Values:

Have you ever wondered why conservatives and progressives are light-years apart on almost every issue? It's all about different values and I believe that both conservatives and liberals are totally convinced that their position is correct and their opponent's views are wrong.

Conservatives value the individual's responsibility and liberals value social responsibility. Conservatives believe in the self-made man and liberals believe that men (and women) rise up on the shoulders of those who came before them.

Conservatives believe that father (alone) knows best and has a strong need to control. Liberals believe in shared decision making between the husband and wife with cooperation being the priority.

It's no wonder that we have major disagreements regarding women's reproductive rights, immigration, health care, wars, science and budget. Currently another major difference is playing its self out in Madison, Wisconsin. Democrats believe in collective bargaining and conservatives are trying their hardest to break the unions.

I for one believe we are our brother's keeper and we have a responsibility to our fellow Americans. It is not about putting "me first".

The GOP/TP is not going to move off their "Obstructionist" agenda. Gov. Walker says NO to compromise, The House says NO to compromise as well. And it appears they are also saying NO to Jobs and NO to improving the economy. But they are saying YES to taking away rights of Americans.

Joe- they wouldn't need such a sanctuary, if they could stay in their respective houses and just sit there and holler 'no' all day long, huh? Sounds familliar somehow. Did someone already try this??

The GOP/TP is not going to move off their "Obstructionist" agenda. Gov. Walker says NO to compromise

I think you are confused about the definition of obstructionist. The WI Democrats that are hiding out, preventing any discussion of the bill from occurring are being obstructionists.

The WI Democrats that are hiding out, preventing any discussion of the bill from occurring are being obstructionists

Not sure if you left out that FACT that Governor Walker REFUSES to sit down and negotitate, was intentional or an oversight...

Discussion huh? Funny. The Governor really sounds like he wants to discuss.

SMH. Republicans are priceless.

Feisty, the fact that we posted the same position at the same time shows how blindly Republicans choose to leave out certain points in their pointless rambling.

What part of "BROKE" is not understood ?

The unions do not want to pay into their health plans like the rest of us do, and they still want their pensions.

I pay about 52% of my health insurance and I believe they are being asked to pay in 12.6%.

I do not have a pension plan....only a 401K plan that my employer matches with 5% of whatever I put in. These unions are being asked to kick in about 5.8% I believe.

Let the carefully orchestrated Democratic circus continue......the SHOW must go on ! Democratic polls are not objective either !

Ron, good post. Yes, I have often wondered about what you lay out and along those lines, I also wonder why seemingly good honest people still vote GOP/TP.

Why do they vote for candidates regardless of where they live, when the leaders of the GOP/Tp will never ask their members to stop saying th President is not native born, that he is a Muslim among other wild claims.

In my own state, why did people elect a governor, who is a known crook. In my district why did people elect a rep. Allan West, who was forced to leave the military because of bad behaviour and supports and advocates 2nd amendment solutions among other extreme views. And even if some of them didn't vote for these creeps, they still dont denounce them.

If someone of reasonable demeanor would justify this acceptance and explain to me so I may better understand the evergrowing hateful discourse.

Not sure if you left out that FACT that Governor Walker REFUSES to sit down and negotitate, was intentional or an oversight...

Discussion huh? Funny. The Governor really sounds like he wants to discuss.

No, you read it correctly and I did not leave anything out. The Wisconsin democrats that left last week left prior to the discussion even finishing over the bill. They have every right to express their dislike of the bill with their votes or through continuing discussion, but instead they just are obstructing the entire process.

The Wisconsin democrats that left last week left prior to the discussion even finishing over the bill.

Good Grief!

Now they've moved onto rewriting history!

The Democrats left because the Governor refused to sit down at the table & negotiate!

Happy spinning! ;o)

Miss Beaty, we forgive you for being you. That's what we do.

:^)

Paid vacation? Man do I ever wish it.

Democrats do not have all the answers but neither do republicans. Democrats are more willing to compromise to move the country forward, republicans used to be willing to compromise also but today's GOPTP sees nothing beyond their own version of what government should be.

Governor Walker has dug in his heels, he stated there would be no compromise, he has made up his mind yet he expects democrats to return so that Walker can get what he wants. Compromise means finding common ground. This is not about the WI budget, this is about destroying unions and democrats in the process. The Fire, Police and State Troopers were exempted from Walker's elimination of collective bargaining--but they are next. If unions disappear, private business will have all the power to eliminate the benefits, to reduce wages--every nonunion worker in this country should not be surprised when they find their benefits, their wages are next on the chopping block of Corporate power.

Odd, the Wisconsin 14 are considered obstructionists by conservatives but Republicans who blocked, denied, delayed and obstructed for the past two years were somehow not obstructionists. These democrats are willing to come to the table and talk but Walker has made it clear that he does not want to talk. What kind of government is that? Sounds more like a regime with Walker its dictator. A TP protester in Wisconsin over the weekend said "elections have consequences." Yes, they do and the elections of 2006 and 2008 had consequences but those consequences were unacceptable to the GOP. What goes around, comes around. In this instance, I support the WI democrats who have decided it was necessary to make a stand for people's rights to bargain, to negotiate, to allow their voices to be heard; their stand is reminiscent of 1776 when people said "enough" to the King of England.

The party of "no" just may save liberals from themselves. No more Taxes, no more spending, no more big government and no more socialism. These concepts actually return power to the people. The problem is too many people don't know what to do with that power and freedom. Too many people believe and want government to provide for them at someone else's expense. This is called being "progressive" by liberals. What it is, is being dependent on someone else or a govenment for your well being. In our country today, too many people believe in this flawed way of life. Over the years throwing money at social programs has increased the number of people looking for a free ride on the gravy train. Guess what the gravy train in empty.

Post #1 - yesterday I thought Navy would have the first op ed of the day, followed by the supports of the minions, now I find I was incorrect, it is Louis. Good writing Sir, I disagree with you however.

However, I see the actions of Republicans playing out to change the current time to a time of slavery and oppression, a time when there were clear distinctions between classes and the upper class had a strangle hold on the middle class and did as they wished to the poorer classes

This is not a Republican issue just brought to the table during the WI union issue; it has been happening since the end of the Second American Revolution when the Carpet Bagger Democrats attempted to hold down the South for economic reasons, while also holding the black hostage. Yep, the Dems didn't wish to have free blacks, instead instituting the laws that restricted blacks from holding office (which they did after the Republicans provided them the freedom to). The Dems then created the plantation mentality to provide welfare for the Democratic vote.

I have to know one thing my Republican friends, when do you accept the fact that there are members of your party willing to destroy America?

Louis, can you identify each of these individuals and cite why they wish to destroy America? Many of us would like to know.

Post 1.4 The GOP/TP is not going to move off their "Obstructionist" agenda. Gov. Walker says NO to compromise, The House says NO to compromise as well. And it appears they are also saying NO to Jobs and NO to improving the economy. But they are saying YES to taking away rights of Americans.

Obstructionist agenda or rather than avenues to reduce the state deficit? If there are obstructionists, I would look to the Gang of Fourteen who have not performed the duties of their office, instead, hiding out like criminals in another state. The Republicans in Congress may disagree with the current sitting President, but they had the courage to vote their convictions, knowing they didn't have the votes to win. This gang has shown that when Democrates don't have the votes to win, they just leave.

Post 1.6

I think you are confused about the definition of obstructionist. The WI Democrats that are hiding out, preventing any discussion of the bill from occurring are being obstructionists.

ob·struc·tion·ist (b-strksh-nst, b-)

n.

One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster. But in this case, the "road trip" must be added to this, as in the Gang of /Fourteen avoiding their responsibility to the voters of that state.

In the long run, the unions, the DNC who bussed in the paid protesters, and the Gang of Fourteen will pay the price of this issue. The climate in this country is not what your libbies believe it to be.

Wisconsin, "broke?" REALLY?

Horsepuckey.

The state presently faces a $137 million budget shortfall - occasioned by NEW tax breaks. In the coming two years, there will be a more severe loss as revenues fail to match budget needs, but still far from "broke," and there have been major concessions by the public employees' unions to help meet those as their contribution to dealing with state concerns. Further, all sides acknowledge that the "reforms" the Governor demands have NOTHING to do with the budget or any present or future deficits.

This is a showdown caused by a temporary ascent to power at the state and national level of some ultra-right, Libertarians who know if they don't try and fulfill their decades-old dreams, they won't ever get another chance. Kill the unions. End Social Security, Medicare and medicaid. Shut down the Labor and Education Departments, Strangle the EPA, the list goes on. This is NOT the agenda the "people" voted for in November. The exit polls on election Day showed it, and continuing opinion polls show the ultra-right is completely off track with public desires.

That's why Boehner doesn't DARE say "compromise." To the rigid ideologues in his party, that word is like the Pope advocating sin.

The Tea Party doesn't even really control the GOP now. Only 22% of November's voters said they associated with the TP. Only a relative handful of TP solons were sent to Washington, in comparison with the very large number of non-TP GOP members of House and Senate. Boehner is literally caving in to the pressure exerted by some rabid screamers who only want things THEIR way, to hades with the party or "the people." Gov. Walker in Wisconsin is one of those rabid ideologues, too - and to hades with the people of his state.

But there will be a reckoning. And the ultra-right will go down with the GOP ship that the Tea Party holed with its self-satisfied insistence that the waves ahead were not really the reef of voters' regret.

Safecracker, if your reference to the "second American revolution" was about the American Civil War, then the revisionist version of history you offered is from either another planet, or an alternate universe. or, maybe, it's just some garbage lifted out of the new Texas "history" schoolbooks.

First of all the Democrats were not those who created Reconstruction and occupied the South for 12 years after the war. That was done by the Radical Republicans.

Second, it is once again the popular Southern lie that the war was economic rather than about preservation of the Union and abolition of slavery. Get over it, the war WAS about abolition. That entire paragraph is really a jumbled-up mess, in fact. The "carpetbaggers" were mainly Republicans - it was in response to that tidbit that after the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white Southerners then turned to the Democratic party.

It appears you combine the period of Reconstruction, post-Reconstruction, and eventually the Democratic Party's turn-of-the-century absorption of the Populist Party into one messy and incoherent amalgam.

You not only don't understand history, you don't even KNOW any.

The state presently faces a $137 million budget shortfall - occasioned by NEW tax breaks. In the coming two years, there will be a more severe loss as revenues fail to match budget needs, but still far from "broke," and there have been major concessions by the public employees' unions to help meet those as their contribution to dealing with state concerns.

You have to look beyond the current fiscal year to see the true story. This years budget in Wisconsin is far closer to being balanced, but look at the 2012 and 2013 budget deficits.

Now you try to tell me they are not broke, or at least going to be broke soon.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_90196216-3b66-11e0-a327-001cc4c03286.html

Here is a quote from the second link.

Going forward, it is clear Wisconsin has some serious budget issues to face. Estimates say the state is facing anywhere from a $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion deficit in the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

That amount represents about 13 percent of total annual state spending, according to Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at UW-Madison.

"The short answer is that we are arguably in a crisis ... but the crisis is the large size of the fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget gap, not the 2011 gap, which is relatively modest," he says.

You're correct Red, poor True wants to play but he doesn't know how. As I've pointed out, he really needs to buy a mirror and look in it once in awhile before he casts that first stone.

But here is the point folks. When we cannot "compromise" then we do not "talk" and when talking ceases the shooting starts. Have we already forgotten the lessons of the Arizona shooting?

All of this rhetoric from the GOP leadership about "My way or the highway" reminds me of the apocryphal tale of Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake!" when told the french peasants had no bread.

It is arrogant and uncaring. Politics is the art of compromise.

It's time both sides stopped talking "at" each other and sit down and talk "to" each other. That's what the President is trying to get everyone to do. We all recognize the problems the nation faces.

We've got to work together to solve those problems.

Folks, the alternative is Tucson and far too frightening to even think about.

There isn't a single comment from the left on this issue that can't be applied to the left during the health care debate when they went BEYOND not compromising to NOT EVEN INVITING the elected officials for half of the country to the closed door meetings. Now your officials aren't even showing up to vote & represent your opinions. It sounds like they're the ones voting no on this issue and you guys are stretching to try and keep the "party of no" childish name calling meme applicable.

Conservatives believe that father (alone) knows best and has a strong need to control. Liberals believe in shared decision making between the husband and wife with cooperation being the priority.

I agree with most of what you said, but this part hasn't been true since the days of Leave it to Beaver. Womens lib and shared responsibility in the family was on a case-by-case instance in the home and wasn't public until the 60s. Trust me, I grew up in the deep south in a Baptist family. Your statement isn't even close to truth unless you just apply splitting the responsibility of "wait til your father gets home" punishment.

The undeniable fact here is that they don't have the $$ to spend and the left is doing everything they can to hold onto the ability to suck more taxpayer $$ out of the pool. The taxpayers ARE the employer and are defending THEIR right to "negotiate" in these payroll negotiations. The unions and gov't weren't capable of doing it fiscally responsible apparently. You guys are defending them to keep doing that even while you know they'll be laid off by the thousands if things don't change.

Okay "American", we get that you're Right... It was obvious from the first ramble, no need to deafen the whole room by continuously shouting the obvious. Even though I question the "True", you're definitely Right which has proven to be oh so wrong.

But hey, go eat some hay, we can make things out of clay, play by the bay, what d'ya say?

:^/

It is arrogant and uncaring. Politics is the art of compromise.

It's time both sides stopped talking "at" each other and sit down and talk "to" each other. That's what the President is trying to get everyone to do. We all recognize the problems the nation faces.

We've got to work together to solve those problems.

