Photo posted on the web at http://www.4.bp.blogspot.com/
Monday, February 28, 2011
Democracy, in Black and White
This Saturday's rally, looking down Mifflin Street from a building on Carroll Street, and showing roughly half of the people at the rally on the Capitol Square at about 3:00 PM, in a storm storm and 17 degrees.
Mayor Bloomberg: NYC needs public union collective bargaining.
What cooperation can (and could) look like.
The Amish barn raising from The Witness. For me, perhaps the best two and a half musically scored minutes in any movie.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
A True Story
A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it.
The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."
The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."
Obama vs.The Kochtopus.
Money quotes:
"Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.” (Cargill is the only privately held company in the U.S. believed to be larger than Koch Industries according to the article.)
The Koch Brother's father had an interesting background according to Ms. Mayer:
"In 1958, Fred Koch became one of the original members of the John Birch Society, the arch-conservative group known, in part, for a highly skeptical view of governance and for spreading fears of a Communist takeover. Members considered President Dwight D. Eisenhower to be a Communist agent. In a self-published broadside, Koch claimed that “the Communists have infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican Parties.” He wrote admiringly of Benito Mussolini’s suppression of Communists in Italy, and disparagingly of the American civil-rights movement. “The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America,” he warned. Welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks to cities, where they would foment “a vicious race war.” In a 1963 speech that prefigures the Tea Party’s talk of a secret socialist plot, Koch predicted that Communists would “infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the President is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.”
The Koch Brothers' spending on political causes has been enormous:
"Only the Kochs know precisely how much they have spent on politics. Public tax records show that between 1998 and 2008 the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation spent more than forty-eight million dollars. The Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which is controlled by Charles Koch and his wife, along with two company employees and an accountant, spent more than twenty-eight million. The David H. Koch Charitable Foundation spent more than a hundred and twenty million. Meanwhile, since 1998 Koch Industries has spent more than fifty million dollars on lobbying. Separately, the company’s political-action committee, KochPAC, has donated some eight million dollars to political campaigns, more than eighty per cent of it to Republicans. So far in 2010, Koch Industries leads all other energy companies in political contributions, as it has since 2006. In addition, during the past dozen years the Kochs and other family members have personally spent more than two million dollars on political contributions. In the second quarter of 2010, David Koch was the biggest individual contributor to the Republican Governors Association, with a million-dollar donation. Other gifts by the Kochs may be untraceable; federal tax law permits anonymous personal donations to politically active nonprofit groups."
I am guessing the Koch Brothers thought well of Citizens United.
Fuggedaboutit Redux 4: Mad-City to Walker: You're wrong on Collective Bargaining
Fuggedaboutit Ctd. Vol. 3: Stevens Point Council to Walker: "Don't want it, don't need it."
Fuggedaboutit Ctd.: Eau Claire City Council to Gov, unanimously: We don't want your help on Collective bargaining
Arguing that slashing collective bargaining rights would make it harder to run Eau Claire's city government, the City Council is sending a message to the state Legislature.
In a rare special session, the council Tuesday night voted 10-0 (Councilman Larry Balow was absent) to send a resolution to state politicians in Madison opposing changes to labor negotiations law included in Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill.
Wausau to Walker on killing collective bargaining: Fuggedaboutit!
The Wausau City Council voted unanimously Friday to send a letter to Gov.Walker urging him to remove language from the bill stripping most collective bargaining rights from public employee unions, despite concern from some members who worried the city could face future repercussions.
WKOW wants the Governor to turn over any records relating to his consideration for planting troublemakers in the crowd of Capitol Protestors
Here is the text of a Open Records request that Madison Channel 27 - WKOW served on the Governor's office on Friday:
Brian Hagedorn
Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Scott Walker
Dear Mr. Hagedorn:
In accordance with Wisconsin’s Open Records statute, WKOW-TV, Madison, requests an opportunity to view any materials created by Governor Walker, or the governor’s staff members pertaining to the governor’s consideration of planting individuals in the crowd of demonstrators who have been present in and around the state capitol from Feb. 15, 2011 to the present date.
A transcript of a telephone call between the governor and Ian Murphy during the week of Feb.20-Feb. 26 includes the governor’s acknowledgment of such consideration by the governor:
Murphy: “We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.”
Governor Walker: “You know, well, the only problem with that - because we thought about that. The problem - the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this. My only fear would be if there’s a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems.”
During a Feb. 23 Fox News interview with Fox News correspondent Greta Van Susteren, Governor Walker also referenced the consideration involved “lawmakers” in some capacity.
WKOW’s request for created materials includes, but is not limited to, draft plans, correspondence, calendar notations and e-mails. WKOW’s request for created materials also encompasses any receipt of materials by the governor and the governor’s staff members in connection such consideration, and any response to received materials.
WKOW’s request for created materials includes, but is not limited to, draft plans, correspondence, calendar notations and e-mails. WKOW’s request for created materials also encompasses any receipt of materials by the governor and the governor’s staff members in connection such consideration, and any response to received materials.
The letter shown on WKOW's web site doesn't show the signer, but Tony Galli won an award from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council in March of last year that stated, in part:
The veteran reporter for WKOW Ch. 27 in Madison breaks a lot of stories by making prodigious use of the state’s open records laws. This year he used public records to confirm that a controversial judicial pick was passed up as a finalist by a nominating committee.
I pulled up the interview of Governor Walker on Van Susteren's show on February 24 from Fox New's website, because I wanted to hear what the governor said about discussing with legislators "planting troublemakers" The discussion about the call with Pretend Koch runs from 18:18 to 21:42. The Governor's acknowledgement that he spoke with "legislators and others" about "riling things up" is at 19:50.
I thought Greta was fairly aggressive in questioning the Governor, borderline cross-exam style.
David Gregory's lunch gets eaten on Meet The Press today. And it wasn't even noon yet.
