Wisconsin, who's to blame?

[kiryan]

I wonder how many of you Democrats blame Republicans for the gridlock in Wisconsin. Where 14 Democrat senators have left the state more or less permanently to prevent the Republican majority from passing a particular piece of legislation.

Would we be here if healthcare hadn't passed and pissed off the Republican base?

Would we be here if Democrats had been willing to find compromise with Republicans over the last 2 years instead of shoving through anything and everything they could get 60 votes on?

IT seems like a scant 2 years ago, you were saying you had the right and the mandate to do whatever you wanted. Now we have Democrat senators refusing to show up even though Republicans won overwhelming majority in all 3 branches.

Will you condemn these Democrats or find some way to justify their conduct?

[Kifle]

When you start realizing politicians are politicians regardless of party, you'll stop personalizing talking points and shanannigans and realize that they all fuck you in some way. Republicans do the same shit. Democrats are horrible; Republicans are horrible. Vote third party or stop complaining.

[Corth]

Elections have consequences.

[Kifle]

Unfortunately, those consequences vary little in general outcome.

[Teflor Lyorian]

http://abcnews.go.com/News/tea-party-de ... d=12956342

Union corruption reaches beyond the unions. Doctors offer to lie in support of teachers. Whatever happened to principle?

An air traffic controller during the PATCO strikes asked "how can I ask my children to follow the law if I don't?" How can we expect our licensed professionals to be truthful when they openly lie?

[Corth]

The doctor thing rubbed me the wrong way too. Writing fraudulent notes indicating illness is unethical and should be brought up with their licensing authority.

[kiryan]

Kifle... How is the party that is cutting government across the board, screwing me? Its the party that grows government and makes me more dependnt on government that screws me.

Yes GOP created homeland security... and while they're on point today, yes they will probably start screwing me again in 2012. However, maybe you forget obamacare and the EPA ruling breathing emits a "dangerous" gas and Obama shut down offshore drilling and support for the unions... do I really need to go on?

Oh and I'm especially getting screwed every time I pay my property taxes that fund the teachers union. Our kids are taught less and are in school less even though we keep paying teachers more.

--

There were many doctors from the articles I read and that is ridiculous

I agree, those doctors should be prosecuted for fraud and face their licensing boards. Since they didn't have an existing relationship and probably did not pay for visits, I think they could be facing serious legal issues without any/many of the protections/insurances that come into play when you actually see a patient.

I also think the teachers who called in sick for 3 or 4 or 5 days straight should be investigated and any one caught lieing or turning in a fraudulent doctor note should be fired as soon as the union contract ends in 30 days (couldn't fire them before that because of the red tape in the contract). It was an illegal strike. they can't even follow their own rules.

[Kifle]

Kifle... How is the party that is cutting government across the board, screwing me? Its the party that grows government and makes me more dependnt on government that screws me.

Yes GOP created homeland security... and while they're on point today, yes they will probably start screwing me again in 2012. However, maybe you forget obamacare and the EPA ruling breathing emits a "dangerous" gas and Obama shut down offshore drilling and support for the unions... do I really need to go on?

Oh and I'm especially getting screwed every time I pay my property taxes that fund the teachers union. Our kids are taught less and are in school less even though we keep paying teachers more.

How have they not? Whether it is direct or indirect, government will always screw the commoner in some way shape or form. All of them take money from the government for projects in their own state which are not necessary -- they need to get reelected. Obama isn't pursuing legal action against CEOs, CFOs, COOs, etc, of financial institutions which destroyed our economy, but bush really didn't pursue Enron and Worldcom either. That screwed us. Honestly, I'm a bit tired and in between some accounting work right now (which I can't stand), so this isn't very thought out, and probably should wait till later to give a decent reply, but, I honestly think my statement should be self-explanatory given the reality of American politics.

Here's something to think about, though. Whether or not a program is good or bad when began is not really in question, for the most part. What should be questioned is whether or not it could lead to negative outcomes if the program(s) is going to lead to negative outcomes if stopped. You talk about the public education system. Will cutting teacher salaries (federal funding) provide them with more incentive to teach the children better? If the greedy teachers quit, do you think good teachers will gravitate towards the career path in a floundering economy, inflation, etc. when they have the talents and intelligence to make a good living in something a bit less suitable to their desires? I wanted to be a teacher at some point because I can teach and I'm intelligent; however, in a shrinking job market, with respect to teachers specifically, I went a different route. Whether you agree with my politics or not, I would be one badass English teacher, but the market has lost out due to how the profession is perceived and how sketchy the prospects are. I, like the majority of people, are not so benevolent as to live in poverty while I have the talents to give my family a good life. So, will cutting teachers' salaries be good or bad -- regardless of whether or not the system is bad at the moment? You know what a better idea is? Make becoming a teacher as difficult as becoming a lawyer, raise their salaries to a decent base, and make tenure extremely hard to get -- based off of what is taught, how it is taught, peer reviews, college acceptance percentage, and a host of other quantifiable statistics. Fix the system instead of crippling it further.

So, yes, the government that wants to slash spending could be even worse than the one that wants to raise it. It all depends on how you look at the problem. I'm not guilty of tunnel vision with respect to most issues, and government spending is most definitely one of them. Government spending is not an issue, efficient government spending is. Cutting spending for the sake of cutting spending is just as wrong as raising spending for the sake of raising spending. Think of it as a household issue. Should I simply lower my gas spending at home by cutting my budget, leaving me stuck at home the last 5 days of the month, or should I choose to increase my income through driving more efficiently (working more), keeping the percentage the same, or even raising it a bit with relation to my budget in general, while at the same time as raising my budget through increased income? I think the latter would be more beneficial in the long run. The idea would be, don't cut teacher salaries, spend those salaries more efficiently while at the same time as boosting our education system in such a way that it produces harder, smarter workers in the future. All that cutting spending will do is give us a short-term decrease in taxes while producing less functional "graduates" from a system that is broken -- providing the lucky ones who are able to teach themselves a world in which they must provide more for those that the system failed.

[kiryan]

well my position if the GOP spends less, it screws me less than if democrats spend more. now if they change their platform to spend the same amount, just spend it all on guns, then I'll consider supporting Dems.

as far as your teaching and salary and all that stuff... According to rush according to some stats, teachers make 86k in salary and benefits (and I don't think that really accounts for the fact they have a defined benefit plan rather than defined contribution) and the private sector worker has like 55k. Sorry, even with these changes they'll be well compensated.

As far as your suggestion taht we make the certification process really hard... that would be great if there is only one way to practice law... and we could earn a return on our investment of higher salaries. Being highly certified does not mean you are highly effective. This happens all the time in the tech field, guy with 30 years experience is a genius, guy with 30 certifications is bad for your company. If we can't get a return on our investment, we can't just pour money into salaries for teachers because its some sort of noble good... its unsustainable even if it is the "right" thing to do.

Also, if unions would let us make getting tenure really hard, we may not be facing the sitaution we are in Wisconsin. Many people want teachers to be paid well and could accept that, not many buy the argument that we should accept protecting bad teachers.

This is not about pay, its being sold as pay, but its about union power.

and lastly, teachers are not the problem in education. parents are. if i don't care that my child can't read, don't care if they do their homework... what can you do with teh hour a day you see them?

[kiryan]

=== news flash ===

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/116591808.html

This is hillarious. So you know how the 14 Democrats left Wisconsin to prevent a vote on the bill because they have to have a quorum? and are committed to staying out of Wisconsin until the governor agrees to something?

Apparently, the quorum rule is only for bills that spend money. The governor can strip out the money parts of the bill that the unions hate WITH OR WITHOUT the democrats. They just can't pass the portion taht actually deals with the budget deficit.

So what exactly are the Democrats accomplishing? Governor walker has declared they will be moving on legislative busienss on Tuesday with or without Democrats.

[Kifle]

Spending less is not always less disastrous as spending more. Like my analogy of planned parenthood in the other thread. But cutting funding for such a program, you could easily turn a $50 bill funded by the government into a $5000 bill being paid by the people. By spending less, people pay more. Another instance would be lowering taxes. You lower the taxes, that cuts funding for something like roads. Ok, so we spend $1 less in taxes a day than usual. That's $365 a year. A set of tires on my car runs over $400 for mediocre tires. To replace the original tires, I would be spending $900 for a set. Now, what if the roads get bad, like in Ohio or Louisiana, and for the year I had to realign twice, replace my front left ball joint, and replace two tires? You can see how the bills rack up. And that's assuming that I would be paying $1 less per day? The reality is is that I'd probably be spending $0.10 less a day. You just lost more money by cutting taxes.

Suppose we cut funding to government subsidized industries. Sure, I pay less in taxes, but now I'm paying more for the product. You're just shifting the way we pay, not how much -- and if you do the latter, you'll most likely find you're paying more. So, sure, we will have less taxes, but you're going to artificially inflate the dollar while adding extra expenses to your yearly budget.

Cutting taxes != more disposable income or even spending your income how you want. I don't want to replace the ball joint on my car. I'm now forced to replace it because we've cut taxes. So, by cutting taxes, the government is forcing me to spend money on things I'd rather not. What if I would have rather had better roads instead of the choice to buy a ball joint or not drive to work?

[kiryan]

I think the free market finds a cheaper solution than government. Government breeds bureaucracy and results in higher prices over all whether via excess regulation, delays or simply higher than market wages for unionized employees.

In your pothole example you say its more expensive to replace your ball joint. More likely you'd change your driving habits and better ball joints would be developed. thats assuming that the market doesn't come up with a market solution to maintain roads. As long as government is going to pay 35 bucks an hour to a 6 low skill union worker's to watch one person work... to maintain roads, the cost will never go down.

We don't have to rely on government to provide everything.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Here's an interesting study of compensation for Wisconsin workers: Are Wisconsin Private Sector Employees Overcompensated?

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

A few things to keep in mind:

1) Much of the analysis is done purely by educational attainment - this can wash out some of the higher educational attainment statuses, especially when it relates to non-monetary compensation of executives, bonuses, profit sharing, and etc. in the private sector. For example, a CEO of a corporation that owns 1.4% of outstanding shares can have an individual 'compensation' totaling in the millions - easily washing out the difference between himself and 100 public employees in the highest educational attainment level.

2) Staffing differences between private and public sectors can be very large. For example: a state plow operator really only works some 30 days out of the year. A teacher has 3 months off a year. County councilmen and other elected officials barely have to work at all and their reduced pay reflects what is expected of them.

3) Job security in public sector jobs is generally much higher than in the private sector.

4) Average figures are typically right-leaning in economic transactions. Median figures would tell a more truthful, applicable story.

5) Finally, notice how the definition of "full time employee" is stretched to include anyone working more than 1,100 hours a year. A typical 9 to 5 will rack up 2,080 hours per year. This number has definitely been stretched by the author to allow the data to show more favorably for his conclusion.

[Kifle]

I think the free market finds a cheaper solution than government. Government breeds bureaucracy and results in higher prices over all whether via excess regulation, delays or simply higher than market wages for unionized employees.

In your pothole example you say its more expensive to replace your ball joint. More likely you'd change your driving habits and better ball joints would be developed. thats assuming that the market doesn't come up with a market solution to maintain roads. As long as government is going to pay 35 bucks an hour to a 6 low skill union worker's to watch one person work... to maintain roads, the cost will never go down.

We don't have to rely on government to provide everything.

If people are paying money to replace ball joints, what exactly gives companies the incentive to create longer lasting ones? It would be counterproductive to their ends (profit) to create a product that lasts longer.

Again, as it has become my mantra as of late, because the government spends 35/hr on 6 people to do a 2 person job does not mean that the program should be removed -- it simply means that there are problems in the program. Streamline the workload and fire 4 people. If the conservative base would work towards cleaning these programs up through efficiency testing rather than screaming for the whole thing to be removed, we'd get to a better place much faster. And I guarantee that state run roads, with an efficient workforce, would be cheaper on my wallet in the long run than simply cutting the funds. Cutting the funding will only lower the amount of work teams, but the teams will still be 6 guys watching 1 work. In which case you still have 5 salaries being wasted, and the roads becoming even worse. You don't solve anything. Cutting taxes is smoke and mirrors. Cutting taxes in conjunction with program overhaul aimed at efficient spending is the cure. Push for this and you will get real change. Push for simply cutting taxes and you will open the country up to even more problems and political turmoil.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Kifle, I don't believe you are as naive as to believe that no one is pushing for efficient spending along with tax cuts. The previous administration laid out the groundwork in determining how performance would be measured in the Federal government and what programs were perforing or not: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/

However, the current administration seems to have abandoned any measure of trying to hold governent accountable.

[kiryan]

So... let me get this straight.

Government is inefficient and cutting their budgets will not make them become more efficient... and because of this, we must continue to reform government instead of cutting.

Nope, this is how it works, when you don't have money, you cut your budget. When you have a process that is unsustainable, you make it leaner. If you have a process that costs too much, you reduce money and it gets lean or you go away. Every private business knows this. If government can't become more efficient when its given money, can't become more efficient when you take money away, then how will a bunch of politicians in washington fix it? programs that are inefficient and don't work need to be bled until they get efficient or go away.

[Sarvis]

So... let me get this straight.

Government is inefficient and cutting their budgets will not make them become more efficient... and because of this, we must continue to reform government instead of cutting.

So by "get this straight" you meant "miss key points and decide on the worst possible interpretation?"


Not saying he's right or wrong, but his view is: Cutting funds will not force departments to be more efficient, they will just do less work in the same inefficient manner.

[kiryan]

that sounds like exactly what I thought he said.

If it couldn't reform itself when it had more money... and it can't reform itself with less money... then it can't be reformed.

if a department can't reform itself, then it needs to go away.

like unions.

[Sarvis]

If it couldn't reform itself when it had more money... and it can't reform itself with less money... then it can't be reformed.

Oh, well... as long as you used "logic." :roll:

[kiryan]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... sin-claim/

● Walker said Democrats were being hypocritical by fleeing the state to deny Republicans a quorum on the budget bill. "These are many of the same senators who, two years ago, rammed through a billion-dollar tax hike in 24 hours with no public input," Walker declared. We rated that True.

==The claim that the budget crisis isn't real or that tax cuts caused it.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011 ... et-crisis/

Opponents of Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker say that the governor is ginning up a phony deficit crisis. Opponents say Wisconsin is in surplus, not in deficit. They also say corporate tax cuts caused the deficit. Wrong on all counts.

== they are relying one on paragraph of a nonpartsian review that says they have about 125 million in the bank and 60 million net.... but it ignores a few footnotes that indicate an additional 487 million that is owed...

And the claim that Gov. Walker's corporate tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the deficit is wrong, too, because the cuts have not taken effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

These cuts do not take effect until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013.

== I'm not sure... obviously if you have tax cuts going into affect, that affects the future deficit. Obviously tax cuts didn't cause today's problem, but if the plan was that the revenue from 2011-2013 was going to plug the hole created over the past couple years... I think you can make a case that he "caused" it with his tax cuts.

Like other states, Wisconsin has relied on federal aid. Wisconsin’s state pension has projected rosy stock market returns, which led it to in turn set aside less money in those funds, because heck the market will take care of it.

Many states did likewise, betting on average 8% to 10% annual returns. That budget hole, among others, has led to the states to act like the tin can on the just married car always clamoring after federal money.

[kiryan]

http://www.theawl.com/2011/02/burning-d ... on-busting

long series of articles against walker's moves... has some new revelations that I hadn't heard before about a war on the poor (cutting services) and walker apparently is asking for a bunch of powers for the health services department... which they rightfully make the following argument.

==So in short: Walker's administrative rules change would allow the Department of Health Services, via the overwhelmingly GOP-controlled budget committee, to change state laws unilaterally, skipping the legislative process altogether. In terms Vicki McKenna can understand, this means Walker's bill will allow the governor to subvert the legislative process and make his own laws without going through the tiresome and long American tradition of lawmaking. But wait, there's more!

now, explain to me how that is different than what Obama did. You guys started a war. hope you're ready.