Skip:

Very well put. I do want to add one thing to it though. I completely agree that there does need to be compromise, but the general consensus here is that the compromise is only between the union employees and the Gov. Walker. I think that the general populace of Wisconsin is just as much of a part of this decision as are the union members and the governor. After all, it is "their" states budget and it affects far more than just the collective bargaining/pension/retirements plans of only the union members.

like MSNBC is an "unbiased" source of information. ole Nancy sure set down to "negotiate" didn't she? Gov. Walker doesn't have to do any negotiation, he's already won, and this will be over soon. Teachers calling in sick to carry signs will just piss off people even more. Game over, case closed. Don't like it? tough, the next election for this guys job is 4 years away.

Louis J......Thanks for your concession......at least you can be a man and admit when you're wrong, unlike the "others" here on FR.

I will leave you with the respect YOU desereve for being honest. It's hard for all of us to admit when we're wrong, but REAL human beings do it with dignity anyway........not sure about your poetry skills though

Oh, now the Dems are "obstructionists" just because of a single event (Dem WI state senators leaving the state as a last resort to save CBA rights.)

I'll update the score:

GOP/TP obstruction acts 1,001

Dem. obstruction acts 1

*Sounds like the GOP/TP is still way out in front!

John, no matter how you try to twist the numbers to prove there wasn't a shortfall until Walker passed tax relief measures, it's all a myth. Our previous administration discussed on several occasions the problems facing our current budget as well as the next one. Any pretend surplus he may have spun was predicated on continuing federal funds that are not coming in. And it fails to account for the $225 million that Doyle transfered out of a segregated fund (Patients and Victims Compensation) that were not his to take to balance other areas of his budget- these funds need to be paid back. It's the same situation as the feds borrowing from the Social Security trust fun. Walker is not lying- we are broke. And since the country's broke, too, something has to give.

Walker is standing strong on keeping the fundamentals of his policy in tact- he's right, a temporary suspension of collective bargaining just kicks the can down the road. We have done that long enough. And the only reason anyone has started talking of conceding on the pension and healthcare contributions is because they've figured out their tantrums aren't working. There were NO talks of concessions on these points prior to this bill's introduction (and I believe it was 6 days after introduction that it started). The unions all pushed for contract approval in December during Doyle's lame duck session because they knew this was coming so lets stop pretending there's some magnanimous gesture on the part of the unions that Walker is refusing to concede to. It's not true. They've kicked, screamed, clawed and fought to do everything they could to sweeten the pot before Walker took over. And instead of implementing mass layoffs and cuts to local funding like the governors in New York and other states are doing, Walker is trying to do something that keeps everyone employed, yet he's Public Enemy No. 1. Well, at least to a few squeaky wheels. Most of the state is going about their business, earning their paychecks and paying the taxes that keep the entitled few comfortable. It is not even a majority of public employees you're hearing from- it's about 10% of their numbers and far less than one percent of the total population of the state.

MB, good to hear from you this morning. Yes, EVERYBODY needs to have a representative at the table if they feel those sitting at the table do not represent their views. Since the people of WISCONSIN sent Governor Walker and the GOP majority to the state house I guess they could be viewed as "their" representatives. If the people of Wisconsin feel that neither the Governor and their elected representatives or the Unions are acting in the state's best interests then you are correct, the "people" should have a seat at the table as well.

We're in much the same boat here in Oklahoma. We have a newly elected GOP Governor and a House and Senate firmly controlled by the GOP and what we call "Dixiecrats". You might call them DINO's. It is "silly season" here with all kinds of absurd legislation being proposed and probably enacted. It's safe to say the Governor and the Legislature here in Oklahoma DO NOT represent my views and obviously I did not vote for any of them.

I do not think this is what the founding fathers had in mind. They proposed a TWO PARTY system. Here in Oklahoma and it appears in Wisconsin, we have ONE PARTY government and guess what? It does not work. It broke down in Wisconsin and will soon break down here.

This is what happens when people base their opinions on what they hear on FOX NEWS and espoused by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and it will only get much much worse.

Nice to hear from you this morning.

How dimwitted do you have to be to pull out the old rhetoric of "Party of No" and attempt to apply it to the very people you are saying "NO" to???

Last year when the Dems needed a marketing phrase "Party of No" was because Republicans(and America) said "no" to Obama's agenda, now they are saying "no" to Walker and even fled the state.... but it is the other side who is still "The party of No"? Just goes to show you how irrational and unthinking these simpletons are, they are oblivious to reality.

Oh so typical, conservatives spout the anti-health care rhetoric provided them by FOX and GOPTP legislators without ever looking beyond the words. The Heath Care Reform bill contains over 100 Republican amendments. It was GOP Grassley who in committee insisted on the "mandate". What do you think all the frustration on the left was about? It was about compromises and concessions to republicans and blue dogs. Don't blame democrats if republicans liked huge portions of HCR but decided to "OBSTRUCT" its passage. Take a look at the GOP's blue print for America, it contains health care reform that is already law. So I'd suggest that the GOPers who rant against health care reform take a look at what really happened and how, take a look at all the GOP amendments made to it and stop listening to the naysayers. I would also remind Allen and friends, that HCR was passed legally by using the 60 vote majority for cloture and majority votes on amendments to it. The fact that republicans objected because as DeMint declared that defeating HCR would be Obama's Waterloo is telling as to the REAL GOP agenda and it had absolutely nothing to do with what was good for the people.

Ron, thanks for a very reasoned post on the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Thank you FR lefty liberals for collapsing my post above. It's a badge of honor and tells me I nailed my point!!!

And unlike the Nasty Readhead, I won't waste my time reposting it. It's not worth the effort to try to pound some sense into closed-minded lefty liberal brains.

Jody of iowa, your lead paragraph of...

Democrats do not have all the answers but neither do republicans. Democrats are more willing to compromise to move the country forward, republicans used to be willing to compromise also but today's GOPTP sees nothing beyond their own version of what government should be.

Ever stop to consider the willingness of obama and the democratic controlled house and senate to compromise or even ask the republicans to debate the democrat agenda. How long did it take obama to invite the minority leaders to the WH for a sitdown to discuss the issues at hand? 2010?? Looks more like what goes around, comes around, and the democrats still control the senate and executive branhes.

Walker is doing what he said he would do and if the video interview I watched yesterday was any indication he made it quite clear that he wasn't interested in short term temporary solutions, but wanted a long term solution. Ergo, no more kicking the can down the street.

The desertion of several democrats from the wisconsin house so as to not debate or even vote speaks volumes.

Fielden:

Thanks for the shout-out. In the "mud pit" it's sometimes hard to be "reasoned".

Wis. Gov. Walker was elected, but not to be a dictator, watch for a recall next January, that's the earliest when it can be done. He has a very inflated opinion of himself and what his job is. He must be stopped before he can do more damage to my home state. One huge part of the bill, barely mentioned, is his plan to cut Medicaid and Badger Care for low income families with children. It is estimated about 200,000 poor children will be dropped from healthcare in Wis. This is your Tea Party in action, funded by the Koch Bros. Look out Ohio, and Indiana, your next.

"True American"-- Yes, American workers have had the right to form unions and to use those bodies for collective bargaining for many decades.

Why do you favor taking away the rights of American workers?

another disgusting newsvine "political" thread. both parties suck and are managed by and FOR the elites the republicans just don't have to hide it to get stupid middle class and below people to vote for them

John A,

I am going to have to disagree with you abolitionist remarks about the Civil War.

The Civil war started because of States' Rights v National Rights. The states succeeded because they wanted to have their own laws and did not want to beholden to a national government that was going to end part of their economic status. Although slavery was part of the Civil War, Lincoln went to war to restore the Union that he believed in. Had the entire war been over just slavery, Lincoln would have freed the slaves at the beginning of the war, not half way through it, when he finally could see that he would win the war. But like in every war, there are many reasons why they start. But states' rights was one of the major aspects of the war, not just slavery.

And as for the Radical Republicans, you are correct that they caused many problems in the south, getting the states back into the Union. Lincoln himself wanted them brought back into the Union quickly, to end the years of strife. But once killed, and Johnson so weak as President, the Radical, (notice the word that we both use) Republicans made reinstatement a long and hard process.

And of course, both parties have their radicals. Only when compromise and with moderation do we ever succeed in this nation.

John, I'm glad to see that you have chosen not to run from the questions today!

I favor taking away the right of PUBLIC EMPLOYEES to collectively bargain. If private citizens want to be involved in that union crap, that's up to them, but Public employess shouldn't have the right to ask taxpayers to pay their paycheck, fund their retirement, and pay for their insurance all the while bankrupting the state for the people who pay for their lives.

I asked you if you believe that the entire world should collectively bargain......still waiting

John B

WI is not taking away any rights from the union thugs except the right that they feel they should have when to set their own pay scale. Do you work for somebody else? If you do, who sets your wage? If you don't like your wage being set by your employer do you go on strike until you get what you want? Those unilon people work for the peole of the state and when they are unhappy about something they strike and hold everyone hostage until they get their way. The thugs even threaten violence if someone croses their picket line. It has to stop.

To call the union thugs "American workers" is an insult to the real American workers.

OK, so you're in favor of taking away SOME of the rights of Americans. Somehow that makes it better.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over price."

As for your other question, what does it even mean, "do you believe that the entire world should collectively bargain"? Americans have the rights that Americans have. If we're going to start basing our rights on the least of what someone else has where does that lead us?

Jody...your posts are most eloquent and dead-on. Saying 'no' to everything is all the Repubs can do. They still haven't proposed any job solutions, as promised, since that was the #1 issue in the last election. But they sure can spew the lie that the election was "a mandate" to change Dem policies. They say and do whatever benefits them not the country. See Ron of Indiana's post (#2) as he has it perfectly correct. Repubs are out for themselves and Dems are out to help EVERYONE. I am so glad I am a Dem. Go Dems...

You know ...

here we are trying to legislate in the media. How about the Party of NO-SHOW get's their butt back to work and take up the cause there? Nothing P$SSes me off more that the good enough for goose but NOT the gander of the Democrat party. Where was their concern for MY representation during the last two congresses? But MY Representatives and Senators SHOWED up to vote (YES or NO).

There should be NO compromise in the media! Period! Get your butt back to work and start talking to each other rather than a reporter.

... but that's not how the Democrats work! Because they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Unions who only know strike and picket!

Jeez!

James

The federal government should stay out of job creation. They should set policy that is friendly to the job market. That is exactly what the republicans are doing. Look around and you will see employment getting better since the elections. And for you to state that their mandate was not to undo dem policy is just plain wrong.

James McKay:

Thanks for the shout out. I'd like to hear from you more often as you have some important things to say.

Big Bear,

What am I going to do with you big fella. The American Civil War was ALL ABOUT slavery. Remember the Democrats split on the issue in 1860 and held two conventions, one in the north and one in the south. They nominated TWO candidates. Stephen Douglas was the choice of the northern democrats but there was a second candidate who drew off just enough votes for Abraham Lincoln to win the Presidency.

When Lincoln, a "black" Republican ("black" because he was viewed as an abolitionist) took office the South seceded. It was ALL ABOUT slavery.

State's Rights is the excuse cooked up by Southern apologists who can't accept the fact that their forefathers were morally and inexcusably WRONG.

Read Bruce Catton's first volumne of his Pulitzer Prize winning triology on the Civil War. It describes the run up to the war very well. THE COMING FURY is the name of the book.

Have a good day.

Big Bear - you may have noticed in my original post, that I stated the Civil War was about preserving the Union and abolition. The kind of economic conflicts that some claim underlay the war, especially the uneven effect of import and export tarriffs, were not enough at all to bring about secession and the concomitant war. That was the same basic issue for William Jennings Bryan a half-century later and it didn't lead to such events.

Read the opening chapters of James McPherson's outstanding political-economic-battle history of the war, The Battle Cry of Freedom. He begins the study at the end of the Mexican War and uses Presidential politics to move forward. There is literally no way to avoid recognizing that abolition and fear of some effort by Lincoln to take up that thorny issue moved South Carolina to secede (after getting a very weak response to the matter from James Buchanan). The cascade of other states' secessions followed.

"States' rights" was a battle cry for the South, of sorts, as a form of self-justification, reflecting tensions between the Federal government and states that started in South Carolina with the "nullification" conflict.

Slavery underlay it all, ultimately. And by the way, to many Southerners, slavery was pure and simple economics. After all, slaves were not "people," but property.

JH - actually, you are incorrect when you say that the last election was some sort of "referendum" on Democrats' legislation of the prior two years. It was not, and the numbers in various polls from election day forward consistently show there was no "mandate" to unroll prior legislation. That may be what YOU looked for, the "people" did not.

Here are the raw facts: 88% of voters named their top issue the economy and jobs; 73% expressed dissatisfaction with the way Congress was working (or in their view NOT working); only 22% claimed any interest in the Tea Party and its agenda, while 56% said they paid the TP no mind, and another 18% were actively hostile to the Tea Party. Eight on the overall list of voters' issues was HCR, mentioned by 32% - NOT a "mandate" in any sense of the word.

It's important that the GOP recognize these facts. Letting the TP push its rigid ideology and extremist position onto the whole Republican agenda is literally NOT "listening to the people." That is horrible strategy for John Boehner and the GOP House majority, and will hurt the party badly in the next election.

I notice most of the "el toro pupu" from the redhead from Roselle, Illinois has been "removed by the community".

It's about time. Congratulations, community.

Actually, Independent Thinker, that is 'COLLAPSED' by the community, not removed.

The collapses are done by people who disagree with Feisty Redhead's posts, and NOT by the community who really like her posts (and I like her posts).

Everyone has a right to post their comments and have their voice heard, including you, Independent Thinker, even though I don't always agree with what you post.

Maybe you should revisit your thinking. How would you like it if you were 'removed' for something that you posted?

Skip,

Not being originally from the south, I have studied and read many books about the Civil War. I know that there are many reasons for the Civil War, I believe that I stated that above. But Slavery was not the main cause of the war, had it been, then many of the soldiers on the southern side would not have fought, considering that about 80-90% of southerners did not own or have slaves. So why would anyone fight for something like that?

