September 15, 2011

Wisconsin legislators fight over whether to fully reimburse Madison for law enforcement help during the protests.

The budget committee approved $8.2 million to cover all the extra law enforcement that was required during the protests, but some GOP legislators are resisting paying $751,500 to the city of Madison, on the theory that Madison police and Dane County deputies might not really have been serving in good faith.
"It's almost a slap in the face to ask that question," Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said. "It's very disappointing as a law enforcement professional that someone for political reasons would question the ethics and the integrity of our (work)."...

Republicans on the committee urged Walker administration officials to consider carefully the claims by the City of Madison and Dane County before paying them....

"I hope you're aware that the mayor of Madison clearly would have preferred his police officers to stay on the other side of the (Capitol) Square," Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) said.

Committee co-chairman Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) echoed those reservations, saying he believes there were "legitimate concerns about actions of individual officers."...

Wray, the Madison police chief, said he never denied any direct request for help from the Capitol police or other state officials. He said that Madison police usually stayed off the Capitol Square grounds because of a prior agreement with the state that they would police the areas around it, which are their jurisdiction.
I'd like to see the specifics of those "concerns about actions of individual officers." In observing the protests nearly every day through the entire period of the protests, Meade and I often tried to figure out what the police were doing, including the Capitol police. There seemed to be a policy of facilitating the protesters, perhaps because it actually was the best strategy for maintaining order when the police were vastly outnumbered. I have video of protesters assuring me that "The police are on our side."

But allowing the protesters to believe that was one way of keeping them calm and under control. It made a lot of protesters willing to wait patiently in lines when they could have rushed doors, and it made them willing — much of the time — to listen to polite requests from police. I don't like the idea of questioning the integrity of the police who were faced with controlling huge crowds of relentless, angry people who felt righteously entitled to occupy the Capitol building and grounds.

Put the specifics out there, or pay up and move on.

As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that.

ADDED: From the Badger Herald:
A statement from the [Joint Finance Committe] said operating decisions of the Madison police during the protests were inappropriately affected by the political leanings of high ranking members of the police department and the Mayor’s office.

“The comments and actions of (then) Mayor [Dave Cieslewicz], Police Chief Noble Wray, County Executive Kathleen Falk and Sheriff Dave Mahoney encouraged the behavior of the siege participants in an attempt to achieve a partisan political outcome in this government crisis,” the statement said. ...

Rep. Steven Nass, R-Whitewater, a member of the JFC, said he believes the police administrators inappropriately relaxed their officer policies during the protests....

“I am concretely certain that’s exactly what they did,” Nass said. “Clearly, [the police officers] were siding with the protesters and they were not going let them help. Quite frankly it was very unprofessional.”

These decisions made the protests a much more dangerous situation and inflated the cost on the taxpayer, Nass said....

Madison and Capitol police were only in the building for a handful of days, Nass said, and remained primarily absent from the Capitol grounds and rotunda for the majority of the protests. He said the city has overfilled the bill in order to get improper state financing.

“[I believe] that the city of Madison has padded this bill,” Nass said. “They saw a way to take advantage of tax payer dollars, and they are taking that opportunity.”

113 comments:

MadisonMan said...

Politicians in the Capitol regularly piss on Madison. It's an easy target, and it probably makes them look good back home.

Madison (the city) does get many benefits from having the Capitol here. That should be acknowledged. But when actions at the Capitol cause city services to be stretched thin, the state should pay.

Curious George said...

Pay up. And then make AA's last statement "As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that." well known.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
Madison (the city) does get many benefits from having the Capitol here."

That's the understatement of the year. Without state government and the UW it would be Black Earth.

Robert said...

So the Madison PD line is something akin to "By doing nothing, we kept the protestors from acting like even bigger assholes."?

traditionalguy said...

The Police were props in a staged TV event. So send the overtime bill to the Unions that sent the attack chanters to occupy the place.

Under those circumstances the Police did as well as can be expected.

But the next time the mob is set loose on the Capitol, Police need to try arresting the ringleaders who slandered the Police by saying that they counted on cooperation from the police.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that."

