Protestors on both sides of restricting collective bargaining bill

[calfoxwc]

Heck, that's nonsense.

First of all, collective bargaining isn't being banned. It's being curtailed to avoid fiscal abuse. Like with everything already gained, certain

unions were gearing up to battle for .... paid viagra, for one example.

 

The excess of some unions' greed, pushed companies into banksruptcy, or overseas. That's fact.

BTW, you "talk" to "middle and lower class" people... ?? Not so nice - referring to classes of people when

you pretend to be "englighted liberal" in status yourself.

 

People have a right to be treated fairly - not made rich on the backs of taxpayers, but fairly, let's say, very, very fairly for teachers.

The membership of unions have themselves to blame for the excesses, but only in part, because the sold out special interest Dems doted on giving

unions anything they wanted, but now it must stop. The deficit spending is so out of control, it must end.

 

That's all. There isn't any attack on freedom here. Here in Ohio, it will be the collective bargain FOR BENEFITS that will end.

Sure, it's so much more dramatic to overstate situations, to get your way, which you and the union leadership of several unions are doing.

 

If you were to try an experiment, where union members could secretly designate their money directly to a political party OF THEIR CHOICE...

the union leadership would raise hell, saying so and so is attacking children and wants them to be uneducated.

 

Enough is enough, and way, way too much cannot be afforded anymore. That's all.

 

I think the Ohio bill goes too far, and is way too much gov interference in some wrong ways... but

I hope that will be worked out before it gets passed.

 

But go ahead and ignore or defend the union thugs' behavior if you like. But it doesn't fly with the vast majority of Americans - union or non union.

 

BTW, a lot of the middle class is made up of UNION members. The unions, back in the day, is how they GOT to be middle class.

 

It's the excesses way past affordability that is killing economies, and that is what must end.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"In CT, for example, the labor union folks make about 15% more than those in the private sector - often making 6-figure salaries bolstered by obscene retirements and dozens of holidays per year."

 

Now this is what I consider to be the biggest problem with public sector unions. This is where they need to make concessions. These practices are ridiculous. But again, what does this have to do with the idea of unions, or allowing unions to have collective bargaining rights? Not much.

 

Also, John, who abuses these contract escalator clauses and early retirement the most? The teachers? The lady at the emergency management department? Of course not. It's the cops and firefighters. By far.

 

So you identify one place where you think union membership bilks taxpayers unfairly, and I agree. But did Scott Walker try to address this? No. He exempted the public safety unions. No, his goal was to make the unions go away entirely.

 

Instead of reforming union practices and re-doing union contracts, which would be addressing the problem, we pretend the problem is that unions exist at all.

 

And who is making that case the loudest? Guys with little income security.

 

Score one for the elite.

[Chicopee John]

Also, John, who abuses these contract escalator clauses and early retirement the most? The teachers? The lady at the emergency management department? Of course not. It's the cops and firefighters. By far.

 

So you identify one place where you think union membership bilks taxpayers unfairly, and I agree. But did Scott Walker try to address this? No. He exempted the public safety unions. No, his goal was to make the unions go away entirely.

 

Instead of reforming union practices and re-doing union contracts, which would be addressing the problem, we pretend the problem is that unions exist at all.

 

And who is making that case the loudest? Guys with little income security.

 

Score one for the elite.

 

Where do I start. This thread has had many, many ebbs and flows.

 

First, the low hanging fruit:

 

The Police have the biggest rackets going and they are tremendously overpaid - when you consider 'lay up' opportunities to double their salary - by either graduating from what today amounts to 'matchbox' colleges of my era or by doing mindless and - oftentimes - useless overtime duties. Of course their unions negotiate such a 'demand'.

 

While individually, the majority are probably nice guys. However, behind the 'wall of blue' they become a big part of 'the problem', and are a solution only around the fringes.

 

Go to www.ctsunlight.org and look at what these folks get on an annual basis - regardless of where the gravy comes from. Heck, you might be familiar with the Quinn Bill in MA.

 

I don't know enough about the details in WI but, on the surface, disagree with the WIs Governon eliminating any groups from his scalpel.

 

I won't go as far as saying the WI Governor went too far but I will say that I'm not sure if he had to go as far as he went. We will never know because the unions can always claim they would have given him the moon save their collective bargaining abilities. Maybe he didn't care. Maybe he could have pulled an Andrew Cuomo. We will never know

 

This has been successfully, albeit inaccurately, described as an attack on Unions and the Middle Class. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is not an attack on Unions or the Middle Class. It is a guide to correct or redirect something that has gotten out of hand over the years.

 

Collective Bargaining should be, IMHO, for company/private workers to negotiate against the company and its Management. Oftentimes Management is paid obscene salaries and given even more obscene stock options and golden parachutes. I am not naive to believe that I benefited by actions of unions even though I've never been represented by one.

 

In this, the 'fat cats' and obscene and evil "elitists" are actually the taxpayers - you and me. The state isn't going to move as may be the case with a private company. Gosh, the State can't even go bankrupt in order to force change.

 

Who represents the taxpayers in this scenario?

 

Theoretically, the Legislature represents the taxpayer (I'll get back to this later). The fact is, many of the Legislature - my State Senator, for example, taught in school for 35 years while, at the same time, he sat on the State Senate (that, alone, is enough for me)need to be recused from voting. How do you think he's going to vote on this budget that includes $1.5B in tax increases and increased spending of 2.4% and 2.4% for each of the next two years?

 

Heck, how would you feel if you had to pay higher and higher wages for somebody you don't believe is necessary to cut your lawn and, then, you have to pay health care for him and his family for the rest of his life. You have no choice. You have to do it. Not sure you'd sign up for this one.

 

Now to a, if not THE, major problem IMHO...............

 

Voter apathy.

 

We are lucky to get 30-40% voter turnout. The public unions are organized and have an effective 'get out the vote' operation. Their spouses, mothers, fathers and close relatives go to vote. The rest of us feel disturbed if we actually have to go to the polls to vote. The unions effectively exploit our indifference.

 

If the Tea Party learned anything from Obama it is that voter organization and incentive are powerful tools. As with many states, the largest segment of registered voters in CT are 'Independent' or unaffiliated. NOBODY gets his polylithic (probably not a word)group motivated to get off their fat asses, put down their cans of beer and go do their civic duty. At least not when Jersey Shore is on.

 

Oh, these folks like to complain but, at voting time, they pull an Ellison's "Invisible Man" routine.

 

I happened to cross paths with my State Rep yesterday and wouldn't let him go until the ceremony we were at started. I told him that, unfortunately, the legislature WAS listening to the voters. However, the voters don't necessarily accurately reflect the mood of the 'rank and file' constituent. However, there is no other barometer of opinion - at least none better for a politician - than the ballot box.

 

If we remain silent and passive this will continue.

 

To a great extent WE are the problem IMHO.

 

Disclaimer: My wife teaches in Town and just completed another Master's Degree that provides her with $5k per year for the remainder of her teaching career. She gets excellent benefits and has been carrying our health and dental benefits for some time.

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, I don't know how you could possibly describe what just happened in Wisconsin as "This is not an attack on Unions or the Middle Class."

 

For all intents and purposes, they just eliminated their collective bargaining rights. The unions can no longer bargain for a raise or benefits. They can no longer organize a strike or a walk out. They can no longer collect dues in the same way, which creates the obvious free rider problem and drastically reduce their monetary base.

 

In other words, they just eliminated the entire point of having a union. It's like saying you can have a football team, but no offense, no defense, and the coaches can't make you play special teams, and then saying, "This isn't an attack on the game of football."

 

Now, you can think private sector unions are a bad idea and should be eliminated, but let's not pretend that this wasn't an attack on unions.

 

PS - I know all about the Quinn bill and all the other ways you spike your salary before retirement. That stuff drives me nuts.

 

And I still don't know what it has to do with eliminating unions.

[Chicopee John]

Heck, it might be an attack on Public Unions - it actually is.

 

Is it against the spirit of Unions organized against the evils of management, the thought of shutting the business down or moving it away, or of working in unsafe environments? I say no because the evil empire on the other side of the table is the taxpayer. The people who actually pay the salaries of those employed by the state.

 

Did you not read where I said I wasn't sure WI could have achieved it goal without taking this as far as it went?

 

You clearly didn't look at the entire post but simply picked apart and put a different spin on my position.

 

What does the Quinn Bill have to do with Unions? You can't be serious, Heck. You are simply being stubborn.

 

FWIW, at least in Ct, the public employees are an elite class, making tons of money and getting incredible benefits. THAT is not middle class.

 

I can't say that other states are the same. I suspect states like CT, NY, NJ, CA are the worse examples of runaway salaries and benefits for state employees.

[heckofajobbrownie]

We're coming from the same place here, but have different takes on what the solution would be. I did read your whole post, I assure you. You're always worth the full read. But notice that I said that I don't know what it has to do "eliminating unions" not "unions" in general. Obviously, the union played a part in negotiating the Quinn Bill.

 

Though I'd disagree that public employees are an elite class. They're not even close to an elite class. When you go to private political fundraisers on Nantucket or in Malibu or in Manhattan, trust me, that's the elite class. It's not the woman working at the parks department. She's not making "tons of money."

 

And if you want to use the Massachusetts example, look what Patrick had proposed: he's tried to reign in overtime pay, and change the way the state employees' health care benefits are negotiated. That even involved removing part of their health care benefit package from the collective bargaining process. What it didn't involve was busting the unions entirely.

 

Wisconsin is about 20% ideological, 30% fiscal, and 50% political. Some people may not see the bigger picture of what's going on here, but think about the groups that Republicans have been out attempting to defund: ACORN, Planned Parenthood, the unions. These are all groups that help Democrats get elected. (Planned Parenthood is different in that they don't pick candidates or a party, but they're servicing woman who tend to be less affluent, which is a Democratic group.)

 

This is what's going on behind the scenes. This is what macro political strategy is all about.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Republicans tend to think that unions are harmful to the economy in several ways. As a result, they tend to oppose pro-union policies. Unions are strongly pro-union, obviously, and so tend to oppose republican candidates. To say that Walker is targeting unions because they support democrats puts the cart before the horse.

 

I think workers should be able to ask for better pay or benefits if they think they deserve it. I also think that companies and states whose workers strike should replace those workers if they can. These two opinions are not at all in conflict. The vast majority of Americans go to work every day without paying for union protection. When the want a raise, they ask for one. Their best threat if they dont get their way is that they'll leave their employer for a new one. Even public school teachers can do this, as there are many private schools in this country, and many of those pay much better than public school salaries. Teachers can also choose to change professions if they are unsatisfied with the compensation they get as a teacher. That sounds outrageous at first, but it merely puts the teacher on equal fotting with other professions in this country where most people change careers multiple times. In fact, if you want teachers to have more leverage with their employer, then you should support alternative school systems - charter schools, voucher programs, etc - that would give the teacher more options for employment. But guess who blocks those.... UNIONS! It's a little difficult to argue that we need unions to protect education for our children when even President Obama's education reforms are opposed by unions. What's the problem, is he in bed with the Koch family?

 

Governors wont be able to trample on teachers just by taking away collective bargaining. It's not hard to find examples of what happens to politicians who weaken education.

 

In many ways, education in this country looks like health care; costs keep skyrocketing but results arent getting any better. Democrats are quick to demonize anyone defending the status quo in health care, but the ultimate champions of the status quo in eduation - teachers - are meant to be untouchable? I'm unimpressed. Something needs to change. Better this than nothing. And those really do seem to be our options.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Planned Parenthood? REALLY? How foolish of me to think that Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood because it is the face of abortion to Pro-Life activists and has been for decades. That must just be a happy coincidence.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yep, that's the main reason. The other reason is that they try and get everyone who comes through their doors to vote around election time.

 

And, of course, since most of what they do involves women's health and family planning and contraceptives defunding an organization like Planned Parenthood would likely lead to more abortions, but that's another discussion for another time.

[We need Tom Tupa]

When you start from a place of "it's the #1 priority of our strongest voting bloc," how many more reasons do we get to tag on the end? Next I'll have to agree with the Right that Obama only pushed health care reform because he thought it would make Republicans look bad.

 

To put it differently... if you can remove the motivator without changing the action, it isnt an actual motivator. Planned Parenthood could ban its patients from voting, and the GOP would still try to defund it every time it got a chance.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd cede to you the argument that secondary motivations or latent functions don't exist, but yes, they've been after Planned Parenthood for years. Would you concede that there's an overall strategy to defund organizations that assist in the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort currently underway? Or that it's rather well-funded?

 

I mean, it shouldn't be that hard to see. When the Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader says, on live TV, "If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin." ...I think the point holds.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Sure, Republicans are motivated by political power. I just dont see why you would single this instance out as anything special. This party and these interest groups completely disagree on substantive policy, so this party is targeting these interest groups. To the extent that everything in politics in political, of course some of that is in play here, but we've got a battle going on between groups that completely disagree on policy... how much more substantive do political fights really get?

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're holding up the Wisconsin (partial) public employee union busting effort that masqueraded as a budget measure (when the unions had already conceded the increase in benefit contributions) as a substantive policy fight about how to best increase K-12 educational achievement?

 

Wow. Call me cynical if you like, but I think you should get a little more cynical.

 

Also, most private and charter schools don't pay as well as the public schools, so the "walking" option usually means taking a pay cut.

 

Also, going through college and grad school and the certification hoops of becoming a teacher in the public school system tends to make it harder to switch professions. You can say that lots of people in other professions face this problem, but it's not the same thing to say to a teacher as it is to say to someone with a grad degree in English or history or political science. We could tell doctors that if they don't like doctor pay they should just change professions after they'd just spent 8 years becoming one, but perhaps we should account for the fact that some professions take more training than others.

 

Fact is, the budgetary problems in states like Wisconsin are mostly related to the loss of tax revenue from the recession. Do public employee contracts tax state budgets? Of course they do. Should unions be asked to and cajoled into sacrificing in order to help balance state budgets? Yup.

 

But somehow over the last five decades of public employee unions in the state of Wisconsin, Wisconsin has survived just fine, and met its budgets. It could have met them again. What changed now?

[Bob806]

 

 

Of course, they're not touching the public safety unions, which are more filled with waste and unnecessary perks than teachers unions by a long shot. (I wonder why.)

 

 

You are free to come on over to my place and read my contract anytime you wish, and find the "unnecessary perks."

 

One more take here....It's a challenge by Republicans to union workers, to overcome the proposed legislation. As others pointed out, with a 47% voter turnout (like in Ohio's last election), they are willing to take that chance. Polls, love them or hate them, show that the public is 61%-39% against removing collective bargaining rights, yet, the so-called "representatives,' who were elected, passed SB 5 through the Ohio Senate anyway. It's partisan politics as usual, the Republicans have the vote in Ohio (same as Obamacare, he had the votes, it passed).

[heckofajobbrownie]

You are free to come on over to my place and read my contract anytime you wish, and find the "unnecessary perks."

 

One more take here....It's a challenge by Republicans to union workers, to overcome the proposed legislation. As others pointed out, with a 47% voter turnout (like in Ohio's last election), they are willing to take that chance. Polls, love them or hate them, show that the public is 61%-39% against removing collective bargaining rights, yet, the so-called "representatives,' who were elected, passed SB 5 through the Ohio Senate anyway. It's partisan politics as usual, the Republicans have the vote in Ohio (same as Obamacare, he had the votes, it passed).

 

If you want to defend the practice of bogus police details or pension spiking with night school degree mills and clocking extra overtime only in the years before you retire so that your pension is calculated at a different rate, go right ahead. But most people see those are clear abuses of the system that's designed to honor a lifetime of service, not to be abused by finding loopholes and exploiting them at taxpayer expense - only to have the practice supported by the unions who should be policing this stuff, not defending it.

 

It gives unions a bad name, and makes their case harder to argue. And it's our own fault.

[Chicopee John]

Just a quick question for you, Heck.

 

I understand your position concerning WI.

 

If it fair to assume you - on balance - agree with the approaches being taken by the Governor's of NJ and NY?

 

Why? Why not?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Just a quick question for you, Heck.

 

I understand your position concerning WI.

 

If it fair to assume you - on balance - agree with the approaches being taken by the Governor's of NJ and NY?

 

Why? Why not?

 

I think it's a better position for both the unions and the state governments to come to an agreement where union members kick in a greater percentage of their health benefits, even though those benefits are a form of compensation the unions and the state have already agreed upon and that this is a reduction in pay, in order to help meet the state budget requirements and to avoid teacher layoffs.

[Chicopee John]

I think it's a better position for both the unions and the state governments to come to an agreement where union members kick in a greater percentage of their health benefits, even though those benefits are a form of compensation the unions and the state have already agreed upon and that this is a reduction in pay, in order to help meet the state budget requirements and to avoid teacher layoffs.

 

Fair enough even though a simple, "Yes" would have sufficed

[heckofajobbrownie]

I actually like Chris Christie. I like how he communicates. And he's not unreasonable. He's also not that right-wing, which will disappoint some people once they find out about it, but to me that's his feature, not his bug.

[Bob806]

I think it's a better position for both the unions and the state governments to come to an agreement where union members kick in a greater percentage of their health benefits, even though those benefits are a form of compensation the unions and the state have already agreed upon and that this is a reduction in pay, in order to help meet the state budget requirements and to avoid teacher layoffs.

 

We already have, yet the Governor (Kasich) wants more. I pay 10% of my salary into the pension system currently, it will raise to 12.25% in the next 3 years (.75% increase every year for 3 years). I currently pay 10% of my city's health care costs...will be 15% in 2012. This has been negotiated, which I have NO problem with. If the Governor wants 20%, and is willing to negotiate this, I am all ears.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Tupa, oddly enough Kevin Drum just came up with a better list than mine:

 

"I just finished a short piece for the next issue of the magazine about Republican efforts to push through structural changes that either permanently defund the left or reduce its voting strength. In the past, that included efforts to defund public interest law groups, ongoing battles to degrade the power of private sector unions, promotion of "pack and crack" redistricting that limited the influence of minority voters, and support of tort reform rules that hurt trial lawyers. More recently, it's included their assaults on public sector unions, the defunding of ACORN, and tenacious efforts to pass voter ID laws aimed at making it harder for minorities, the young, and the poor to vote.

 

One question my editors had when I turned in the piece was an obvious one: don't liberals do this too? And if they don't, why not?

 

As near as I can tell, the answer to the first is no, they don't. The closest equivalent would be serious campaign finance reform that reduced the power of rich people and corporations, but there's never really been a ton of support for that among working politicians on the left. What's more, really hardcore campaign finance reform would hit hard at a lot of Democratic donors too, not just Republican ones. Even in the best case, it would probably tilt the playing field only modestly."

[Mr. T]

 

 

the defunding of ACORN, and tenacious efforts to pass voter ID laws aimed at making it harder for minorities, the young, and the poor to vote.

 

 

 

 

What a crock of shit, they are making it harder to cheat. Like those scumbags did in 2008. Send them to jail where they belong.

[We need Tom Tupa]

You're holding up the Wisconsin (partial) public employee union busting effort that masqueraded as a budget measure (when the unions had already conceded the increase in benefit contributions) as a substantive policy fight about how to best increase K-12 educational achievement?

 

Wow. Call me cynical if you like, but I think you should get a little more cynical.

I've got enough faith in your reading comprehension to think that youre deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I'm holding it up as a substantive policy fight about the role and utility of unions. I mention education reform to a) respond to the obvious counterargument about the uniquely monopolistic market for teacher labor and b ) point out the weak underpinnings of blanket and unquestioning Dem support for unions.

 

Also, most private and charter schools don't pay as well as the public schools, so the "walking" option usually means taking a pay cut.

The obvious response is that that means that public school teachers are overpaid. But it's so obvious I won't even make it. Instead, keeping with my claim that charters and vouchers are a good solution, I would note that a fully funded program for either would level that playing field.

 

Also, going through college and grad school and the certification hoops of becoming a teacher in the public school system tends to make it harder to switch professions. You can say that lots of people in other professions face this problem, but it's not the same thing to say to a teacher as it is to say to someone with a grad degree in English or history or political science. We could tell doctors that if they don't like doctor pay they should just change professions after they'd just spent 8 years becoming one, but perhaps we should account for the fact that some professions take more training than others.

I've got about a dozen problems with this paragrapgh.

 

First, the education and certification are only prereqs for becoming a teacher because the union wants them to be! Get rid of the absurdly expensive list of requirements (grad school, ceritification) that unions have convinced most states to put on teachers, and you'll solve yet another problem that you supposedly need unions to address. (theyve proven very clever at creating problems that only they can solve, it seems.) And I'm not interested in claims that grad school is necessary for elementary school teachers. It has only become a requirement in most states in the past 10-15 years, and I'll be far from the only one to question if the quality of teaching has seen any improvement in that time.

 

Second, most teacher's ARE people with masters degrees in English or history or political science. To be safe, I guess I should restrict my comments to teachers in NY, Pennsylvania and Virginia, where I know more about the facts, but that's not exactly a narrow sample. My sister's masters is in Psychology. She is a elementary school principle. Her teachers' have degrees that vary from math to evolutionary biology to religion to critical race theory.

 

Are doctors unionized? Was that your point? I was unaware. What's the name of the family physicians' union? I have a complaint I'd like to file about the high prices I've been getting charged. (of course, it is illegal for doctors to unionize. Maybe teachers in Wisc are looking at physicians in horror at their dreadful working conditions?)

 

And, of course, doctors switch professions all the time. They work for pharma, for medical equipment companies, for universities, etc. And they most certainly move from one job to another to improve their compensation packages.

 

But somehow over the last five decades of public employee unions in the state of Wisconsin, Wisconsin has survived just fine, and met its budgets. It could have met them again. What changed now?

Ah, so you're upset because a politician framed the issue in a way that exaggerated a politically popular point? Forgive me if I'm unmoved. Maybe I'm just being too cynical, but isnt that what ALL politicians do?

 

Of course, there are some things that have obviously changed. First, in case you hadnt noticed, state budgets across the country are more stretched than they have been in decades. States need to find new ways to make ends meet. In Indiana, they have implemented new taxes despite the fact that they got along just fine without those taxes for the past five decades. Are you as confused about that? In NY, Cuomo is cutting programs despite the fact that they got along just fine without cutting some of those programs for decades. Wisconsin isnt alone in making big changes to its fiscal situation. Second, one of the biggest drags on a recovering economy is sticky wages. One of the strongest supports for old wage levels is unionization. If Wisconsin was like many other states or most businesses, it wouldve cut pay and personnel during the recession. But it couldnt. So now it is even more burdened by its workforce than it normally is.

 

(this seems a little snarky, even for me. rather than edit it, i ask that you accept my quasi-apology here.)

[We need Tom Tupa]

Tupa, oddly enough Kevin Drum just came up with a better list than mine:

 

"I just finished a short piece for the next issue of the magazine about Republican efforts to push through structural changes that either permanently defund the left or reduce its voting strength. In the past, that included efforts to defund public interest law groups, ongoing battles to degrade the power of private sector unions, promotion of "pack and crack" redistricting that limited the influence of minority voters, and support of tort reform rules that hurt trial lawyers. More recently, it's included their assaults on public sector unions, the defunding of ACORN, and tenacious efforts to pass voter ID laws aimed at making it harder for minorities, the young, and the poor to vote.

 

One question my editors had when I turned in the piece was an obvious one: don't liberals do this too? And if they don't, why not?

 

As near as I can tell, the answer to the first is no, they don't. The closest equivalent would be serious campaign finance reform that reduced the power of rich people and corporations, but there's never really been a ton of support for that among working politicians on the left. What's more, really hardcore campaign finance reform would hit hard at a lot of Democratic donors too, not just Republican ones. Even in the best case, it would probably tilt the playing field only modestly."

Redistricting is absolutely abused by both sides. I wont defend the GOP on it, but the Dems are just as guilty (at least in states where I've lived). I assumed that the ID laws were targeted more at immigrants than the young and poor, but I agree that it's probably driven primarily by a desire to supress Dem votes. I surprisingly dont know much about ACORN at all, and so dont have much to say about it. The rest of the list consists of groups who exist to oppose traditionally conservative policy implementation (public interest law groups), groups who are hurt by a long-standing GOP policy pet (trial lawyers) and groups whose very existence the GOP tends to think hurts the economy (unions).

 

I guess my conclusion would be that a) yes, Republicans spend time and money trying to shrink Dem get-out-the-vote programs, but that b ) that doesnt mean that every attack on a group that solidly votes Dem is motivated by electioneering gimmicks. Most of those groups exist either as a result of Dem policy or in response to GOP policy. In a world where politicians had only the purest of motives, we would expect the GOP to target them again and again and again. The only difference right now is that the GOP thinks it is experiencing a moment of unique power, and so is attacking many of its opponents at once.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Tupa, have you ever noticed that you take all of the evidence or the points that are inconvenient to your arguments and quickly state that they're obvious and then dismiss them and move on? If I say something is nakedly partisan and purely political you say, "Well, of course it is!" as if that exempts the people from being nakedly partisan and purely political, as if being nakedly partisan and purely political is a justifiable thing because we shouldn't be surprised by it.

 

Is it purposeful, or just a tick? (Also, can I use it? I kinda like it.)

 

To take a bit from another thread and reverse it a bit, if I find that union member pension spiking is a real problem and call out union members for doing it and union officials for not policing it, would the proper response be, "Well, of course union members are going to use the available escalators in their contracts to maximize their pension benefits before retirement! What do you expect?" I would think it would be, "No, whether or not the reality of human behavior surprises us, this is not behavior we want to be encouraging."

 

Also, did you really imagine that my point about doctors was that they were unionized? I thought it was pretty clear.

 

More later.

[We need Tom Tupa]

Tupa, have you ever noticed that you take all of the evidence or the points that are inconvenient to your arguments and quickly state that they're obvious and then dismiss them and move on? If I say something is nakedly partisan and purely political you say, "Well, of course it is!" as if that exempts the people from being nakedly partisan and purely political, as if being nakedly partisan and purely political is a justifiable thing because we shouldn't be surprised by it.

 

Is it purposeful, or just a tick? (Also, can I use it? I kinda like it.)

 

To take a bit from another thread and reverse it a bit, if I find that union member pension spiking is a real problem and call out union members for doing it and union officials for not policing it, would the proper response be, "Well, of course union members are going to use the available escalators in their contracts to maximize their pension benefits before retirement! What do you expect?" I would think it would be, "No, whether or not the reality of human behavior surprises us, this is not behavior we want to be encouraging."

 

Also, did you really imagine that my point about doctors was that they were unionized? I thought it was pretty clear.

 

More later.

It is purposeful. Denying evidence that upsets my point is futile and kills my credibility, so instead I narrow my point. In some cases, my point was already more narrow, such as this one. You've painted a pretty broad picture of the GOP doing things for the purpose of weakening Dem voter turnout. I've argued that they are doing things for substantive reasons, and that the voters are affected because of the substantive disagreement. You point out that the politicians are politicking. My response is, "If we dismiss every policy that is accompanied by politicking, then we've dismissed all American public policy. You're treating this like Gov Walker is some unique villain. In reality there are a few things we could talk about: 1) american politicking 2) collective bargaining rights or 3) Gov Walker as a unqiue villain in American politics. I think your focus time and again on the GOP's politicking indicates that you think 3 is a legitimate topic. I completely disagree, and have tried to explain why."

