it with their reduced quorum. Many people feared Walker would do it.

But the fact that they haven't and the GOP leader in the State Senate said he would not move on this until the Dems returned is a tell that they haven't got the votes within their caucus to do so.

Alternatively, though....if there isn't a majority in favor of the bill, why are Democrats having a problem showing up? If there aren't enough votes to pass, there would be no reason to stay in Illinois.

A number of reasons:
1. They don't know the true state of play in the caucus the way the GOP leader does. There are probably senators who are wavering, but not committed no votes.
2. Returning to Madison and enabling the legislature to call a vote gives the Republicans a chance to screw up their courage and do it and get it over with, and call it a victory. By staying away and keeping the outcome in doubt, they keep the pressure on the Republicans and make it unbearable, meaning some waverers could become solid nos or start publicly floating compromises.
3. Maybe it's all a trap for the Dems to return--can't rule that out.
4. There are surely senators who would rather vote for this in a full senate than in a rump senate and so are only conditional yesses.

Time is the enemy of the Republicans.

[Franzl]

A couple of reasons:
1. They don't know the true state of play in the caucus the way the GOP leader does. There are probably senators who are wavering, but not committed no votes.

That's true, yeah.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that the Senate Dems should stay in exile for as long as necessary for the Republicans to agree to not get rid of collective bargaining.

If they back down and the bill passes than it will be a crushing defeat and a gigantic victory for Walker in a battle of wills and they cannot let that happen.

[Torie]

Or the delay will end up passing the anti union thing separately. Is there any rush with this? Why can't the Pubbies just go about their business for months while the Dems get to know much better the lay of the land in suburban Chicago?  Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Or the delay will end up passing the anti union thing separately. Is there any rush with this? Why can't the Pubbies just go about their business for months while the Dems get to know much better the lay of the land in suburban Chicago?  Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

In other words they hold the all the cards?  Yeah, they do.

[Brittain33]

Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

Walker can do all kinds of things with a majority. The question is, and it has always been, how the Republicans judge the consequences of these actions for the future and if they think these are all good thing that are being accomplished. I really wonder if Walker laying off state employees when he is the one who is seen to be unwilling to compromise will play out well in Wisconsin. But there seems to be a real gap in this forum on that.

[Torie]

Or the delay will end up passing the anti union thing separately. Is there any rush with this? Why can't the Pubbies just go about their business for months while the Dems get to know much better the lay of the land in suburban Chicago?  Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

In other words they hold the all the cards?  Yeah, they do.

One Dem senate lady (very nice lady actually) in Wisconsin said that the matter just needed more extensive debate, and was being rushed. So why not promise the Dems that they can chat about it on the floor for a fortnight before a vote, with some protection against another episode of Escape From Madison? Yes, I know, that will just result in another rationale, but at least that one could be put to bed as a Dem talking point, forcing them to come up with another.

[Torie]

Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

Walker can do all kinds of things with a majority. The question is, and it has always been, how the Republicans judge the consequences of these actions for the future and if they think these are all good thing that are being accomplished. I really wonder if Walker laying off state employees when he is the one who is seen to be unwilling to compromise will play out well in Wisconsin. But there seems to be a real gap in this forum on that.

The Pubbies have crossed the Rubicon on this. They can't afford to lose. They have kind of boxed themselves in. I wonder if they adequately mapped this all out in advance, the way I do sometimes before a tough negotiation or trial. I sometimes spend a lot of time trying to think through all the angles, so that I am not bitten in the ass by surprise.

[Brittain33]

Torie, where I part ways with you is that I see the Republicans having already won a substantial victory in the big givebacks from the unions—especially the precedent in going from zero contributions to significant ones. I think they should take that win and consider themselves fortunate. No, they won't be able to kneecap the Democratic Party's troopers for future elections. But they'll have done a lot for good government and good budgeting.

[Torie]

If the GOP drops the unions can't F with pensions and medical benefits anymore stricture, it will be seen I think as a massive and castrating defeat. That is where we disagree I suspect.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Or the delay will end up passing the anti union thing separately. Is there any rush with this? Why can't the Pubbies just go about their business for months while the Dems get to know much better the lay of the land in suburban Chicago?  Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

They could do that, depends on where they think the public is on this issue. That kind of overreach could hurt them badly in future elections.

Plus, if I was them I'd want to force the Dems back to Wisconsin if only for the fact it would be humiliating for them to back down.

[Brittain33]

If the GOP drops the unions can't F with pensions and medical benefits anymore stricture, it will be seen I think as a massive and castrating defeat. That is where we disagree I suspect.

I think Wisconsin was a tough state for them to start this particular rollback and they'll have better luck elsewhere even if Walker falters. We'll see.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Or the delay will end up passing the anti union thing separately. Is there any rush with this? Why can't the Pubbies just go about their business for months while the Dems get to know much better the lay of the land in suburban Chicago?  Another pressure point is that Walker could start firing people without a budget.