David Gregory did a mediocre job. He really didn't seemed very informed on the issues. Walker came off as pretty strong. In a later post I will talk about the Governor's contention that $137,000,000 can be lost if the bill isn't passed by Tuesday.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
A Tale of Two Scotts and Two Pairs of Cities
Rick Scott, the new Republican Governor of Florida, is reconsidering his decision last week to turn down S2.4 Billion dollars in federal stimulus money for high speed rail service between Tampa and Orlando. The cities are about 80 highway miles apart. That distance sound familiar?
The reason for reconsidering? Scott arranged to meet yesterday with Ray LaHood, President Obama's Secretary of Transportation, to work on securing assurances from LaHood that the state wouldn't be on the hook for long-term liabilities. Now there is a good idea for a governor worried over operating costs!
Here is Candidate Walker back in February, 2010:
"Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker said Thursday the state should pass up the federal government's offer of $823 million for a high-speed rail line linking Milwaukee to Madison and Chicago - unless millions more for operating the line come with the deal.
That's unlikely, he said. Based on what's known about the high-speed rail plan, Walker said he would reject the federal largess.
The county executive, a Republican candidate for governor, said he might back the high-speed rail idea if "there was a model that could be shown where it was self-sufficient, where the operating costs were covered by the users." He acknowledged that also was unlikely."
Here's Governor - Elect Walker on November 3:
Gov.-elect Scott Walker, hoarse from his election night celebration, was optimistic on Wednesday that Wisconsin’s high-speed rail project could be stopped and that highway construction projects will move forward under his administration.
“I believe there are a couple of legal options for us,” Walker said during an interview. “We’ve had offers from lawyers coming out of the woodwork. They think we can slow it down or stop it entirely.”
As for road construction, Walker said he’s looking for ways to move forward with projects despite the $250 million shortfall in the state’s transportation budget. (Wonder who the Wisconsin Road Builders Association supported?)
Governor-Elect Walker on December 8, 2010 after the Feds found him tiresome:
In a meeting with reporters in Waukesha, Walker called the decision (whereby the federal government gave Wisconsin's allocation of $810,000,000 to a number of other states) a "victory" because he sees the rail line as a symbol of excessive government spending. (He was already thinking he was in charge of the federal budget?)
"That's the decision they've made and we're going to move forward," the Republican governor-elect said.
Even with the federal government paying all construction costs, Walker has said he didn't want state taxpayers to bear any of the operating costs. The state initially estimated those costs at $7.5 million a year, after subtracting fare revenue, but revised ridership estimates could have cut taxpayers' share by $2.8 million. The state also could have used part of its federal highway funds to cover 80% to 90% of the taxpayer share.
The key is the last sentence. Governor Walker is a road builder. Too bad he isn't a bridge builder.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Misrepresentation can come in different guises
In Wisconsin, as in all states, one doesn’t have to make an oral statement to be guilty of actionable misrepresentation. A person buys a car after asking: “has this car ever been in a wreck before?” The seller merely shakes her head “no” while knowing she just had $5,000 worth of front end repairs. The deal closes. Presumably all of us would agree this is egregious and can be punished.
But what about this: The earlier deal doesn’t close and the next prospective buyer says: “What a clean looking car! Tell me what you’ve done to keep this car looking so new?” Same seller’s response is: “I wash it weekly, park it in remote sections of shopping malls, and always keep it in my garage at night.” Does this seem to anyone like a tougher call on whether a lie has occurred?
Final situation: A prospective buyer and his wife are walking around the car with the same seller, and the wife says to her husband in the seller’s presence: “This car is in mint condition. I like it better than the one we saw yesterday that had to have the front end repaired.” The seller smiles and looks off at her kids playing in the yard. Did the seller have a duty to come clean?
Wisconsin Civil Jury Instruction 2402 provides some guidance on how courts view the “duty to speak” issue in civil lawsuits:
“Representations of fact do not have to be in writing or by word of mouth, but may be by acts or conduct . . ., or even by silence if there is a duty to speak. A duty to speak may arise when information is asked for; or where the circumstances would call for a response in order that the parties may be on equal footing; or where there is a relationship of trust or confidence between the parties.”
New hypothetical: During gubernatorial debates, or town hall meetings, or meetings with major papers’ editorial boards, the question is directly posed to a candidate for governor: “Tell us the key strategies you intend to use to bring the state budget under control for the taxpayers of Wisconsin?” The candidate responds: “We’ll strip pork, stop shifting reserves from what are supposed to be dedicated purposes to other purposes, account for the budget like a business would, using GAAP principles, and finally, because Wisconsin has problems with budgets at our local units of government as well, I intend to do what I can to limit salary increases for public workers, and have them pay something out of their own pockets for benefits and pensions just like private sector employees.” What the candidate does not say, although it is true, is: “I also intend to end the collective bargaining rights for state, municipal and county employees, and the state’s teachers.” Has the candidate lied to the public? Has he or she violated a duty to disclose to the voters a material fact under circumstances that called for its disclosure?
A material fact in misrepresentation law is one that can reasonably be expected to induce some action on the part of the listener to his or her detriment. Should a gubernatorial candidate with an intention to end a decades’ long practice of collective bargaining of public workers expect that his or her failure to disclose that intention would be likely to induce some action at the polls come election time? Do the circumstances in a democracy call for a candidate to answer questions honestly and fully about major positions while on the hustings? Should candidates for public office, before they are first elected, be considered in a “relationship of trust or confidence” vis-Ã -vis the electorate?
Yesterday I mentioned the Madison public school teacher at my parish who said last Sunday she had voted for Governor Walker because as a devout Catholic she felt she needed to take a stand on abortion. She told me she felt sick about her vote after learning about the Budget Repair Bill because she felt she and other teachers and public employees had a right to collective bargaining.