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, as long as the people take responsibility for any resulting costs to the Government.

edutcher said...

Considering several legislators were mobbed (not to mention a certain 60 year old lady), reimbursement would be the least they could do.

PS "It's very disappointing as a law enforcement professional...". Are these the same professionals who stood by while the guy was poking his horn in Ann's eye?

Henry said...

Put the specifics out there, or pay up and move on.

Also, put forward an alternative scenario. What possible action by the police would have changed anything but for the worse?

@Robert -- I think you're exactly right.

Calypso Facto said...

Well Sheriff Mahoney refused to perform the protective duties assigned, so it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Dane County stiffed for the OT:

"When asked to stand guard at the doors that duty was turned over to the Wisconsin State Patrol because our deputies would not stand and be palace guards," Mahoney said. "I refused to put deputy sheriffs in a position to be palace guards."

But overall, I agree with CG; pay up and publicize.

timmaguire42 said...

Seems to me that whether Madison Police did all they could is a different question from whether Madison should be reimbursed.

If the police weren't doing their jobs, then they should be disciplined. If the Legislature has a policy or understanding that the local police get reimbursed, then they should get reimbursed.

Fred4Pres said...

Maybe they should fine protestors when they get out of hand. First amendment gives them the right to protest. But it does not give them a right to protest in an uncivil manner.

clemster said...

"As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that."
How can that statement even be considered for debate? If the protestors had not gathered, in a futile attempt to overturn the wishes of a majority of WI voters, the police would never have shown up. To have liberals point the finger elsewhere for this waste of money is typical adolescent inability to accept reality and face consequences.

Almost Ali said...

As for the protesters, you drained... the state treasury. Take responsibility for that.

They do. That's part of their mission. In cahoots with all union members.

Like the badged fatso threatening arrest for any acts of self-defense. And by the way, has anyone found out fatso's name? If so, kindly post it here.

Chip S. said...

If the state would just start charging admission to the Capitol this could all be taken care of easily. One ticket gives you one hour to tour the public spaces of the building.

Auction them off the day before. If there's a big demonstration, space is scarce and the price of admission will reflect that. On most days, the price would probably be zero.

No questions about police favoritism. No need to line up in hopes of getting in on crowded days. Maximum access for all.

And a revenue source to help cover the cost of extra police on "game days."

MadisonMan said...

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, as long as the people take responsibility for any resulting costs to the Government

shall not be abridged.

Yes. There are costs for living in a 'free' 'democracy'. The Legislature should pay up. If there are specific problems, they should publicize them. With video.

Calypso Facto said...

I also noted this aside in the article yesterday: "The meeting was halted twice briefly by chairwoman Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) because of a vocal disagreement between her and Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee)."

Taylor was probably voicing her idiotic encouragement of Wisconsinites boycotting Wisconsin products and union services to put themselves out of work, prompting another Godwin corollary to be know as Lena's Law (please take note, garage).

wv: syngles. A dating service for womyn.

Dustin said...

This is a great reason to bust the police union.

This kind of hassle at least appears improper at times.

And it's ridiculously expensive. I don't think their services actually should cost nearly that much just to stand around.

Bust the union.

Patrick said...

"As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that. "

Don't hold your breath.

garage mahal said...

As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that

You were there everyday, how about you taking responsibility? How much is that check you're sending to the state?

And I love the charge that because hippies weren't getting their skulls cracked the police must have been in collusion with them.

Wonder how long the blackout of Walker's appointee getting raided by the FBI will last. Any takers?

Chip S. said...

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...

But the Constitution was written long before the invention of the vuvuzela!! We can't say what the Founders would have written if they'd known about those awful things.

/juiceboxers

Shouting Thomas said...

Who's going to bill Damon Williams, Vice Provost of Diversity and Climate, for calling out his private militia to the CEO press conference?

Shouting Thomas said...

How much does garbage get paid, and who pays him, to monitor this site 24/7 and attempt to misdirect every thread?

Union thug?
Democratic Party functionary?

timmaguire42 said...