In other words they hold the all the cards?  Yeah, they do.

One Dem senate lady (very nice lady actually) in Wisconsin said that the matter just needed more extensive debate, and was being rushed. So why not promise the Dems that they can chat about it on the floor for a fortnight before a vote, with some protection against another episode of Escape From Madison? Yes, I know, that will just result in another rationale, but at least that one could be put to bed as a Dem talking point, forcing them to come up with another.

That's what the Republicans said also about the HCR bill but everybody knew it was BS.

And yes, the Republicans can do anything they want since they control the trifecta. But the gap between "can do" and "do" is sometimes too big to make the jump.

[Napoleon]

Do corporations get to be considered individuals still if the unions get dismantled?
This is rubbish and I don't even prioritize unions. You can't punish people for voting in their self-interest.

[Sbane]

Do corporations get to be considered individuals still if the unions get dismantled?

Of course they do.

[Skill and Chance]

Do corporations get to be considered individuals still if the unions get dismantled?

Of course they do.

It would be interesting (and ironic) if a state like Massachusetts or Maryland tries to end corporate personhood in response to this.  I wonder if that is being considered anywhere.

[krazen1211]

It would be interesting (and ironic) if a state like Massachusetts or Maryland tries to end corporate personhood in response to this.  I wonder if that is being considered anywhere.

Probably not, both given Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific Railroad, and more importantly, we already have states without public sector unions.

It's hardly uncharted waters.

[opebo]

It would be interesting (and ironic) if a state like Massachusetts or Maryland tries to end corporate personhood in response to this.  I wonder if that is being considered anywhere.

I think there is zero possibility of any government entity in the USA interfering with corporate power.

[Insula Dei]

It would be interesting (and ironic) if a state like Massachusetts or Maryland tries to end corporate personhood in response to this.  I wonder if that is being considered anywhere.

Probably not, both given Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific Railroad, and more importantly, we already have states without public sector unions.
It's hardly uncharted waters.

I'm so sorry to hear that. You have my condoleances.

[Franzl]

I'm so sorry to hear that. You have my condoleances.

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to advocate disallowing them entirely....but public sector unions truly are a disease. A disease whose power needs to be seriously reduced.

[krazen1211]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

[jimrtex]

jimrtex,

Are you the author of this report? In case you haven't noticed, I never accused you of misleading anyone. I never said you were responsible for jack. I never even addressed you until you responded to me with a question. I answered. You never acknowledged receiving the answer, repeated it, and are now defending yourself against a charge that I never made of you.

I am not the author of the report.  The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau is the author.  Is their report misleading?  I don't think so.  The introduction clearly states its scope.

The use that some people have cited it to suggest that Wisconsin had a surplus when Walker became governor, is misleading and not accurate.

Landslide Lyndon cited the report in such a manner.  I explained to him (and others who may have been reading) what the report actually did show:  (1) That Wisconsin had $160 million in current needs in the fiscal biennium, for which expenditures have not been budgeted - for Medicaid and Corrections.  In addition there is around $200 million in debt owed by Wisconsin to replenish a fund that was illegally transferred to the general fund during a previous administration, and $60 million that is owed to Minnesota.  The $200 million is subject to a court hearing in March, where Wisconsin could be ordered to repay some or all of it in the current fiscal biennium.

One reader of that exchange between Landslide Lyndon and myself, who identified himself as "Beet" quoted Lyndon and me, and added a statement that concluded that the report was misleading.

I apologize if it was some other "Beet" who wrote that, or if what "Beet" wrote was non-responsive to what I wrote.  But if it was you, then that was the first time you responded to me.

I followed up to your claim that the report was misleading, with my question.  Your response to my question was the 2nd time you responded to me.  Not the first.

The report is not misleading.

[jimrtex]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?

Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.

If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

Poor wording on my part.  The budget deficit is going to be higher than thought a few months ago, much of that difference is due to Walker.  Its also not just spending increases, but more tax cuts for wealthy corporations.

The small business tax credit is for businesses with gross receipts under $500,000.  Almost all the benefit will be seen on individual taxes, which suggests that it is not "wealthy corporations" getting the tax break, but small self-proprietorships and partnerships.  If gross receipts are under $500,000, they likely have fewer than 10 employees.

The Health Savings Account is a deduction on individual income taxes to match the deduction on the federal income tax.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The hammer drops.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160742045911986.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Ohio joins the party and prepares to disband public sector unions. And, thankfully, they only have majority requirements for quorum.

I don't often get a little frightened and oddly hyperbolic and conspiratorial, but the amount of cheerleading you and others in this thread are doing is downright creepy considering the obvious motivations behind these moves. This is about crippling the Democratic Party electorally, this is about crippling the organizational capabilities that left-wing grassroots depends upon, this is about eliminating the only, the only, competition corporate money has in American politics.

This is literally about destroying elements of our democracy for partisan purposes. And people like you scare the sh**t out of me when I think about what a future America could look like after this.