Governor Walker won the election by 124,638 votes over Mayor Barrett. A shift in about 62,400 votes, or 3% of the total votes cast, would have changed the election’s outcome, all other things being equal. Had Governor Walker campaigned on an intention to end public workers’ collective bargaining rights, would it really have caused the teacher at my church to have voted for Mayor Barrett? Are there thousands upon thousands of others like her who might have voted differently had he campaigned on ending collective bargaining? Perhaps if Governor Walker had been open about his plans to kill collective bargaining, he would have energized even more conservative or independent voters to come to the polls to vote for him. There is no way to know whether the results would have been different, and obviously active or passive misrepresentations on the campaign trail are something we would never want to see courts sticking their noses into. (Unless, I suppose the misrepresentation relates to residency or some other legal qualification for office. Insert “Mrs. Emmanuel’s wedding dress” or the “Birthers” here.)
Hopefully, you are all now thinking: “Okay, but all of the above (somewhat rambling) discussion ‘assumes facts not in evidence’.” Did Scott Walker have a well-formed plan to end collective bargaining during times when he was asked on the campaign trail about his intentions for balancing the budget. If he did, did he have a duty to disclose it to the voters in advance of the election, so they could make as informed a choice as possible for their futures as Wisconsin citizens? We have all become so jaded about politics and politicians, that for most of us the notion that voters occupy some special “relationship of trust and confidence” with candidates seems almost laughably naive. But is that the way things ought to work? Governor Walker has talked about trying to run state government more like businesses are run in terms of efficiency and economy. Much of that may be a good idea. Let’s go with the “run like a business” idea. Imagine, instead of us being Wisconsin voters, that we were a small group of shareholders of a small but very profitable company in which we had our retirement nest-eggs invested. Imagine we had to vote on which of two candidates we wanted to serve as the CEO of the company, and protect our nest-egg. If both candidates for CEO were asked to put together a comprehensive plan for the future growth of the company, wouldn’t we expect that every major aspect of a candidate’s plan would be fully spelled out. What if one CEO candidate had an intention to fire many of the most experienced employees and replace them with cheap but inexperienced laborers in order to save substantial labor costs? Would that be something as shareholders we would feel we had an absolute right to know about in making our decision on which person to hire? Should Wisconsin schools and universities and parks and rivers and innovation centers be seen as nest-eggs?
Recall what Mitch Daniels, the fast rising star of the cost-cutting Republican governors, said in a very recent letter about his decision to ask the Indiana legislature to drop right to work legislation for now:
“Into this a few of my allies chose to toss Right to Work (RTW). I suggested studying it for a year and developing the issue for next year. No one had campaigned on it; it was a big issue that hit the public cold.”
I invite anyone to point out to me why the collective bargaining part of the BRB should not have been considered as, in Governor Daniel’s words, “having hit Wisconsin citizens cold.” When I hear a Republican leader on the state or national level sitting across from television pundits claiming that Governor Walker is “just doing what he campaigned to do,” I simply sigh and think “gee, there’s another liar.” His campaign website didn’t talk about collective bargaining. No editors have stood up and said “oh, yes, he mentioned it to us in our endorsement process.” The videotapes of the debates make no mention of it.
Collective bargaining has been a right of public employees for over 50 years. No policy should be exempt from change, but one that has been in place for so long builds up a reliance interest on the part of both sides to the public worker collective bargaining process. For all we know, there may have been benefit, pension and work rule concessions made in current or past contracts by public unions in reliance that they would continue to be able to collectively bargain in the future to restore some of the concessions. The local governments and school boards don’t even want this process eliminated.
Let’s go back to the assumed “fact not in evidence.” Did Governor Walker form a plan for stripping public unions of collective bargaining prior to his election? If so, was he asked direct questions on the campaign trail that cried out for him to reveal that? Did he keep such a plan under his hat to stay below the radar on that issue before November 2? These are all questions that the citizens of Wisconsin have a right to know going forward. Absent recall, we all have to simply accept the last election. But that doesn’t get the Governor off the hook on clarifying this issue. The citizens have a right to know about the character of their leaders. In terms of the overall interests of democracy, I would find his being dishonest on his intentions about such a major state issue more distasteful than President Clinton being dishonest on the Lewinsky affair.
Hopefully the state media will follow up on this issue. From what I have seen to date, Governor Walker is not shying away from press conferences, and facing tough questions at press conferences. That's a good thing.
Friday, February 25, 2011
"No one had campaigned on it; it was a big issue that hit the public cold."
There is an interesting on-line response from Governor Mitch Daniels in Indiana on why he recently came out in opposition to the Indiana legislature trying to enact a Right to Work law in Indiana before the state's budget bill was addressed:
"Here in Indiana we have a very extensive 2011 agenda that these critics, if they took the time to look, would strongly applaud: another no-tax budget, an automatic refund to taxpayers past a specified level of state reserves, sweeping reform of archaic and anti-taxpayer local government, reduction of the corporate income tax, and the most far-reaching reform of education in America, including statewide vouchers for low and moderate income families. We laid all this before the public during last year's elections.
Into this a few of my allies chose to toss Right to Work (RTW). I suggested studying it for a year and developing the issue for next year. No one had campaigned on it; it was a big issue that hit the public cold. I was concerned that it would provide the pretext for radical action by our Democratic minority that would jeopardize the entire agenda above, with zero chance of passing RTW itself. And that is exactly what has happened."
That seems like good old-fashion pragmatism.
National politicians and Scott Fitzgerald, majority leader in the senate, keep talking about how no one should have been surprised by the Budget Reform Bill's provisions because Governor Walker campaigned on them. But that is not true with regard to the major provisions for changing the collective bargaining laws that have been in place for 50 plus years.
"Here in Indiana we have a very extensive 2011 agenda that these critics, if they took the time to look, would strongly applaud: another no-tax budget, an automatic refund to taxpayers past a specified level of state reserves, sweeping reform of archaic and anti-taxpayer local government, reduction of the corporate income tax, and the most far-reaching reform of education in America, including statewide vouchers for low and moderate income families. We laid all this before the public during last year's elections.
