March 10, 2011

"Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin."

Scott Walker has an op-ed in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal.

56 comments:

Dale said...

The first 2 paragraphs in Walker's editorial explain everything. There is nothing more that any citizen really needs to know or explain.

Now, if the people of Wisconsin can't get that, then the whole country is in the worst shape in it's entire history.

You can't fix stupid.

former law student said...

Amazing how Walker finesses the whole issue of layoffs, as if they were inevitable. If the junk mortgage crisis means less property tax revenue, why not spread the pain around via pay cuts?

former law student said...

The first 2 paragraphs in Walker's editorial explain everything. There is nothing more that any citizen really needs to know or explain.

I hope there's more to it than that, because the first two paragraphs are slanted and self-serving. Is that all there is to Walker?

Alex said...

fls - so there is no budget crisis right? It's all just manufactured bullshit by Koch brothers?

edward said...

The pay cuts are to the union operatives who have nothing to do with teaching...... but FLS is such the intellectual heavy-weight he'll argue that the union has a "right" confiscate pay from the teachers.

BTW as one who taught in Wisconsin can I have my forcibly extracted union dues back?

Fen said...

No, I hear Haliburton is involved too.

And Mothership Rove, currently hiding behind the moon.

Soon we will rule The Tri-State area!!!!!

former law student said...

so there is no budget crisis right?

Rahm Emanuel showed Scott Walker the way:

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So, budget crisis time: strip power from the unions. Easy-peasy.

kent said...

"It's all just manufactured bullshit by Koch brothers?"

"No, I hear Haliburton is involved too. And Mothership Rove, currently hiding behind the moon."

"... and SARAH PALINNNNNNNNN -- !!!"
/sullivan

former law student said...

FLS is such the intellectual heavy-weight he'll argue that the union has a "right" confiscate pay from the teachers.

For years, agent Scott Boras got a percentage of A-Rod's pay. And Edward would wonder why -- after all Boras never swung a bat.

Sloanasaurus said...

I am looking forward to donating money to help defend the Republican Senators against recall. It will be a battle royale, but I cannot think of a bigger defeat for the left in the past few years than this defeat in Wisconsin. These senators deserve national support.

Fen said...

FLS Rahm Emanuel showed Scott Walker the way:

No. It was James Madison.

SPImmortal said...

Rahm Emanuel showed Scott Walker the way:

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So, budget crisis time: strip power from the unions. Easy-peasy.

---------

I like the fact that you had to go to jugears former chief of staff to find a totally cynical will to power quote.

If you were even capable of any kind of critical examination of your beliefs that quote might give you pause concerning what your side is up to.

What is up with the lefties lately on this blog? Their arguements are so totally flaccid and easily shot down. They've just been reduced to "My side, right or wrong" and transparently phoney moral sanctimony that they usually contradict a couple of posts later. I guess that's all that's left.

Sofa King said...

If the junk mortgage crisis means less property tax revenue, why not spread the pain around via pay cuts?

Are you dense? This is what Walker WANTS to do. But collective bargaining rules of nearly all the unions require layoffs over compensation cuts. That's what this whole fight was about: the ability of county and municipal governments to cut compensation so that they wouldn't have to lay anybody off. It's the *unions* that want the layoffs. Seriously, have you been living in a hole?

Seven Machos said...

FLS -- So Alex Rodriguez was forced by law to pay Scott Boras to represent him even though he wanted nothing to do with Scott Boars?

Terrible analogy. Just sad. Try again, dude.

Untied Shoe said...

Maybe he should have consulted Megan Sampson before using her for his argument. Here she is on Unions: http://reflectionsofanenglishteacher.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/drama/

former law student said...

even though he wanted nothing to do with Scott Boars

Terrible analogy. Just sad. Try again, dude.

Seven Machos said...

Those who resort to semantics have lost the argument. Those who resort to typos have been killed and cut into little pieces and fed to the blue gill in the pond out back.

former law student said...

Dude: why would you believe that teachers don't support their union? Something escaped you about the nonstop protest of the governor stripping their union of most collective bargaining rights?

Alex said...

fls - I couldn't give a flying fuck about whether the scumbags support their union or not. They are scum of the earth and the day of reckoning if upon them. The Day of Judgement has arrived! May the layoffs be swift and sure!

Revenant said...

Nice article.

Revenant said...

If the junk mortgage crisis means less property tax revenue, why not spread the pain around via pay cuts?

Because when you ask a union if they'd rather take across the board pay cuts or just fire the junior members of the union, they always opt to fire the junior members of the union.

It isn't just the unions, of course. In the private sector, given a choice between a 10% pay cut and 10% layoffs, people prefer the layoffs. The reason being, it doesn't affect most of them.