As our leaders today split the people with their "different views" so did the politicians of yesteryear. How else do you get a million Americans to shoot and kill each other? Political views and lies by each side.

But as with anything, everyone has an opinion.

Top 5 Causes of Civil War

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

2. States versus federal rights.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

“Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second.”

by Gordon Leidner of Great American History

All types of writers have their opinions. Expressed in 20th & 21st century views, the Civil War was based on slavery. Expressed in 19th century views, it was based on economics and states' rights, more important than slavery. Even Lincoln, a moderate was willing to allow slavery to die a slow death, he just wasn't going to allow for the expansion of slavery into the western territories.

Big Bear, it was not about states rights. It was about personal property rights and the ability of the Federal government to confiscate property (Slaves) without compensation. It was about the southern business model against the northern business model. The North did not like Free labor and the South did not want their business model changed without due compensation. It was not that the North was pro labor, but saw a vast resource of cheap labor available. They could pay free blacks less money that they paid whites. However slaverly is morally wrong and Lincoln used the dispute as a means to an end.

In my humble opinion, while I believe these protesters have the right to make their opinion heard, I also believe they are on the wrong side of this debate. The bottom line is that most states are in a fiscal crisis and facing possible bankruptcy in 3-5 years. That requires making tough choices. While many items in the budget will have to be reviewed and cut, its pretty obvious that public employees pensions, pay and benefits NEED to be on the table since they take up TWO-THIRDS of the state’s operating budget. In this proposal, public employees would still have the power to negotiate pay increases up to the rate of the consumer price index, meaning they will get pay increases to meet or exceed inflation. Most private workers don’t get that same luxury. This usually translates into a 2-5% annual increase (for the last 20 years anyway). Additionally, the public workers will still have better health and pension benefits than the vast majority of private workers in the U.S.
What I can’t understand is why anyone (except the union officials) is opposed to unions getting re-certified. Shouldn’t new union members be able to voice their opinions regarding how effective the unions are? This doesn’t happen right now.
Secondly, why does our government allow unionized organizations to require that if a member does not join the union, the dues are still taken from their paycheck? Many times this amount can be put to non-profit organizations or other entities but never gets to make it back to the worker. I know most of us public employees here in CA just pay the dues to the union to at least get something back for union dues that are taken from us either way.
Third, how can public employees (both protesting and the Democratic legislature) justify taking extended time off from work to protest? Doesn’t this hurt the very institutions that they are trying to prove are essential? Why not a mass protest on the weekends? And how can anyone defend doctors and protesters that are providing false absence excuses for their behavior.

I’m not anti-union or anti-public workers, heck I am a public worker in CA. Just like my state though, WI is faced with a growing fiscal crisis and we all are going to have to recognize this cannot continue. I would rather have my pension, pay and benefits cut than get laid off, have to have more furlough days or have no pension if CA goes bankrupt. If our state doesn’t do something, I am facing all of the above and Wisconsin is in the same boat. What the media hasn’t reported is that thousands of Wisconsin and hundreds of thousands of other public workers realize these facts and while we all would prefer to keep our benefits , we know that if we continue on this path, all public workers will be out of a job sooner than we can fathom.

The senate DEMS shouldn't be needing to hide out anywhere. If the governor is saying, no compromise, no negotiation why can't the democrats just say, ok then neither will we and just say no. Where have we seen that before? I don't see why they cant just go to the capital all vote no and tell the governor you're gonna have to do better than eliminating the unions in order to fix the budget.

In my humble opinion, while I believe these protesters have the right to make their opinion heard, I also believe they are on the wrong side of this debate. The bottom line is that most states are in a fiscal crisis and facing possible bankruptcy in 3-5 years. That requires making tough choices. While many items in the budget will have to be reviewed and cut, its pretty obvious that public employees pensions, pay and benefits NEED to be on the table since they take up TWO-THIRDS of the state’s operating budget.

Aerodoll - I pulled up this snippet of your post because, frankly, your post confuses me.

On the one hand, you believe that people have a right to have their opinions heard; on the other hand, you are saying that states are in a bind and tough choices need to be made.

OK, fair enough.

However, you go on to mention that union salaries and benefits are (definitively - my word and impression) taking up 2/3rds of the state's budget.

Hmm.

It seems to me that SOMEONE had to APPROVE that cost for the state/municipality, correct? So why are we not trying to find out WHO APPROVED THE CURRENT SITUATION and get THEM to FIX the mess that they have created?

Why is it that the union must ALWAYS be the first to 'cut' something? MAYBE the municipality/state could have done something to bring in more revenue or stopped some practice that is costing them money. Since you mentioned you live in CA, you KNOW about the LAPD brutality cases - they come up all the time, and the City or Los Angeles pays out MILLIONS of dollars in compensation for these brutality cases.

So - does that mean that the public union(s) must CUT their pay/benefits because Los Angeles has a brutality problem? I mean, the money to settle these cases comes out of the General Fund, does it not? Why not address the problem and STOP the tactics that cost the city money?

My point is this - everyone is so SURE that these Governors/Mayors/Aldermen have done their level best to do what is right for their constituents. We ALL know this is not the case. We know that the people in these offices are POLITICAL. In MANY cases, the office holder does the right thing for his constituency; sometimes the officeholder does not.

That does NOT mean that the unions are CAUSING the problem. They are being used as a wedge to get what the officeholder wants. In the case of WI, the Governor there has an agenda that would have gone UNNOTICED if it wasn't for the Legislators that refused to be a part of that said agenda.

I say BRAVO to those legislators. They are shrewd and they have accomplished their goal. In the meantime, the Governor is looking foolish because he cannot get the State's business taken care of. What makes it even worse, he is looking like a BULLY because he is 'inflexible' when it comes to any sort of 'compromise'.

Now is the Governor's infexibility the UNION's fault? If it is not, then why would the Unions be 'on the hook' for the bad descision that the Governor (or previous Governors) have AGREED TO - on behalf of the State/municipality, especially when they are doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing?

I am seeing this 'inflexibility' showing up more and more. It is here in my State, Ohio. I see it in Indiana and Wisconsin and Iowa.

Coincidence? I say NO.

Regardless of whether Wisconsin is "broke" now or will be "broke in a few years, how does creating more debt by reducing the revenue stream by giving big tax cuts to corporations and rich people make the debt less? Reducing the revenue stream is not a strategy that works well to increase profit.

It seems to me that SOMEONE had to APPROVE that cost for the state/municipality, correct? So why are we not trying to find out WHO APPROVED THE CURRENT SITUATION and get THEM to FIX the mess that they have created?

Pietro, to borrow a phrase from someone above, because our el pollo pupu ex-Governor ran for the hills instead of reelection. And we did a pretty darn good job of cleaning house on other democrats like him who allowed those contracts to happen.

As for why Unions are the first to take a hit, right now, they are one of the biggest cash cows. Crime in MOST of WI is relatively low and there are low dollar limits on liability cases brought against municipalities ($25k limit, no punies), so we've effectively dealt with that issue. We live in a "winter wonderland" 6+ months of the year- we can't cut funding for keeping roads clear without causing a major threat to public safety. We can't cut funding much more for road maintenance either- the 6ish months of the year that the roads aren't covered in snow we spend repairing the damage caused by plow blades! (Sorta said tongue in cheek, but only sorta). My city discovered a year or 2 ago that they were spending a HUGE dollar amount more on trash collection than necessary so they implemented changes (going to garbage carts instead of bags on the curb) to reduce the cost. While I'm sure there are plenty of places that we can continue to cut, the one constant that remains is the cost of labor & benefits. If you can reduce that cost without reducing jobs or services, doesn't that make at least some degree of sense?

First Read *reporters* (actually, they are nothing but democratic propganda machines) should be forced to put a (D) next to their names. I've never read a more biased news report. How do you even mention or lend ANY credit to a poll conducted by the labor unions.

The funny part about that poll....even with their tilt and skew, there is only a 10% disparity.

I wonder what this country would look like if the dems hadn't tried to compromise so much. The pugs want to say everytime they get elected its a mandate and every time the dems get in they have to include everyone. I am sick and tired of compromise meaning take yet another step to the right.

I hope for everyone's sake the right learns how to play nice and compromise. Otherwise, I'd like to see the left dig in a little more. Maybe get some of our mandates shoved through. Instead of letting the big business babies wreck good bills (anyone see what they did to HCR?)

Pietro -
"However, you go on to mention that union salaries and benefits are (definitively - my word and impression) taking up 2/3rds of the state's budget.
Hmm."
If you visited my link, you would have seen that it validates my claim that WI public employees salary, pension and benefits take up 2/3 of the state’s operating budget. That’s why I included it in my post. I’m not sure if all public employees in WI are unionized but its safe to say the majority are. If you disagree with my claim, please prove me wrong.

"It seems to me that SOMEONE had to APPROVE that cost for the state/municipality, correct? So why are we not trying to find out WHO APPROVED THE CURRENT SITUATION and get THEM to FIX the mess that they have created?"
Well, the pensions, salaries and benefits of WI public employees, like most other states, have been negotiated and renegotiated countless times. Finding one person, party or group (including the unions) to blame isn’t going to solve the problem. A negotiation involved multiple parties and some of those people are no longer in power. Bottom line - WI cannot afford the current burden of its public employees’ salaries, benefits and pension.

"Why is it that the union must ALWAYS be the first to 'cut' something? MAYBE the municipality/state could have done something to bring in more revenue or stopped some practice that is costing them money."
As I mentioned in my first post, I believe other cuts need to be made too but ignoring the elephant in the room that takes up 2/3 of the annual operating budget is just irresponsible. Let me ask you, why should the WI legislature look at all other spending BEFORE the public employee contracts when everything else COMBINED is less than 1/3 of their total spending? When I got a 20% pay cut last year, I looked at what I spent MOST of my salary on, which was rent so I moved to a less expensive location. AFTER that spending cut, I looked at other ways to cut my expenses, both large and small. I don’t discount cutting in multiple areas but it seems silly to make cuts to something that takes only 1% of your budget while ignoring something that costs over 65% of your budget.

"So - does that mean that the public union(s) must CUT their pay/benefits because Los Angeles has a brutality problem? I mean, the money to settle these cases comes out of the General Fund, does it not? Why not address the problem and STOP the tactics that cost the city money?"
Again, I don’t have a problem addressing these types of issues but the WI case is very different. Over 65% of total operating costs are due to public employee’s contracts. In the LAPD case, I think that the issue of brutality cases/other large settlements must be addressed and minimized. You will never have a perfect system so these types of settlements or lawsuits will never be eliminated but they can be minimized and the City can reduce its risk of said lawsuits. Using your example though, since these settlements do come out of the general fund, do you believe the burden of these cases should fall solely onto budgets of public safety, public works and public infrastructure instead of also affecting the public unions? Personally I think these liabilities should fall on all budgets within the City and the local government should invest in ways to reduce these lawsuits.

"That does NOT mean that the unions are CAUSING the problem. "
I don’t believe they are causing ALL of the problems in the state but are you suggesting the public employee liabilities do not play a large part in WI’s insolvency?

"They are being used as a wedge to get what the officeholder wants. In the case of WI, the Governor there has an agenda that would have gone UNNOTICED if it wasn't for the Legislators that refused to be a part of that said agenda."
Unnoticed? By whom? Governor Walker just won the election in 2010 running on the very platform of cutting public employee pensions, salaries and benefits so how is he using the union as a wedge to hide his agenda? Obviously the majority of WI voters agreed with his stance on this issue because they voted for him. I’m sorry but your assertion doesn’t wash with the facts.

"I say BRAVO to those legislators. They are shrewd and they have accomplished their goal. In the meantime, the Governor is looking foolish because he cannot get the State's business taken care of."
Wait, so you believe that the Democratic legislators’ actions are acceptable but then turn around and blame the Governor for the state’s business not being taken care of? Isn’t that a two-way street?

"Now is the Governor's infexibility the UNION's fault?"
No. I believe he should meet with the Democrats and unions before a vote. On the flip side, is it the Governor’s fault he inherited a fiscal nightmare that require deep budget cuts?

"If it is not, then why would the Unions be 'on the hook' for the bad descision that the Governor (or previous Governors) have AGREED TO - on behalf of the State/municipality, especially when they are doing what they are SUPPOSED to be doing?"
There are a multitude of reasons why WI is in the fiscal state it is. Poor decision making is definitely responsible, as well as reduced tax revenues. The unions shouldn’t be “on the hook” any more than any other budget expenditure in WI. The only difference is that the public employees take up a much larger portion of the budget than any other expenditure. Why should unions be exempt while all other expenditures must be cut?

Why should unions be exempt while all other expenditures must be cut?

The unions have agreed to cut the under performing 10% from the payroll, they've agreed to increase pension contributions, they've agreed to increased contributions to their health plan, and all they asked for return was to not take away collective bargaining.

The governor said no.

If you were governor, would you say no those all those monetary concessions?

Big Bear,

Excellent and civil response. Thanks. I'm of the "Catton" school which obviously believes that the slavery question was at the center of all the South's actions.

As for why the Southerners fought, well, I think there was a very strong feeling that "them damned Yankees cain't tell us what to do." That was sold to the population at large. Regional bigotry with a sprinkling of State's Rights. But the underlying cause of all the turmoil was the Slavery question. If more and more "free" states and territories were allowed in the Union, the Southern leaders believed that soon the abolitionists would have the majority they needed to abolish slavery completely.

Another, very strong and important concern was the fear of equality for all those freed slaves. A great many NON-slave owning Southerners went to war in 1861 to preserve their "superiority" if you will.

It's not hard to see that whether you owned slaves or not there were many reasons why a poor Southerner would join the landed gentry in going to war with the United States.