Into this a few of my allies chose to toss Right to Work (RTW). I suggested studying it for a year and developing the issue for next year. No one had campaigned on it; it was a big issue that hit the public cold. I was concerned that it would provide the pretext for radical action by our Democratic minority that would jeopardize the entire agenda above, with zero chance of passing RTW itself. And that is exactly what has happened."
That seems like good old-fashion pragmatism.
National politicians and Scott Fitzgerald, majority leader in the senate, keep talking about how no one should have been surprised by the Budget Reform Bill's provisions because Governor Walker campaigned on them. But that is not true with regard to the major provisions for changing the collective bargaining laws that have been in place for 50 plus years.
Rep. Broun issues a statement
A statement from Rep. Broun on the town hall meeting situation. This was a response to what I talked about earlier here and here. I don't doubt that the statement shouted by an attendee was unpleasant for Broun. I just think that it called for an immediate response from him that it wasn't appropriate.
I guess here is my standard for Republicans and Democrats dealing with a situation like this: What would Atticus Finch have said during the meeting?
My guess: "Well, sir, I know you are just joking, but that is something we shouldn't even joke about. Tea Party members have been unfairly portrayed as being violent, and you know you're not and I know you're not, but we shouldn't say things that will serve to foster that unfair impression." Then he could have gone on with the response he gave to the question.
I guess here is my standard for Republicans and Democrats dealing with a situation like this: What would Atticus Finch have said during the meeting?
My guess: "Well, sir, I know you are just joking, but that is something we shouldn't even joke about. Tea Party members have been unfairly portrayed as being violent, and you know you're not and I know you're not, but we shouldn't say things that will serve to foster that unfair impression." Then he could have gone on with the response he gave to the question.
Tea Party's Broun getting a bad rap? Ann Althouse thinks so
Over at Ann Althouse's blog (her's actually has readership, but hey, mine just started yesterday afternoon), Professor Althouse (UW Law School) is dissing the leftist blogosphere for calling Rep. Broun (GA R) a callous guy. I posted about this earlier.
Ann's contention is that absent some undeniable proof that Rep. Broun, standing in front of his Town Hall meeting, clearly heard the complete wording of the question, "who going to shoot Obama" there is no basis for ripping on him.
Here is my problem with her logic:
1. Most people try to understand a question put to them before launching into a paragraph long answer. Most politicians at Town Hall meetings, wanting to be liked as they presumably do, would not risk the "off-puttingness" of having a crowd of people standing in front of them thinking: "Holy shit, what was that the answer to?"
2. If Professor Althouse went to the source of the report, an Athens, Georgia reporter, he explained that he was in the room and he didn't clearly hear the question. Therefore he called Rep Broun's spokesperson and she confirmed for the reporter that her boss had indeed heard the question and that he "considered it inappropriate." (Geez, those words keep popping up this week.) "Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, "who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said." Good on him!!!!
3. Because it is a federal crime, says Professor Althouse, it is less than likely that at a town hall meeting in Oglethorp County, a rural county of 12,000 people, featuring a member of the Republican Tea Party caucus, anyone could say such an outrageous thing. Go figure.
Broun moved on without a word of objection about the question: who is going to try to assassinate the president for all of us.
I suggest that Professor Althouse is in denial about the rage of the folks who attend Tea Party Rallies. A few anecdotes:
But I digress. Back to Professor Althouse and her contention that the far left is unfairly demonizing the Tea Party movement. Her contention in her post is that until someone comes up with a video that clearly establishes the callousness of the Georgia Tea Party Republican, he didn't do it. The best response to this was posted to her blog by someone with the handle "law student:" "Apparently, were it not for the Zapruder film, JFK would be alive today."
But if you want at least a glimpse of the nature of the folks on the right that read Professor Althouse's blog, just spend a little time scanning through the comments of people that comment on her blog. I would suggest that it won't take very careful study for you to be able to discern the right wing comments from the left wing and independent voter comments. Then ask yourself, with whom would I rather sit down and try to solve a problem in a rational way?
Ann's contention is that absent some undeniable proof that Rep. Broun, standing in front of his Town Hall meeting, clearly heard the complete wording of the question, "who going to shoot Obama" there is no basis for ripping on him.
Here is my problem with her logic:
1. Most people try to understand a question put to them before launching into a paragraph long answer. Most politicians at Town Hall meetings, wanting to be liked as they presumably do, would not risk the "off-puttingness" of having a crowd of people standing in front of them thinking: "Holy shit, what was that the answer to?"
2. If Professor Althouse went to the source of the report, an Athens, Georgia reporter, he explained that he was in the room and he didn't clearly hear the question. Therefore he called Rep Broun's spokesperson and she confirmed for the reporter that her boss had indeed heard the question and that he "considered it inappropriate." (Geez, those words keep popping up this week.) "Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, "who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said." Good on him!!!!
3. Because it is a federal crime, says Professor Althouse, it is less than likely that at a town hall meeting in Oglethorp County, a rural county of 12,000 people, featuring a member of the Republican Tea Party caucus, anyone could say such an outrageous thing. Go figure.
Broun moved on without a word of objection about the question: who is going to try to assassinate the president for all of us.
I suggest that Professor Althouse is in denial about the rage of the folks who attend Tea Party Rallies. A few anecdotes:
1. My youngest son said that as he and his friends marched around the Square at the huge protest rally last Saturday, teenagers with Walker support signs were walking against the flow of the pro-union crowd itching to stir up a fight, including frequently yelling obscenities and insults at the pro-union protestors. He said that his reaction and those of his friends was to think: "Gee, what a douche" and just ignore them.
2. My son also had a high school buddy who tried to film the Tea Party counter-protest from inside the Tea Party crowd, for a documentary he was hoping to put together on the protests and counterprotests. This kid, age 14 (and looking it), was wearing pro union buttons. He was told by a number of adults in the Tea Party crowd to “Get the Fuck out of here.” Being a smart kid, he did.
