|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 20, 2011 8:47:13 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=wisconsinMadison equals Cairo? Not even close February 19th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain It’s a cold day in hell here as I favorably quote someone who I usually savage. And I have to revise my thoughts on the left not getting irony – apparently some do. Who am I taking about? Joe Klein. Yup that Joe Klein, TIME’s Joe Klein. He actually gets it: Revolutions everywhere–in the middle east, in the middle west. But there is a difference: in the middle east, the protesters are marching for democracy; in the middle west, they’re protesting against it. I mean, Isn’t it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn’t it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process? Isn’t it interesting that some of those who–rightly–protest the assorted Republican efforts to stymie majority rule in the U.S. Senate are celebrating the Democratic efforts to stymie the same in the Wisconsin Senate? An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. I know … you’re wondering, “what did they do with the real Joe Klein”, but hey give the devil his due (keeping with the cold day in hell metaphor) – he’s exactly right. The other Klein, the Ezra type, not so much. Let’s be clear: Whatever fiscal problems Wisconsin is — or is not — facing at the moment, they’re not caused by labor unions. That, sir, is irrelevant. Whatever “fiscal problems” are present need to be solved by having across the board spending cuts and that’s the point of requiring public service labor union members to pitch in a little more on their benefits. Essentially what Wisconsin is trying to do is put state employees on an even par with private employees in terms of benefits. Here’s the bottom line of what is triggering these protests: Besides limiting collective-bargaining rights for most workers—excepting police, firefighters and others involved in public safety—it would require government workers, who currently contribute little or nothing to their pensions, to contribute 5.8% of their pay to pensions, and pay at least 12.6% of health-care premiums, up from an average of 6%. Wow. No more free lunch. Can’t imagine that, can you? You know, actually having to pitch in for your pension and health-care? Privately employed citizens have been doing that forever. So why are the public sector folks exempt? Well that’s the dirty little secret isn’t it? Let’s go to Matt Welch for the answer: We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people’s money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street’s fault. Anyone who doesn’t agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler. There is Wisconsin in a nutshell – distilled as well as you’ll find it anywhere. These deals were mostly pay for play and the state’s taxpayers were sold down the river. I noted some months ago that the Democrats have become the party of public service unions instead of the party of the blue collar worker. They are dependent on the money and machine those powerful unions provide to stay in power. And when that machine falters? Well, you get tantrums like this. Remember the union protesters in Illinois a few months ago clamoring for the governor there to raise taxes instead of cutting their benefits? Just like Ezra Klein they want to lay off the fiscal mess on others instead of recognizing its reality and understanding that the free ride has come to an end. It doesn’t matter if the unions had anything to do with the mess – the mess says everything is on the table. That’s the only way out of the mess. But, this is Armageddon for the Democrats and their stakeholders. If states succeed in breaking the hold public service unions have on government, Democrats stand to lose substantial power. That explains why President Obama has entered the fray. While he wouldn’t back the protesters in Iran because it might be seen as meddling in the internal affairs of the state, he has no qualms whatsoever of meddling in the internal affairs of the state of Wisconsin. Apparently elections only have consequences when he wins. What has the unions so terrified of the Walker plan? Well here’s the plan: His plan allows workers to quit their union without losing their job. He requires unions to demonstrate their support through an annual secret-ballot vote. He also ends the unfair taxpayer subsidy to union fundraising: The state and local government would stop collecting union dues with their payroll systems. Under that plan, union membership would be an actual choice instead of a mandated requirement to hold a job. Horror of horrors. How dare a governor advance something which actually enhances freedom (choice = freedom) – why that makes him a dictator, of course and akin to Hitler. Make no mistake, these protests in Madison aren’t about democracy, freedom or liberty. They’re about the left’s power and something they love to project on the right and Wall Street – selfishness. The protests are a collective tantrum from adolescents who refuse to acknowledge that their special-interest Candyland no longer exists and while it did, it existed on the back of the tax payers who were made to unwillingly subsidizing their way of life. This is the wrong fight, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Democrats are on the wrong side. Public sector unions are not popular and despite Ezra Klein’s denial, are held responsible for some of the fiscal problems the states face (like pensions): A new poll from the Washington-based Clarus Group asked: Do you think government employees should be represented by labor unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions … or do you think government employees should not be represented by labor unions? A full 64% of the respondents said "no." That includes 42% of Democrats, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. Only 49% of Democrats think public workers should be in unions at all. So, as you watch these “protests” keep them in context. They’re an astroturfed attempt, orchestrated from the highest office in the land, to keep the power current structure in place that underpins the political power of the Democrats. This isn’t about rights or liberty or freedom, this is about power and money. And it has finally unmasked the left in this country and revealed what it is really all about. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 20, 2011 22:15:35 GMT -5
In the video below, listen to the common sense and truth spoken by three of the panelists and Ms. Amanpour. Listen to the oppposite from Ms. Brazile.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 20, 2011 22:42:44 GMT -5
Great article, Phil. McQ, and the writings he cites, hit the nail on the head from all angles.