Have a nice day.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Boehner, including 16% with a Very Favorable opinion. Thirty-four percent (34%) hold an unfavorable view, with 14% who view him Very Unfavorably. That's a net favorable opinion of +12% for Boehner.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, now House minority leader, remains the least popular congressional leader, as she has for some time. Just 28% now have a favorable view of the Democratic leader, down seven points from last month. The new finding includes 12% with a Very Favorable view. Sixty-four percent (64%) view Pelosi unfavorably, with 48% who regard her Very Unfavorably. That's a net UNfavorable for Pelosi of -36%, virtually a historic high.

Only 25% of voters hold a favorable opinion of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, while 55% view him unfavorably. That's a net UNfavorable for Reid of -30%.

It would appear that the Republicans are winning the "War of Words" going on right now.

Heartlight3 "Regardless of whether Wisconsin is "broke" now or will be "broke in a few years, how does creating more debt by reducing the revenue stream by giving big tax cuts to corporations and rich people make the debt less? Reducing the revenue stream is not a strategy that works well to increase profit."

Let's break it down so even you can understand. When the business climate in your state is so bad that businesses start moving to neighboring states because they provide a much better business climate, they take their taxes and jobs and benefits with them. Do you REALLY think that continuing the anti-busines policies that the previous administration put in place, which drove many large businesses away, would HELP the long term 'revenue stream'?

Obviously, simple economics is not one of your strong suits.

Kinda makes you wonder how any thinking American could support this party.

I have a few conservatives in my family. One in particular, my brother-in-law, was a staunch Bush and McCain supporter, but now he says its time for Walker to take the Union deal and leave the Union intact. He, like mostly all thinking American people, wants to see jobs created and holds a very low approval of the House. He sees a win-win situation with Wisconsin agreeing to a union deal at this moment, and retaining the collective bargaining agreement for the struggling workers while taking the economic cuts that Walker had claimed to be his endgame.

If these types of conservatives like my brother-in-law were the ones in power, I'd see a lot of hope for our future. Instead, we're stuck with people acting at the will of the money that elected them. It's a scary state of affairs.

Degrets:

Nice post. It appears that some on the right are starting to see that what they thought they were voting for is not what they got. Most, even some of my republican family members, are starting to get pissed at the NO COMPROMISE position of the right. They are smart enough to know that you cannot bring about change or anything of value when one party just refuses to compromise at all. This is not the American way and never has been until this GOP/TP of the last several years took over.

I warned people that they needed to watch the State politics every bit as much as they were watching Washington. Now we see the results and this will have legs just like the protests in Egypt did.

Nope, bust them while you have the chance! Its coming to a State near you, I live in Deeeetroit and I see the gearing up everyday now. These Rep. Governors were elected to do this job by the MAJORITY. And unless I missed something in my education MAJORITY wins. Or is that only when the Dems are the MAJORITY?

I think there's a bit of a divide between what the media tells us about how republicans think, and what real republicans living in the world actually think. My biggest problem with this country we live in is the propaganda machinery whose true aim is to divide the people, and keep them from banding together.

What we've seen in the Mideast and North Africa is the people joining together in protest to institute a very real change in their environment. We've seen people from many walks of life, different religions, different values, all saying that the umbrella that they live under is oppressive and unacceptable. It is truly inspiring, that with one voice, the voice of "the people", they have made themselves heard and are bringing about real change.

I hope that someday, we might have a bit of the same - republicans, dare-I-say-it tea partiers, democrats, independents - if all of us can come together with the common idea that our government is oppressive, then our protests would truly carry weight. Unfortunately, my cynical side tells me that our media won't let that happen easily. Once FOX's ratings go down, maybe we have more of a chance to band together and take corporate ownership out of our government.

Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of this now. Until the day we can truly band together for what is right, I am satisfied that at least the issues in Wisconsin are out in the open, and being discussed amongst real people without the aid of the propaganda machine.

Its an interesting lesson in modern-day American politics. The best way to get what you want is to repeatedly yell the loudest, and then hold your breath the longest. Its exactly how we used to handle disputes on the playground in grade school, which is exactly how the US Government should be run... like a grade school playground.

Wait...

Here is realistic look at the issue instead of the hyped-vitrol you find on MSNBC, it is well worth the read:

"Wisconsin's street theater stalemate obscures real issues"

"States around the nation are wrestling with massive budget deficits -- and most of them stem significantly from public sector pension obligations. Walker campaigned on a commitment to confront the public sector expenses and the voters in traditionally liberal Wisconsin endorsed that agenda.

Democrats found themselves in the minority, so they have embraced the logic of the cowardly knights in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" -- "Run Away!" A critical mass are now hiding out of state."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/21/avlon.wisconsin.unions/index.html?hpt=T2

Terrific post, US Navy. Republicans speak of individual rights yet are determined to remove those rights for women and in AZ, simply remove the right for a chance to live. Inhumane, selfish, and ignorant are words that come to mind. When will people wake up and realize that the rights of people are being replaced, in the name of the all-mighty dollar, by the rights of Corporations with the help of their conservative backers? When will those conservative citizens realize they are pawns in a dangerous game?

jollyoldsoul. Republicans did not campaign to remove women's reproductive rights, to union bust, they campaigned on the economy and creating jobs not eliminating jobs; they campaigned to balance budgets but not to create budget deficits by pandering to big business special interests. Don't confuse the two. Connect the dots, please, because IF workers' rights to bargain collectively are eliminated, nonunion jobs are the next target--benefits will disappear, wages decreased at a company near you and eventually at your own employer.

degrets. Well said.

Jollyoldsoul -

Just because a majority elected a person, doesn't mean that one should blindly follow everything they do in their new post. I'm a democrat, and I don't like Charlie Rangel, and I think Chris Dodd has done more harm than good. I'm not going to blindly follow Chris Dodd because he's a democrat.

So yeah, the majority elected a governor who is using his power to deplete the power of the people he represents. How can that not rub you the wrong way? Just wait a few years, as Jody says, and see where the dominos will fall with things like this altering the landscape of the workforce. Then we'll all be able to point to this one decision, this one fight, which started the downfall of the Wisconsonian (possibly American) worker.

Navy is correct, it's important to look at the state level fights that are happening, because this is where the basic trend-setting for our national landscape begins.

US navy nice fear mongering in your post 2.0.

Got any comments on how continuing spending at a breaknet speed will help the economy? Even obama and reid have recognized that that spending cannot continue at its present pace. Looks like the republicans will compromise at $61 billion in cuts (rather than $100 billion), reid somewhere around $42 billion and obama? To date only SS is continuing to take in more than than what goes out which is why the politicians want to leave it out of the equation.

Jody of iowa - By all means, please do connect the dots... Obama didn't say that cuts weren't going to hurt (or did you miss that) but were necessary.

Republicans did not campaign to remove women's reproductive rights, to union bust, they campaigned on the economy and creating jobs not eliminating jobs; they campaigned to balance budgets but not to create budget deficits.

Fixing the national economy and developing fiscal responsibility are key to private sector job creation. Job creation that will pay the government workers wages and benefits and to fund government programs.

Nonunion jobs are next?? How droll, and to think that the soviets, cuba and chinas 5 years plans worked so effectively! Bet you can't wait for everyone but the union leaders and government leaders to stand in line for bread and milk. Do you envision the same type of proletariot voting to take place as well?

Sorry Charlie, I dont buy your views or your ideas. I would rather have a business mind in the lead dog position with a few Independent dogs in the pack for stability. I have no use for democratic dogs, they want us all to eat the same food.

Kudos to you, jollyoldsoul1.

I have just been laughing at all of the yellow-dog socialists' blogs kissing each others' hiney.

I don't understand how we keep spending money at breakneck speed either. We spend on corporations, the rich, the politician's pay and health. Why is everyone so gung ho to break the back of the workers?

You don't think once the unions are weakend the benevolant wall street won't start abusing non-union workes? Why do you think so many are on here crying that if they don't get a pension neither should the union workers? Corporations won't give this stuff to you. And once you show it can be taken away they will (they have). Why aren't more people demanding better working conditions instead of tearing others down?

So if you get a job with good bennefits and pay you are entitled to it and keep your hands off it? Unless you work for the govt then you don't deserve it? nice double talk right wing. Why don't you grow a pair and get a job where you get these bennefits if it hurts your feelings so much?

Dbo, not being in favor of nationalizing businesses, I think your question is all wet.

Perhaps yup will answer one of mine: why are unions scared silly of having their membership vote to re- certify them periodically? If they are so terribly wonderful, and the only bulwark against slave wages and onerous work rules for their members, should not re-certification be a slam dunk?

DBO. Because the corporate conservatives and the "liberal media" have been very successful in demonizing the unions, to the point that they have working people voting for the very politicians who will destroy the middle class

I'm not a blind supporter of unions and do not belong to one, but it bothers me for people to demonize all union members and describe public workers as freeloaders and leeches when it's perfectly all right for the Wall Street brokers to demand their million dollar bonuses even when their stupid decisions caused their banks or companies to fall into bankruptcy. Why? Because when they were hired they were "promised" these perks and bonuses no matter how company performed any given year. Because they take such high risks and work such long hours gambling with other people's money. Unlike teachers who work for crap wages and get benefits as a "gift" from tax payers who want the best schools money doesn't have to buy. double standards? Yeah, especially when it was Bush who rushed to bail out Wall Street. Should the teachers take a cut in their take home pay to pay more for their pensions and health insurance in order to keep their jobs. Sure. that's reasonable, especially in a recession/depression or whatever they call what we're in now. Should they have to give up collective bargaining? No. What costs are saved in that? You still need to pay your teachers the best salary possible in order to keep the best teachers. Responsibility and accountablility on the teachers side, but respect and honest negotiating on the part of the politicians. Seems fair.

hahahahahaha..... so now the line is that the Republicans have "confused" the people.... so they ahhhhh dont know what they are doing. Crap thats priceless, So now every one of those people who voted this current group of elected officials were actually not meaning to do that......they got confused in the voting booth and accidentally hit the republican lever. An absolutely priceless explanation.

how can it be fair, right, legal or constitutional to FORCE people to join a union? the unions themselves admit if people were not forced to join then the unions would fall apart...in other words if "THE PEOPLE" are given the right to choose they will NOT choose the union..."THE PEOPLE" are being manipulated by unions as much as they are by big business and government...in fact some public sector unions are nothing more than a branch of the democratic party

You can choose not to be represented by a union. The SEIU just entered into my workplace, and I have the opportunity to choose NOT to be represented.

However, in doing that, I'd have to put the dues I'd pay them into a separate fund, so my paycheck would not go up. However, I would not be paying or taking part in the union. But I think the union is good for my workplace, so I happily pay my dues.

So nobody is forced to join a union, at least not the SEIU.

DBO, I think you have the question backward. We have watched unions buy elections for years- why are they so scared to see the tables leveled by allowing other corporate interests the same power? Unions are really no different than any other corporation short of perhaps some paperwork. The leadership has the same self-serving interests as management in industry- collect the biggest paycheck possible. The actual membership is really in the same boat as non-union employees- the terms are dictated to them by management (in this case, though, worse because it's the people who are supposed to protect them that end up screwing them over) and they are forced to pay dues for the supposed representation. So why is leveling the playing field bad?

I'd prefer to see no one other than individuals be allowed to make campaign contributions. We elect our officials to represent ourselves, not corporate interests, not union interests, not special interests, US. Either you are elected on the support of the people you're going to represent or not at all, but a fair game doesn't seem to be what either side wants.

Unions are not perfect but they do a good job of protecting workers and giving them a voice. Without them, personality conflicts mean firings but with them, a worker can express his grievances as well. We only need to look at coal mines to see that unions have a positive impact. Nonunion coal mines are the ones that made the news with explosions and deaths. Union coal mines provide workers the opportunity to report safety issues without fear of losing their jobs--the safety records of union organized mines speak volumes about the good unions do.

Corporations are not all evil monsters either but greed corrupts and when workers' rights to have a voice are removed, that aids the instinct to make everything about money regardless of any harm it might cause to workers.

Degrets - good points, except you left out social bullyng by union members to corral in the minority or to get an individual to vote THEIR way. BTW - if you choose not to be represented what happens to the dues you say are put aside into another fund?

DBO - you asked...

ask yourself how much LESS the products you buy COULD cost, or how much MORE the employees COULD make, if the money went in those two directions instead of into the campaigns of the party the Corporations wants it to go to?

Product price is determined by what consumers are willing to pay for a product they may want, upper management wages are determined the same way as the lowest wage earner... What is the smallest amount of pay and benefits required to retain their employment and productivity. The followup questions would be what type of ROI does the companies investers expect and what net profit margins after taxes is expected for continued growth?

As for campaign contributions why do corporations contribute to both parties? With some years more so to one party over the other.

Jody of iowa - never worked for a non-union shop that wouldn't listen to safety concerns. Current labor laws and OSHA just make it way too expensive to be willfully violating safety issues. Small businesses (under 10 employees perhaps), may try to skirt the issues hoping for luck to prevail, but why take the risk? Isn't a happy worker a productive worker?

Jody of iowa (post 3.8) - interesting that you say this...

Corporations are not all evil monsters either but greed corrupts and when workers' rights to have a voice are removed, that aids the instinct to make everything about money regardless of any harm it might cause to workers.

Who protects the workers from the union leadership? Haven't unions also been corrupt? I maintain that union leadership be paid no more than what their lowest rank and file member gets.

"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."
Letter to niece, Harriet Washington – Oct. 30, 1791

Are you In Gov. Walker Some old guy named George Washington is on the phone with a little bit of governing advice.

"I got a bad feeling about this."

Han Solo, May 21, 1977

“Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country.”
Letter to Benedict Arnold – Sept. 14, 1775

Seems the Dems could learn from this one.... fleeing your post is never honorable, especially in the name of greed.

Thanks, IR. Always good to be reminded of past wisdom. History is crucial to who we are and more importantly how to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."

Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Clearly staged by Faux News

Believe it or not the millions of Wis. voters who elected Walker to get their budget under control far outnumber the whining crybabies screaming for handouts, they are simply not as visible because they are at work doing their jobs.

pjam, you nailed it. less than 1% of our population is throwing a tantrum but getting all the attention. But those of us who stood with Walker on November 2 still stand strong with him today.

pjam. So fire fighters, police officers, state troopers and teachers are free loaders looking for a handout? How many WI state republican legislators are willing to take equivalent pay cuts and pay an increased percentage for their health care and pension benefits? These public service workers made concessions the previous two years; Walker and his band of merry men passed three pieces of tax cut legislation since taking office in January and now to make up the projected shortfalls, Walker expects the middle class to subsidize those cuts.

LOL Suzy, stand strong huh? On a message board in your comfy chair. Thos who "stand strong" with the gov don't have what it takes to REALLY stand for something.

Shellie, you're right. I have to work. I can't get a fake doctors note at the Capitol and still expect to have a job tomorrow. And unfortunately work commitments preventing my husband and I from attending the Pro Walker rally on Saturday. Someone has to pay the protester's salaries.

pjam, Believe it or not the millions of Wis. voters who elected Walker to get their budget under control far outnumber the whining crybabies screaming for handouts, they are simply not as visible because they are at work doing their jobs.

Where were they on Sat, Walker's supporters were outnumbered 35-1 they weren't all working? And his supporters included those shipped in in busses underwritten by a Koch Bros political group. Governor Walker, won the election by a little more than 123k, what happend to them...on the weekend. Where were you Suzy on Sunday? still too busy? talk is cheap and so is a vote when you dont truly support your choice.

So much for them'millions' who voted for him and his lying message.

GM, in fact, yes- on call lasts the whole weekend.

I was wondering how long it would take for a Republican to compare this to the health care debate. If you had 15 posts, you win. Revisionist history again by the right. The health care bill was debated for 10 months with President Obama pleading the right at least three times on national TV and in person to offer up ideas. The GOP only said no to the whole thing and proceeded to make up lies about it - death panels being the most famous.

Gov. Walker offered no sit down, no discussion, no debate. He had it introduced on Friday afternoon and wanted to sign it Monday. I'm sorry, but none of these comparisons hold water.

Only 50% of eligible voters in Wisconsin voted in the midterms. Of those 52% voted for Walker. That means he was elected by 26% of Wisconsin voters. I wouldn't be so sure he is supported by the majority of the people of Wisconsin.

Heartlight, to me that says 50% of the eligible voters have no right to complain. If you care, you vote. If you don't stifle it.

Hunker down, Bill. You used unfair ammunition- facts- and will surely draw the fire of the left.

And, yes, that phrasing was deliberate. I have grown incredibly weary of their sanctimony.

Oh, for God's sake Bill, give it a rest. No wonder the country is in the state it is with obsessed individuals like you.

You can be treated for this disorder

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Speaking of legends in her own mind... here's the biggest one of all...

Now would that be you or Bev?

And the point? Agree or not about HCR it was put through as you noted. I still think in two years people will see the benefits of HCR. Sure some things need refined and they will be, but at least we have a start.

The road to sucessful heatlh care reform is a long road, but you will not get to the end if you turn around.

Feisty there you go with your venom speech and rude name calling again. I thought democrats were supposed to be so much more politically correct. I guess you can only be nice to those who think exactly like you. How boring.

Bill:

Whipping a dead horse doesn't hurt the horse. It only makes you look tired and...(fill in the blank.)

no joe, no bo, nj

Since your so behind scott walker, why didn't governor christie do the same and take away collective barganing rights away from jersey Public workers?

scott walker is saying this morning that this is the main problem with his budget, since Governor Christie is such a hard ass toward unions why didn't he do the same. he may be a blow hole but he is Not stupid like scott walker.

So the Democrats used "reconciliation" to pass health care reform? huh. What, exactly, did the Republicans use to pass the Bush tax cuts? reconciliation? nah, couldn't be...

Naw CarlW, the Republicans used the Democratic President. After all, wan't it Obama who put his name on the Continuation of the Tax Credits? Why, even MSNBC praised the president for his passage of the bill.

NO Comprise, BS, Walker asked the UNIONS to sit down, debate, and find a comprise with him with their role in the budget short fall and the unions refused. Now they want to comprise when the state is on the brink of going bankrupt. It is not logical that state union employees retire with 90% of their yearly pay with life time benefits all at the tax-payers expense. Are our kids being better educated in the 3 "R's" today compared to say back in the 1950s, for example; NO! Try watching city workers when they are working on roads, I have, they dig a little bit of dirt at a time and after about every 10 shovels take a break. I know in my community the city just finished redoing a road they had redone about 5 years ago. They shut done the intersection for 4 months and about half of that time they didn't work. Often the city workers would send out 3 workers who would pretend to work until their bosses or city supervisor showed up and as soon as they left the employees left. Another example of wasted tax dollars by Unions. If it was a private sector employee they would have been fired for what they did, but no, these guys are public employees and can't be fired for not doing their job. Unions cost the states, county, and cities more money than they are worth. I'll bet their a lot of people that would be willing to do the union employee's job for a lot less than the union employees are being paid and do a lot better a job than the union worker.

In accordance with the parliamentarian's ruling, the Senate had to wait until HCR was signed into law before they could vote on the reconciliation bill. On Mar 23 Obama signed HCR into law. On Mar 25 the Senate passed the reconciliation bill by a vote of 56 to 43 to complete their part of the bargain and the dirty deed was done. But this process came to fruition only because the reconciliation process allowed the Senate to avoid the 60 vote hurdle. Without this lower bar, the House doesn't agree to pass the Senate HCR bill at the start of the dance and the HCR law as we know it doesn't exist today.

OK, Bill, you just posted the ammunition that proves your assumption incorrect.

Here is what you've posted: On Mar 23 Obama signed HCR into law. On Mar 25 the Senate passed the reconciliation bill by a vote of 56 to 43 to complete their part of the bargain and the dirty deed was done.

Seems to me that if the HCR law was passed by reconciliation, why would a reconciliation bill be needed to be passed AFTER the LAW HAS BEEN SIGNED?

The reconciliation bill was to 'fix' parts of the Law - that has been passed after clearing the Cloture hurdle in the senate, before Scott Brown's appearance - that the Senate and the House disagreed with.

In other words, Bill, the reconciliation bill you are referencing was an AMENDMENT to the HCR law, and will probably be one of many amendments that will be passed in various forms.

I dunno, Bill, your argument about HCR being passed via reconciliation is still not valid, even with all of your citations. What you are posting is how the House and the Senate agreed to deal with the differences they had with the HCR law. THAT, all can agree, was done via reconciliation, not requiring any Republican votes.

I will commend you on how you laid out your losing argument. It was done masterfully.

Jeff, honestly, you think it was better for Christi to balance his budget by cutting funding for education and laying off thousands than it is for Walker to do so by asking state and municipal employees to contribute to their own pension (money they get to keep!) and a little more toward their really really outstanding health insurance and to give up the ability to re-negotiate those parts of their contract at a later date to put the taxpayers back in the same hole we're currently trying to dig out of?

By eliminating collective bargaining on these benefits (not on everything- they can still negotiate salary) it opens the door for municipalities to get their teachers on the state's health care plan instead of the WEAC plan- a potential savings of more than $60million dollars- that's dollars municipalities don't have to collect from their taxpayers or ask for in the form of state aid. And it keeps everyone working. This should be a good thing.

wan't it Obama who put his name on the Continuation of the Tax Credits? Why, even MSNBC praised the president for his passage of the bill.

msnbc might have an airhead agenda, ie keeping the people focused on sports and actors rather than what is really going on in the country, but they do not have a liberal agenda whatever you try to say. they are too beholden to their corporate masters. I know they have their opinion news shows but I'm talking about the website

Oh, for God's sake Bill, give it a rest. No wonder the country is in the state it is with obsessed individuals like you.

Whipping a dead horse doesn't hurt the horse. It only makes you look tired and...(fill in the blank.)

Jody, Pietro and John B. have challenged me on the reconciliation issue. So what you folks are saying is I shouldn't respond to their remarks?? Puhlleeeze.

I will commend you on how you laid out your losing argument. It was done masterfully.

Good grief Pietro, are you really that obtuse? The argument is a winner and explains clearly why the House passed the Senate version of HCR. Clearly that is for everyone except the revisionist kool aid drinkers.

Suzy-2005071

I respect what Christie did more than walker.

To me walker is lying and ramming this down the on the employees. he is blaming the unions for the problems with the pensions plans, but lets be real, the underlining root of this problems is that the pension plans were put in the stock market. instead of giving the employees the right to choose what funds are choosen in the markets the state did it for them and lost there ass, just like WE all big when the market tanked 2 years ago. itsn't it strainge that every state is facing this same problem?
Christies problem was different than Walkers,

Each year, the Tax Foundation, a policy research group, estimates the average taxpayer's total state and local tax burden in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia
Jersey was listed as the Number 1. Illinois was listed #30

No where has Christie tried to take way basic rights, and they were in more financial trouble than Wisconsin.
also walker is singling out teachers, if he were a real Man he would have goan after the real problem with over blotted pensions that is the cops and firemens unions. they make more and contribute much less.

i would rather be layed off than have my basic rights taken away.

No Jo i still think he is a blow Hole because he has not paid the feds the 271 million back.

also i took real exception to Clarence Thomas and your hate for comminuty orgainzers, because i lived and grew up on 7600 block of MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr DRIVE!!!!!! in Chicago. and a picture of Justice marshall and MLK were a fixture on the mantle in our home.

Bill, you are entitled to your remarks but not your own version of facts. HCR was NOT passed via reconciliation--it just was not. If it was passed via reconciliation, please provide us with the "expiration" date because any bill passed via reconciliation must have a sunset date.

By Dec 2009 both the House and Senate had passed separate HCR bills. Scott Brown's election meant this: there was no way the House and Senate could reconcile their two separate bills into a new, combined bill without the need for a 60-vote cloture in the Senate which Brown would prevent. The media and the GOP said health care was DOA. For a time it appeared to be but after a lot of arguing, fussing and posturing, the House democrats passed the Senate version of the bill and neither the Senate nor the House used reconciliation to do it.

In accordance with the parliamentarian's ruling, the Senate had to wait until HCR was signed into law before they could vote on the reconciliation bill. On Mar 23 Obama signed HCR into law.

Bill, is this NOT what you have posted?

Notice what the parlementarian did NOT say. The Parlimentarian ruled that the Senate had to wait until the HCR bill was signed into LAW before the differences could be resolved by a reconciliation bill.

Don't you think that the parlementarian would know the DIFFERENCE between a bill and a reconciliation bill? Why did the parlementarian NOT mention the HCR Bill as a reconciliation bill? Why wait to pass the HCR bill - as it was - and then pass amendments as a reconciliation bill? Why not just lump all of the legislation into ONE reconciliation bill and be done with it, once and for all?

That is because HCR wasn't a reconciliation bill.

Again - Bill, your did a masterful job laying out your losing argument. Kudos to you for that. However, your argument falls flat when it is noted - by the parlementarian, no less - that HCR was a bill signed into law, and NOT a reconciliation bill that was signed into law.

Jeff, apparently we will need to agree to disagree because there is no common ground here. For all the "where are the jobs" cries that have come from both sides for anyone to say it's better to lay off workers than ask them to contribute is beyond comprehension to me.

I guess my basic stance is this- the pension fiasco (as well as everything else that's led to the budget crisis both locally and nationally) happened. Regardless of what caused it, it's here. We can lament or we can try to fix it. Walker is trying to fix it. In the private sector, my 401k funds tanking hurt no one but me. I am not guaranteed anything from what I invest. With public sector employees, this is not the case- the market tanking and taking a huge chunk of money with it means the tax payers need to make up the difference. WE have the 9th highest tax burden in the country and an shrinking tax base. Yes, employment is a little better locally than the national average but increasing that number by laying off state and local employees isn't going to improve it. We need to learn from our past mistakes so we don't repeat them but all this hand wringing over cause is only prolonging the problem and making the solution harsher when we finally accept that it needs to happen.

Jody, Jody, Jody. Exactly where in my post do I say that the House passed the Senate version of HCR via reconciliation? Nowhere, because I didn't say that, and I have made that point to you several times. Unfreakingbeleivable.

If you and Pietro can't understand how the reconciliation procedure was crucial in the dance to bring HCR across the finish line, then I can't help either one of you.

Bill, does it matter if they use one legislative procedure or another if both are provided for in the rules. I think it matters more if they do so without trying to pay for it.

"We know that reconciliation has been used for huge bills before, and at least 21 times since 1981, the majority of which was done under Republicans. Just one example was under Bush 43, when the Republican led Congress passed Medicare Part D using reconciliation, which was essentially a $7 trillion prescription drug benefits Medicare expansion that wasn't paid for."

Suzy-2005071

Jeff, apparently we will need to agree to disagree because there is no common ground here. For all the "where are the jobs" cries that have come from both sides for anyone to say it's better to lay off workers than ask them to contribute is beyond comprehension to me.

Suzy, i agree that the employees need to contribute more, the unions agrees to the same, the unions also agrees that they need to take pay freezes as well as contribute more for health, that is NOT the Issue the Unions and the nation is having a problem with, its about taking away bacis rights workers have had for 60 years. as hard as it was to get those rights did he really think they would given them up with out a fight. as you grandfather, or even your father, what it was like before collective barganing.

Walkers drama. he is lying to the press that the basic right to collective barganing is costing money. he is lying, if republicans in Wisconson are telling him now after 6 days of protect he needs to compromise and either take it away for 2 years and give it back, or drop it all together, these are republicans in his party, that do have tied to union labor. but he is not listioning. he is playing with fire and should not be. this is not about money, benifets, healthcare, its about workers rights. i think this is something this generation can't identify with because we did not fight that war. where do you think minum wages came from.

I used Christie as a example because even though he l;ayed off thousand, he still did not try and take away bacis rights. he is a rookie and underestimated the will of orgainzed labor private and public, he though he could seperate the cops and firemen but they have as of yesterday recended there support they gave him during the elections. basic right is something that is common nomatter what you do for a living.

Like i said before, the cops and firemens unions are costing the tax payers of Wisconson more that the teachers and other public employees, so why not be fair and do it to them as well? itsn't it strainge that he is letting the cops and firemen off the hook who are paid more in benifets and pension but will go after teachers.

Jeff, you do at least make rational and well reasoned arguments, even though I disagree. The majority of our nation's working class are not covered by collective bargaining arrangements and we have gotten along just fine. I agree whole heartedly that unions have made great advances for all of us but I contend that there are federal laws in place that offer the protections the unions once fought for. I question the need for state workers to unionize against tax payers. No one is looking to short change them, to pay them slaves wages (which, by the by, is an absurd colloquialism- slaves didn't get wages, but I digress) or to rob them of health care and pension benefits. There just needs to be a leveling of the playing field. They need to not have the ability to demand more than the people paying the bills can afford, especially when the people paying the bills have had to tighten their own belts while the people demanding the benefits have seen little effect from the current economy. Private sector unions are subject to the ability of the company to meet the demands of the workers- when the scales tip too far, the company closes it's doors and no one wins. State employees do not have the same constraints, short of privatizing all services they provide, we have little recourse as long as their rights trump those of the tax payers. The problem with NOT altering the collective bargaining laws as they pertain to benefits packages is that we will have this fight all over again when the current contracts expire. We've had this fight for years and thus far the unions always come out on top. There is nothing that would lead me to believe we won't revert right back to where we are now without some sort of change in the law.

I'm honestly torn on the police and firefighters exclusion. One one hand I agree with Walker- we can't afford to compromise public safety, on the other, exempting them smells a tad bit like 3 day old fish. The one thing I can say is these are people who have chosen to put public service above personal safety so maybe that does earn them a better deal.

Jeff-1541632

thank you for agreeing that the cops and firemen exclusions do smell like 3 day old fish!!!! but lets look at this one point, the firemen and cops supported the Governor during the election. this is called pay back.
In chicago when we went though this same process, the cops and firemen took some of the same concessions the other public union did.

Privatizing, is something th city is doing (scott walker needs to look into), from police protection at the airports and sporting events to, police protection on the citys transit systems. the gave back concessions with pay and pension and health care, but since the firemen and cops supported him for election he owes them something. this is why this smells like 3day old fish.
we did not here the cops complainging about that. scott walker instead of trageting one group if he is serious he will treat all the same.
also one more instersting note, cops and firemen can't strick!!!!

I think his reasoning is still sound- there's more at stake with cops & firefighters catching the "blue flu" than with teachers and public works staff, but yes, the exclusion without a more forthright explanation up front and a promise to seek similar concessions when it's time to renegotiate their contract make this smell foul. I will even go so far as saying Walker's tactic was off base- he should have put this to the unions with a strict deadline for an up or down vote before taking it to the legislature. Given that he did that very thing as Milwaukee County Executive and was shot down and that the unions only started to mutter talk of accepting concessions on pension and healthcare benefits several days after the bill was introduced and it became clear that Walker was not going to cave in to the bully tactics of old, I think its a logical conclusion that the unions would have voted him down but that would at least have given him a stronger leg to stand on with the legislation. But like everything, hindsight may be perfect but it's perfectly useless.

Privatizing is in Walker's vocabulary. I'm sure Anna Molly would be happy to fill you in on Walker's efforts in Milwaukee county. Of course she'll also flesh it out with details on why it failed and what not but at least it's something he's explored at the local level. I'm all for pursuing it anywhere we can, actually, because I think the same or better quality of service can be provided at a lower cost to the tax payers but the pesky unions HATE when the subject comes up though. (yes, I admit it. My sarcastic side is starting to show. But sometimes it's just such FUN!)

If you and Pietro can't understand how the reconciliation procedure was crucial in the dance to bring HCR across the finish line, then I can't help either one of you.

Now, Bill, if you had said what I posted above FIRST, I would have been one to agree with you. Yes, reconciliation was crucial in the PROCEDURAL METHOD to get HCR passed. It was used in the agreement to get the Senate and House differences passed AFTER HCR became law.

Note that HCR was passed as a 'regular' bill, NOT as a reconciliation bill.

Your argument has been that HCR Law was passed via reconciliation; this is why I challenged you on it initially.

It was not.

You are DEFINITELY splitting hairs here, Bill. This hair-splitting is so fine that you need a microscope to see the difference. Just because the amendment was passed via reconciliation, the whole HCR law was too?

These bills were mutually EXCLUSIVE. The parlementarian stated that was so (if you care to look at your own post stating that fact). Pass HCR first, then Amend it by reconciliation.

Sorry, Bill. Your argument doesn't hold water, but again, I applaud a very valiant effort arguing your point.

Bill in Fairfax.....THANK YOU!

I love the comebacks.....quit beating a dead horse and such, it's almost sad isn't it.

btw....you should probably quit using big words like obtuse.....it will scare the children, they will think you're calling them a triangle and get a headache trying to figure out a response.....

Your argument has been that HCR Law was passed via reconciliation; this is why I challenged you on it initially.

Jesusfrigginchrist. That has NEVER been my argument, it's just the way you and Jody would prefer to interpret my argument. I'll pose the same question to you I posed to Jody: where in my post do I say that HCR was passed via reconciiliation? You both are starting to remind me of Nashville_Fan who was expert at twisting words to squeeze whatever meaning she wanted. Which is why I stopped bothering with her.

You are DEFINITELY splitting hairs here, Bill. This hair-splitting is so fine that you need a microscope to see the difference. Just because the amendment was passed via reconciliation, the whole HCR law was too?

Good grief you just don't get it. The deal between the House and the Senate to pass HCR amendments via reconciliation ENABLED the House to agree to pass the Senate version of HCR. Without those amendments, the House doesn't vote to pass the Senate version of HCR because the House didn't support the Senate version of HCR. Go back and review the materials, there was a three step process to get HCR across the finish line and those steps were not severable. So if there's no HCR amendments via reconciliation, there's no House vote to pass the Senate version of HCR and the HCR law as we know it doesn't exist today.

It's that simple.

Actually, when Walker was Milwaukee County Executive, he claimed the power to restructure security at the courthouse. He then let go of the security detail in the courthouse, supposedly to save money, and brought in a security force that was a subsidiary of Whackenhut. Their lead security officer was a convicted criminal, and Walker cost the county $500,000, rather than saving money. Do you honestly think he is out for the good of the people, now?

If today's GOPTP existed in 1776, they would have said NO to the revolution and they would have said NO to the compromises necessary in forming the government of the United States and its Constitution.

You're the first I've seen to make that observation. Today's teabaggers would be on the side of the British monarchy back when the Boston Tea Party took place. Modern day lamebrains manipulated by corporate special interests have stolen the name of an event that was dedicated to "no taxation without representation." The teabaggers do not deserve the name "Tea Party." They've got representation, and the federal taxes they have to pay are the lowest in 60 years. Their outrage is a mixture of usual rightwing anger whenever corporate control of government is challenged and the outrage that there's a black man in the White House who is doing the challenging (even if the challenges he's posing are rather moderate).

"For the past two years Republicans have known only one word--NO. Where was that word when Bush/Cheney and they passed massive UNFUNDED spending bills eliminating a budget surplus and doubling the National debt?"

The same place the Democratic House and Senate were in 2007. Why did they not say NO to Bush? Why did they continue to fund wars? Why did they not propose financial regulations to mitigate risk? Why did they not reign in Freddie and Fannie?

There is enough blame to go round on all politicians who were/are in power 2001 - 2011, especially Senators in their 3rd or 4th term. I see Chris Dodds is becoming a lobbyist...why am I not shocked?

And considering that Dems suffered the largest party loss since WWII in November the Republicans were obviously speaking for their constituents. They were elected to be responsible because America is sick of watching irresponsible sheep throwing away the future for short-term gain. Saying "no" is the cornerstone of responsibility, most adults know that.

At least they showed up in chambers to put those NO votes on record. They did their jobs.

The democrats did say NO to Bush, why do you think the GOP used budget reconciliation to pass the massive unfunded tax cuts, Rx Program for Medicare and a host of other issues? They unfortunately supported the war in Iraq--fear does strange things to normally sensible people.

Actually, the GOP did say no to a few things from the Bush administration. The most reknowned of those being the immigration reform bill. Just thought the exception needed to be pointed out.

That's funny, NoJoe - why, just yesterday, the big story (according to you) was the Obamas not being invited to Kate and Wills' wedding!

No, JoAnn, I did not think it was a 'big story'.

I did think it was funny, to see the first family snubbed, after their ridiculous treatment of our closest allies.

The Reagans were invited to both royal weddings that occurred during his presidency.

Maybe somebody could send the Obamas a copy of Emily Post's book... Or Leticia Baldritch- who was, after all,the etiquette 'czar' for Jackie Kennedy.

You would think that, if someone like Jackie Kennedy understood the need for a protocol officer, the Obamas would surely understand the need.

Of course if the Obamas attended the royal wedding, the conservatives would be screaming about wasting money and being out of touch with the people during an economic crises. The president can't win for losing. And since when did supporting dictators who were obviously losing control of their countries become a positive trait for American diplomacy. I thought we were supposed to be pragmatic about these things. You know, like all the conservatives said about ignoring apartheid because the South Africans were our "allies." Wait...I guess there is a historic pattern here...

Of course they aren't invited. this is supposed to be a classy wedding.

JoAnne: You just earned the slap-down of the day. Well done.

Really, Ron? You mean none of those thing in my post are happening?

Or, did you mean that JoAnne refuted their existence?

If that is so, wow- what a relief!

Here I thought the entire Middle East was about to go up in flames, oil prices could head to $200 a barrel as a result, and Israel could be destroyed!

So nice to know that JoAnne refuted ALL of those things!

NoJoe:" Here I thought the entire Middle East was about to go up in flames, oil prices could head to $200 a barrel as a result, and Israel could be destroyed!"

Look, can we can the melodrama for a minute? We've got a whopping four inches of snow on the ground and so far I'm one of only two people who managed to "brave the elements" and make it in to work today, so I thought I'd have a bit of fun. Relax. All I was saying was that with all these same things also happening yesterday, you were the one going out of her way to get in a dig about the wedding - one supported by your usual erroneous claims about the U.S. "betraying" the British by selling their nuclear secrets to the Russians and some other trivial thing about President Obama returning a bust of Churchill to the British as if it was some protocol scandal, when in fact they had never given it to us, it was only on loan - to President Bush.

As for the British feeling "betrayed" at all, her's this from the Washington Post last Thursday:

LONDON -- President Barack Obama will make a state visit to Britain in May at the invitation of Queen Elizabeth II, officials said Thursday.

Prime Minister David Cameron's office said it is pleased that Obama has accepted the invitation to visit the U.K. along with first lady Michelle Obama from May 24-26. The trip will come just before a G-8 summit in France, which Obama is expected to attend.

Obama is expected to meet with Cameron while he is in the country, and the prime minister's office said the visit demonstrates the "strong and enduring relationship" between the two countries. [.....]
Obama's state visit to the U.K. will be the first by a U.S. president since George W. Bush came in November 2003. Obama was in London for the G-20 summit in 2009, but that was not a state visit. At the time, the first lady made a strong impression on the queen. The two made headlines for wrapping their arms around each other - a rare moment of public affection for the monarch. Later that year, Michelle Obama returned to London with her daughters, taking a guided tour of Buckingham Palace and getting a special greeting from the queen.

On the state visit in May, Obama and his wife will stay at Buckingham Palace. The U.S. president will receive a full ceremonial welcome and a banquet will be held in his honor."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021703604.html?hpid=sec-politics

Hey, if that's how they act when they've been "betrayed", I'd hate to see what they'd do if they actually liked us! And Jeff is absolutely correct above, that if the Obamas WERE going to the wedding, you'd be outraged about that, too.

As for "the entire Middle East was about to go up in flames, oil prices could head to $200 a barrel as a result, and Israel could be destroyed!"? Hey, I'm the first one to admit that I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen over there next month, next week, or even five minutes from now. Neither does anyone else in the world. Including U.S. intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, any news commentators, The Psychic Hotline Network, or pretty much anyone posting on here. The only difference is that I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know everything.

You "braved the elements to go to work today"?

Your job is posting on First Read?

Or, you are stealing your employer's time to post on First Read.

It is either one or the other.

And what exactly are you suggesting we do, nojo? They are sovereign nations, we can't bomb or invade willynilly. Yes oil prices will go through the roof they've already started. Maybe now, those fast rail proposals, or as you so cutely say"choo choo" plans, will be make more sense. At the very least small cars will be popular, when gasoline prices go through the roof.

You know, you come to the board a day late and a dollar short, knock of the 'chicken little' BS. The administration is well aware of the news and are monitoring developments, just because they are not running around with their hair on fire doesn't mean nothing is being done.

We dont own the world and we cant stop revolutions whetherr or not they benefit us. Come back with a real story and not another cockeyed view of the world according to nojo.

no joe, no bo, nj

Been watching Glenn Beck much. What you wrote is an almost direct quote from his show LAST NIGHT. Do you honestly believe his nutso diatribe or can you think for yourself.

Wow, NoJoe, how cool that you can sit in on Obama's cabinet meetings and know exactly what this nation's policies are with regard to the middle east.

And how nice that you can also be an etiquette advisor to the White House, read their invitations and make sure that they are treated fairly.

You'd have to ask my boss if it's stealing or not, NoJoe. He doesn't seem to mind. Maybe because business has been slow the last couple weeks and he knows I don't have anything else to do until my next project starts. Or maybe because he's known me for over 30 years and he knows how many hundreds of lunches and nights and weekends I've given up to help him meet his deadlines when we do have work. Or maybe he knows I'm about the only here who's never missed a snow day in all that time.

