I admire Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s refusal to back down on a fight the country needs to have and from which too many have shied away. But as long as he’s in it, and the Obama/Alinsky Left has demonstrated to an appalled country just how ugly they intend to make things — thug leaders calling for blood in the street, the Nazi/Mubarak/Mussolini rhetoric, lawmakers abdicating their duty and shutting down the legislative process when they can’t get their way — why not try to win it, right here right now?
Seems to me that Governor Walker is asking for adjustments that are way too modest and would leave in place — perhaps solidify — a situation that is only marginally less unjust and untenable than what Wisconsin has now. Under his proposal, citizens working in the private sector would still be paying more for public-employee pensions and substantially more for public-employee health insurance than those citizens pay for their own comparable benefits. He would exempt many public employees from even these modest adjustments. (And for what? Did you see the firefighters out there yesterday, joining the taker-class’s demonstrations against the public?) Furthermore, Walker is being very cagey when asked whether his goal is to break the public-sector unions — he won’t say yes, but his statements have an undertone of “wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world . . .”
There is a simple, compelling case that public-sector unionization should never have been permitted in the first place, that FDR’s predictions that such a system would be rife with corruption have been realized in spades, and that the arrangement has the country on the fast-track to bankruptcy. Moreover, despite the rate and pace at which public-sector unions have lined their pockets over the past quarter century, the quality the public gets from its “servants” decreases in direct proportion to the public unions’ ever-inflating sense of entitlement.
The case was forcefully made just yesterday by Jonah here and by Peter Ferrara at Pajamas. And they demonstrated that proponents can advance the case while illustrating that they are not anti-union, that we appreciate the contributions to a decent society that private sector unions have undeniably made. This is not a pro-corporate fat-cat argument; it’s a pro-us argument.
The public-sector employees work for us — they are not beaten down by “the man,” “the system,” or whatever bogeyman the lefties are using today. The only “collective bargaining” they should be permitted is the regular legislative process that everyone else who wants something from the public purse needs to go through. And I can tell you from personal experience, having worked in the public sector for over two decades — and having felt honored to represent the public in court despite making a lot less money than I could have made as a private attorney — that the real public servants understand this. The people driving this train, and driving us into bankruptcy, are left-wing activists whose power hinges on maintaining this perverse system in which unions effectively sit on both sides of the negotiations, passing piles of public money over and under the table.
Governor Walker is a very persuasive fellow and he has a soapbox he will probably never have again thanks to the dreadful behavior of the opposition. This is not a time to go for incremental improvements. This is a moment when the game is there for the taking.
Maybe you can convince Governor Daniels of that.
But I agree, this is a fight that needs to be addressed and won.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot a bad idea. At this point, he could say, hey, I tried to take modest steps, and was met with absolute obstruction. If you guys really want an all-out war [pardon the violent imagery], then we're going to raise the stakes. And introduce a bill to prohibit collective bargaining by any public sector unions for anything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStill no comments from NRO bloggers re the "Koch" call yesterday? Anyone who could be duped so easily is, in my opinion, one or more of the following: not too bright, not too competent, and evidently very eager to respond to the money (a failing common to Democrats and Republicans alike).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndy,
Your rihgt. Go for it. Stop collecting the Union dues and see how many will give the money back once it is in their hands.
Paying their own benefits is not enough, fires some. The Milwaukee school system has 8 student per 1 gvt employee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reason I agree is that I don't know how much more of this our country can take. We on the right know that there are a series of incremental steps that need to happen, and this is the first. We took the incremental approach, I assume, because we figured there would be less pain and suffering that way. But if we are going to be faced with all-out chaos every time any step is taken, then we may have to up the ante.
To borrow a violent metaphor from our ever-so-mild-mannered president, if we bring a knife, and they bring a gun, should we pull out the nuclear warhead?
i'll tell you, in NH we have a much more (supposedly) innocuous budget situation: towns finalized their budgets, assuming that the state would be putting in the customary 35% towards teacher retirement; then our spineless Dem governor announced that, in his budget, he would be dropping that contribution, meaning that towns are mandated to come up with the difference - $1.4 million in one town I know of. Rather than take on the unions and say that retirement contributions were going down, he passed the bill on to already cash-strapped towns.
And how has the teachers union reacted? They've got some experienced organizers from Wisconsin coming to the state to give a talk.
This sort of thing makes me wonder how long we can go on with these conflicts. Perhaps we should rip the Band-Aid off all at once instead of slowly . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES - PAY CUTS FOR TEACHERS
That, I guess, is the Republicans theory of governance. I was in favor of the tax-cuts or continuing the Bush tax cuts, whatever you want to call it. I'm always in favor of tax cuts. But if you can't see that there is no economic difference between cutting wages in the middle of a recession and raising taxes it's because your partisan blinkers are choking off the supply of blood to your head.
I'm still waiting to hear the economic theory behind focusing on balancing budgets in the midst of 10% unemployment. Balancing budgets only benefits people who own or are owed large quantities of dollars. The budget balancers goal is apparently to preserve the wealth of the Chinese and Saudi governments by cutting the wages of school teachers, firemen, policemen, and no doubt next the military.