[kiryan]

This article is interesting. It makes the case that you can infer how "good" a job is (and its compensation) by the rate at which employees quit. The best rates in industry are twice as high as the public sector.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/ ... ally-make/

[Corth]

That is an excellent way to determine the relative quality of a job. And like pretty much all the other data points, it shows what a great deal the public employees get at the expense of everyone else.

[kiryan]

I don't think I whole heartedly agree, just slightly agree...

teaching profession attracts different type of person than say being a bail bonds man. I don't see a very legitimate comparison to compare rates of quitting as a call center employee to those who quit working as a teacher. Maybe the job of teaching the future is just more fulfilling than that of working with the failures of society...

but then again if you were compensated well enough, you'd probably find a way to like your job.

[Corth]

There are a LOT of factors that people use to consider their employment satisfaction. Compensation is an important factor. Proximity to home (commute) is another. Having the opportunity to do something that you feel is worthwhile is also very important. Ultimately, people weigh these many factors and every single day decide whether or not to go to work. So again, I reiterate, that the 'quit rate' is one of the best ways to measure the relative quality of one job over another.

Argument against my hypothesis:

There is more room for lateral advancement in the private sector, whereas in government you typically must rise within that one entity. Thus, comparing government to private sector jobs using 'quit rate' analysis is basically comparing apples and oranges.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Solution seems to be to allow more lateral advancement within the public sector.

[Corth]

not sure how that can reasonably be accomplished unless we allow multiple governments to compete with each other.

(just kidding, Sarvis). :)

[Teflor Lyorian]

not sure how that can reasonably be accomplished unless we allow multiple governments to compete with each other.

(just kidding, Sarvis). :)

We actually do, assuming relocation is an option to work. Also, if we forced agencies and departments of the governments to adopt more similar positions and structures, public employees could compete to work in better offices.

[kiryan]

One should also consider that most if not all states have a provision where public service years of seniority are transferrable.

For example, if you serve in the military... you are considered to have those years if hired by a federal agency (for terms of seniority, vacation time and pensions etc).... I believe states also generally recognize these years as well. There are lots of these types of agreements that help workers monetize years of service.

There is an interesting situation in California. A public water utility has a reciprocal recognition of benefits and seniority with a private water company.. Workers would work at the public utility for 25 years then get a higher paying job at the private utility for the last few years... then retire. The direction of movement was like 97% from public to private.

[Teflor Lyorian]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05940.html

By removing all language that could make the bill be construed as a budget bill, the measure passes without the Democrats present, stripping public unions of many negotiation rights previously granted to them by state law.

Underperforming teachers, foul tempered plow operators, and those public sector employees that have credit card bills too high to afford to pay for 14% of their own healthcare, shudder in fear.


Frankly, I can't believe they pulled it off. Or that they don't seem to want to reelect Republicans next election.

[kiryan]

If the recall efforts go ahead, I'll be opening up my wallet for the first time ever for a political party.

I may even take time off work to go help them stop the recall efforts.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Some days it seems like true political courage is to stand up to powerful abusers and do what is both necessary and unpopular.

It turns out Americans seem to like to elect political cowards.

It's also, however, disturbing that we've taken away rights from the people.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

I didn't know blackmail was legal in Wisconsin. Interesting. Check this letter out, sent to a contributor of the Governor:

March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Mr. Ellis:

As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a "budget adjustment bill" to eviscerate public employees' right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin. ..

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker's efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.

Wisconsin's public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840.


Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon.


James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association

Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Professional Fire Fighters

Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311

John Matthews, Execuctive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.

Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association

Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association

Dan Frei, Prersident
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

[Teflor Lyorian]

Technically, blackmail is the threat to reveal information. Extortion is closer, however, they are (probably) not threatening Mr. Ellis with any illegal actions (if the company employs any unions). In most states, secondary boycotts or pickets are illegal (against the suppliers or customers of the employer).