Those are some pretty strong words from the Finance Committee. If they can back them up, heads should roll. If they can't, abject apologies are in order.

Kirk Parker said...

MadMan,

Wait--surely you're not saying you get to enjoy the benefits but not pay the costs? If it's fair for the state to pay for the costs of having state government located there, isn't it just as fair for you to have to reimburse the state for the benefits?

Levi Starks said...

Thats money that could have gone to firefighters and teachers. or maybe helped replace a crumbling bridge.

smithdrive said...

As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that.

These protests would not have happened if Walker would have campaigned on his CB plans. If he'd of been straight up about it, and still have gotten elected, I would not have been there. It was the manner in which it was introduced that sparked what happened.

Class factotum said...

Pay up. And then make AA's last statement "As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that." well known.

You say that as if the protesters are capable of shame.

Chip S. said...

These protests would not have happened if Walker would have campaigned on his CB plans. If he'd of been straight up about it...

Your shaky command of English makes me hope that you're not a schoolteacher.

Chuck66 said...

"But when actions at the Capitol cause city services to be stretched thin, the state should pay."

I disagree. I say the actions of Madison wackos should not cause the people of mainstream Wisconsin money.

Dustin said...

"You were there everyday, how about you taking responsibility? How much is that check you're sending to the state?"

Garage has a point. The protestors were kinda violent and some threatened Althouse. Someone obsessed with her, much as Garage is (for all I know, it's the same person).

Althouse probably benefited from the police.

Though, on the other hand, people like Althouse do not present any need for police. Kinda folks with cameras and blogs aren't the problem.

It's the liberals, as usual, who are too childish to behave without the government watching over them.

It's pathetic, and they should raise this money as an apology to Wisconsin.

Anthony said...

But they neeeeeed the money to enter houses when a keg is visible from outside!

WV: cordme - string 'em up!

clemster said...

Re:smithdrive
This is a ridiculous premise that liberals have repeated endlessly. Any candidate has no obligation to lay out every single detail of his plan to improve WI. Frankly, Walker's statements of his beliefs were sufficient for a majority of voters to elect him, that's all that counts. As for the protestor's feelings being hurt because Walker did not share his strategy to save WI, too bad. We won, go home, get a job, and start being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. Anti-conservative protests in WI are like anti-glacier protests, you are doomed to be covered over and forgotten.

gregq said...

Sorry, Ann, but you're wrong. The job of the cops isn't to make criminal thug protesters happy, it's to enforce the law.

The City of Madison sided with the violent criminal thugs, not the State Government and the Legislators who were doing their jobs. If the city wants to send the protesters a bill, great! But the State shouldn't pay for cops who were on the side of the thugs.

You fight? You push for the door in a dangerous manner? Great. You get arrested, you get thrown in jail, and you don't get let out until you pay a fine big enough to cover the costs of the protests. The fact that you live in Madison, or that you have no read job so you have the time to come to Madison to protest, doesn't make you, or your opinions, even the slightest bit more important than the opinions of the people who voted in the election, and now have to spend their time living their lives.

Protests don't matter. Demonstrations don't matter. What matters is votes on election day. The lefties lost in 2010. Their refusal to accept that, to accept that the voters should get their way, that Democracy really does matter, marks them as contemptible scum.

The fact that the City of Madison sided with the contemptible scum, rather than the elected State government, is yet another mark of shame for the City government. And now the City government wants the State Government that they didn't back to pay them?

Bugger that. They love the unions? They can ask the Unions for the money.

Scott M said...

The City of Madison sided with the violent criminal thugs

I might have missed it. What violence? Beating on the dead skin of a drum face doesn't count.

Chuck66 said...

I don't believe Obama campaigned on:

-Bombing Pakistan
-Making war on the peoples of color in Libya
-Creating a 14,000,000,000,000 national debt
-9.6% unemployment
-Keeping club Gitmo open
-Keeping "illegal warrantless domestic spying"

gregq said...

Madison man quoted:
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" (emphasis added)

And the problem was that the protesters weren't peaceful, and that the cops didn't do their job to stop them. Yet the City still wants to be paid for those cops who weren't doing their job.

Disrupt meetings? Block doors? Scream, shot, threaten violence, drown out those who disagree with you?

That's not "peacefully assembling to petition the government." You've got the right to assemble. We've got the right to ignore you. When you move to take away our right to ignore you, you forfeit your right to assemble.

Henry said...

It was the manner in which it was introduced that sparked what happened.

This is what demotivation looks like.

traditionalguy said...

When the Muslims went to attack the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, the Police stood by and watched.

Maybe the bill for Egyptian police needs to go to Israel since its existence provoked the mob.

MadisonMan said...

Wait--surely you're not saying you get to enjoy the benefits but not pay the costs? If it's fair for the state to pay for the costs of having state government located there, isn't it just as fair for you to have to reimburse the state for the benefits?

Madison has to put up with Legislators. There isn't enough money in the world to compensate Dane County for that. It's totally fair for the state to pay Madisonians for that -- you get them out of your hair and they come infest ours.

gregq said...

What violence?

Charging doors. Breaking things. Forcing their way into meets. Making noise for the purpose of drowning out others.

Vandalism is a crime of violence.

Why were the cops there? It wasn't because the protesters were well behaved people who wished to politely make a point.

Toshtu said...

"How much does garbage get paid?"

You'll have to ask the Koch brothers.

E.M. Davis said...

Wonder how long the blackout of Walker's appointee getting raided by the FBI will last. Any takers?

It's definitely news ...

but I'll add the caveat that if the FBI raided offices of every state/federal employee doing work on behalf of their political patron rather than the entirety of their jobs, the FBI would be extremely busy.

WV: duumpt. Like a Garage drive-by link.

Carol_Herman said...

TUBBS IS INCOMPETENT. Madison police did not function.

Sounds like a good penalty to me. Pay for those you bring in out of the budget of Tubbs's police department because they don't function.

And, if Tubbs needs money let him as "grandma." Let him see if she' still wearing her "grandma" mask. And, if she can spare the budget she gets to "keep her house cleaned."

Maybe, one day the janitors can be sworn in as police? To save their jobs, they'll be more efficient.

garage mahal said...

I'm guessing gregq got his Madison coverage strictly from Fox.

David said...

This is bullshit. Pure pandering. Overall the Madison police did a good job. In their hearts many police may have agreed with the protesters on issues, but the overall results are what count. There was no major confrontation, no out of control violence and none of the "police brutality" publicity that some of the protestors might have wanted.

These legislators need to stop grandstanding and get back to work.

X said...

should be enough in the UW subsidy to cover it.

or maybe a tax on union dues.

MadisonMan said...

Charging doors. Breaking things. Forcing their way into meets. Making noise for the purpose of drowning out others.

gregq, that took place on the Capitol grounds, where Madison police don't have jurisdiction -- unless they're called in, and as I recall, they weren't. State Troopers were.

Carol_Herman said...

If Tubbs were white he would have been fired!

It's also good for the Madison police to know they can't write blank checks.

Take the money needed out of their pensions. The legislature can "promise" to repay the pension at some other time.

But without firing Tubbs ... who seems to think because he is Black he is untouchable ... Would send a much better message.

And, if he can't cover the $8.2-million? Maybe, the call to see him go would come from within?

If I were a taxpayer in Wisconsin, I wouldn't pay this bill.

At the next Packer game, however, I'd let the police from Madison to line up with tin cups. And, work the crowd asking for donations.

The bill is outrageous!

You would not have had this bill IF the Madison Police had actually done their jobs.

If they seem to imbibe the the myth that they'd get paid, anyway, then BRAVO to the Wisconsin Legislature ... to hand them back an invoice of the price of NOT protecting "the Palace."

The "Palace" is the People's HOUSE! They crapped on it, and in it, every which way possible.

clemster said...