Actual change is occurring, not the smoke and mirrors and lies promised by the Leftist slogans.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 20, 2011 23:22:13 GMT -5
So when a vote is scheduled on a bill, and one side will likely not have enough votes to stop it from becoming law, it is perfectly legal and ethical to flee the state to avoid a quorum.
I trust then that ANY bill could be stopped with this tactic.
AWOL lawmakers should be removed from office immediately.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Feb 21, 2011 6:01:08 GMT -5
So when a vote is scheduled on a bill, and one side will likely not have enough votes to stop it from becoming law, it is perfectly legal and ethical to flee the state to avoid a quorum. I trust then that ANY bill could be stopped with this tactic. AWOL lawmakers should be removed from office immediately. Agreed
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Feb 21, 2011 6:13:00 GMT -5
Brazile is an idiot. She just proved it.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 21, 2011 7:29:23 GMT -5
What it boils down to is that unions are part of the Democratic Party and Oboma and the Democrats have shown, without doubt, that they will take care of them.
Back in the day when I was a union member I wasn’t pleased to be contributing to a cause I was opposed to. If I were a union member now, I’d go find a job that didn’t require me to be a union member.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Feb 21, 2011 9:13:03 GMT -5
Gentlemen.....I concur 100% with every post. May I suggest two thoughts: (1) IMHO, this peaceful protest and the right of assembly is protected under the Constitution. I know that one could make a valid argument as to the "why now" protection of Constitutional rights..... but still in all protected. (2) IMHO, this union rebellion was subliminally endorsed by our CIC and other powers that be almost immediately following Egypt's offence for change? I realize this is not defence for what is happening in WI, but it the CIC's actions put a carte blanch on protests that further his agenda, regardless of what country they occur in. I asked a question on another thread to wit was unanswered, so I'll pose it again. What would prevent those of us who have "had it" with every action since this administration's take over of power.....why we don't demand his resignation?
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 21, 2011 14:19:45 GMT -5
Who is winning the public relations fight in Wisconsin?
February 21st, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain
Rasmussen says it’s Republican governor Scott Walker:
A sizable number of voters are following new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s showdown with unionized public employees in his state, and nearly half side with the governor.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided.
Additionally:
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters think teachers, firemen and policemen should be allowed to go on strike, but 49% disagree and believe they should not have that right. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.
And finally:
Public employee unions have long been strong supporters, financially and otherwise, of Democratic Party candidates, so it’s no surprise that 68% of Democrats support the union workers in the Wisconsin dispute. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties side with the governor. [emphasis mine]
The bold line is key. I find nothing particularly surprising about either of the percentages from Democrats polled or Republicans. But again this indicates that the Democrats have lost the independent vote and lost it significantly. Public opinion, based on this poll, is definitely with the Governor.
What is playing out in Wisconsin has been recognized by unions as a hill they must die on or suffer the probably irreversible consequences of losing political power. They also understand the potential reaches far outside Wisconsin. If Wisconsin goes, others could follow:
“Some of the labor people are saying, ‘It’s the beginning of the fight back,’” said a top labor official. “But if the labor movement rallies and gets run over in Wisconsin, it opens [the gates] in every state” for governors to start pushing harder to curtail labor rights.
“Not every state’s going to roll back collective bargaining,” the official — who, like many, spoke off the record to avoid undermining the protests — added, but said it could open the gates for union losses on various fronts, like benefits.
Don’t be fooled – this isn’t just about “benefits”. It is about power, politics and money. The mix of those three have given public sector unions a synergy that has allowed them, in many places, to hand pick Democratic representatives, have them elected and then have them do the union’s business. It is a pernicious and non-competitive arrangement that is finally, because of the financial downturn, coming to light.
But the unions have a problem. They haven’t been able to sell the emotional argument (benefits) and they certainly aren’t about to try to explain the real reason they’re fighting this (power and money). So what they’re having to deal with the the public’s perception, formed over many years in Wisconsin, that the public sector costs too much, has to be cut and that includes public sector employee benefits as well:
But this fight isn’t at the time or place of the unions’ choosing. Hostility to public-sector workers, including teachers, is at an all-time high amid a recession and a new national mania for curbing the tide of fiscal red ink. Walker appears to have a firm legislative majority on his side.
And labor is struggling to explain — and convince a voting public that has inched away from the concept of unions as a bedrock American institution over the years — that while it’s willing to be flexible on Walker’s demands for cost control, his attempts to change the rules governing public unions are a matter of institutional life and death and union principle. Labor hopes the public will see Walker’s attempt to use a budget gap to reshape labor-management relations as an overreach. But for many people watching from afar, the details of what Walker wants to accomplish have gotten lost, and the fight is playing out as yet another in a long string of recent state-based brawls over the high cost of the public sector.
So public sector unions have a heck of a PR problem not only in Wisconsin, but if the Rasmussen poll is to be believed, throughout the US. Nationally that could mean this:
Bradley Tusk, a former Illinois deputy governor and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s 2009 campaign manager, said that if Walker succeeds in the fight, “this will be portrayed as a major change toward fiscal sanity and protecting taxpayers.”
“The average voter will never feel any pain from it,” he added, “so the high ground shifts away from labor. That puts Obama and other Democrats in the position of being forced further to the left, or moving more toward the GOP position and risking losing support from labor. … This almost creates some of the problems that a primary forces on the challenger.”
And the union’s “winning strategy” to counter that?
As a broader issue, in other states, national union officials think they’ve found a winning strategy in shifting the fight off government and slamming Wall Street, armed with repeated polls that show anti-financial industry sentiment at an all-time high.
Apparently, however, union officials don’t understand that it isn’t an “either/or” situation. The public blames both for different reasons. But more importantly, the public realizes “what is, is” and you deal with it. Whether they believe (or not) that Wall Street is to blame, that doesn’t change the fact that the problem (budget deficit) has to be confronted and solved and part of the solution has to be borne by public sector employees.
Norman Adler, a longtime lobbyist for public sector labor unions in New York, says the unions have to fight – that this is not something they can walk away from. And, if they lose in Wisconsin, they “have to reconfigure their tactics and move on.” But, he says:
“Labor pretty much lost the PR fight a number of years ago,” he said, suggesting the true targets of opportunity at the moment are state lawmakers who are “on the fence,” and can be swayed because they’re worried about getting elected back home. “And I think their position is that they have to show political muscle here.”
Translation: this could get even nastier.
Watch for it.
~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 23, 2011 7:49:35 GMT -5
Heading to the exits, more Democrats flee their duties.
February 22nd, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain Apparently "elections have consequences" only works when Democrats win. Otherwise the try to take their ball and go home, or to another state in the case of Wisconsin and now Indiana:
House Democrats are leaving the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation, The Indianapolis Star has learned.
A source said Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana.
I'm amazed at the number of people on the left, who were so happy to remind the right about the consequences of elections now support this sort of childish nonsense as a good response to the other side carrying out its agenda as they did theirs.
Today's fight was triggered by Republicans pushing a bill that would bar unions and companies from negotiating a contract that requires non-union members to kick-in fees for representation. It's become the latest in what is becoming a national fight over Republican attempts to eliminate or limit collective bargaining.
Imagine that, Republicans attempting to stop the extortion of fees required just to do a job contract. How freaking dictatorial is that! Why I imagine the mustachioed visage of the governor will show up on home made signs any second.
And, of course, there's always a "Baghdad Bob" to be found to spin the unspinnable and somehow do it with a straight face. Rep Teri Austin (D- Anderson) told the Indiana House speaker that the missing Democrats "continue to be in caucus" and are discussing potential amendments to several bills. Additionally:
Austin told reporters that "it doesn't matter where they (Democrats) are at this point. What matters is that they're trying to figure out a way to save the state from this radical agenda."
Asked if they were in the state, Austin said only: "They're working hard."
Uh, huh, with some in Illinois and some in Kentucky. Sure they are.
This isn't the first time they've done this:
The last time a prolonged walk-out happened in the Indiana legislature was in the mid-1990s, when Republicans were in control and tried to draw new legislative district maps, eliminating a district that likely would have been a Democrat one, in the middle of the decade. Democrats won that standoff, staying away several days until Republicans dropped the plan.
How desperate are Democrats to protect their new constituency, public sector unions?
Yeah, this isn't the 1990's. Different era, different problem and, most likely, different outcome. Keep helping yourselves like this Democrats, please.
~McQ
Edited to remove goofy symbols by Administrator/Dictator Ritty77.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 23, 2011 14:46:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Feb 23, 2011 17:53:41 GMT -5
Unions are toast, unless they can actually represent their workers against bad bosses. Too many times, unions only keep people working who would have been fired in a non-union shop. I could tell you too many true stories of locals who should be fired but, keep their jobs because of a union.
And, that crap hurts us all.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 26, 2011 1:11:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 26, 2011 8:15:26 GMT -5
Interesting comparison, be sure and read the whole thing:
Dr. Sanity Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life
Thursday, February 24, 2011 ADDICTED TO YOUR MONEY: Or, EVERYONE'S ENTITLED, BUT NO ONE"S RESPONSIBLE
Part of my job is dealing with chemical addictions and the addicts who have them. One definition of chemical dependency that I particularly like and have seen validated over and over again is this: "Chemical dependency is essentially a committed pathological love relationship to a mood altering chemical substance."
This reality is sometimes hard to believe, especially when you regularly observe the chaotic mess most of the lives of addicts are. Especially the chronically homeless (because of drugs); the chronically penniless (because of drugs); the chronically friendless and isolated (except for other addicts); and the chronically angry and paranoid (because of drugs). But, if you ask an addict why he takes drugs, he is very likely to tell that he likes or enjoys them.
From a review of the book linked above:
The McAuliffes conclude that chemical dependency is a disease. Some would say it is a choice, but choice does not apply to the addict. It applies only before addiction. Once the love commitment is made, reason and choice are not available. The shift is made to emotional compulsion. The addict is now in the grip of an emotional commitment that warps reason and restricts freedom of choice. A rigid defense system is also produced, warding off any interference with the addict's behavior. And the seal is set to the situation by delusion. The addict's perception of reality is distorted, which further impairs his reason and judgment. If these elements were mildly present in a love relationship between a man and a woman, it would be normal, even comical. But in a love relationship to a chemical it is disastrous, producing a debilitating downward spiral, toward both personal and social disorder and destruction.The only thing I disagree with in the above is the comment that, "choice does not apply to the addict." On the contrary, as long as the addict is human, choice always applies; especially before addiction, but also every time an addict is effectively "detoxed", i.e., successfully weaned from the physiological effects of his or her particular chemical of choice. It is at that point that they can start anew both biologically and psychologically.
The problem is getting them to commit to the weaning and the long process of staying away from the substance they KNOW will destroy their life. It is the opening in which therapists attempt to convince the addict that they can have a life worth living without this destructive and toxic relationship.
Meanwhile, the addiction that they cling to also happens to bring disorder and destruction to everyone around them. Family and friends are often all too aware that the addict's perception of reality as well as his judgment is markedly impaired.
Some people are addictd to alcohol; some to heroin, cocaine and other opiates; some to amphetamines and hallucinogenics. Then you get onto the psychological addictions like gambling; or sex or porn.
Without minimizing all these very real societal problems, I submit that an even greater number of people in our society are addicted to spending other people's money.
Their love of and dependence on your money is extremely strong. They feel they cannot live without it; and they will fight to keep on getting it--even behaving in ways that are deplorable and socially reprehensible. Like the biological addicts, they are willing to lie, cheat and do violence in order to remain in this committed and pathological relationship with your money. And, in addition, they have the delusional belief that they are entitled to it without question, without possibility of alteration for forever. Are you broke? Too bad. They are entitled to continue to get it.
Withdrawal or even detoxification efforts (gradual changes) are met with anger and rage and increasingly unreasonable demands and threats. Having had free access to your money for so long time, their perception of reality is distorted; their judgment is impaired. They can no longer see what is happening in the world around them and attempts to make them understand how their behavior is impacting the rest of the social network is met with utter and complete psychological denial.
Lately, we have been witnessing the rage of these addicts on a daily basis on our TV sets and even perhaps in our communities.
And just like those who are chemically dependent, this type of addict has its enablers.
In psychiatry--and particularly addiction medicine--we talk about people who "enable" addicts. Enabling refers to any behavior or action that assists the addict in the continuation of their addiction.
Enabling can be either intentional or unintentional, but enabling behavior allows the addict to continue their destructive behavior. An example of enabling behavior with an alcoholic, for example, is someone who, although they verbally disapprove of their spouse/friend's drinking, repeatedly will go out and purchases alcohol for him/her.
Frequently enablers tell psychiatrists that they "only want to help" or that they are "afraid" of what will happen to them if they don't do the things that help the addict (e.g., the addict will beat them up or make their lives difficult in some way).
Thus you can find enablers who "call in sick" for their addict; even doctors who write addicts notes for work.
You find enablers who will not confront the behavior of the addict and its consequences; or those who even accept blame for the addict's behavior.
Often, out of compassion, people will give addicts "one more chance" which evolves into another, then another and another; gradually distancing the addict from taking responsibility for his or her behavior. It should be obvious that, rather than "helping" the addict, they actually makee it easier for him to get worse; escalate his behavior and to feel even more entitled.
Some people (or political parties) like to hang around addicts because they know they can easily take advantage of, or manipulate people whose sense of entitlement is stroked and whose judgment is distorted. These sick relationships serve the psychopathology of both the enabler and the addict.
Whatever the motivation of the enabler, they will always "help" the addict to avoid responsibility for their destructive behavior. ,
Am I making my point? This is what the Democrats and allthose who have sucked up to the out-of-control public labor unions have been doing for years.
The absolute denial of fiscal reality is the hallmark of both the person addicted to the taxpayers' money and the groups that enable them.
But the process of detox and withdrawal must begin. These people are not slaves. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can find jobs elsewhere, just like the rest of us. They are not entitled to taxpayer money in perpetuity and if the taxpayers want to renegotiate the terms of their employment because the taxpayer is going broke, then it is time for them to face a little reality.
Deciding to stop addiction and a dysfunctional relationship is a tough choice. It can be very uncomfortable and even painful for a while. But, it is a process of slowly waking up to reality and accepting responsibility for one's own life.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 26, 2011 15:18:38 GMT -5
Rubicon: A river in WisconsinBy Charles Krauthammer Friday, February 25, 2011; The magnificent turmoil now gripping statehouses in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and soon others marks an epic political moment. The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions and, remarkably, our muddled, gridlocked, allegedly broken politics have yielded singular clarity. At the federal level, President Obama's budget makes clear that Democrats are determined to do nothing about the debt crisis, while House Republicans have announced that beyond their proposed cuts in discretionary spending, their April budget will actually propose real entitlement reform. Simultaneously, in Wisconsin and other states, Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension and health-care obligations, while Democrats are full-throated in support of the public-employee unions crying, "Hell, no." A choice, not an echo: Democrats desperately defending the status quo; Republicans charging the barricades. Wisconsin is the epicenter. It began with economic issues. When Gov. Scott Walker proposed that state workers contribute more to their pension and health-care benefits, he started a revolution. Teachers called in sick. Schools closed. Demonstrators massed at the capitol. Democratic senators fled the state to paralyze the Legislature. Unfortunately for them, that telegenic faux-Cairo scene drew national attention to the dispute - and to the sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years. They were contributing a fifth of a penny on a dollar of wages to their pensions and one-fourth what private-sector workers pay for health insurance. The unions quickly understood that the more than 85 percent of Wisconsin not part of this privileged special-interest group would not take kindly to "public servants" resisting adjustments that still leave them paying less for benefits than private-sector workers. They immediately capitulated and claimed they were only protesting the other part of the bill, the part about collective-bargaining rights. Indeed. Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state's financial straits - a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years - did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century-long power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain. In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largess in the next election. It's the perfect cozy setup. To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, Walker's bill would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them are gone. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary. Recognizing this threat to union power, the Democratic Party is pouring money and fury into the fight. Fewer than 7 percent of private-sector workers are unionized. The Democrats' strength lies in government workers, who now constitute a majority of union members and provide massive support to the party. For them, Wisconsin represents a dangerous contagion. Hence the import of the current moment - its blinding clarity. Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang on to the gains of their glory years - from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking. Obama's Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell, no. We have heard everyone - from Obama's own debt commission to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - call the looming debt a mortal threat to the nation. We have watched Greece self-immolate. We can see the future. The only question has been: When will the country finally rouse itself? Amazingly, the answer is: now. Led by famously progressive Wisconsin - Scott Walker at the state level and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan at the congressional level - a new generation of Republicans has looked at the debt and is crossing the Rubicon. Recklessly principled, they are putting the question to the nation: Are we a serious people? www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022406520.html
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Feb 26, 2011 15:27:35 GMT -5
From Dr. Sanity's article: But the process of detox and withdrawal must begin. These people are not slaves. If they don't like the terms of their employment, they can find jobs elsewhere, just like the rest of us. They are not entitled to taxpayer money in perpetuity and if the taxpayers want to renegotiate the terms of their employment because the taxpayer is going broke, then it is time for them to face a little reality.
That sums it up nicely.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Feb 26, 2011 16:30:01 GMT -5
One of our members is a teacher. She recently posted something about Wisconsin on Facebook and people pounced on her about it.
I wish I knew how to put it here but I just don't. In my mind, it shows how the public sector union employees like teachers, just don't get it. She goes on and on about how she is a baby sitter and even posted a chain email from the NEA about how much a baby sitter should get per year for the same hours that she works. Something like $130,000 per year!
They just don't get it that the governments are broke. They need to pay their own way like everyone else does. They should pay for their own retirement like everyone else does, and pay for a percentage of their health insurance like everyone else does. It never ceases to amaze me how "educated" people can be so freaking dumb.
The best response to her was from my brother who is a Federal Employee. He works at the Allenwood Penitentiary. He's been there since it opened and was in the NAVY before that. He pays for his retirement, health, eye, and dental insurances. He told her it was time to get off of every taxpayer's tit and pay her own way or go get another job if she didn't like what was happening. No one forced her to take the position she did.
I for one, hope people like Walker, and Ryan continue the fight. It is beyond time to get our fiscal houses in order, and by whatever means.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Feb 26, 2011 18:14:20 GMT -5
The problem isn’t with individual union members; it’s with the leadership and the politicians. The unions support politicians that push legislation that favors unions and pay increases for union members in the case of public sector unions. Increased pay means higher union dues that feed the system. It’s a sweetheart deal that’s been going on for years.
Many union members took their jobs because of the benefits. You can’t blame them for wanting to keep them, although the reality is the taxpayers can no longer afford to support them. It’s a tough thing for them to face.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on Feb 26, 2011 21:58:33 GMT -5
"The problem isn’t with individual union members; it’s with the leadership and the politicians."