Seven Machos said...

why would you believe that teachers don't support their union? Something escaped you about the nonstop protest of the governor stripping their union of most collective bargaining rights?

Was every teacher protesting? No? Then it's stupid to suggest that the some who were there represent the all who were not there. Further, if every teacher and state employee supports the union, what's the big deal about allowing the option not to pay union dues? There isn't a big deal.

You disappoint me today, greatly. Not your views, but just the piss-poorness of the argument. I think it's because you don't have an argument other than you want to use the power of the state to support unions.

SukieTawdry said...

Untied Shoe said...Maybe he should have consulted Megan Sampson before using her for his argument.

Why? He was merely recounting what happened to a young, promising teacher due to her union's intractable rules in order to illustrate how destructive those rules can be. He didn't "use" her nor does he require her permission to tell the story.

Whether Ms. Sampson is pro- or anti-union is irrelevant, because it's not about her (and at the time, she was understandably miffed that the union would not make even minor concessions to avoid lay-offs). It's about being able to get the best possible teachers into the classrooms and keep them there.

Michael Ginda said...

Because when you ask a union if they'd rather take across the board pay cuts or just fire the junior members of the union, they always opt to fire the junior members of the union.

BS. I'm from West Lafayette, IN, and out local teachers union where I lived agreed to pay freezes for two years to avoid major lay offs. Our community also raised funds to save our teachers jobs until we could pass a referendum to increase our taxes to bridge state budget cuts! Unions are not the devil.

Steve Koch said...

The problem is with governmental unions. They are profoundly undemocratic.

Why should workers have to join a union to get a government job?

Why should workers' pay be confiscated by the state to pay union dues?

Why should workers be forced to contribute to the Democrat party?

Why should Republicans taxes be used to subsidize the Democrat party?

Why is it OK for unions to corrupt government and use it against Republicans and for Democrats?

How is it not corrupt for Democrat politicians to pay off unions with much better than market wages and benefits, knowing that the union will turn around and contribute to the Dem politicians to get them reelected?

Why is it OK for government unions to bankrupt our governments and force taxes to be raised?

Why should most government jobs be given to Democrats?

How corrupt is it that teachers unions have relentlessly blocked educational vouchers so that they won't have market competition and will not reduce the political power of the Democrats and teachers unions?

How could it be acceptable that our unionized elementary, middles school, and high school teachers are lefty propagandists with nearly unlimited access and power over our children?

Government unions are wrong and we will continue to vigorously fight them.

edward said...

FLS,
I was a teacher in Wisconsin and as a conservative I objected to having part of my pay confiscated by the union that I did not ask for, who used my stolen pay for political purposes that I did not support.

What in that is beyond the intellectual comprehension of a lefty? BTW a baseball player and his chosen agent? You really think those are comparable to the union I did not want stealing part of my pay?

Thick as a brick.... scheeesh

Revenant said...

I'm from West Lafayette, IN, and out local teachers union where I lived agreed to pay freezes for two years to avoid major lay offs.

That's nice, but we're discussing pay cuts, not pay freezes.

Oh, and hey, how about that -- looks like West Lafayette sacked 115 teachers just last year. Did the teachers take pay cuts to help reduce the number of layoffs? They absolutely did not.

Oh, and guess how they decided which ones to keep and which ones to let go:

Superintendent Scott Hanback said it was the hardest recommendation he has ever made to the board. "This has nothing to do with them personally," he said after Wednesday night's meeting. "This is strictly based on the seniority and certification that is in public law 217, which is our collective bargaining law.

That's right -- they didn't keep the good teachers and get rid of the bad ones. They didn't keep the cost-effective teachers and get rid of the expensive ones. They kept the old ones and sacked the young ones. They even used the older teachers to backfill positions vacated by the newly-sacked younger teachers. In fact:

the district has had to lay off more teachers than anticipated, due to the seniority and certification of teachers

... *because* they were laying off the younger, lower-paid teachers instead of highly-paid senior teachers, they had to lay off even more people than they would have otherwise. But hey, those senior teachers magnanimously agreed not to demand raises the next year. I'm sure their former coworkers on the unemployment line appreciated the sacrifice.

Summary: I'm right, you're wrong. Don't call someone else's argument bullshit until you've taken a little time to check your facts.

William T. Sherman said...

Two fearless predictions:

1) Ten years from now this will be considered a common sense victory for the American taxpayer.

2) Ten years from now Democrats will be claiming that it was their idea all along.

edutcher said...

Nice piece, although he could have tossed in something about the Demos trying to circumvent the will of electorate.

Fen said...

No, I hear Haliburton is involved too.

And Mothership Rove, currently hiding behind the moon.


Rove, you magnificent bastard.

(hey, somebody should say it)

former law student said...

Dude: why would you believe that teachers don't support their union?

Integrity?

SPImmortal said...

