Scott Walker survives recall vote

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I know, anything for the Democrats and the unions as far as you're concerned.

Try living in a town with far too many cops with far too little to do, who by the way can't be fired or downsized because of their sweetheart union contracts. It's not much fun and it gets a bit expensive.

On the other side of the coin, there are communities without enough cops or fire fighters. And school teachers are being told by Mitt Romney that bigger classes wouldn't be a problem for anyone. As if he has any experience to speak intelligently on the subject.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So? None of that is relevant at all to the problems of over-hiring and overpaying un-fireable people, especially people who's idea of make-work includes harassing the local populace with petty infraction ticketing or ginning up drug charges to provide both something to do and funds to do it with. If other towns can't hire enough cops, that's their own fiscal problem, though it is suggestive considering that part of this debate has to do with overpaid public employees, including cops.

I never said it was relevant to all problems, but such situations need to be addressed.
Perhaps send those extra cops and fire fighters to those towns without enough.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Somebody isn't doing the right amount of legal research here. I've seen the actual legal documentation because I live in Wisconsin when I'm not in uniform. The federal courthouse is only a half hour away. This is what the law is about: Act 10 does not restrict voluntary unions at all. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying. I've read the actual law and both sides have stipulated to that fact in federal court. When both Unions and Walker stipulate to a fact in court, that means they agree to it. Secondly, many volunteer unions have both filed public statements and amicus briefs stating that they back the Walker plan. That is also a matter of public record.

Act 10 does do the following according to the judge (recently appointed by Obama) in the case:

1) While it restricts collective bargaining by the public employee unions, it does not destroy it. The restrictions on collective bargaining are in line with those on the federal level and are thus constitutional and follow the precedent set forth by the Carter Administration.

2) It does state that involuntary membership is no longer legal, and has been ruled by the judge to be illegal to force anyone to be a member of any union involuntarily under the establishment clause of the constitution.

3) The court has ruled that the unions failed to meet the burden of proof that the plaintiff's (unions') constitutional rights concerning the First Amemdment.

4) The Walker administration erred in not allowing voluntarycontributions by union members to be collected by the state through payroll deductions - which will cost the state some serious jing because of the manpower needed for that operation.

Now, some interesting point from an amicus brief filed in the proceeding:

1) The very issues addressed by the court should not have even reached the judge's bench because the issues were non-justiciable (See Nielsen v Kezer, 232 Conn. 65, 652 A 2d.) See also 16a American Jurisprudence, 2d Ed, 264 & 265. "Where the legislature has spoken, a court is not free to substitute its judgment as to a better policy, rather, the court is obligated to carry out the intent of the legislature....

2) "Congressional selection of particular entities is not open to judicial review." See Regan v Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 US 540, 103 S Ct 1997 (1983)

3. The SCOTUS has stated emphatically that " A statute will not be overturned unless varying treatment of the different groups of persons is so unrelated to the acheivement of any combination of legitimate purposes that it can only be concluded that the legislature's acts were irrational." Vance v Bradley, 440 US 93, 99 S Ct 939.

Reducing public employee union benefits because of the unnecessary burden to taxpayers, a majority of whom are broke anyway, is rational.

Furthermore, governement employees unionizing is unconsitutional. It violates the Establishment and Guarentee Clauses of the Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment because unionization creates a clear impediment to the efficiency and neutrality of government due to the conflicts of interest created by unionization - a point made by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-thirtes.

In other words - this whole union thing shouldn't be under any dispute, period.

Longshanks

As long as the cost of employing them goes with them. Also, if only it were so simple.

And you didn't actually contradict what I said. The particular political calculation he made (as you admitted) DOES play on the fact that teachers are lower on the conservative power hierarchy and thus deserve to be paid less. Teachers are less important than police or firefighters in the eyes of the average conservative. Police protect the public while teachers are worthless parasites mooching off tax payers to instill liberal bias by teaching evolution etc. Maybe you don't think that way but you aren't a conservative so you don't see their ulterior motives. Destroying public education has always been a part of the far right agenda.


FDR also forcibly relocated or locked up over 100,000 American citizens for no good reason. Being against the existence of public sector unions goes against freedom of association. What are you going to do, lock them up if they voluntarily decide to form a union and voluntarily pay dues out of their own paychecks? I'm not saying you're an authoritarian. I just don't think your views are truly consistent and unbiased. I see the use of unlimited special interest money in electing public officials as problematic and ultimately undemocratic, yet you dismiss these concerns over a concern about a slippery slope to limiting freedom of speech and association. If you're against the existence of public sector unions I can make the same argument, namely that you are for limiting freedom of speech and association.


I just don't see the world in the same black-and-white manner you do. I don't see the right of politicians to accept unlimited legalized bribes from wealthy donors as a form of free speech. I see it as a corrosive force undermining true democracy.

^
I can always tell when I've hit a nerve with you, Marshall, when you switch from discussing the topic to discussing or attacking me, or especially trying to put my opinions into a box of your making.

I'll be back in a bit for a more detailed analysis, but accusing me of all people of a straitjacketed black or white thinking is particularly laughable in light of my oft proclaimed moral relativism, among other things.

