Sure did.

To be honest, your sentence is a punctuation nightmare, so I may have misread it. I thought you were saying the forthcoming budget proposal wouldn't make any cuts into education. I was just curious how you knew so much more than all of the education officials mentioned in the Journal Sentinel's article today.

Maybe Werwie just got back to you first.

I can't prove it to you people since none of you work in my office but I just wanted to tell you that I called it that the Dems would be found in Rockford, Illinois.

Also, I talked to my SIL in NY State and she said the teacher's union there has been talking about possible courses of action should something similar happen in NY (and it might - NY is in terrible financial shape right now).

And I should care what you think, why? But then again, I did forget I should keep my thoughts and opinions to myself around here. . .

The only non-academic, current news articles that I have read in recent weeks were yesterday and today. I am not an 'education expert', nor do I read the Milwaukee paper (or Madison, Green Bay, Appleton, Wausau, etc.). I am basing my statements on what I have read in the bill. I still like the bill and am still disappointed the Senate Democrats had to pull theatrics and are basically not willing to discuss/debate the issue (and my Senator sits on the Finance committee which drafted this bill). Please explain how this bill affects education funding? Without the unions the education system will completely fall apart? I have only attended a publicly or state funded school for 4 years out of 21 years of school (Kindergarten, senior year of college and 2 years of graduate school) so, maybe, I just do not completely understand how this bill directly affects education funding. I would love to be enlightened.

As to 'compelling' the Senate Democrats to show up for work, they left the state so the State Patrol could not 'escort' them back. AOII Angel, since it is not unheard of, please explain when the entire minority party of a Wisconsin legislative house has left the state to avoid a vote on a bill.

Obviously you care to some extent or you wouldn't have bothered sharing. Your choice to do so, means that people get to reply to your posts. Welcome to the internet. However instead of commenting on what you read in the bill you decided to claim that teachers didn't care about children which is an oft-used slam against unions and patently untrue. When people say things that are false, other people stop listening to them - *poof* credibility gone. Similarly many people stopped listening to the governor when he threatened to call out the National Guard (who very politely told him to shove it.)

And if you don't think that the attempt to quash collective bargaining would have any significant effect on public schools when most if not all public school teachers are in the union, yeah I'm pretty sure the system falls apart even if only temporarily while schools have to rehire/restructure/etc.
Are you aware that although a bill may not specifically state that it is cut funding in a certain area the intended effect is to cut that funding? Also, legislators often propose multiple bills that have a cascading effect. Here is just one article discussing the effects of the cuts on education which are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In this article, the governor does not deny the cuts, simply saying that he wants to offset them with other income. Which would seem to confirm the interpretation of the "education leaders" described.

This article describes how the proposed budget cuts will be 'offset' by the 'savings' caused by the current bill. As the same people are proposing both the budget and the current bill these things tend to work together to create action.
To the people who voted for those Democrats, odds are they're doing exactly the job they were hired to do. If their constituents want them to protect their jobs/rights to unionize then they're doing their best to make sure the bill doesn't pass, aren't they?

Additionally, don't you think it's odd how police and firefighter unions were left alone and will still have all their rights? Like maybe this isn't about principle because it's not applied to public employee unions across the board? It's almost as if they don't want to piss off certain groups, who maybe vote for them.

Drole, thank you for explaining this to her (?). I'm beat and I don't have time to start at square one so I'm glad you had the patience...I was just going to tell her(?) to read a newspaper or brush up on civics but you broke it down quite eloquently.

The government workers yet again acting embarrassing.

Here is the report from the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau which determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million. (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf). Please note the date on the memo: January 31, 2011. This memo has NOTHING to do with the passage of the bill.

Where then is the $137 million dollar deficit coming from? If you continue to read the memo, it shows nearly 1/2 of this deficit comes from programs Walker has pushed through, including a $67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers and $48 million for private health savings accounts.


This is just from the fiscal point of view. This has nothing to do with money. This about the fact that a single bill is busting unions and ruining education in Wisconsin.

If you care at all for the future of the state, you can't cut education. There was an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about a year ago which went over the data from high school and college graduations in the state. Most students in the top 10% of their class left the state, for either college or careers. The article went on to discuss how incentive needed to be created to keep these students in the state, because the state's financial situation would soon deteriorate as well.

When you cut education budgets, you are really just shooting yourself in the (metaphorical) foot twenty years down the line.

A link to the Capital Times Article which more eloquently goes over the financial situation I eluded to above: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opin...c8b2aaaf6.html

You realize there are other states besides Wisconsin, right? In Texas, they were called the Texas Eleven, and they were gone for 46 days. They got important concessions, even though the bill they objected to did eventually pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Eleven

The reason they did it, and why the Senators are doing it now, is that the Republicans have enough votes to pass the bill right now, but there are a couple of Republican Senators who might waver in their support of the bill. The goal is to keep public pressure on those Senators (prolonging the demonstrations) so that they flip and the bill does not pass. They are very much "showing up to work" despite what people say on TV. They're representing their constituents the only way they can, at this point, and it's a legitimate political tactic.

Something I've noticed is that people don't understand the difference between Quorum and passing a bill, which is surprising to me.

If this is a sound tactic then I suggest anytime a party is in the minority they flee their respective state and deny the chambers they belong to a quorum. Then nothing will be accomplished. Of course, one is elected to serve all the people of ones district/area including those that did not vote for you.

The Republicans should learn from this and use it when they are the minority. Works for me.

Wish the Republicans had used it on the Health Care Bill but then the Democrats would have blasted the minority for shirking their responsibilities to their constituents and would have probably tried to have them arrested.

Oh yeah, I remember that the Texas Eleven were fleeing because of redistricting. That is perfectly excusable as they were protecting their own jobs. In NC the Democrats have controlled both or at least one chamber of Congress for over 110 years. They have controlled the redistricting during all this time. Never once have the Republican members of the Senate or House fled the state to keep the Democrats from drawing new districts. This year the Republicans have both Chambers and will redraw the lines. We will see if the Democrats flee the state. Should be interesting.

So because they are NOT protecting their own jobs and they are protecting the interests of their constituents, this is not acceptable? I'm sorry: I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here.

A friend's video. http://vimeo.com/20089255

These Democrats are protecting people's jobs, too. Actually, it might be more "noble" of them considering that they're not protecting their own jobs, but those of their constituents. WHY a lot of people think it's a legitimate tactic, at this point, is because they believe there is simply too much at stake here to let the bill pass and have it killed in the courts.

Sidenote: If you people are on t_witter, you need to be following @MayorEmanuel. His account of what went down between the Wisconsin Dems and his crew (including Quaxlerod) last night is most hilarious.

What I am saying is that they are elected to serve all their constituents not just the majority that elected them. This means that they show up for their work at the assigned location and do their job. One does not flee their state because you want to protect your job. IMO this is not an acceptable practice. This goes for anyone who wishes to use this practice whether Republican or Democrat. I was being facetious in my remarks.

If I am not mistaken the Governor of WI is suggesting these cutbacks in order to keep from laying off teachers. The whole thing is that the Unions feel threatened. The hell with the kids that these teachers were hired to teach. It is all about the teacher and the power of the Union. I would fire them all and hire from the ranks of the numerous college grads who are underemployed/unemployed.