Re: David. You obviously weren't paying attention. Is shouting down and intimidating legislatures non -violent? Is breaking in through windows into the capitol non-violent? Is doing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the capitol non-violent? Don't be absurd. Where I live, any one of the above actions would have resulted in arrests, in the dozens, if not hundreds. The protests are a national disgrace, and the police who stood by and allowed the damage to occur are even more disgraceful.

ic said...

Pay them, or else... It's protection money.

You don't want the police to stay home when the union goons come to town, do you?

Scott M said...

I'm guessing gregq got his Madison coverage strictly from Fox.

Bullshit, GM. I watched all three networks. Well, as much MSNBC as my doctor will allow, anyway.

FedkaTheConvict said...

It would be interesting if the Dane County Sheriff produced a list of the people booked into the Dane County Jail because of their actions at the Capitol. I couldn't help but notice from the news reports that in almost all instances where protestors were removed from the Capitol, they were either just released or given a simple citation at most.

I think we'd all be surprised how few arrests were made.

garage mahal said...

Bullshit, GM. I watched all three networks

And?

Scott M said...

And?

And I was the one that posed the original question about the violence, so your theory is about Fox viewers is, if you'll pardon the expression, loose shite.

t-man said...

I don't know whether it is true, but if the City of Madison's elected officials encouraged the protests, the City of Madison should pay part of the costs. If they didn't want the bill, they shouldn't have ordered the dish.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Everybody knows that the Madison protestors were chaotic mobsters, the meadia told us so.

The Madison protests proved that the city is a hell hole inhabited by idiotic losers, the Meadehouse plants showed us fair and balanced glimpses of the protestors. Including their hatred of kids speaking and special kids being honored.

Despise the Madisonian protestors...for the kids!

FedkaTheConvict said...

BTW, what happened to the people who handcuffed themselves to the railing in the Senate on June 16?

Carol_Herman said...

You know, this is so beautiful!

The lacksidaisical police get hit in their pocketbook! They'll notice this one. And, they won't be wiggling their asses ... doing a collective dance of farting off in the people's general direction.

GOOD for the legislature, too!

Man, going to work with all the acoustical problems the Capitol Building has ... shows ya ... that if you fool with a legislator's day ... They have ways of getting even.

No. People who sell red balloons can still sell them.

The Madison Police Department, though, has been given a PUBLIC REBUKE.

That also may not get the money!

I hope this story takes off and goes viral! I hope real blood, sweat and tears are now flowing for Tubbs. Who hasn't been caught out, yet, for being a total incompetent putz.

Levi Starks said...

Asking the protesters to pay the bill would be like asking an involuntarily committed mental patient to pay for his own care.

ignatzk said...

I don't like the idea of questioning the integrity of the police who were faced with controlling huge crowds of relentless, angry people who felt righteously entitled to occupy the Capitol building and grounds.

Are you saying that the police were running a false flag operation?

It looked like the police were aiding and abetting the protest movement.

Like employees of every other government agency, police are pawns of their local union and its national union. Police management are under the thumb of the leftist mayoral regime. Where is the evidence this had no impact on duties?

Interesting to hear those sworn to uphold the law accept the selective breaking of it as a means to crowd control. When is this permissable and when not?

Triangle Man said...

Pay up. And then make AA's last statement "As for the protesters, you drained that $8.2 million out of the state treasury. Take responsibility for that." well known.

The costs of protests must have been in the equation for the value of the Budget Repair Bill. For crying out loud, the Governor was prepared to mobilize the Guard to deal with the fallout. I'd say we got off cheap. Pay up!

Triangle Man said...

"Siege participants"?

Siege? Come on.

Lukedog said...

Carol Herman said,

"blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."

Dude, I usually just skip right past your nonsense figuring you are either drunk or out of lithium, or both.

Today, though, I unfortunately read your whole ramble.

Shut your trap for once. You really don't know what you're talking about

garage mahal said...

For crying out loud, the Governor was prepared to mobilize the Guard to deal with the fallout. I'd say we got off cheap. Pay up!

He also retained legal counsel for up to 500k, before he even announced the budget despair bill. Lawyers and the National Guard to push a "modest" agenda!