Or hey, maybe I'm the only poster on here who actually works for a living? Out of hundreds of people from both sides? Wow, like what are the odds??? :)

P.S. The "braving the elements" part was a joke - I mean, come on people - four inches and you call out???

nojoe's posting from the public library the liberals built him, he's just pissed a lib has a job

Philip Munroe, nojo is a she, not that that makes a difference and if she is to believed, no longer works because of health reasons or some such reason. We never know, as she is prone to flights into fantasy. We sometimes humor her by answering her on those flights, so far, she hasn't landed.

Philip Munroe - Gingerbread Mamma is correct - no joe is a she. However, No Joe HATES President Obama with a passion and will remind you of that DAILY (or hourly, depending on how fast she types). You can see it in EVERY SINGLE ITEM she posts. If she doesn't get her negative 'dig' in on President Obama in that post, No Joe is having a bad day.

I personally have caught her in her 'obfuscations' more than once. She tends to spout one side of an issue as the 'truth' and when you follow up, you see that she conveniently 'forgets' to finish the thought of the poster or the citation which is, most of the time, OPPOSITE of what she is arging.

No Joe is a MASTER at that.

I don't believe anything she posts anymore because it has no probative value and I have her on permanent ignore.

And yes, that is my 2 cents worth.

Bravo ... It can't be pointed out enough, Houston, and outside of the few on progressive radio or MSNBC who mention it, it gets no play at all.

If I have to listen to the uninformed Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie one more time on this issue, I think I'm going to scream. As blank as blank can be on the larger implications of all this, and for purported political analysts, that's a VERY bad thing.

Obama's top contributor? Goldman Sachs

#3? Citigroup Inc

#4? JPMorgan Chase & Co

Still think Obama was somehow appointed by "unions"? How did that financial reform bill work out, is Wall Street straightened out now? Still surprised that Obama is a centrist President with many policies indistinguishable from his predecessor? It's time to wake up

Bob:

You were slapped-down pretty hard yesterday. I might suggest you: 1) stop watching Fox news, 2) Read more, 3) Don't debate someone much smarter than you. Just helpful suggestions Bob.

Hmmmm And you judge "smarter" HOW Ron? I have a lot of smart people working for me. Some of them much smarter than I. However a large percentage of them have issues communicating with people THEY deem not as smart as themselves. This is the major reason they have not gotten past a certian point in there careers. If you can not communicate your points of view with out making people feel less than, your out, tata.......Good day old chap...pipp pipp and all that rot.

Well, in the words of Ronald Reagan, Bob ... there you go again.

NO compromise on Obamacare? Heck, it was a compromise right from the start. And the reason it's in trouble now in the courts is precisely BECAUSE of the compromise -- i.e., mandates -- written in to please the insurance companies.

Maybe the President didn't compromise with Republicans because he knew he was already compromising with their paymasters.

Cut out the middleman and deal directly with the Devil, you know, Bob?

I think you do.

@Ron ~ Good suggestions. I think I'll try them, too. ;-)

jollyoldsoul1 ~ so what was YOUR entire comment if not the subtle -- or not-so-subtle -- put down?

The main problem I see with republicans who blog here is that they're mostly not even aware of their own ignorance. They don't know and they don't want to know. They only want to believe -- and spout -- the stereotypes that they've heard, without any of those messy old facts or logic getting in the way.

Obviously, I'm not as smart as you, jolly. Your whole command of the English language tells me that. But I'll tell YOU what ... when a guy gets on this thread and tries to claim that going to work at age 5 is good for children, then I'll call that out for what it is. And the fact that you would defend someone who does that as somehow being "smart" tells me all I need to know about you.

And it ain't "jolly." Pip pip, and cheery-o.

The mandates in the HCR Bill were put in originally not just as sop to insurance companies but as an attempt to win Republican votes, because they were originally a Republican idea. They are a part of Romney care in Massachusetts, and were introduced by Mitch McConnell as part of a Senate proposal during the Bush reign of error. When their corporate masters said oppose them, the Republicans decided they hated them.

Bob: ...running on the specific issue of reining in the out of control unions.

Then rein them in.

But what Walker is trying to do is eliminate them completely. AND he refuses to compromise. At all. On any point.

Excellent point Bob. The compromises in HCR were written in ONLY because they were necessary to get enough Democrats on board to pass it. You can whine and cry all you want about them being put their to win republican support but the fact is the democrats went in knowing they didn't need a single republican vote to pass it so there was no need to give them a voice at the bargaining table.

And you can hardly accuse Walker of not negotiating when there's no one to negotiate with. There have already been changes made to his original proposal but he's not willing to make compromises that will push this problem down the road. We've done that for years. Hasn't helped. The longer we put it off, the more painful it's going to get.

Suzy, do you know the difference between their, there and they're?

Bob, "Rammed thru Healthcare" are you serious? There were over 100 Republican amendments to the healthcare bill and still, in the end, no Republicans supported it. Sounds to me like it was a " all or nothing approach" and it failed. There were a lot of progressives who weren't happy with this bill, but only because it didn't go far enough.

In Wisconsin the governor is saying NO to compromise. Sounds like the same old stuff to me.

In fact I do, Shellie, as I'd hope is evidenced by the correct use in all but one instance. Sometimes my fingers get going and I forget to proof read so the occasional typo happens. Sorry to have offended you with such a grievous error.

Oooh oooh wait I know this one..."They're going to take Their money and put it over There. Right? Shucks...

Bob,

The union compromised on every single point. The only issue on which they didn't compromise was the issue of dismantling the union.

John, formally, no they have not. After 4 days of tantrum throwing proved unsuccessful they started saying they'd give in on pension and healthcare contributions but to the best of my knowledge there has been no vote of the membership or formal agreement, just sound bites for the media to jump on.

And I still don't get the dismantling part- bargaining for salaries remains in tact, there is no talk of eliminating benefits OR jobs, Unions can remain organized with an annual vote of the membership to continue this or not (God forbid the membership actually has a say in this, right?) and members are still free to pay dues if they choose to. I suspect this last point is actually what's causing all the hullabaloo- without being able to directly deduct dues from members paychecks the union leaders stand to lose their cash cow for both their own salaries and their political lobbying.

Alright, so they only lose ALMOST all their right to collective bargaining. You're only in favor of taking PART OF the rights of others so it's OK.

None of which changes the fact that Republicans are attacking the rights of average Americans. Rationalize it all you want, it begins and ends there.

Again, I will ask this question (which no one has yet to attempt to answer)- why do public sector unions' rights to negotiate trump tax payers ability to pay? Private sector unions are limited by a companies ability to meet the demands. Public sector unions do not have that same constraint.

Which American right that has existed for gnerations will you demand to be justified next?

The GOPTP is attacking the rights of Americans. It begins and ends there.

It's not a right- it's a privilege granted by law. One which better than 40% of the states in our union have gotten along with just fine without.

And as expected, still no answer to the question.

The TP keeps saying that the Republicans had no input into HCR. That's not true. Here's and interesting piece.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today was adamant that some of the more popular parts of health care reform that the Democrats have been touting were actually Republican ideas, despite repeatedly saying in the past that no Republican ideas had been incorporated into the plan.

Appearing on Morning Edition, Boehner first pointed out that he and the Republicans have, "over the course of the last 16 months, every time we've had to oppose our Democrat colleagues, we've offered what we thought was a better solution."

He continued: "I think that our common sense ideas to reform the health care system made a lot more sense than what was passed by the majority."

This is from: tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/boehner-in-feb-hcr-has-no-gop-ideas-in-it----boehner-today-populart-parts-of-hcr-were-gop-ideas.php

Research people, research.

I don't need to justify protecting the rights of Americans. Now you're redefining something that's commonly referred to as a "right" as a "privilege".

More word games in the Conservative attack on the rights of Americans.

My argument for "right" vs "privilege" is this- Constitutionally we define rights as something granted to us by a power higher than the government and applied equally regardless of race, color, creed, religion, social status, etc. to all citizens of this nation. IF collective bargaining was a federal law enforced equally in all 50 states and across all fields of employment, there could be a reasonable argument made that it is a right. However, this is not the case. Collective bargaining laws are passed on a state by state basis and a good number of states do not allow it at all, at least in the public sector. Its much like marriage laws, for example. While it might be stupid and senseless that there are large groups of people not covered by the marriage laws on the books, the fact is it is still subject to LAW. And the neat thing about laws is when they don't serve the public good, we can fight to change them. Rights don't go away without changing the fundamental structure of our country.

Rights don't go away without changing the fundamental structure of our country.

We're in agreement to that extent.

We're going to need to agree to disagree on the rest, but I thank you for a thorough and well stated position. It was a pleasure to read.

Well, at least discourse leads to common ground on something!

I was just thinking this. You see the opinion writers from each side and can predict their columns before you even read them.

Where I think the left is failing on this issue is that they are not successfully linking the sacrifices the unions are beginning to make with the lower tax rates of the most wealthy. I would specifically go after millionaires. They should be linking the higher medical insurance and pension costs that public servants are willing to pay to a higher tax rate for millionaires....shared sacrifice.

Ah, Alan, are you beginning to see the light as to where our problems originate? You wouldn't be trying to pull our leg, would you?

GM. The problems and the solutions originate from both sides. I was never a supporter of the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq war. I was for going after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan but I think that boat has now sailed. I was against the extension of any Bush tax cuts last year because our fiscal state is dire. I am for what Governor Christie and Walker are doing. We are spending too much money and have a huge debt to pay off. I think the current president has abrogated his leadership responsibilities. He has basically ignored the recommendations of his own debt commission. So at the end of the day I am for raising the retirement age for SS and Medicare. I am against the massive expansion of Medicaid that HCR proposes. I am also for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and for paying down the debt so I support the 60B in cuts the house Republicans support and any cuts at the DOD.

Shared Sacrifice.

Alan, NJ -- What about Christine Todd Whitman?

She was the first of the clowns we had for Governor through Corzine. Before that they weren't too bad. I was one of the few who actually liked Florio.

Yes,,

Because after all there are no Republicans that Belong to the Unions Whos Union dues are going to an Agenda they dont support.. I mean really. No Republican Teachers? No republican Cops? No Republican Firefighters? No Republicans State workers? If the Unions didnt have these Members People that are Forced to JOIN the Union if they want the Job......... How many Teachers went to work and performed their jobs? State workers? Firefighters? Cops? are these the Republicans in the bunch? My guess is yes..

My guess is this is what the People of Wisconsin want. I mean afterall Why did they have to Bus People in from other states to Falsely inflate the Numbers.. Walker is right to stand his ground as are the Republicans This is a done deal, Unless the Democrat Senators stay out of state for the Whole Legislative session. Which i dont think will sit to well with the People (voters) of Wisconsin..

Actually, what you are seeing is that Gov. Walker got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and he is now desperately trying to convince you that there is no jar and there are definitely no cookies.

And he has cookie crumbs around his mouth.

I guess we are supposed to believe what Gov. Walker says and not believe our lying eyes, correct?

Hello, dangerfield-

"..make everybody hurt."

I thought that was the whole purpose of President Obama's blue-ribbon debt commission...or maybe the formation of the commission was simply a bit of political theater intended to convince voters ahead of the midterm elections of President Obama's sincerity about addressing the U.S. debt crisis. Doesn't appear to have worked, does it?

Astonishingly, the only defense of the recommendations of the bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform here at First Read has come from the handful of conservatives that post here...and you can rest assured that they aren't happily embracing the tax increases and cuts to defense spending outlined by President Obama's commission.

When Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner appeared before the U.S. Senate last week to discuss the Obama Administration's FY 2012 budget and its 10-year budget forecast, the bottom line quickly became clear:

The federal government is going to be adding $13 trillion in new gross debt over the next 10 years, and by the end of that period will be paying $844 billion annually in interest on government debt. Bear in mind that the entire FY 2008 (the last "full" fiscal year of the Bush Administration, ending Sept. 30, 2008) federal budget deficit, for example, totalled $438 billion.

I cannot imagine that anyone, unless they're part of the Obama Administration, seriously believes that adding an additional $13 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years represents a good faith effort to address the nation's debt crisis. The fact that the U.S. will be paying more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars annually in interest payments to its creditors is a horrifying prospect. Geithner himself characterized it as "unsustainable"...but confessed that he saw no alternatives.

The "alternatives" are versions of what the President's own commission recommended...across-the-board spending cuts coupled to tax increases. President Obama can't simply run and hide from reality as the Democratic lawmakers from Wisconsin have done.

Or can he?

If this is true, why do Walker's proposals only affect public employees unions?

Divide and conquer Suzy, divide and conquer. Public employee unions are the only ones he can come up with a reason to get involved with directly. They're also the largest single group of union members in this day and age.

Suzy-2005071

If this is true, why do Walker's proposals only affect public employees unions?

Really? You really have to ask why the Governor and state legislature are only going after the PUBLIC employees unions? You know, those employees who work for the STATE. You really can't put the pieces to that one together? There, there and they're. Affect and effect. LOL

Come now Shellie, no playing favorites. If you want to play grammar police you should bust the nuts of a few people you agree with, too, otherwise they might get jealous.

And I'm pretty sure he could be pushing right to work legislation if he were interested in ending all unions. I won't pretend to be shocked if it comes up somewhere in the next 3 years and 10 months since it's been a key factor in jobs leaving the state, but right now, what's on the table only deals with the relationship between state employees and the people who pay them.

So you're saying he's only interested in ending SOME unions.

It's still union busting.

It's not just Republicans who think Unions are out of touch. A large majority of people working in the private sector think so as well. My father worked for GM and the UAQ for over 35 years and realized the unions were just road blocks to keeping them competitive. The UAW certainly didn't keep jobs in the US or stop the layoffs.

Excuse the typo. Meant to say UAW.

Ummmm 60's Who do you think elected these people into office. They ran on these issues and were elected. Why the big surprise when they do what they said they would do.