Please explain to me why it's so important that we do this right now and how it's going to alleviate unemployment. Balancing budgets in the middle of a recession is the rights equivalent of passing universal healthcare in the middle of a recession, i.e. something done for ideological reasons, the unemployed be damned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think actually trying to make a law against unions would:
a) Allow them to pose as victims
b) Be unworkable. How can you make a law against A, B, C, D and E saying "we'll only agree to what F agrees to on our behalf?"
So the real problem is "binding arbitration", that is, where when the union and the employer don't agree, an unelected, anti-democratic official gets to overrule the employer-ie the taxpayers-and confiscate their wealth with government guns.
The other problem as was argued by twmmah7127 is the forced collection of dues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that government employees' unions should be abolished for the reasons described in this article.
As for Kevin Moriarty's comment about Gov. Walker being duped by the liberal activist posing as David Koch, Governor Walker took this man's call and then chose to not dispute the caller's comments that were designed to elicit a response. The fact is that every politician has to take calls from people who will support them with money. I am surprised that Governor Walker's staff let this liberal activist get through to the governor, but there is nothing scandalous here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's no way to fix this at the margins. The whole system needs to be rebuilt. Teachers are great but the local politicians had no business promising them income for life -- unless they were paying out of their own pockets.
Hey teachers: the unions and the politicians conspired to promise you something they ultimately could not deliver. Stop blaming conservatives; we're not the ones who swindled you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt amazes me that private sector unions are throwing in with the public ones. At some point the citizenry will understand the threat of the public ones and move to outlaw them. By then the private ones will have so made the case that they are the same thing they will go down with them. Huge strategic error.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRip it off quick like a bandage. This is the time to destroy this cancer on America that is bankrupting us.
Walker has the votes and the public behind him to deal with this problem once and for all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoyoMarquez, I'm just going to point out that *states can't do Keynesian deficit spending* and leave it at that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoyo,
what wage cutting are you talking about ? The teachers are not be offered a pay cut ...
Balancing budgets are good economics no matter what the unemployment rate is ... thats why most states are required to do so ...
Please don't ask people here to educate you on basic economics ... thats your job not ours ... and its obvious that you haven't done that job ...
Given the rotten job teachers have done for the last decade I say why not cut their pay ...
and by the way, lowering tax rates are completely different than reducing expenses ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe comment by Gabby G. Marquez shows the degree to which vulgar Keynesianism has got hold of the popular imagination (v. Donkey talking points since at least Sept. 08).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, they must act now and do it quickly. Any further delay only gives the opposition hope that their methods are bearing fruit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have served as a state-level public employee for just short of a quarter-century - through times remarkably good and distressingly bad.
I support the Wisconsin governor's stance on collective bargaining. I don't think it's right to resort to taking additional taxpayers' revenue during these tough times (and no, I'm not buying the rhetoric peddled by the SEIU and AFSCME organizers). I also don't think it's appropriate for any one group to skew the revenue vs. compensation relationship. Also, if my work area hadn't shown any tangible productivity gains for several decades, I'd expect they would have eliminated our jobs a long time ago (and yes, we do produce tangible engineering products of substantial value)
In our state, public employees have seen modest pay raises in the past - and notable pay cuts (with unpaid furloughs on top of that) in recent years. But we're still employed for now - and yes, it's appreciated. My total compensation package is still substantially less than my private-sector counterparts, but I'm OK with that, as I've also seen entire consultant offices eliminated and liquidated in a few weeks, with experienced and well-regarded staff out of work for years.
My state is one that that has paid attention to public-employee pension funding, and my take-home pay has varied through the years as my substantial contribution percentages have changed based on investment returns. And yet I could see the possibility of raids or default resulting in nothing- or a more likely result where the pension will be delivered as promised, but providing little actual value due to inflation (but hey! we'll all be millionaires!)
I'll be technically eligible to retire in less than five years. But I think I'll likely stick around for a little while longer anyway, as I can still be productive - and more important, I'll still have at least one kid in school for a while.
One last thing: I look at my relationship with the state not as a client, victim, or dependent, but as a partner, shareholder, and producer - and I don't have a lot of patience for those who would seek to change that relationship, either for "my good" or "the public good".
P.S. There is one thing that would induce my departure from government service in a hurry - and that would be mandatory union membership or dues deduction...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoyo is a classic case of functional illiteracy. "I'm still waiting to hear the economic theory behind focusing on balancing budgets in the midst of 10% unemployment."
Do you know anything about state laws?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWalker's bill exempts local police, firefighters and the State Patrol. Don't all of the arguments against public sector unions and collective bargaining apply to them as well? .... or is it just the idea of going after teachers that lights your fire?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Goyo:
Modern Keynesianism isn't even what Keynes put forth. Keynes advocated short term government investment spending during recessions to make up for lack of private sector investment. Keynes never advocated long term systemic deficit spending. Right now we have long term systemic deficit spending at the local, state, and federal level. This leads to economic collapse whether you talk to Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes.
And states do not have to balance their budget. Issuing debt to fund current expenditures is not balancing the budget. The only difference between states and the federal government is that the states have no way to monetize the debt they issue, ie printing money to buy debt. They can still issue debt and have done so for generations. The problem is that certain states debt burden is forcing ever rising interest rates on their debt, exacerbating already systemic deficits.
States and municipalities also create off the book vehicles to issue even more debt. See transit authorities as a huge way to hide debt from the official books. State finances smell and look like Enron in so many ways. The special finance vehiclees just have names like the Metro Transit Authority or the Timbuktu Sewage Commission.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse