Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Quote:

Exactly....The people have already turned against government unions, not only do we want government smaller, IE a lot of these folks not on the property at all, but they are greedy sons of bitches as well...It is the same dynamic that killed manufacturing unions, years upon years of bloat and greed, which the public rightly decided was not in our best interests.

I love the magic act here point to the evil welfare queens and the evil public workers and as the people are looking in that direction loot the public out of hundred of billions as in the Enron case or in the home mortgages bubble.

Overall a less-than-convincing refutation of the central findings of the survey in question. Certainly not enough to suggest that Governor Walker of Wisconsin has lost the confidence of the majority of the voters who elected him, particularly considering that his recent actions and those of the Wisconsin legislature were entirely in keeping with the issues they campaigned on.

Cyclo appears to have two operating modes ; (1) to condemn posters for failing to offer "proof" of insights and forecasts they make (even those not amenable to such proof); and (2) to find fault with the proofs they occasionally offer.

All while offering NO information or proof to support his counter arguments.

I do not know how the political struggle - over the corrupt political nexus between public employee unions and the Democrats who use their political power to unionize public agencies by administrative fiat and later reward those unions & employees with unsustainable pay and pension benefits - will turn out. State and local governments throughout the country are facing serious financial crises based on the accumulated effects of this process and unrelated unfunded Federal mandates. The issues are coming to the fore in Wisconsin. New Jersey, Ohio and others, and others are still developing. Both sides on the political divide are doing what they can to advance their views.

The Republicans in Wisconsin have not backed down, and it seems clear the Democrat legislators in Wisconsin can't hide out forever. Over a year ago we saw a similar fiasco in Texas as Democrat legislatorrs fled that state to block legislative action on post census redistricting - a lot of sound & fury & public posturing, but the legislators eventually returned and the redistrictind was enacted as originally planned. I believe that will also be the result in Wisconsin, and I believe Cyclo understands that too.

Quote:

Do you believe the political contributions of the Utility industry to Republicans is even within an order of magnitude of that of the AFSCME, the AFT, NEA and other public employee unions to the Democrats?

You are comparing gnats and elephants.

Only if you are calling the unions the gnats.

Unions to Democrats
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/19/unions-fuel-democratic-party-financially/
roughly 24 million

Electric utilities to GOP
Roughly 12 million
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01++&goButt2.x=5&goButt2.y=6

Oil and Gas
Also about 12 million.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01++&goButt2.x=0&goButt2.y=8

And that doesn't include the 180 million Electric utilities spent on lobbying while Oil and Gas spent 140 million.

So,.. Unions donated 24 million
Electric and Gas donated about 24 million
almost equal...

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/incdec.php?var1=2010q1&var2=2010q2
In the second quarter of 2010, unions spent 11 million lobbying and electric utilities spent 50 million..
I guess that makes it a factor of 5 for the utilities.

Overall a less-than-convincing refutation of the central findings of the survey in question. Certainly not enough to suggest that Governor Walker of Wisconsin has lost the confidence of the majority of the voters who elected him, particularly considering that his recent actions and those of the Wisconsin legislature were entirely in keeping with the issues they campaigned on.

What Did Walker Campaign On?

22 Feb 2011 09:59 am

Last night, I heard on Fox News from Stephen Hayes that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker had run on a platform to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. I can find no evidence of this in the public record. It isn't on his campaign platform where he deals with "government spending and reform". It's clear that he vowed to slash pay and benefits for public sector unions. Here's an obviously liberal-leaning report that says

Quote:

Republican gubernatorial front-runner Scott Walker is vowing to cut state employee wages and benefits to help reduce state taxes on the wealthy.

But not end their collective bargaining rights on everything but wages. There's no reference to any such bid in the final gubernatorial debate. Here's another substantive piece on Walker's positions on public sector unions from before the election. Again no mention of collective bargaining. The same can be said about his State of the State address on February 1.

Why does this matter?

Because it seems to me that Walker has a case that democracy means he gets to fulfill his campaign promises. And it also seems to me that the public sector unions should concede much of what Walker is asking for in contributions to their pensions, healthcare etc. And here's why:

Quote:

Between 1958 and 1974, public teacher pay increased an average of 6 percent a year. After a bitter 1974 teachers’ strike in the small town of Hortonville that galvanized public unions, teacher pay increased an average of 7 percent annually for the next 16 years. It was also during this time that the state and local governments began paying the full amount of public employees’ pension benefits.

That very generous deal was doubtless helped by a very cosy relationship with the Democratic party which is in turn is largely financed by unions, often public sector ones. Hence the inherent tendency for such unions to over-influence their own compensation through the political process. There is an argument, especially after the Citizens' United ruling, that such special clout is necessary to counter-act the massive clout of business or people such as the Koch brothers. But in Wisconsin, it sure doesn't look to me as if the public sector unions have been struggling for the last few decades.

So I think Walker is absolutely right to target such benefits for cuts, given the outlook for the state budget, and the current strains on those in the private sector (although I think it's nuts simultaneously to reduce revenues at the same time). But I can also see, given the record of the campaign, why this radical new move - raising the stakes far higher - has prompted the response it has. If you campaign on one platform and then suddenly up the ante, you cannot cite democracy in your defense. And there is something bizarre about Republican commentators who cheered on Tea Party protests against a clear Obama campaign pledge - health insurance reform - suddenly decrying public protests against something a politician didn't campaign on.

Maybe I've missed something in the historical record. And if Hayes - or anyone out there - has evidence of a campaign pledge by Walker to end public sector union collective bargaining on benefits, please let me know. But going through this thoroughly, as long as the unions are prepared to make serious concessions on pay and benefits, I think Walker is over the line.

Unions and Budget Deficits

Do high unionization levels lead to state budget deficits, as some claim? John Sides shows that the answer is no:



Looking at this chart, what I think you would see is that unionization levels have a strong relationship to progressive taxation. New York, Hawaii, and Washington are all high-tax states, especially on rich people, while the non-union south has generally low levels of taxation and regressive tax structures. The conservative movement is financed by rich people whose primary interest in life is lower taxes. And on an intellectual level, the main wellspring of conservative economic policy ideas comes from people who believe that progressive income taxes are very economically damaging. A secondary intellectual inspiration is people like Greg Mankiw who believe that such taxes are an immoral imposition on a genetic elite. A key problem with this agenda is that higher taxes on rich people are a politically popular way to solve budget deficits. The solution is to create a dynamic in which political parties are entirely reliant on rich businessmen for their financing. Reducing labor unions to a state of political impotence will get the job done.

More evidence that Unionism in States is not correlated with budget deficits

And yet we are to believe that Americans are 'sick of unions and taxes.' Why not sick of unlimited greed for corporations? Not sick of taxing Hedge Fund managers at only 15% on the billions of dollars they earn? Not sick of Wall Street gambling away hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth - and walking away with a huge payout?

This is a risible lie. ONE out of the two of us has offered any evidence to support their position, and that's me. You have offered and plan on offering none at all. Isn't that correct?

You've also slyly substituted the word 'proof' for 'evidence.' There's a big difference. I ask for you to provide evidence, not prove that your positions are true. I ask what factors lead you to believe what you do, not to prove that your positions are the end-all correct ones. You are exaggerating here for effect, but as you can see - it's failing.

Re: the biased Ras poll, Nate Silver is probably the most respected poll analyst in the country. On both sides of the fence. Your waving away of his conclusions is not compelling in the slightest. Not only that, but I've posted two other polls which directly contradict what you claim here - they both show that the public of WI does NOT support this plan.

Not only that, but Parados ably proved that you were perfectly incorrect regarding donations to the GOP from the oil and gas industry. No response from you.

I think the result in WI, as far as I can tell, will be:

1, a cut in pension and pay for the union in question, and

2, an uprising of Democrats in the state and a highly-motivated base next cycle.

Cycloptichorn

This of course will embolden similsr forces in other sorely stressed states and add to the current momentum.

Careful with your accusations of lies: they are offensive and make you look like a bombastic fool.

Oh ! The argument from authority. Rasmussen is surely wrong and your guy right. In the end we shall both see what unfolds in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states.

Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.

In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.

I'll readily agree that elements of the Democrat base are energised - the evidence of that is amply visible. The question is more likely to turn on the attitudes of independent voters. They drove the last election. In that regard it is more than a little interesting that all this has arisen in Wisconsin - the home state of Robert LaFollette and the birth of the American progressive movement.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker warns that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if a bill eliminating collective bargaining rights isn't passed soon.

Walker said Tuesday in a statement to The Associated Press that the layoffs wouldn't take effect immediately. He didn't say which workers would be targeted.

There can be no doubt as to the punitive nature of the policy here. Walker doesn't need to start laying off state employees, and the bill to gut collective bargaining rights has nothing to do with these workers' employment status.

This, in other words, is a thuggish threat -- give Walker the union-busting bill he wants, or he'll start making unemployment worse on purpose.

As far as the governor is concerned, the two are related, since the pending state legislation include benefit and wage "reforms," too. But Walker has a choice -- the unions would agree to his demands on compensation and benefits, if only he'd let them keep the collective bargaining rights state employees earned generations ago. That is, incidentally, an agreement that Wisconsin voters broadly endorse, and it could be approved quickly, making layoffs unnecessary and ending the protests.

But not only has Walker deemed this insufficient, he's now prepared to start handing out pink slips next week, just because he can.

Quote:

Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.

But, that's not the claim you made. At all. He hooked your use of inaccurate terminology and reeled you right in. You should be more precise in what you say if you don't want to be caught out in inaccuracies.

In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.

These two statements appear to be contradictory. What do you mean?

In effect you are feebly forecasting that Democrats will prevail in the next election - without offering any evidence to support that prediction.

I'll readily agree that elements of the Democrat base are energised - the evidence of that is amply visible. The question is more likely to turn on the attitudes of independent voters. They drove the last election. In that regard it is more than a little interesting that all this has arisen in Wisconsin - the home state of Robert LaFollette and the birth of the American progressive movement.

Both polls of the state of WI so far show that independent voters are against the current plan. So, not sure how that fits into your projections.

independent voters in WI aren't happy with Walker's plan at the moment. That doesn't bode too well for re-election chances.

Parados fudged the data. Oil & gas producers & distributors don't buy state powerplants. That compulsive nit picker's offerings are only rarely worthy of comment.

But polling data doesn't seem to support that idea, and public reaction seems to be much stronger against the idea than for it

Repeating this over and over and over will not make it true. Plenty of evidence has been brought forth in this and other threads that show that (1) Unions aren't the cause of the budget woes, and (2) getting rid of collective negotiation won't improve the budget

Studies done in North Carolina and elsewhere suggest that collective bargaining only increases state worker salaries by about 5 percent or 6 percent.