Curious George said...

"Triangle Man said...
The costs of protests must have been in the equation for the value of the Budget Repair Bill. For crying out loud, the Governor was prepared to mobilize the Guard to deal with the fallout. I'd say we got off cheap. Pay up!"

100% bullshit. Walker was prepared to mobilize the NG in the event that prison guards walked off the job.

What is with liberals that they think a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. This same shit has been pedaled over and over by the likes of you and that moron garage.

Doesn't matter that it's false, doesn't matter that it's been shown false, just keep puking it out.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
He also retained legal counsel for up to 500k, before he even announced the budget despair bill. Lawyers and the National Guard to push a "modest" agenda!"

And like the sun rising in the east, here he goes again. WHile not giving up on "moron" you most assuredly are "liar".

Real American said...

they should bill the unions.

Triangle Man said...

100% bullshit. Walker was prepared to mobilize the NG in the event that prison guards walked off the job.

You say bullshit, then repeat the exact statement I made with an insignificant detail. The point is that as a rational decision-maker he was prepared for repercussions that could have been costly to taxpayers. In his evaluation, the benefits of the bill would outweigh those costs. Perhaps he didn't anticipate lengthy protests that would require extra police presence, or did not adequately account for the costs, but even including those unintended costs, he and the supporters of the bill must certainly think that the benefit to the State and the taxpayers is worth it.

Triangle Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

WHile not giving up on "moron" you most assuredly are "liar".

You're like pouty thomas. When you don't like something, stop your feet just call them a liar.

Walker OKs up to $500K in legal fees on collective bargaining bill

Gov. Scott Walker has agreed to pay a private law firm up to $500,000 for legal services regarding his controversial budget repair bill curbing public employees' collective bargaining rights, a spokesman for the governor confirmed.

Walker signed a special counsel contract with the Madison office of Michael Best & Friedrich on Feb. 7, four days before unveiling the bill, public records show. The contract authorized payment at the unusually high rate of up to $300 an hour, to a total of $100,000.


So what did I lie about, asshole?

Cedarford said...

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...
===================
Has no absolute right to continue indefinitely or to use tactics that lay seige to, and interfere with the operation of government. The courts have backed the state in defining limits to protest to certain designated locales, to a specific time and duration by permit.
The right to prolonged seiges, "occupying government spaces", and direct interference with government operations are not part of the 1st Amendment. Government has also succeeded in winning against court challenges over limits to time of protest - on grounds of resources - limiting the gay marriage Prop 8 people to 4 hours protest vs, the 48 hours requested on permit due to budget limitations on staffing and overtime costs to deal with the price of the protest.

States and towns have also had success in court over actions barring outside agitators and non-stakeholders from protests. Though the history is mottled some by police attempting to clamp down on outside agitators coming in for civil rights protests, etc. - so they are more reticent to act when piles of out of state protestors come in and force costs on state residents.

The Madison protests could have been legitimately stopped if specified limits had been set by the Legislature or Governor on location (designated free speech zone outside the Capital Building and GOv't Offices) or time (1st Saturday of the month only, from 9AM-4PM with hour before and hour after to assemble and disburse)

But government SET NO SUCH Limits! Therefore, the police bills from endless OT due to endless protests, and bills associated with cleanup and repairs from allowing the protestors to occupy government spaces are 100% proper, to be paid for by taxes of Wisconsin residents.

roesch-voltaire said...

David you correctly pointed out that the area controlled by the Madison police remained peaceful. I was there for some of the biggest protests recording the protests on a Flip camera walking among the crowd and never saw any violence or action that merited arrest. But of course just the presence of the police insured that the protest should remain that way, and for the most part it worked.

Curious George said...

"Triangle Man said...

You say bullshit, then repeat the exact statement I made with an insignificant detail."

You linked his mobilizing the NG to these protests dumbass. It had zero to with that.

"The point is that as a rational decision-maker he was prepared for repercussions that could have been costly to taxpayers. In his evaluation, the benefits of the bill would outweigh those costs. Perhaps he didn't anticipate lengthy protests that would require extra police presence, or did not adequately account for the costs, but even including those unintended costs, he and the supporters of the bill must certainly think that the benefit to the State and the taxpayers is worth it." More bullshit. The issue here is not whether the cost of managing the protests was required or "worth it", but if the Madison Police's actions were sufficient and warranted the cost they are presenting.

I Callahan said...

And I love the charge that because hippies weren't getting their skulls cracked the police must have been in collusion with them.

This made me keel over in gales of laughter, not because I agree or disagree, bit because of the visualization of it. Cops cracking hippies' skulls. Hi-larious!

Garage, you made my day with this paragraph.

Peter said...

:These protests would not have happened if Walker would have campaigned on his CB plans. If he'd of been straight up about it..."

Anyone who watched Walker’s performance as County Exec. would have realized that he was going to take a hard line on government expenses- and especially on reducing the cost of government employees.

WEAC certainly understood this, as they went all-in for Barrett perhaps, but mostly against Walker.

It’s true, he didn’t reveal his tactics. But he certainly was clear about his objective- no new taxes without any reduction in government services.

And why, exactly, should he have revealed HOW he intended to do that? Does a general officer publish his war plans before the onset of hostilities?

smithdrive said...

clemster: You’re right – he had no obligation to lay out ANY details of a plan that would impact the livelihoods of a significant number of opposition voters in the state…if he wanted win. It’s a choice he made and a chance he took.

wildswan said...

I agree that the Madison police were using the correct strategy for handling non-violent protests even if it's ALSO true that they sided with the protestors. But maybe the public shouldn't have to pay for indulging childish adults who argue like two year-olds with drums and horns. Maybe the teachers permanently lowered themselves by associating their cause with such tactics.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...

You're like pouty thomas. When you don't like something, stop your feet just call them a liar.

Walker OKs up to $500K in legal fees on collective bargaining bill"

Nice try dumbshit. First, I was referring to your acceptance that Walker would use the National Guard to quell protesters. But let me call attention to your latest failed claim:

Here is what you wrote at 1:09 PM:

garage mahal said...

He also retained legal counsel for up to 500k, before he even announced the budget despair bill...

That is false. He retained legal counsel for $100,000 before the bill was passed. No biggee, they needed to look at the legal issues and retained counsel. The additional dollars were added because of lawsuits (that will fail)that were filed after. You gotta have lawyers. So that additional $400K is on you assholes.

Of course, you posted the facts I'm presenting as proof that you didn't lie, so we can now add "moron" to your title.

Jed said...

"These protests would not have happened if Walker would have campaigned on his CB plans."

Yeah, and Obama did not campaign on tanking the economy or giving a half billion dollars to his buddy's failing company either.

Triangle Man said...

You linked his mobilizing the NG to these protests dumbass.

Only in your imagination.

Any policy decision involves a cost-benefit analysis. Either he correctly anticipated the protests and factored their cost into his decision, or he erroneously discounted public protest and underestimated the costs. I think he was aware of, even concerned about, the likelihood of a reaction from unionized state workers and their supporters. The evidence for this is that he proposed using the National Guard as a solution to striking prison workers. The bottom line is that the costs of police support for protests related to a policy change are part of the costs of the change. So, he got his policy wish, the taxpayers are receiving the benefits of his plan, and there are a few outstanding invoices to pay.

Curious George said...

"Triangle Man said...
You linked his mobilizing the NG to these protests dumbass.

Only in your imagination."

You said "The costs of protests must have been in the equation for the value of the Budget Repair Bill. For crying out loud, the Governor was prepared to mobilize the Guard to deal with the fallout. I'd say we got off cheap. Pay up!"

Not my imagination.

Paul Zrimsek said...

You were there everyday, how about you taking responsibility? How much is that check you're sending to the state?

The expense of the protests used to be imaginary; now that the non-imaginary bill has been presented, it's Althouse's fault.

purplepenquin said...

Despite what FoxNews & Althouse kept reporting, there weren't any riots and there wasn't the need for such an overwhelming show of force. The protests were far more peaceful than the typical UW football game, and the only reason an overkill of police forces was called in was for political theater.