What is up with the lefties lately on this blog? Their arguements are so totally flaccid and easily shot down.

Mass suicide is never pretty.

WV "influ" The state of Meadhouse a week ago.

dick said...

He really gets a lot of support in the comments to that article. Good for Gov Walker.

AllenS said...

Michael Ginda,

Before you start calling commenters on this blog bullshitters, you may want to try and use Google with words like this:

West Lafayette, IN teacher layoffs

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@flaccid law student

"Dude: why would you believe that teachers don't support their union? Something escaped you about the nonstop protest of the governor stripping their union of most collective bargaining rights?"

What was it you learned in law school?

There is no such thing as collective bargaining RIGHTS.

In addition, what the hell is so gosh darned great about collective bargaining?

As I stated in another thread yesterday, if I allowed my salary to be subject to collective bargaining, I'd for sure be leaving a lot of money on the the table.

'Collective bargaining' is for 'workers', that is, the supplicant union chumps that work harder at trying to get a free lunch, more than anything.

There, I said it. Deal with it.

Shanna said...

Whether Ms. Sampson is pro- or anti-union is irrelevant, because it's not about her (and at the time, she was understandably miffed that the union would not make even minor concessions to avoid lay-offs). It's about being able to get the best possible teachers into the classrooms and keep them there.

Indeed. If we cared about what is best for the children then we wouldn't want to cut good teachers.

Henry said...

William T Sherman wrote: 2) Ten years from now Democrats will be claiming that it was their idea all along.

Of course they'll also insist that the current Republicans are evil, not like that paragon of common sense, Scott Walker.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Meanwhile, somehwere in Illinois...

LOL!


wv: subdumed - What happened to the Democrats.

chickelit said...

@FSH:

People by and large detest monopolies. Public workers have a monopoly and to top it off many perceive them as inflexible and unaccountable.

We all value good teachers. The sad sad, thing is that their unions could have headed this whole thing off by publicly saying something last year like: "We have collectively decided that it would be in our best interest to not seek higher benefits and wages and in fact to pay more of our collective fair share for the time being until this fiscal crisis abates. Individual merit is exempt from this collective decision."

This probably would have earned them kudos and would have led to higher rewards down the road. But instead the Union leaders were taking cues from potus.

wv = sowell (as in Thomas)

prairie wind said...

Indeed. If we cared about what is best for the children then we wouldn't want to cut good teachers.

For the children? Never mind about the debt we're loading on our children. Look over there! Much to my disappointment, Michelle and Barack do not tell children to "punch back twice as hard." That would have been totally funny.

Tim Wright said...

Walker's article in the WSJ is good. But how much is he explaining things to the voters in Wisc? I'm outside the state but I get the feeling he's relying on voters to figure stuff out on their own. If that's the case, he needs to wake up and what amounts to a new election campaign -- simply thinking he's a competent manager and doing his job isn't going to be enough. Tim Wright

kcom said...

"Of course they'll also insist that the current Republicans are evil, not like that paragon of common sense, Scott Walker."

I still find it jaw-droppingly amazing that today's Democrats are trying to pull that crap regarding Ronald Reagan. They treated Reagan like dirt his entire presidency and now they pretend like they respected and admired him all along. I guess they are trying to fool people under 40, because anyone older than that knows it's a stinking pile of poppycock.

Paddy O said...

"why not spread the pain around via pay cuts?"

Indeed.

What gets cut? Not the union bosses salaries. Not administrators. Not politicians. What gets cut are services for people who don't have a voice. And sometimes this includes actual workers like teachers, who get cut when schools have to shut down. But the union bosses and their politicians are fine with other people making sacrifices for their cause. They're always fine if they have to sacrifice the livelihood of the people for the sake of their privilege and power.

It happens all over the country, not least of all here in California, where I know of major medical facilities shutting down, recently built juvenile halls shut down, and with them all the staff (including medical staff, teachers, guards, etc.) being let go, or shoved off to significantly less hours of employment and thus less paychecks. This is what happens when a union is representing both workers and managers, as it does in these situations. Those in charge get their loot, while those unions were formed to protect get the boot.

The message from these protests are "take the money from the poor, we are keeping our privileges."

Paddy O said...

"Oh, and guess how they decided which ones to keep and which ones to let go"

Revenant, exactly!

The left on this issue is depending on people not to confront the core falsehood at the root of their narrative. They assume Democrats are on the side of the poor, and make this about the poor.

This cannot be allowed, because it is an absolute falsehood. They hate the poor, because they are willing to take their privilege at the cost of services and help for the poor and the young. These unions, now, are set up to protect their elite. It's not about workers, it's about power and privilege for those who already have it.

Unions, when they started, were good and necessary to corruptions taking place. Now, so many are the corruptions taking place.

roesch-voltaire said...