So this type of distasteful 'behavior' is actually par for the course when it comes to labor unions.

[kiryan]

Yep what teflor said, just more of the "democracy" that the left likes to practice.

[Kifle]

Yep what teflor said, just more of the "democracy" that the left likes to practice.

Don't be stupid, Kiryan. Republicans and conservatives do the same shit. It's called politics. If you're a politician, you do this same crap on a daily basis.

[kiryan]

Kifle, show me the conservative version of what happened in Wisconsin.

4 weeks of camping out, busting windows, 7.5 million in damage, dozens of people dragged out for refusing to obey the police, blocking hallways, shouting down in session legislature, 14 democrat senators literally leaving the state in a symbolic gesture.

show it to me. this is how Demcorat's enforce democracy; its thuggish and you damn well know that. Look up the history of union strikes if you have ANY doubt.

[Teflor Lyorian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

not equivalent, but this is probably the closest you will get.

[kiryan]

Not comparable at all... they wanted to be left alone, the Unions and the left want to be in your face and force you to accept their demands.

[kiryan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... consin-usa

Interesting article, leftist slant. GOP and walker are terrible, thats a given. To make it worse, they are selling out all the public wealth to private individuals. The baseic premise is all wealth is either transferred via war or via corruption and its corruption in this case.

another little pot shot I want to take... how do you blame the GOP for what is happening in WI when they were just elected. WI has had democrat majorities forever... the tax break that the media is blaming for the deficit... either just went into effect or hasn't even begun yet. Is this the next evolution of blame bush strategy? Blame GOP for shit that happened while Democrats were in control?

[kiryan]

Interesting sarcastic left article. Literally, school teachers are to blame.

"Public schoolteachers have failed miserably by producing the most incompetent, mean-spirited legislators in U.S. history."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-tur ... 35174.html

The time honored tradition of name calling is still alive in Democrat's democracy. SO much for your calls for toning down the rhetoric.

[kiryan]

I didn't know where to put this. But basically its a freedom of information request, the AP and Demcorats requested ALL of Governor Walker's emails.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 37693.html

AP and Isthmus, a weekly Madison newspaper, both filed open record requests with Walker's office on Feb. 18 seeking the 8,000 messages the governor referenced at his news conference. The AP amended the request a week later, seeking all e-mails Walker had received through that day.

After receiving no response from the governor's office, the AP and Isthmus filed a joint lawsuit on March 4 seeking the e-mails. A settlement reached March 16 called for Walker to release the messages and pay the organizations' attorney fees, which came to $7,000.

== that is fracking bullshit and really pisses me off. Why should the state pay $7,000 in attorney fees because they didn't get their emails instantly. bullshit.

[amena wolfsnarl]

2 weeks with no response isnt exactly a short period of time.

[Teflor Lyorian]

And the governor isn't exactly sitting on his hands lately.

[Teflor Lyorian]

I'm just going to come right out and say it. If state government is going to be the state's biggest employer, the employees need to have the right to strike.

Which is really just saying: shrink that government.

[kiryan]

2 weeks with no response isnt exactly a short period of time.

maybe you should tell that to Obama who instituted a new administration centered political review before final fulfillment of any FOIA requests... That has added weeks to months to the process.

[kiryan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/ ... 9646.shtml

MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin Democrats managed to take one Assembly seat from Republicans in a low-key special election where the GOP held two other contested seats.

== GOP lost 46 to 54, thats a pretty good margin although its unclear what the normal district voting pattern is, sill the seat was vacated by a GOP so it had to be at least 51/49 for a net swing of 10%.

Despite losing the District 94 seat, Republicans managed to increase their majority in the state Assembly Tuesday night.

== not sure how that works, maybe their effective majority since there wasn't anyone occupying these 3 seats? at least it wasn't a blow out, Wisconsin GOP may weather this with only a few battle scars reaffirming the "silent conservative majority"

[Teflor Lyorian]

Smash Capitalism! Join the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, the largest healthcare, property services, and public services union.)


Look no further, for you will find no America here.