For now, I'll just make the obvious observation that opposing federal unions doesn't require any freedom of associations violations or locking anyone up, all it takes is firing people who try to unionize. No one has a right to a particular job, so none of my principals are violated and no authoritarianism is committed. Simple.

You might not have any particular rights to a job (as in demanding the right to a job before one is hired), but you definitely have rights while holding that job.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I was discussing the topic. I don't see why you're so sensitive that you assume I'm personally attacking you or questioning your intellect. I'm sorry if the fact that your worldview comes off as too black-and-white in my own opinion is personally offensive to you. You're still free to tell me my views on "fairness" are too fuzzy and subjective to be taken seriously without me interpreting that as an insult to my intellect.

Even if you're not locking people up, firing people for unionizing is punishment for freedom of association and thus authoritarian in principle. The same goes for requiring employees to turn over their password for social networking sites under the threat of termination.

Here's the brick wall we're running into and the main reason I do not think my views will ever be reconciled with yours...

Liberal/progressive perspective of freedom = freedom from power imbalance and hierarchical control over individual lives. Power in my mind does not equate to physical coercion alone, it can be exercised through indirect means of leverage. I believe giving a voice to as many individuals as possible and resolving conflicts through compromise to be the method leading to the greatest freedom. People with a libertarian or conservative bent are too quick to draw a sharp line on physical coercion through the legal system and are far too dismissive when it comes to more subtle or indirect coercive effects stemming from power imbalances that act to limit individual freedom.

Outright banning of public sector is a way to kill discourse and adapt an attitude of "my way or the high way". Governor Walker basically did the equivalent of telling certain government workers "shut up, from now on nobody in my government is allowed to listen to you". Even if he didn't threaten to lock anyone up, that attitude is fundamentally authoritarian in my mind.

Marshall - dude, you're missing the whole thing. And I'll put it to you plain, because I AM a Wisconsinite. To start off with, I'll give you a dose of reality: My neighbors had to sell their wedding rings to pay their taxes. Why should they have to pay for benefits above and beyond what private employers pay for as well as ALL of a public employee's retirement when they get no benefits and no retirement - especially when they can't afford it? Why should I, when I defend the First Amendment when I'm in uniform, have to tolerate unionistas storming the capital building like a bunch of Nazi Stormtroopers attempting to violently overthrow the government and abusing their 1st amendment privileges while also injuring on-duty union menber police officers trying to keep the peace? And yes, a couple of cops were carted off in an ambulance from that. Why should we have two costly recall elections over sour grapes? You don't see any conservatives pulling that BS!

That's what people in Wisconsin are PO'ed about! We are sick of paying taxes for lackluster or no service and for benefits we can't afford for ourselves. When the unionistas talk about assaults on the middle class , the only people they see as being middle class are themselves! And that is another attitude that is POing a number of Wisconsinites. Oh yes, and let's not forget the union guy from Chicago IL that threatened to crush a 66 year old woman's skull against the wall for not letting him vote illegally in Wisconsin! Is that the liberal way?? Hypocracy!

It is time that liberals started practicing what they preach about "shared sacrafice". People don't have any money anymore! And people in Wisconsin are beginning to wake up to that reality. That is why we kept Walker in office with more votes than he got the first election. And what people like you - and Oh-blame-oh have succeeded in doing is not only angering the conservatives but a majority of the moderates as well, while making Scott Walker future presidential material. Give it another 9 years, and he'll be ready. That's right - you libs made him into not just a hero, but a martyr! No one has power like a martyr!

Liberals, particularly the ones in power, need to do one thing fast: Grow up! Get a life! And get to reality! The only thing that Saul Alinski ever succeeded in doing was showing the liberals how not just to p*** off the conservatives, but the moderates as well. And it will cost you libs big time for years to come!

And one other thing: I'm ashamed that Barack Obama's mother is my cousin! I'm ashamed!

Longshanks

Last edited by Longshanks on 14 Jun 2012, 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ending Walker's state tax breaks for the rich might have allowed your neighbors to keep their rings.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have no interested in debating a condescending partisan hack. Sorry, you blew it. I don't care how "pissed off" you think you are, you can take your divisive petty demagoguery straight to hell.

Kraichgauer, you're so easy to impeach! 1) The rich all fled the state during Democratic Governor Jim Doy's regime. I ough to know. I did some of their taxes. After 4 years of Doyle they moved to Texas, Nevada, and North Carolina. 2) Under Wisconsin's anti-rich taxes are still in the upper 15 states in the nation. 3) It's the unions that are costing the state, and by doing what Walker did, he rid us of our deficit and brought about a surplus while bringing about more jobs and preventing the laying off of 15,00 union workers. 4. What does your post have to do about unionistas acting like little two-year olds? 5) How does your post compensate for the fact that most Wisconsinites see past liberal hypocracy?

Longshanks

I think it's someone's nap time.....

You said it was the fault of public unions that cost the tax payers of Wisconsin so much. I only suggested it was the coddling of the rich - who are the last to need coddling - with their tax cuts that was actually hurting ordinary citizens. And I personally think rich people leaving their state - or country - to escape higher taxes are a bunch of whiny wieners.
And by the way, as I see it, those so called "unionistas" were only practicing their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer