Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Hardly a different scenario than what occurred when the HCB passed in the Federal Congress. That one was 2,000+ pages and no one read it.

You (and the guy in WI) are whining about the same stuff you did on a much larger scale. Hypocrisy makes you look foolish.

They were opposed to both the single payer and mandated insurance schemes as matters of principle.

My point stands, unaffected by your sniping. I'll readily agree that the reasonable expectation is that at some point the state workers will vote out the union, and that undoubtedly is a part of the Republican plan. This is a process we call democracy, and it involves the periodic assent of the people (unionized public sector workers in this case) who are to be "represented" in labor relations and who are forced to contribute a portion of their pay to them. We require legislators to "recertify" their selection by the voters they represent. Why should union "representatives' be any different?

In exactly the same way the Democrats want to continue the forced unionization IMPOSED on the workers by an earlier state government, WITHOUT EVER CONDUCTING ANY VOTE by the workers themselves.

Anyway, it remains amusing to note the union bosses signals that they will yield on the benefic cost sharing issues (that affect the workers) if the government will only "negotiate" the legislation to remove the part that affects their sorry asses. It all sounds a bit like the blustering retreat rhetoric of Gadaffi's sons in Lybia.

Too Little, Too Late? Moderate GOP Floats Plan To Break WI Impasse

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) may be drawing a hard line on collective bargaining with thousands of his state's union workers, but there are signs that some state Republicans are willing to bend as the governing crisis deepens and accede to the Democrats' demand that unions be allowed to negotiate benefits for their workers.

What's not clear is if the Republican opposition to Walker's anti-collective bargaining stance is enough to bring the state Senate Democrats back and get the legislature back on track.

The Wall Street Journal reports that one moderate Republican, state Sen. Dale Schultz, has proposed changing the budget proposal supported by Walker slightly but fundamentally: instead of losing their collective bargaining rights in perpetuity, as the governor wants, they would only lose the right to negotiate for benefits through 2013.

Schultz' chief of staff sounded positively Democratic when discussing the proposal with the Journal.

"Dale is committed to find a way to preserve collective bargaining in the future," he told the paper.

But Democrats told the Journal that proposal is not enough to get them back to Madison from their hideouts in Illinois and places unknown.

"The collective bargaining language has to be removed altogether. Collective bargaining isn't a fiscal issue," state Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D) told the paper. "If it's OK to collectively bargain in 2013 why isn't it OK today?"

Though the Schultz plan may not be enough to get the job done, it's perhaps a sign that Walker's grip on his Republican colleagues in the Senate may be weaker than imagined. That could mean Democrats and moderate Republicans could work out a deal that gets the budget passed and meets the demands of the tens of thousands of workers camped out inside and outside the state capitol.

Polling over the weekend has shown that the majority of citizens are against Walker's plan

Earlier polling showed a large margin of support for Gov. Walker’s initiative, but the national reaction since then has been truly remarkable.

I have an idea - let's turn your workplace into a similar situation! If the body of workers doesn't affirmatively vote to keep you in place every year, you'll be out on your ass. Sound like a situation you support?

Quote:

In exactly the same way the Democrats want to continue the forced unionization IMPOSED on the workers by an earlier state government, WITHOUT EVER CONDUCTING ANY VOTE by the workers themselves.

Perfectly in compliance with the law, and the workers have had opportunities to de-certify since then and chose not to.

This will start to take its' toll on the elected Republicans and it will be interesting to see if cracks in the coalition show up.

The lion's share of attention regarding Scott Walker's legislative proposal has been paid to the effort to revoke Wisconsin public employees' collective bargaining rights, but the 144-page bill (more reliable link here) is a far more exhaustive and inclusive list of the fundamentals of Republican politics in the 21st Century. Not many people have the time to plow through the whole bill but those who do will be rewarded with plenty of gems like this:

Quote:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

If this isn't the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don't know what is. It's like a highlight reel of all of the tomahawk dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term "public interest" as "whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is."