Protests In Wisconsin

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

I did. Do you realize what the budget for MPS currently is? Without this proposal?

While I am all for making cuts where necessary, this is not the way to do it.

Should public employees take a cut in these hard economic times? Yes. But there is no reason whatsoever to destroy collective bargaining, union benefits, and educational funding.

In addition, his (and Biddy Martin's) ideas to separate UW system are ridiculous. That's another story though....

Exactly (to your bolded). For someone who claims to have read the bill, Beryana ruined all her(?) credibility by pulling the "children aren't a priority" card.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Exactly (to your bolded). For someone who claims to have read the bill, Beryana ruined all her(?) credibility by pulling the "children aren't a priority" card.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Beryana

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. . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Beryana

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.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

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.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AOEforme

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.

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.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

By that count, Republicans voting for the bill should be taking cpnsideration from all those in their constituency protesting, and vote no. Or vote "1/2 no, 1/2 yes".

In addition, showing up to the capitol building is not equal to doing their job. They aren't taking vacationing in Rockford, IL. They are doing their job by blocking the passage of the bill. By "not showing up to work", they have ensured that coverage of the bill will go on longer, and more pressure will be applied to those Republican voters who are wavering on passage of the bill. In addition, this gives more time for negotiation, so perhaps the collective barganing agreements can be changed.

Finally, how does fleeing the state protect their jobs? I'm hoping you are talking about the Texas Eleven here, because there is no way these senators are protecting their jobs by leaving the state. They are making a bold move to try and protect what the constituents desire.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

What I am saying is that they are elected to serve all their constituents not just the majority that elected them.

This is basically the most meaningless statement possible. Besides that, it's simply not true.

They are elected to do what they feel is right - elected officials are only beholden to the public to the extent that they need to reelected. There's a reason why we don't just do a direct poll of each county and have officials vote that way. Saying "they have a responsibility to the minority" is pandering of the highest order, beyond being disingenuous.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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.

[AOEforme]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

Please see the financial report linked above. There is no need to lay off teachers if other unnecessary programs pushed through in the last few weeks had not been pulled.

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

You are, actually. He initially told us his alternative was dropping 200,000 kids from Meidcaid, but that's not exactly legal. He then acknowledged he "didn't check before making the statement."

According to the State's Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin was actually supposed to have a surplus. Read the memo here.

Walker&Co then gave away hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, effectively creating a crisis.

He then proposed taking away the rights of union workers and called it "budget repair," despite the obvious disconnect. I mean, if he wants to bust the unions he should just say that; instead, he's pretending it's about the budget.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

This is traditionally what happens with unions (and no wonder it makes no sense to form a union). The unions begin to price themselves out of the market which results in a) layoffs or b) unprofitability which will ultimately result in layoffs...making the unions self-destructive at best. Now, the government doesn't have to worry about profitability, which means public debt is at stake.