Source required please...who can be first to come up with a quote in which Scott Walker promised during the campaign to take collective bargaining rights away from workers?

Good luck.

John...there you go again, asking other students to do your homework for you...shame on you, I thought you were going to be a big boy today.

Am I required to support someone else's point?

Sorry, if he can't provide documentation it doesn't exist. Burden of proof is not on me.

Koch brothers or George Soros each one are just talking points. We all have to make some sacrifices to balance these budgets. Nobody seems to want it to be them. As a nation we seem to have become as bloated as our budgets

Really, are we back to the Kock Bros. fantasy which has totally been debuncted as a wet dream of a bunch of far left crazies. Why don't you blame the John Birch Society also along with the Illuminate.

Lisa, I agree with you we all need to make sacrifices to the budget. We first need to get the government in check by getting the waste and wasteful programs from the budget. Merge a number of agencies, reduce staff and cut expense. Either have Obama vet his Tsars, or remove them by not funding the positions. Cut legislative staff, expense and salaries.....each member of the legislature to take a pay cut equal to what the private sector hits have been for similar positions.

Eliminate the perks our House and Senate members have for those gym memberships, hair cuts, and the restaurant. Place the members on the same health care and retirement programs the rest of us have.

Just a few items for consideration.

Really Ray, please point me toward where that's been "debuncted". In this particular case;

1) Koch Industries subsidiaries have 17 operations in Wisconsin and benefit enormously from the tax breaks that caused this fiscal crisis.

2) The Kochs were #2 donors to Scott Walker's election campaign.

3) Americans for Prosperity is the Koch-funded group that bused out of state protesters in over the weekend.

4) This has been a big cause for Glenn Beck, who has personally thanked the Koch brothers for teaching him his history and politics, as well as paying him for various personal appearances.

5) Andrew Breitbart's web site editor is Mike Flynn, whose primary job is Government Affairs Director at Reason magazine, funded by David Koch.

6) Breitbart has been a paid speaker at the Koch brothers conservative strategy retreat.

Btw, Fred Koch FOUNDED the John Birch Society, and you'll find most of their crazy ideas have great prominence in Beckistan.

I guess what your saying Shoes is Pennsylvanians aren't smart enough to take care of it themselves, so they need someone from Wisconsin to come in and do it for them. Sounds like you don't have any confidence in your fellow Pennsylvanians. Why don't you just move to Wisconsin and embrace Walker?

Read MY post below, "Shoes," as to what Walker did when he was Milwaukee County Executive, and THEN decide whether you want him to come to Pennsylvania and wreck your state, too.

Uh, Bob, YOU need to get your facts correct. I belong to a public employee union, and we CANNOT USE DUES MONEY FOR ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY! PERIOD! Sorry for shouting, but it pisses me off when deliberate lies are told. Any money used for political activity must come from voluntary donations made to my PAC. Just a question, do the corporations you own stock in (kind of like a union, but entirely different), ask you what positions to take when they contribute?

You got to cut Bob a little slack FC, he's only repeating what he's heard on Fox. He can't think for himself, all he knows is what he's told to say by Fox and Limbaugh.

Bob, if workers don't like unions, perhaps they should consider the advice of many conservatives posting here: find another job.

FC, CO Heaven, you are wrong, or maybe just naivete, because Gov Employees Unions funnelled millions to Democrats last fall, and it was all from your dues. Get out from under your rock and open your eyes. The union thugs have one purpose, to keep their phony-baloney jobs, and they will lie like rugs to keep their lemmings like you in tow.

True, but the public has also indicated that they wanted jobs, and where in the world does the current Republican agenda fit on that? At the national level, it's all about repealing HCR and making sure women can't have abortion. At the state level, it's about breaking the unions or firing 6K public employees.

Actually, the Democrats are the "I'm taking my ball and going home" party ... sometimes also known as the "I'm gonna hold my breath until I turn blue" party.

Temper tantrums, anyone???

Waaa, Waaa, Waaa.

Gee, except in 2008 when the Republicans announced that there had not been an election and filibustered everything they could.

Isn't Governor Walker a Republican? He is still saying no...

fieldon - he is only saying no to reckless spending.

Micheal L - sort of a valid point, the republicans know that business creates jobs, both private and public sector jobs. Create known regulatory conditions and business will know what it will take to expand. Throw in regulatory confusion and business will just maintain or relocate.

Nice to know that obama is finally starting to realize that without private sector business their will be no jobs.

Didn't know that republicans were seeking the repeal of Roe vs wade, just not having tax dollars fund abortions.

As for public job eliminations, where do you think budget cuts come from? Labor is just as big of an expense in the public sector as it is in the private sector.

On the contrary american...the unions have offered to meet Walker on EVERY ONE OF HIS DEMANDS except giving up collective bargaining. Walker said no.

That's his goal, to break the union. It begins and ends there.

Johnb - So it is right for unions to dictate legislative spending at the expense of the taxpayers?

Somehow I'm having trouble putting a dollar figure on the right to collective bargaining. Please enlighten us with the dollar impact of worker rights upon the current budget.

As far as I can tell there IS no impact, since the unions have agreed to EVERY ONE of the wage and benefits concessions requested by the state.

And we're back to breaking the unions. It begins and ends there.

John...let's get your "facts" straight.

He is only ending collective bargaining on pensions and insurance packages..NOT SALARY

So he's only planning to take SOME of their rights.

A distinction without a difference.

So much for Conservatism being all about defending the rights of Americans.

Great post Anna Molly:

Using facts wins debates every time. Well almost everytime. But not so much when Republicans already have their mind made up and facts just confuse them.

AM, just saw your response to me with regard to all that Walker is calling for in Wisconsin.

FYI- New Jersey is a right to work state. We are consistently in the top three high earnings states. We are far from "red", and I do not believe, by any stretch of imagination, can be considered southern.

Right to Work simply means that, if a shop is unionized, the individual worker can opt out. That worker then only pays a portion of the union dues- specifically, those directly related to contract negotiations.

Now you brought up the topic, do you not find it interesting that Obama chose North Carolina, a Right to Work state, for the DNC convention?

The unions seemed to find it downright insulting.

New Jersey is NOT a right-to-work state, at least according to the National Right to Work Foundation, no joe ....

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Maybe you don't define it exactly the same way they do.

What other people might say about New Jersey, I'll leave to up to them. But if you aren't red right now, then what explains Chris Christie, who has to be the WORST of the anti-worker red governors. He makes Walker look like Willy Wonka.

By the way, New Jersey has its own fiscal problems, doesn't it? Problems, apparently, that being "right-to-work" doesn't solve.

What a BIG surprise, since workers didn't create those problems.

Yes, we have problems- but, the DNC will have its OWN if they attempt to come here to spread their labor unrest.

The Senate president, Steve Sweeney, is pushing a pension/benefit reform package that closely aligns with the governor's. He is the past president of an Iron Workers union, and is appalled that state employees packages are so much richer than his membership's.

And, he is a democrat.

Thanks for the Right to Work tip,by the way. I know people who opted out of the union, and only pay a portion of the dues. I wrongly assumed that was what was meant by Right to Work.

If, in fact, Christie forces unions to have secret ballots for unions, I can see most of them going by the wayside.

Anna, thank you for taking the time to research and post this very informative piece. When people who have an agenda, a somewhat hidden agenda, facts dont matter to them. I hope your post enlightens some, if not in WI, then in other states where the same agenda is being propose. We are just seeing the beginning of the plan to delegitimatize unions and thereby diminish the middle class.

This is chilling, Anna Molly---that it happened in the first place and that Walker was elected in spite of this record.

Because the TP and most repubs aren't interested enough to seek the information Steeler Fan. If it's not told to them on Fox they have no clue. They had no clue then, and more than likely still don't. Another tid bit to add to Anna's post. When Walker fired all the security guards and brought in private contractors, the man they choose to be security head, has an interesting criminal record and did time in jail. Great choice to head up security for the state don't you think?

Great stuff, AM. Scott Walker has repeatedly told us who he is through his actions. It's time to believe him.

Anna molly - not to much spin there with your listing of liberal and progressive links is there??? lol!

If they're as biased as you claim surely you could provide us with more accurate information, american.

Unless you can't.

It is true that it is impossible to "compromise" with crap. I cheer the Republicans for being the adults in the room who are finally going to take steps to clean up the mess the Democrats have made again.

Like Mom cleaning up her sloppy kids room (again).

Here's a classic Republican compromise. Millionaires you get tax breaks so they can send the money to the Caymans. Workers, you lose your pensions.

Irishradical.... The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of ALL income taxes. The federal goverment is 14 trillion$ in the hole --- don't talk to me about Bush or Palin.... give us the solution.

mike nielsen - if the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of ALL income taxes and we are STILL $14 TRILLION in the hole, what does that tell you?

Do you honestly think that the 50% of wage earners that are contributing the 3% that the top wage earners have NOT paid will actually be enough to cover the difference?

That, my friend, doesn't even pass the giggle test.

I have posted this before, and I'll continue to post this until people like yourself understand.

IN the 2010 budget (you can look it up for yourself in Wikipedia), taxpayers provided $1.2 TRILLION in revenue to the Government.

Corporate taxes came in at $800 Billion (approximately). This figure is TOO LOW and it should be on par with or exceeding the $1.2 Trillion that taxpayers are paying. (As a side argument, not that Citizen's United has deemed Corporations as 'people', where is THEIR tax contribution??)

To get rid of the $14 TRILLION DEFICIT, we will need to increase revenues by at LEAST 1.5X of what we are generating now to apply the surplus revenues to the deficit. That means, using the 2010 numbers, the revenue from taxpayers would need to be AT LEAST $1.8 TRILLION - minimum. The revenue from Corporations would need to be at LEAST $1.2 TRILLION - minimum. We would have to work to sustain this surplus revenue over a period of time (possibly 10 years) to fully eliminate the deficit.

Mike, the solution is this - we need to SIMULTANEOUSLY raise revenues as well as reduce spending. You HAVE to do BOTH or else you are treading water.

If tax revenues are not a sufficient revenue source, then we need to find new revenue sources - FAST.

I hope that helps you, Mike.

valid points pietro - except possibly for business taxes. It is probably easier for a business to either go out of business because of crushing taxes and fees or to relocate out of the US.

Basically looks like we can no longer kick the can down the road.

I'm very proud of the Republicans for finally doing what is right. I hope that they fire all of the teachers that walked out to protest, and the Dr's that wrote the phony excuses. People working at Wal-Mart shouldn't have to pay higher taxes to that Gov employees can get richer. The Gov is not the answer, it is the problem. The only way out of this mess is less governement and less debt.

The top 3% do not pay 97% of the taxes. Last year most billionaires paid taxes at 13 t0 15% because the 2003 tax cut for the rich taxes dividend and interest income at those rates. That's a lower percentage of their income on taxes than their secretaries pay. People who work at Wal-Mart are paying higher taxes not because of public employee unions but because our tax system is so skewed that it's completely insane. Millionaires, billionaires and international corporations get subsidies from every level of government and where are the magical jobs? The government has the fewest employees it's had since 1967 and 75% of our national debt comes from 3 Republican Presidents, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Dim Son. If you want to do corporations a favor, eliminate the tax breaks for Exxon-Mobil, they paid no taxes at all last year, and lower the overall corporate rate. Tax all income the same, whether it comes from salary or dividend, or interest.

If the rich, as you say, pay low taxes through tax avoidance.....which is perfectly legal and follows the tax code to the letter, I praise them for their intelligence. If someone is actually breaking THE LAW by evading taxes, well, that's another story altogether.

If you are maintaining that the tax code is too lenient on the rich, then you need to inform your elected officials of the alleged diparity that is bothering you.

If the tax code is changed so that the "rich" have to pay a lot more of their income in Federal taxes, they will probably just move to Spain or Switzerland and just visit the U.S. I know I would.

If the 'squeeze' of tax rates back to Clinton era - surplus levels is so burdensome and they choose to expatriate, I say good riddance to them. They don't deserve to call this country home. I DARE them to leave.

We're ready to hear your point by point plan to solve the 3.5 billion problem.... & set the table for being fiscally responsible going forward, permanently. I know you must have some specifics....Go ahead.... we're waitin'......

Start with cutting the salary of the old man he hired (his relative) to run the police at $105,000 per year... and then get rid of the tax cuts he enacted in the first weeks in office which he now wants to balance on the backs of the middle class.... or he can simply as his backers (Koch Industries) to foot the bill for him.

Kevin... with all due respect, I think the folks will take the tax cuts. .... & if a business got a tax cut, they can hire some of the public sector union folks.... & maybe now you can attract a real employer to the state if you lowered your taxes to make it more attractive to companies that actually PRODUCE revenue - rather than just USE revenue.

We elected them to do this! Im happy to see them ALL doing it. Michigan is next, I will pay my fair share. Balance the budget, now!

After reading a goodly portion of these posts I realize that very few people desire compromise. Most of you are of the "my way or the highway" mentality. This, of course, leads to the conclusion that our elected officials represent, to an absolutely frightening degree, the people of this country.

Whatever happened to the "live and let live" mentality that is necessary for a democracy to exist?

I fear this country is headed for the ranks of Fallen Empires and, sadly, it may be exactly what "we, the people" deserve.

Mike, if tax cuts create so many jobs, where have they been the last 10 years? The corporations have had the tax cuts since 2001, so where are all those jobs you claim they should have brought. Can you say overseas? If your notion actually held any water, we wouldn't have the high unemployment we do now. No reputable economist is going to tell you that myth. Tax cuts are the least effective form of stimulus, and they do not pay for themselves, contrary to conservative belief. Even Mark Zandi agrees, and he was McCain's economic advisor. You people really need to get actual facts and not the fiction you get from FOX Noise. Any other news outlet will get you better facts than FOX. If you can't find an American outlet, because they are too mainstream media for you, you can try the world's most trusted news source, the BBC.