If most workers would love a deal like Wisconsin State employees then why doesn't Walker work to help them get that, instead of lowing everybody to a level where folks are only living month to month? Because as more folks are realizing this is an attack against the middle class, not a left or right issue. Already this morning 200,000 Wisconsin folks have signed up stating they are ready and willing to work for his recall.

sims said...

Tim Wright at 8:21am,
Gov. Walker has held many press conferences, which have been carried on TV and radio stations across the state. His points have been made in the newspaper as well. He has done a good job of laying out his position and has been unbelievably patient. Some radio and TV stations have not played his press conferences and there is nothing the Gov can do about that. Remember, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason their way into.
Unions are terrified of losing their power and have been ginning up the fear for state workers and teachers. Fear of loss is greater than the desire for gain. That fear is leading some to violence.

sims said...

Tim Wright at 8:21am,
Gov. Walker has given many press conferences over the last three weeks. He has been incredibly patient and positive. He has talked about how much we value our state/public workers and our teachers. He has explained over and over again that WI needs to get its' fiscal house in order. He has explained why we need to abolish collective bargaining on benefits. Examples have been in the paper.
It isn't possible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themself into. Unions are ratcheting up the fear for their members because it is unions themselves who will be in the most trouble here. People who just don't want to lose what they have or are afraid for their future are not listening to the facts; they don't care.

Alex said...

rv - because we can't afford it. Oh and those 200K can take a flying leap of a short plank.

Revenant said...

For the children? Never mind about the debt we're loading on our children.

This is off-topic, but I've never entirely bought the "we're passing this debt on to our children" line.

The government wants to spend $1 it doesn't have. It either takes the $1 from current taxpayers (in which case we have $1 less to pass on to the next generation) or it makes the next generation pay it... in which case they can do so out of that extra $1 we left them. Yeah, they'll have to pay interest, but they'll have been collecting the interest too.

The problem is the spending itself. Whether we pay now or later really doesn't make much of a difference so far as the next generation is concerned.

Revenant said...

If most workers would love a deal like Wisconsin State employees then why doesn't Walker work to help them get that

Because they don't produce that much value. You can't pay the average worker more than the average worker produces -- or at least, you can't for very long. :)

Government employees are a special case, of course. They don't have to produce anything, since they're paid with money taken from productive workers at gunpoint.

kent said...

If most workers would love a deal like Wisconsin State employees then why doesn't Walker work to help them get that [...]

Leftist belief in the existence of the Magical Money Fairy remains steadfast and resolute, I see.

former law student said...

Why should [Goppers'] taxes be used to subsidize the Democrat party?

Another statist who wants to restrict what people can do with their hard-earned money. Freedom First!

former law student said...

How is it not corrupt for Democrat politicians to pay off unions with much better than market wages and benefits, knowing that the union will turn around and contribute to the Dem politicians to get them reelected?

Teachers make less in total compensation than private sector workers with similar educational qualifications, but like ministers and rabbis, they're willing to work for less for non-monetary compensation.

former law student said...

I was a teacher in Wisconsin and as a conservative I objected to having part of my pay confiscated by the union that I did not ask for, who used my stolen pay for political purposes that I did not support.

If you didn't think you received value for money, you could have run for office in your local. Did you try to persuade your peers that none of you were getting your money's worth from your dues? And did the political purposes extend outside things that directly benefited students, educators, and parents?

If you just sat back and whinged about the unfairness of it all I have little sympathy.

former law student said...

How could it be acceptable that our unionized elementary, middles school, and high school teachers are lefty propagandists with nearly unlimited access and power over our children?

Comparably educated conservatives won't work for so little money. School districts can't afford to hire conservatives.

former law student said...

People by and large detest monopolies.

How do you feel about Madison Gas & Electric?

former law student said...

They treated Reagan like dirt his entire presidency and now they pretend like they respected and admired him all along.

Reagan was effective setting the country on its current path to destruction:

1. Every president since Truman had reduced the national debt as a percent of GDP. Reagan's tax cuts turned that around. (Reagan used the surplus caused by increased Social Security withholding to partialy mask the effects of his income tax cuts.)

2. The progress the country had made to reduce dependence on foreign oil was wiped out under Reagan. We became more dependent on foreign oil than ever.

3. As a consequence of 2, and offshoring which accelerated under Reagan, our current account balance started going in the wrong direction.

Now China has both first and second mortgages on our once free country, and control raw materials such as Vitamin C.

Thanks, Ron.

chickelit said...

Now China has both first and second mortgages on our once free country, and control raw materials such as Vitamin C.

Such ascorbic wit, FSH!

chickelit said...

How do you feel about Madison Gas & Electric?

To be perfectly blount, their plant food plant always reminded me of the Titanic: linky