There wouldn't be the leadership or politicians involved if it weren't for the members, Phil. I understand there is enough blame to go around, but the members far out number the leadership and politicians combined. I agree with Todd on this....especially where the NEA is concerned. Unions get involved, teaching got worse....massive protection. Do you not think that the members know it?
Unions at one time were a necessity. Trying to survive their power now, is the necessity. I really don't know any unionized group of persons that do more whining than the teacher's union. And, the comment about people who are supposed to be educated, being soooo dumb....stupid is spot on.
"Many union members took their jobs because of the benefits. You can’t blame them for wanting to keep them, although the reality is the taxpayers can no longer afford to support them. It’s a tough thing for them to face."
It's tough for most people today, Phil....
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 1, 2011 9:43:41 GMT -5
Of course, Wisconsin is about breaking up the union racket By Rich Lowry www.JewishWorldReview.com | When the Wisconsin General Assembly voted to pass Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, the Democratic legislators made themselves indistinguishable from the protestors surrounding the assembly floor. They wore the same pro-union orange T-shirts. They behaved in the same sophomoric way, breaking out in a noisy, finger-pointing demonstration. They chanted the same ubiquitous word: "Shame!" They might as well have brought guitars onto the floor for a Woody Guthrie sing-along and touted "Walker = Hitler" signs. In Wisconsin, it's less that Democrats act to protect a special interest than that they belong to a special interest. A complete identification has long existed among state government, the public-sector unions and the Democratic Party. By seeking to break up this powerful, self-dealing nexus, Walker is "assaulting," in President Barack Obama's formulation, a partisan political machine dependent on the state for its functioning. The fight in Wisconsin has focused on collective bargaining rights, but that is not the main event. As Daniel DiSalvo of the City College of New York-CUNY notes in a Weekly Standard article, 24 states either don't allow collective bargaining for public workers, or permit it for only a segment of workers. Even if Walker prevails, Wisconsin will allow more wide-ranging collective bargaining than these states. Not to mention the federal government. Obama may lecture Walker about union rights, but he can go straight to Congress with a highly political proposal to freeze the pay of federal workers because they can't collectively bargain for wages or benefits. No, the most important measure at stake in Wisconsin is the governor's proposal for the state to stop deducting union dues from the paychecks of state workers. This practice essentially wields the taxing power of the government on behalf of the institutional interests of the unions. It makes the government an arm of the public-sector unions. It is a priceless favor. Wisconsin doesn't collect dues for Elks lodges or the NRA. What makes these organizations different from public-sector unions is that people freely choose to join them and freely choose to pay their dues. They are truly voluntary organizations that don't rely on the power of the state for their well-being. Walker wants to give members of public-sector unions a measure of this same autonomy. Perhaps some of these members aren't liberal Democrats, so they don't want to pay dues -- roughly $1,000 annually in the case of teachers -- which will overwhelmingly go to funding and organizing for Democratic candidates. Perhaps some of them, regardless of their politics, want to spend that money on their families or other pressing needs. Walker will allow them to exercise a choice now closed to them. In most of 21st-century America, that surely sounds like common sense; for the unions, it sounds like a dire threat. When Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining and the automatic collection of dues in 2005, the number of members paying dues plummeted by roughly 90 percent. In 2007, New York City's Transit Authority briefly stopped automatically collecting dues for the Transport Workers Union, and dues fell off by more than a third. Without these dues, the ability of public-sector unions to influence elections -- what they care about most -- drastically diminishes. This is why Wisconsin Senate Democrats preferred to flee the state rather than stay and vote on a proposal that would curtail their fundraising and organizational base. They can dress up their opposition in the rhetoric of workers' "rights," but even if all collective bargaining were stripped from all Wisconsin public workers, they'd still have extensive civil- service protections. For Democrats, the issue is whether they can continue to rely on state government to grease an essential cog in their political machine. Public-sector unions are a creature of government, and the Democrats are the party of government. The two of them have identical interests and worldviews, and both want to leverage government to swell their campaign coffers. How to characterize this? The word "shame" comes to mind.
|
|