 

No, I didnt think that your point was that doctors were unionized. File my response on that point under "excessively snarky". My point was that doctors deal with the problem you are raising without unionizing, so they don't support any argument claiming that teachers need unions to be treated fairly. The fact that they have things in common with teachers yet thrive without unionization is evidence in my favor.

[heckofajobbrownie]

...But my point really has nothing to do with the unions at all. It was simply to say that most of our best teachers go through years of training in order to be teachers, not to mention the kind of qualified, resourceful, knowledgeable teachers we all say that we want in our schools. Flatly stating that one of their remedies is to leave the profession they just spent years and tuitions getting themselves to the point where they're state qualified is a tad flippant, wouldn't you say? Similar - in kind, not in degree - to suggesting the same thing to doctors.

 

Or perhaps I should say, "Of course they can find a different profession. That's so obvious I shouldn't even have to state it!" and then move on? (Sorry. I just get a little tired of the libertarian impulse to substitute a basic explanation of how markets function in the place of an argument that might involve gray areas and human realities. One of my pet peeves. Honestly, if you took this crutch away from Rand Paul he'd have nothing else to say.)

 

It's also incorrect to say that the push for teacher qualifications comes purely from the unions. It doesn't. It's not even mostly from the unions. I'm sure you've noticed the common political refrain/call for "qualified teachers" and the legislation that's followed. Are you referring to the union's push to reward those qualifications in the pay structure? I can't imagine that you, of all people, are suggesting that teachers take on these additional expenses out of the goodness of their hearts, and that a system that provide incentives to teachers to become more qualified makes no sense, so that can't be it.

 

More later. ...Damn you, man. I'm on a deadline.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'll throw this out there since they're all different.

 

ACORN: This is just politicking. They used the phony specter of massive voter fraud, which doesn't exist, and the proof of individual instances of voter registration fraud, and a bullshit James O'Keefe video to defund an organization that organizes and registers mostly low-income and minority voters. Whether or not the base thinks this is an organization that is robbing America of its future - and they do, even though they'd never heard of it or cared for decades - in DC this was simply about depressing Democratic votes and answering that base.

 

Voter ID laws: Again, fighting a problem that only exists in their heads to suppress voters without a picture ID, almost always poor, elderly, or minority. You've even got multiple bills that wouldn't allow college students to vote. There are few, if any, good policy disputes to be had here. It's simply about depressing Democratic turn out.

 

Cracking and packing: Saying that it's done by both sides is true. Saying that it's done equally by both sides is not.

 

Tort reform: This is mostly a policy dispute. Lowering payments to trial lawyers/Democrats is an ancillary benefit.

 

Private sector unions: I'd say it's 70% policy, 30% political. It's more about Republican fealty to business interests.

 

Public sector unions: I'd say recent examples are more like 70% political, 30% fiscal. There's a clear campaign here to use the economic crisis as a pretext to bust the unions and the political support they provide at the local and national level.

[Mr. T]

Heck' when do you use an ID?

 

Banking?

Applying for Unemployment?

Food Stamps?

Welfare?

Boarding a Plane?

Hell you get a freaking whole body xray on that one.

Buying tobacco products

Buying adult beverages

 

And we can name more. So why not require a ID to be able to vote?

 

You FAIL to make a case on that this is a attack on poor people.

 

It is only a mandate on what should be done to help stop and prevent voter fraud.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This won't matter for T, but for everyone else: the people in America who don't have photo IDs are usually people with disabilities, or poor, young, elderly, or minority. Studies have shown that up to 12% of eligible voters don't have a picture ID.

 

Texas is a fun case. They want picture IDs for all voters ...except those over 70. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why that is?