Wisconsin Recall

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet here we have a Democrat saying that democracy is dead, simply because democracy returned a result he didn't like. Now that's ironic.

I'm sure we could find at least one Republican out there who believes Blacks are inferior, but I wouldn't use your line of logic to suggest all Republicans are racist pricks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the Republicans think Walker's recall election was a referendum against unions, they would be making a serious strategic error. The election was already decided during the primaries when the union-backed Democrat lost. There were other factors that played into it, but this was no more an anti-union referendum than it was "some kind of travesty of democracy" as some Lefties might suggest, except for the sh!tload of money spent on the election. But until SCOTUS redefines what is and isn't free speech, we're going to see this kind money flow into elections.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Pooky 3,783]

I'm sure we could find at least one Republican out there who believes Blacks are inferior, but I wouldn't use your line of logic to suggest all Republicans are racist pricks.

Judging by some of the videos posted from Wisconsin, there were more than a few there who believed the same way. Which is quite funny really, as this display of democracy in action was only made possible by the actions of these people and the public sector unions objecting to the repercussions of the previous exercise of state-level democracy.

I mean, democracy worked well enough getting the recall vote in the first place, didn't it?

Edited June 11, 2012 by Pooky

[Pooky 3,783]

If the Republicans think Walker's recall election was a referendum against unions, they would be making a serious strategic error. The election was already decided during the primaries when the union-backed Democrat lost. There were other factors that played into it, but this was no more an anti-union referendum than it was "some kind of travesty of democracy" as some Lefties might suggest, except for the sh!tload of money spent on the election. But until SCOTUS redefines what is and isn't free speech, we're going to see this kind money flow into elections.

The vote was a referendum on the unions, just not in the way most of the media, left and right want to spin it. Lost in the background noise was the little fact that a large number of voters, even a good number who said they would vote for Obama in November, endorsed Scott Walker because they believed the recall itself was an abuse of the democratic process. And for that, they held the unions largely responsible.

On top of that, a large proportion of all voters had made up their mind about which way they were going to vote long before April, when the majority of the money poured in. All of which refuses to play into the claims that the election was bought.

Not to mention that in 2008, Obama outspent McCain 2:1 in the Presidential election. Does that mean he bought the election? No. Same here, only the unions had competition.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The vote was a referendum on the unions, just not in the way most of the media, left and right want to spin it. Lost in the background noise was the little fact that a large number of voters, even a good number who said they would vote for Obama in November, endorsed Scott Walker because they believed the recall itself was an abuse of the democratic process. And for that, they held the unions largely responsible.

On top of that, a large proportion of all voters had made up their mind about which way they were going to vote long before April, when the majority of the money poured in. All of which refuses to play into the claims that the election was bought.

Not to mention that in 2008, Obama outspent McCain 2:1 in the Presidential election. Does that mean he bought the election? No. Same here, only the unions had competition.

Actually, Washington Democrats didn't want to push a recall and thought it would be better to let Walker serve out his term in spite of the fact that the governor used a very slimy procedural move to eliminate public unions. Lets not confuse the facts. Walker usurped his power in the sleaziest of ways, going after those he deemed as his enemies, and there are phone records of the Koch Bros. being involved in the legal meandering he used to remove the public unions. The anger and outrage by the unions and their supporters was therefore justified. Wisconsin Democrats made a strategic error by endorsing the recall, which was fueled by the unions. It's a bloody mess and no side is pure white on this, however, it was Walker who drew first blood. He ran a brilliant recall campaign and got a lot independents to sympathize with the fact that recalls are mostly unnecessary, costly and a bit abusive.

Money certainly does have an impact on elections, otherwise candidates or more accurately, Superpacs wouldn't bother. However, there is no guarantee that if you throw enough money at a candidate, they'll get elected. The issue has more to do with the source of that revenue and just how much of an impact it has. Most of the money is spent on negative campaign ads.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1339383492[/url]' post='5435810']

The vote was a referendum on the unions...

No, the vote was a referendum on the Governor, and the state remains divided,

[Pooky 3,783]

No, the vote was a referendum on the Governor, and the state remains divided,

That's what the unions wanted, but the voters didn't agree, with a number of Democrats voting to retain Walker simply because they didn't appreciate the unions' attempt to subvert the democratic procession account of a monumental hissy fit.

As for the state being divided, it's less divided now than before the recall. But how do you differentiate divided from the majority opinion? Governor Walker was retained with a majority of the vote in Wisconsin similar to that enjoyed by President Obama in the country as a whole. Should the President of the USA abandon any piece of legislation that doesn't receive the support of at least one Republican? We'd be waiting an awful long time if that were the case.

[Pooky 3,783]

Lets not confuse the facts. Walker usurped his power in the sleaziest of ways

Walker usurped his power? He acted wholly within the powers of his office as Governor. The only side of this that tried usurping power were the Democrat state senators who fled the state in an attempt to subvert the democratic process.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Walker usurped his power? He acted wholly within the powers of his office as Governor. The only side of this that tried usurping power were the Democrat state senators who fled the state in an attempt to subvert the democratic process.

No, he used a procedural move that was never meant to dismantle the bargaining rights of teacher's unions. He did so by claiming a budgetary emergency, which there was none. The teacher's union had already agreed to cutbacks during the recession, but Walker didn't stop there, he used the opportunity to take away their bargaining rights - rights which originated back over 150 years ago. Wisconsin was a landmark state after the Civil War in the labor movement. Things like 5 day work weeks, sick pay, overtime, were fought for and won in that state. Anti-unionists have been fighting ever since to undo what the labor movement had done to improve the quality of life for so many working Americans.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Leatherneck 693]

No, he used a procedural move that was never meant to dismantle the bargaining rights of teacher's unions. He did so by claiming a budgetary emergency, which there was none. The teacher's union had already agreed to cutbacks during the recession, but Walker didn't stop there, he used the opportunity to take away their bargaining rights - rights which originated back over 150 years ago. Wisconsin was a landmark state after the Civil War in the labor movement. Things like 5 day work weeks, sick pay, overtime, were fought for and won in that state. Anti-unionists have been fighting ever since to undo what the labor movement had done to improve the quality of life for so many working Americans.

Though govt unions did not happen until 1959. Unions did a fine job of making the work place a better place and the reforms were needed. What they have morphed into now, well, is just not sustainable.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Leatherneck

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from Politifact:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he campaigned on his budget repair plan, including curtailing collective bargaining

In the turbulent wake of his controversial plan to sharply curtail collective bargaining rights, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has faced criticism that he gave no warning of such a dramatic plan during the long 2010 governor’s race.

Walker has forcefully challenged that contention, most bluntly at a Feb. 21, 2011 news conference. A reporter asked if the move to limit union power was payback for pro-union moves made by Democrats in the past.

"It’s not a ####### for tat," Walker responded. "The simple matter is I campaigned on this all throughout the election. Anybody who says they are shocked on this has been asleep for the past two years."

The statement echoed one at Feb. 17 news conference, in which Walker was even more emphatic that he campaigned on all the changes included in the entire budget-repair measure -- not just forcing employees to pay more for health and pension costs.

Asked if he was "ramming through" the budget-repair bill, Walker said:

"We introduced a measure last week, a measure I ran on during the campaign, a measure I talked about in November during the transition, a measure I talked about in December when we fought off the employee contracts, an idea I talked about in the inauguration, an idea I talked about in the state of the state. If anyone doesn't know what's coming, they've been asleep for the past two years."

Now, we thought we were following the campaign pretty closely.

It seemed to us like the first public hint Walker gave that he was considering eliminating many union bargaining rights was at a Dec. 7, 2010 Milwaukee Press Club forum, some four weeks after the election.

So Walker’s claim he campaigned on all of this caught our attention -- and that of many readers, who have been e-mailing us asking us to check it out.

There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees. And, to be sure, that is an important part of the measure.

But for Walker to be right, he has to be correct on the entirety of the plan. So we’ll look more deeply at the collective bargaining side of the equation, which has caused the ongoing firestorm in Madison.

Here is a summary of the changes:

For public employee unions except those covering public safety workers, the measure would narrow collective bargaining to wage issues, and only then within specific limits. It would end bargaining on such things as health care costs, pensions and working conditions -- rights granted to the public unions more than 50 years ago.

Additionally: Wage increases would be limited to inflation or less. Employees would be able to opt out of paying union dues. An annual certification vote on the existence of each union would be required. And public employers would be barred from withholding union dues from worker’s paychecks.

Walker’s proposal also repeals all rights to collective bargaining for more than 30,000 University of Wisconsin employees, something granted in 2009.

For this item, we reviewed dozens of news accounts and various proposals on Walker’s campaign website to determine what he said about collective bargaining during the campaign. We talked to both campaigns in the governor’s race, and union officials.

During the campaign, Walker prided himself on presenting many specific proposals to voters. Our Walk-O-Meter includes 60-plus specific promises. Indeed, his plans for the state Department of Natural Resources include at least seven specific elements, including appointment of a "whitetail deer trustee" to review deer counts.

But nowhere in our search did we find any such detailed discussion of collective bargaining changes as sweeping as Walker proposed.

We asked Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie to provide evidence that Walker raised those issues during the campaign.

"During the campaign he ran on giving local units of government the flexibility to manage their own budgets," Werwie said. "That is what he is continuing to say and do right now."

He gave one example: a Walker proposal in July, 2010 to allow local units of government to switch from health plans that have high premiums to the state’s lower cost employee health plan.

Walker’s camp said at the time that the switch would not have to be negotiated with unions; Walker would move to take the choice out of the collective bargaining process, they said. Labor officials disagreed and said they would fight attempts to change the collective bargaining law.

Werwie also pointed to a campaign flier circulated by the American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin, a union representing 17,000 public employees in the state.

