## Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Male shortstied » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:52 pm

First in was Wiscosin, now Ohio, & other state with budget shortfalls, & are passing bills being called "anti-union" bills. That now unions are marching on capitol building's, & in an effort not to pass these bills, Dem. lawmakers are going into hiding, by fleeing these states.
Last edited by Male shortstied on Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:29 pm

Sorry, but even though I am a liberal, I have to agree with the govoners, they were elected to do the dirty work, and since now is the time to do it, and the people are saying no, the protestors seem a little hypocritical

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jack Roper » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:08 pm

Here is an excellent analysis of the current showdown in Wisconsin. It does look, more and more, as if the Republican governors are attempting to bust any public unions.
Wisconsin Power Play
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 20, 2011
Last week, in the face of protest demonstrations against Wisconsinâ€™s new union-busting governor, Scott Walker â€” demonstrations that continued through the weekend, with huge crowds on Saturday â€” Representative Paul Ryan made an unintentionally apt comparison: â€œItâ€™s like Cairo has moved to Madison.â€
It wasnâ€™t the smartest thing for Mr. Ryan to say, since he probably didnâ€™t mean to compare Mr. Walker, a fellow Republican, to Hosni Mubarak. Or maybe he did â€” after all, quite a few prominent conservatives, including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, denounced the uprising in Egypt and insist that President Obama should have helped the Mubarak regime suppress it.
In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For whatâ€™s happening in Wisconsin isnâ€™t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walkerâ€™s pretense that heâ€™s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin â€” and eventually, America â€” less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And thatâ€™s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstratorsâ€™ side.
Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.
In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.
But Mr. Walker isnâ€™t interested in making a deal. Partly thatâ€™s because he doesnâ€™t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workersâ€™ ability to bargain.
The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the stateâ€™s workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers â€” namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning â€” are exempted from the ban; itâ€™s as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.
Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the stateâ€™s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so thereâ€™s not much room for further pay squeezes.
So itâ€™s not about the budget; itâ€™s about the power.
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, weâ€™re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, weâ€™re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, itâ€™s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
You donâ€™t have to love unions, you donâ€™t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that theyâ€™re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years â€” which it has â€” thatâ€™s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.
And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.
Thereâ€™s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of Americaâ€™s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.
So will the attack on unions succeed? I donâ€™t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesnâ€™t.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 21, 2011, on page A17 of the New York edition.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Kyle » Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:24 pm

I'm not going to lie, I think unions these days often create more problems than they solve. However, I am extremely wary of anybody who would try to shut them down completely. That's someone who wants total power without anybody to oppose them.
From the sound of things Wisconsin is in a bad spot now and does have to make some serious cutbacks, and if the union simply opposes any changes at all they are a part of the problem. But it doesn't sound like the governor even wants to know what others think.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by snobound » Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:13 pm

Say it.... loudly... What's disgusting?? UNION BUSTING!!!!!!!!!!! Repeat....
Unions are all that keep teachers from being paid and treated like Wal Mart employees.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jason Toddman » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:20 pm

> snobound wrote:Unions are all that keep teachers from being paid and treated like Wal Mart employees.

Not that they get paid or treated very well anyway considering all the training they have to undergo and all the crap and flak they have to deal with afterward.
As is,teachers are probably the worst-paid professionals (and most overworked ones for the money they earn as well) in the country!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jack Roper » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:20 pm

And given that teachers are the highest profession their pay should reflect their importance, not be continually denigrated by fat-cat businessmen and Tea Party types.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by snobound » Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:00 am

Thank you... Jason and Jack.... THANK YOU! As a teacher, I've had quite enough of being shat upon by ignorant elected officials who wish to balance their budgets on the backs of their educators. Pathetic, if you ask me. The governor of Wisconsin deserves nothing less than the death of a thousand cuts.
Maybe we could cut our military in half, then educating our young people won't be such a burden....
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:09 pm

if we cut our military in half it would be almost impossible to fight two wars, watch over the rest of the middle east, keep a presence in the atlantic, and keep a watch over north korea. It would be like exchanging an AK-47 for a slingshot, it hurts, but not as much. I agree that the military is overfunded, but right now, if we want to continue paying our troops and giving them the best stuff in the world to do their work with so we can stay the leading force for good, than they need that money right now at least for the moment. Also, I do not wish anyone death to anyone, and I hope that neither do you.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:19 pm

IMHO both Snobound's and Appleguy's views of miltary expenditures and our role in the world is rather simplistic.
Cutting our military budget more than fractionally, letalone by half, would be totally impractical. But that idea of our fighting those wars and other things Appleguy mentions (except watching North Korea and orher ootential aggressors) as being somehow desireable is also impractical. If the curen situation between us and the rest of the world persists, we will enter an economoc crisis far worse than the one we are in now and will be helpless in the face of any aggressor nation (probably islamic) that survives the resulting fall out.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:29 pm

I am not saying that fighting those wars and other things are desirable, I am simply saying that it needs to be spent in the defense of our nation as much as it needs to be spent on the defense of my fellow peers futures

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:24 pm

It is the case only because our short sighted politicians embroil us in world affairs we have no business being involved in and can't get us out of the tarpits they mire us in afterward. HG Wells almost a century ago pointed out that nations with too-active foreign policies always bankrupt themselves. Today we are proving that this is still the case. And if this indeed happens, you and your fellow peers won't have a future worth living.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by vegas9191 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm

i believe in PERSONNEL cuts in the military. if we went back to isolationalism and protected our home front and SUPPORT the U.N. and make that an effective means of global conflict resolution instead of doing this vigilante crap we would not need that many military personnel (no cuts to technology or quality of equipment should be made). what gets me mad is that the FIRST thing to get cut where im from is the educational system. that should be dead last.
but back to the topic at hand here.. kyle hit this on the head here. unions do cause more problems sometimes, but abolishing them would lead us back into the stone age (metaphorically). lower wages, lower quality workers, little to no workers rights... it would be horrific.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jason Toddman » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:14 pm

> vegas9191 wrote:unions do cause more problems sometimes, but abolishing them would lead us back into the stone age (metaphorically)..

Right idea but not quite the right age.
IMHO the Dark Age would be more accurate for a comparison; specifically because it was the hey-day of Feudalism when most working class people were little better than slaves. And also IMHO those are the kind of days many of the rich folk and politicians would like to bring back into fashion again!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by vegas9191 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:18 pm

damn you jason!!! lol jk. and very true. and idk why, but i dont feel like less than two percent of the population should be given the majority of the power

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by snobound » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:12 pm

Sit back, relax, and behold the utter destruction of what's left of this nation's middle class. It's going fast.
Last edited by snobound on Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Kyle » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:58 pm

The middle class has been attacked for a long time now. The rich can afford what they're taxed (mostly), the poor get freebies, and the middle class get taxed to the brink of disaster. It's just more noticeable these days.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:49 pm

today the wisconson state senate voted to order police to bring back the missing senators using force if needed.
just something to add to the convo

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:12 am

I wouldn't think that'd be legal. If it is, it shouldn't be.
AFAIK they'd have to use extradiction as state police have no real authority outside their own state, and for that I think that the senators would have to be wanted for an actual crime.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by snobound » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:44 am

> Jason Toddman wrote:I wouldn't think that'd be legal. If it is, it shouldn't be.
> AFAIK they'd have to use extradiction as state police have no real authority outside their own state, and for that I think that the senators would have to be wanted for an actual crime.

They would indeed need to be wanted for an actual crime for extradition to be legal. The Wisconsin state constitution prohibits lawmakers from being arrested, except for "treason, felony, and breach of peace". One of these senators ought to allow his/herself to be arrested as this thing draws to a close- then they can sue that teabagger a-hole for wrongful imprisonment.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:14 am

Well, it is legal, don't exactly know the laws, but the senate ordered the lawmakers back

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by xtc » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:04 am

Just a (very selective) view from abroad.
When reading this, I thought I had been transported into a parallel dimension.
Remember Mcarthyism; remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It seems that both situations are resurgent.
As a teacher:
Our (UK) government is currenty trying to divide and conquer. They seem to have forgotten their most recent defeat.
They brought in a General Teaching Council which they hoped would supplant the unions and discipline teachers.
They gave it the power to bar teachers from working.
Nobody paid the levy in spite of having been told it was a legal obligation to do so.
They resorted to giving teachers Â£30 some-odd in their "pay packets" and immediately giving it (after tax adjustments) to the GTC.
Teachers still cleave to their unions (too many different ones in my opinion) and the GTC has been abolished in the bonfire of the QUANGOs!
Hang on in there, brothers & sisters. "The workers united will never be defeated."
Yes, I am an unreconstructed, old fashioned socialist!
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:56 am

I tink HG Wells' "Outline of History" should be updated and released in a new edition and made required reading for every politician in Europe and the US! It probably wouldn't convince most of the hard-line conservative sbut it might educate a few people.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by snobound » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:38 pm

> Appleguy224 wrote:Well, it is legal, don't exactly know the laws, but the senate ordered the lawmakers back

No, it's not. What crime have they committed? The governor's republican cronies know that they're skirting the law.
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:06 pm

The police will be ordered to bring them back on charges of contempt and disorderly conduct, as far as i know, that is a reason why police can do that, believe me though, but i am not saying i agree with it

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:08 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:I wouldn't think that'd be legal. If it is, it shouldn't be.
> AFAIK they'd have to use extradiction as state police have no real authority outside their own state, and for that I think that the senators would have to be wanted for an actual crime.

Contempt and disorderly conduct

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by xtc » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:50 pm

The mention of H. G. Wells reminds me: I worked in a school a mere few hundred yards from where the Martians landed. (Check it out if you must but they landed on Horsell Common.) It represented an enclave of poverty in the surrounding wealth of Surrey. The government "sold it off" and pumped money into it to make it attractive to the business that made a take-over bid. I wonder why they didn't do that before?
There are advantages to being an unreconstructed leftie: I resigned without a job to go to and took a great job in the wonderful Forest.
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Kyle » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:44 pm

Why did the lawmakers leave the state in the first place? If they didn't want to vote, just don't show up. I don't agree with how the governor's handling it by any stretch of the imagination but that's a big sign of cowardice or plain idiocy, depending on how you look at it, on the part of everyone who fled the state.

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Appleguy224 » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:24 pm

they left more for a symbolic gesture, they also left so they cannot be escorted by state police back into the building. I do not agree with the governor completely, and hope something gets worked out to benefit both sides

### Re: Showdown in state capitols.

Post by Kyle » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:32 pm

Doesn't sound like it worked...