3. All this fabulous decorum matches some of the shouting I heard from Tea Partiers on Saturday as they left in anger past my spot (next to a police officer friend) at King and Main a good hour and a half before their rally was scheduled to end.
4. It also matched the racist comments and vulgar speech I heard watching the April 15 rally. The monkeys that were tied to protest signs epitomized the spirit of that rally. The lack of a single citation on Saturday, among a crowd of 75,000, epitomized the spirit of the anti-Bill protestors. The Tea Party movement is in my view based on manipulated anger rather than reason, but hopefully it has already passed its high water mark. If it hasn’t, I am confident it shortly will.
But if you want at least a glimpse of the nature of the folks on the right that read Professor Althouse's blog, just spend a little time scanning through the comments of people that comment on her blog. I would suggest that it won't take very careful study for you to be able to discern the right wing comments from the left wing and independent voter comments. Then ask yourself, with whom would I rather sit down and try to solve a problem in a rational way?
I won't back down, no I won't back down. You could stand me up at the Gates of Hell, but I won't back down
The Koch Brother's spokesman tells the National Review Online they won't back down from the fight in Wisconsin:
“With the Left trying to intimidate the Koch brothers to back off of their support for freedom and signaling to others that this is what happens if you oppose the administration and its allies, we have no choice but to continue to fight,” says Richard Fink, the executive vice president of Koch Industries. “We will not step back at all. We firmly believe that economic freedom has benefited the overwhelming majority of society, including workers, who earn higher wages when you have open and free markets. When government grows as it has with the Bush and Obama administrations, that is what destroys prosperity.”
Gee, I guess it was open and free (and unregulated) markets that did so well in self-regulating the real estate mortgage bond market under Bush.
Glad to hear that the Governor has never spoken with the Kochs. Hope he doesn't read this article from NRO. Otherwise he may be afraid to compromise.
Casus Belli
Bill Lueders at the Isthmus did just about as good a job as anyone could to summarize the situation in a column today.
My thoughts:
My thoughts:
Trying to follow the Governor’s rationale for not budging on killing off collective bargaining rights is like trying to put your finger on a blob of mercury. First, it was all about balancing the budget by winning necessary wage and benefit concessions from public workers. With these concessions being offered by the unions late last week, that rationale has gone away.
Then we learned from the Governor’s press conference Monday that his union busting measures were all about “empowering” school boards, cities and counties to be able to stand up against the greedy unions when state aids are massively cut. Has the mainstream media bothered to check with (and report on) the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin League of Municipalities and the School Boards around the state to see if they need or want the Governor’s help? Their web sites suggest they do not. What happened to the Republican notion of limited top down regulation and letting power devolve to the local level? Apparently the local units of governments aren’t smart enough to know what is best for them.
Finally, the idea that today would bring disaster if the state bonds can’t be refinanced is silly. The Governor and GOP Senators can carve the refinancing out of the Budget Repair Bill and reach agreement for a Democrat to show up by the end of the day for the sole (and agreed) purpose of acting on the financing bill.
If the bonds don’t get refinanced, that will be squarely on the Republican party and Governor Walker. And we will know the Governor and the Republicans wanted lay-offs.
My only fear would be if there's a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems....
A Letter to Governor Walker sent Wednesday Afternoon:
Dear Governor Walker:
I was amused at places and disturbed at places listening to the prank telephone call between you and the pretend David Koch. The blogosphere on the right has it being completely unfair to you, and the blogosphere on the left has it as a significant blow to you and your policy goals.
The right defends you by saying that all you are currently doing and talking about in this prank conversation is what you promised to do in your campaign. While I missed the plan to eliminate collective bargaining in your 2010 campaign, I missed a lot in the campaign. I went to your campaign website yesterday and perhaps that portion of your plan has been removed. But it would seem to me that it would currently serve you and your supporters much better if it was still up, had it ever been there. Then your supporters would have something to point to when they claim none of this turmoil should be a surprise to anyone. I am sure the editors of the newspapers have a decent recall for what you said to their editorial boards, and you are certainly capable of recalling your campaign.
I listened to the prank call twice and read the transcript while I listened to it the second time, making an (admittedly somewhat biased) effort to find each part as benign as your spokesman described it this morning. I write to you about just one portion of the conversation that particularly troubled me:
Pretend Koch: We'll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.
You: You know, well, the only problem with that -because we thought about that. The problem-the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I've talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this... My only fear would be if there's a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems....
Governor, did you think about planting some troublemakers for more than a nanosecond? It would seem that at some point you thought that idea through enough to conclude that it might have caused you to have “to settle to solve all these problems.” Did you truly weigh carefully the political pros and cons of planting troublemakers to cause a ruckus? When you weighed the pros and cons, did you send your aides out to survey the crowd, to see the makeup of the crowd? Did you look at any of the pictures or videos clips of the crowd to see who was marching day by day?
I have two high school students from Memorial High here in Madison that marched from Wednesday to this past Monday. You have two high school students in a public high school near Milwaukee. Did you try, in weighing the pros and cons of a “ruckus” being “caused,” to visualize your children in the midst of a manufactured ruckus? Did you try to visualize the elderly protestors, the babies being strolled through the crowd, the people there in wheel chairs? Did you think of hundreds of parents of Madison School children, Democratic and Republican, who were just on the Square to support their teachers and what might happen to them in a “ruckus?” Did you think of who was going to teach kindergarten or third grade or organic chemistry or calculus in our schools if one of those folks were injured in a ruckus? Did you weigh the risk to the police officers and sheriff deputies that might result from a “ruckus?” I am just curious to know about the calculus in your thinking.
I know it is easy to spin words from a recorded conversation; maybe you were just speaking from the “gut,” and all of this is being taken completely out of context. If so, I am sure you can explain that exchange to the people of Wisconsin. If it is true that you gave considered thought to manufacturing a ruckus among the protestors, I feel you owe the people of Wisconsin a public apology.