In addition to criticizing Walker comments on benefit cuts, the AFT flier notes a Walker comment about freeing up local governments from being "strangled" by mediation. And it points out his comment on the health plan switch he proposed in July -- the one that would take the choice of health plans off the table for unions.

Both of those are part of collective bargaining and were discussed.

But they are a far cry from what was proposed.

For instance, during the campaign Walker talked about who controls the choice of health care providers. After the election he proposed eliminating any negotiations on the subject of health care.

Walker’s campaign proposal on mediation and arbitration offers a similar contrast:

He told the Appleton Post-Crescent in a lengthy question and answer session in 2009 that "you've got to free up local government officials to not be strangled by things like mediation and arbitration." As his website made clear, he was talking about a specific, significant change in teacher’s union arbitration -- not the dramatic changes on the table now.

His current plan would largely eliminate the dispute-settling function of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission for all but public safety employees, according to Peter Davis, WERC’s general counsel.

When it comes to the arbitration process, Davis characterized the changes Walker proposed in the campaign as a "hand grenade" and his proposal now as an "atom bomb."

Another example:

As the campaign rolled near a close, in late October 2010, Walker told the Oshkosh Northwestern that he would "ask all state workers" for wage and benefit concessions in the collective bargaining process.

After the election, he proposed imposing concessions without negotiating and eliminating benefits as a topic of collective bargaining.

Walker told the Oshkosh newspaper that if unions don’t give in on concessions, he would turn to furloughs to get cost savings.

The use of furloughs was the approach taken by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a fairly typical cost-savings tactic. After the election, Walker said he wanted to avoid furloughs in favor of the concessions on health and pension costs, and wanted to limit bargaining to wages.

Before the election Walker talked about seeking concessions in the context of face-to-face negotiations -- as in the Oshkosh Northwestern interview. He is moving to impose health and pension cost-sharing through legislation, without having taken his proposal to the unions.

He once talked about expanding a statewide cost control system -- using collective bargaining -- beyond teachers to all state employees. But now he proposes an approach that would let individual municipalities set their own benefit levels -- with little input from unions.

A reminder: We are not evaluating the merits of the proposal. Just what was discussed in the campaign.

In October, as Walker held a steady lead in opinion polls over his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, rumors circulated in union circles about Walker favoring a major power grab from unions.

That’s according to Richard Abelson, who heads District Council 48 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, which had negotiated with Walker for eight years in his position as Milwaukee County executive.

Abelson, whose union endorsed Barrett, said: "We heard rumors he would remove pension and health as mandatory subjects of bargaining."

But at that time, nothing so direct was publicly stated.

Jeff Stone, a Republican state representative from Greendale, was the source of the notion, Abelson said. The two had a meeting as Stone laid the groundwork for a run for Walker’s soon-to-be-vacant county job.

Stone confirmed for us that he told Abelson before the election he thought Walker might propose the bolder course. He said Walker told him nothing; he guessed it from Walker’s emphasis on cost cutting and the deficits plaguing the state budget.

"This was the only way I could see he could do it," Stone said about balancing the state budget.

But the sweep of Walker’s eventual proposal caught even Stone off guard.

"Yeah, I was a little surprised (he put it all in)," Stone said. "But I also understand if you don’t control those things you will have trouble controlling costs."

Abelson, the union leader, said Walker’s February announcement of his plan "went far beyond what anybody thought he would do. He didn’t talk about it during the campaign. If he had said that, some people who supported him would have had some second thoughts."

Barrett’s campaign aide Gillian Morris also said they heard nothing in the campaign to suggest Walker would back sharp limits on union power -- and the repeal of all union rights for tens of thousands -- in his proposal.

Bryan Kennedy, president of AFT-Wisconsin, the union that distributed the flier warning about Walker’s labor record, said he figured Walker would try to weaken collective bargaining and privatize a lot of state jobs.

"But we were actually quite surprised by this," he said.

Immediately after the election, in mid-November, Walker successfully lobbied lawmakers not to approve labor contracts negotiated under the Jim Doyle administration.

Walker did not say he wanted to renegotiate them, nor did he say at that time that he had plans to lay aside those deals and impose changes without bargaining.

Let’s sum up our research.

Walker contends he clearly "campaigned on" his union bargaining plan.

But Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either.

While Walker often talked about employees paying more for pensions and health care, in his budget-repair bill he connected it to collective bargaining changes that were far different from his campaign rhetoric in terms of how far his plan goes and the way it would be accomplished.

We rate his statement False.

(Editor’s note: After this item was posted, a conversation surfaced between Walker and a person impersonating Walker campaign contributor and industrialist David Koch. In an audiotape released Feb. 23, 2011, Walker compares his union plan to a history-making act and portrayed his union plan as a "bomb."

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

[mawilson 2,133]

He did so by claiming a budgetary emergency, which there was none.

There was/is a budgetary emergency in every other state, but not in Wisconsin. Got it!