Thank you for considering my letter.
Kim Grimmer
Madison, Wisconsin
608-334-5303
Dear Governor Walker:
I was amused at places and disturbed at places listening to the prank telephone call between you and the pretend David Koch. The blogosphere on the right has it being completely unfair to you, and the blogosphere on the left has it as a significant blow to you and your policy goals.
The right defends you by saying that all you are currently doing and talking about in this prank conversation is what you promised to do in your campaign. While I missed the plan to eliminate collective bargaining in your 2010 campaign, I missed a lot in the campaign. I went to your campaign website yesterday and perhaps that portion of your plan has been removed. But it would seem to me that it would currently serve you and your supporters much better if it was still up, had it ever been there. Then your supporters would have something to point to when they claim none of this turmoil should be a surprise to anyone. I am sure the editors of the newspapers have a decent recall for what you said to their editorial boards, and you are certainly capable of recalling your campaign.
I listened to the prank call twice and read the transcript while I listened to it the second time, making an (admittedly somewhat biased) effort to find each part as benign as your spokesman described it this morning. I write to you about just one portion of the conversation that particularly troubled me:
Pretend Koch: We'll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.
You: You know, well, the only problem with that -because we thought about that. The problem-the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I've talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this... My only fear would be if there's a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems....
Governor, did you think about planting some troublemakers for more than a nanosecond? It would seem that at some point you thought that idea through enough to conclude that it might have caused you to have “to settle to solve all these problems.” Did you truly weigh carefully the political pros and cons of planting troublemakers to cause a ruckus? When you weighed the pros and cons, did you send your aides out to survey the crowd, to see the makeup of the crowd? Did you look at any of the pictures or videos clips of the crowd to see who was marching day by day?
I have two high school students from Memorial High here in Madison that marched from Wednesday to this past Monday. You have two high school students in a public high school near Milwaukee. Did you try, in weighing the pros and cons of a “ruckus” being “caused,” to visualize your children in the midst of a manufactured ruckus? Did you try to visualize the elderly protestors, the babies being strolled through the crowd, the people there in wheel chairs? Did you think of hundreds of parents of Madison School children, Democratic and Republican, who were just on the Square to support their teachers and what might happen to them in a “ruckus?” Did you think of who was going to teach kindergarten or third grade or organic chemistry or calculus in our schools if one of those folks were injured in a ruckus? Did you weigh the risk to the police officers and sheriff deputies that might result from a “ruckus?” I am just curious to know about the calculus in your thinking.
I know it is easy to spin words from a recorded conversation; maybe you were just speaking from the “gut,” and all of this is being taken completely out of context. If so, I am sure you can explain that exchange to the people of Wisconsin. If it is true that you gave considered thought to manufacturing a ruckus among the protestors, I feel you owe the people of Wisconsin a public apology.
Thank you for considering my letter.
Kim Grimmer
Madison, Wisconsin
608-334-5303
Who needs elections?
From the Athens Banner Herald about Representive Paul Broun's (Republican ) Town Hall meeting in Athens, Georgia on Tuesday of this week:
We couldn’t hear the question in the back of the packed Oglethorpe County Commission chamber, but whatever it was, it got a big laugh. According to an outraged commenter on the article, the question was, when is someone going to shoot Obama? (Broun's aide later confirmed the question.)"
Did Representative Broun, a proud member of the Tea Party caucus in congress, tell the person he or she was inappropriate? I'm betting you don't really have to guess about this.
Here was the full response of Broun:
"The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year. (Thank God he reminded them of an alternative) Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."
Guess Representative Broun didn't want to risk irritating a voter.
"At Rep. Paul Broun’s town hall meeting on Tuesday, the Athens congressman asked who had driven the farthest to be there and let the winner ask the first question.
Did Representative Broun, a proud member of the Tea Party caucus in congress, tell the person he or she was inappropriate? I'm betting you don't really have to guess about this.
Here was the full response of Broun:
"The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year. (Thank God he reminded them of an alternative) Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."
Guess Representative Broun didn't want to risk irritating a voter.
Legislation in a Parallel Universe
Here is the Republican leader of the State Senate, Scott Fitzgerald:
This nice looking fellow, and the Wisconsin legislature, and our governor are "all about" bringing down the budget deficit (at least until they move on to concealed carry, capital punishment and the like), and we are told that the Budget Repair Bill isn't about Union Busting. Like every state, Wisconsin has had a revenue problem in the Great Recession and the next biennial budget is in trouble. If we are going to avoid running a biennial deficit, which by law we can't do, we have to do one of three things: cut costs, enhance revenues, or a combination of both. Those are the three tools in the tool box.
Now you would think that legislators, fully committed to preserving every tool that might need to be available to them for balancing budgets, now and in the future, would want to make sure that old tool box was as packed full of options as it could be.
But you would be totally wrong when it comes to some Wisconsin legislators. (Well, really just wrong about the ones in red ties.) Just this past Tuesday, Governor Walker signed a bill passed on a party line vote by the Republicans that now requires that any decision to use one of the tools in the tool box, enhancing revenues, can only be done if two-thirds of both the Wisconsin assembly and senate agree to do so.
I can imagine the floor debate: "Fellow legislators, we must have this law to protect us from our own stupidity."
Here is the best part. This "protect us, Lord, from ourselves" law passed three days before the Governor "dropped his bomb" (as he described to his good buddy, Fake David) in the BRB to seek to kill Collective Bargaining. Do you think the legislative debate on the super-majority vote needed for any tax increase would have sounded any different had the order been reversed?
Could you make this up if you tried?
This nice looking fellow, and the Wisconsin legislature, and our governor are "all about" bringing down the budget deficit (at least until they move on to concealed carry, capital punishment and the like), and we are told that the Budget Repair Bill isn't about Union Busting. Like every state, Wisconsin has had a revenue problem in the Great Recession and the next biennial budget is in trouble. If we are going to avoid running a biennial deficit, which by law we can't do, we have to do one of three things: cut costs, enhance revenues, or a combination of both. Those are the three tools in the tool box.
Now you would think that legislators, fully committed to preserving every tool that might need to be available to them for balancing budgets, now and in the future, would want to make sure that old tool box was as packed full of options as it could be.
But you would be totally wrong when it comes to some Wisconsin legislators. (Well, really just wrong about the ones in red ties.) Just this past Tuesday, Governor Walker signed a bill passed on a party line vote by the Republicans that now requires that any decision to use one of the tools in the tool box, enhancing revenues, can only be done if two-thirds of both the Wisconsin assembly and senate agree to do so.
I can imagine the floor debate: "Fellow legislators, we must have this law to protect us from our own stupidity."
Here is the best part. This "protect us, Lord, from ourselves" law passed three days before the Governor "dropped his bomb" (as he described to his good buddy, Fake David) in the BRB to seek to kill Collective Bargaining. Do you think the legislative debate on the super-majority vote needed for any tax increase would have sounded any different had the order been reversed?
Could you make this up if you tried?
The Cheese Does Not Stand Alone
From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
"2012 is shaping up as states’ most difficult budget year on record. Thus far some 44 states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls totaling $125 billion for fiscal year 2012. While states are anticipating significant shortfalls in the coming year, their options for addressing those shortfalls are dwindling. Federal assistance for states, which has been enormously helpful in allowing states to avert some of the most harmful potential budget cuts, will be largely gone by the end of fiscal year 2011, the current fiscal year. Nearly one-half of the nation’s governors have now released their budget proposals for fiscal year 2012, and their proposals reflect this grim fiscal reality. A number of these proposals contain deep cuts to state services on top of the substantial cuts that states have already made since the start of the recession."
Assuming the data collected at this site is fairly accurate, there are some interesting facts apropos the Wisconsin situation:
1. Wisconsin isn't listed as one of the state's having a budget shortfall in the 2011 budget ending on June 30 of this year. (This is probably because the data was collected before the recent enactments with tax cuts for business.)
2. The projected budget shortfall for Wisconsin in 2012 is 12.8 percent of the total 2011 budget. Certainly not a very happy number, but about 40% less than the average shortfall percentage of the 46 states on which data was compiled. So compared to other states, Wisconsin is not as deep in the toilet as some. Texas, for example, which forbids collective bargaining for its public employees and has onerous laws restricting the rights of its public workers, is looking at a percentage shortfall in its next annual budget that is 31.5% of its total 2011 budget.
3. The range of the percentage shortfalls run from 44% plus in Nevada and Illinois to 4% for West Virginia.
4. Mineral rich states, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana are doing quite nicely, thank you very much. Alaska, for example, has no budget shortfall projected for next year, and the taxpayers actually get annual rebates of oil extraction fees. That has to be the easiest place in the world to be a state governor, unless you're looking for more out of life by going rogue.
One interesting thing this site alerts you to do is to distinguish between cyclical shortfalls and long term obligations:
"As explained in another Center report, Misunderstandings Regarding State Debt, Pensions, and Retiree Health Costs Create Unnecessary Alarm cyclical deficits are distinct from the longer term issues related to bond indebtedness, pension obligations, and retiree health insurance. These latter issues — size of which often has been exaggerated in recent months — can be addressed over the next several decades. It is not appropriate to add these longer-term costs to projected operating deficits for the purpose of declaring that states are in a crisis too deep for them to handle."
Many of the states in the biggest bind are those with unfunded retirement obligations for its public employees. Wisconsin is not in this bind, reporting that its retirement programs for teachers and public employees are fully funded. There are conservative think tanks challenging this about Dairyland, but it is what the state itself is saying. (Much of it will ultimately depend on the stock market and pension fund investments, I suppose.)
All of this is by way of saying that the situation is far better in Wisconsin than most other states. The Republican governors of Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey and Florida are taking their foot off the pedal on restricting public employee's rights. But, inadvertently, Governor Walker just revealed to the world his plan to be the Ronald Reagan of union busting of a new Millenium.
"2012 is shaping up as states’ most difficult budget year on record. Thus far some 44 states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls totaling $125 billion for fiscal year 2012. While states are anticipating significant shortfalls in the coming year, their options for addressing those shortfalls are dwindling. Federal assistance for states, which has been enormously helpful in allowing states to avert some of the most harmful potential budget cuts, will be largely gone by the end of fiscal year 2011, the current fiscal year. Nearly one-half of the nation’s governors have now released their budget proposals for fiscal year 2012, and their proposals reflect this grim fiscal reality. A number of these proposals contain deep cuts to state services on top of the substantial cuts that states have already made since the start of the recession."
Assuming the data collected at this site is fairly accurate, there are some interesting facts apropos the Wisconsin situation:
1. Wisconsin isn't listed as one of the state's having a budget shortfall in the 2011 budget ending on June 30 of this year. (This is probably because the data was collected before the recent enactments with tax cuts for business.)
2. The projected budget shortfall for Wisconsin in 2012 is 12.8 percent of the total 2011 budget. Certainly not a very happy number, but about 40% less than the average shortfall percentage of the 46 states on which data was compiled. So compared to other states, Wisconsin is not as deep in the toilet as some. Texas, for example, which forbids collective bargaining for its public employees and has onerous laws restricting the rights of its public workers, is looking at a percentage shortfall in its next annual budget that is 31.5% of its total 2011 budget.
3. The range of the percentage shortfalls run from 44% plus in Nevada and Illinois to 4% for West Virginia.
4. Mineral rich states, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana are doing quite nicely, thank you very much. Alaska, for example, has no budget shortfall projected for next year, and the taxpayers actually get annual rebates of oil extraction fees. That has to be the easiest place in the world to be a state governor, unless you're looking for more out of life by going rogue.
One interesting thing this site alerts you to do is to distinguish between cyclical shortfalls and long term obligations:
"As explained in another Center report, Misunderstandings Regarding State Debt, Pensions, and Retiree Health Costs Create Unnecessary Alarm cyclical deficits are distinct from the longer term issues related to bond indebtedness, pension obligations, and retiree health insurance. These latter issues — size of which often has been exaggerated in recent months — can be addressed over the next several decades. It is not appropriate to add these longer-term costs to projected operating deficits for the purpose of declaring that states are in a crisis too deep for them to handle."
Many of the states in the biggest bind are those with unfunded retirement obligations for its public employees. Wisconsin is not in this bind, reporting that its retirement programs for teachers and public employees are fully funded. There are conservative think tanks challenging this about Dairyland, but it is what the state itself is saying. (Much of it will ultimately depend on the stock market and pension fund investments, I suppose.)
All of this is by way of saying that the situation is far better in Wisconsin than most other states. The Republican governors of Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey and Florida are taking their foot off the pedal on restricting public employee's rights. But, inadvertently, Governor Walker just revealed to the world his plan to be the Ronald Reagan of union busting of a new Millenium.
What Would (Yahweh/Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha) Do?
The Interfaith Coalition for Justice is planning a rally for the Capitol at 10:00 a.m. this Saturday, gathering at the front steps of Grace Episcopal Church and marching onto the square. Here is a letter written by a number of religious leaders in Wisconsin in support of Collective Bargaining.
The Wisconsin Catholic Bishops issued this letter on February 16, quoting Pope Benedict's 2009 Encyclical Caritas in Veritate:
"Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.
The February 16 letter is a nuanced statement, like one expects from Catholic Bishops. It allows the faithful to read what they want into it.
A portion of the same Encyclical, not quoted in the Bishop's letter reads:
"The Church's social doctrine has always maintained that justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs. Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence."
The economic decisions of the Wisconsin Republicans since January 3 of this year have been to enact legislation to shift the tax burden away from the wealthiest taxpayers and onto teachers and public sector employees. The moral consequence is in the eyes of the created. This creature thinks we aren't really sharing the burden equitably/morally. Read David Brooks' column on budget balancing "burden sharing" in last Monday's New York Times.
Bishop Morlino, in this week's Catholic Herald, tries to straddle the fence in his weekly letter to the faithful, but finally just can't help himself. He ultimately and subtly paints the public employees unions and unions generally as being in the Democratic Party's hip pocket. The man is consistent as a politician. Just like Governor Walker, he doesn't like to back down.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Noble "Peace Prize" Wray
Both the Chief of Police and Mayor of Madison did a little "Call Out" to Governor Walker today.
I talked to Sheriff's deputies and police officers from around the state on Capitol Square duty yesterday, on my way to the AFL-CIO free brat stand (this has been a very fulfilling and filling protest movement) and they all found Governor Walker's "We considered that" comment to Fake Koch ('coke") pretty sleazy. (Regarding the Governor giving consideration to planting people to create disruptions in crowds of Wisconsin citizens, the elderly, school children, babies in strollers, etc. etc.)
Holy shit, Governor, are ya thinking about bringing back in the Pinkertons? Or maybe those guys from Wackenhut? You know, the butt vodka guys?
Momma and Poppa Wray gave their son an appropriate name (with credit to Jeanette Lytle).
I talked to Sheriff's deputies and police officers from around the state on Capitol Square duty yesterday, on my way to the AFL-CIO free brat stand (this has been a very fulfilling and filling protest movement) and they all found Governor Walker's "We considered that" comment to Fake Koch ('coke") pretty sleazy. (Regarding the Governor giving consideration to planting people to create disruptions in crowds of Wisconsin citizens, the elderly, school children, babies in strollers, etc. etc.)
Holy shit, Governor, are ya thinking about bringing back in the Pinkertons? Or maybe those guys from Wackenhut? You know, the butt vodka guys?
Momma and Poppa Wray gave their son an appropriate name (with credit to Jeanette Lytle).
Pull Out Those Old Hushpuppies, Mr. Prez
Here is the President on the campaign trail in 2009 in Spartanburg, S.C., my old state:
Ed Schultz, of The Ed Show fame, pulled this clip out and asked the President tonight (rhetorically) if it wasn't time for a road trip to Madison. I would guess the Prez thinks that would violate an unwritten rule that sitting presidents don't inject themselves directly into political debates in State politics. Try telling that to Orval Faubus. OK, OK, desegregation of Little Rock High was a bigger deal and involved violations of federal law and the integrity of the federal judiciary. Still, it would be nice if the President could at least follow up his initial comments to WTMJ with some new support.
Ed Schultz, of The Ed Show fame, pulled this clip out and asked the President tonight (rhetorically) if it wasn't time for a road trip to Madison. I would guess the Prez thinks that would violate an unwritten rule that sitting presidents don't inject themselves directly into political debates in State politics. Try telling that to Orval Faubus. OK, OK, desegregation of Little Rock High was a bigger deal and involved violations of federal law and the integrity of the federal judiciary. Still, it would be nice if the President could at least follow up his initial comments to WTMJ with some new support.
Think I'm not mad? Think I'm not mad? The Isthmus thinks I'm mad! You talkin about me? You talkin about me?
What the World Needs Now, not love but another blog?
I have become angry enough about the Governor's heavy-handedness to make an unpremeditated jump to blogging (thereby preserving the insanity defense option). I'll try to keep it up until I grow too tired and tiresome. I was inspired by a blog an important very young friend is capably keeping up out in Colorado. His blog is about books he has read. Oprah should really check it out.
Check back in the future for posts on the budget fight and other political gamesmanship.
In the meantime, here is a guy who thinks Barack Obama is a big buttinski, and says so on National TV
I'll try to make it fun and informative.
Check back in the future for posts on the budget fight and other political gamesmanship.
In the meantime, here is a guy who thinks Barack Obama is a big buttinski, and says so on National TV
I'll try to make it fun and informative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)