Scott M said...

Despite what FoxNews & Althouse kept reporting

Despite whatever flavor of koolaid you were drinking at the time, I watched the coverage from both Fox's perspective and here at Althouse. Upthread, you might have noticed that I asked the first one that posted about the violence, "What violence?"

Thus, a Fox viewer and Althouse regular had no notion that there was any violence at all.

Have you got any other such theories you'd like debunked?

purplepenquin said...

BTW, since there is video evidence of several Althousers down at the protests, when can we expect to see them pay their share of the bill they allege is owed?

Fast is, she actually wasted the time of at least one police officer when she complained of having a crime committed against her yet she refused to press any charges. Sounds like she may owe a lil' more than the average person that was down there....

Triangle Man said...

@Curious George

You may be curious, but you are not very perceptive.

garage mahal said...

The expense of the protests used to be imaginary; now that the non-imaginary bill has been presented, it's Althouse's fault.

I think what you may be remembering is a damage estimate written on a cocktail napkin that was roundly laughed at. You still see that figure proudly trumpheted by wingers on the MJS comments section as fact.

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...
Despite what FoxNews & Althouse kept reporting, there weren't any riots and there wasn't the need for such an overwhelming show of force. The protests were far more peaceful than the typical UW football game, and the only reason an overkill of police forces was called in was for political theater." More bullshit. There were many instances of overly aggressive behavior by protesters that mandated a police presence. This included breaking doors, entering windows, shouting down lawmakers in session, aggresively challenging newpeople,damaging the building etc.

Levi Starks said...

Question: Who pays for the increased police force required at Tea party protests?
Answer: Additional police really aren't' required.
But Hypothetically since Tea Partier's are tax payers, I suppose they would.

Calypso Facto said...

there wasn't the need for such an overwhelming show of force

So PP is advocating not paying the cops because Mahoney and Tubbs exercised poor judgment in deciding that officers were needed at the scene. An interesting take!

Levi Starks said...

After reading most of the posts here I'd say Walker has a lot of nerve. Pushing "modest" proposals on a state who's capital just happens to reside in a left leaning college town. Why I say he had it coming.

Curious George said...

"Triangle Man said...
@Curious George

You may be curious, but you are not very perceptive."

Plenty perceptive. It's clar what you wrote. And the rest is just assumptive bullshit

1) Walker ready to use NG to guard prisons ergo
2) He must have known there would be a cost associated with the BRB ergo
3) Any cost by any groups actions must also be assumed and part of all this ergo
4)Good deal!

I'm also perceptive enough to understand that the issue at hand is not whether the state should pay for the Madison cops work, but whether the Madison cops actual effort was what they were being paid to do. You're not.

purplepenquin said...

ScottM doesn't personally recall a news report or blog post, so that means it never occurred?

Interesting theory...thanksforsharing

Oligonicella said...

"But allowing the protesters to believe that was one way of keeping them calm and under control."

One could also say that allowing others to think that this was their strategy, they could cover that their actual strategy was to support the protesters.

It's a duck.

purplepenquin said...

@Calypso -

Are you under the impression that the police came from all over the state because they just thought they might be needed rather than being requested to show up by the (non-police) leadership of the Capitol? If so, you're wrong...

Scott M said...

@pp

You said "Despite what FoxNews & Althouse kept reporting"

"kept report" meaning continued to do so. I watch all three of the cable outlets so it's quite possible I surfed away and missed a single mention of it on Fox, but you're saying I must have missed all of them because, as you say, the "kept" doing it.

Can you please link to more than a single story that would back up the assertion that they "kept" doing it? I'm actually very interested to know if/how I missed it.

David said...

clemster said...
Re: "David. You obviously weren't paying attention. Is shouting down and intimidating legislatures non -violent? etc etc"

Clem, I paid very close attention. I saw what could have been a ugly and very violent situation defused by a mildly restrictive police policy. This resulted in some obvious but pretty small change crimes going unpunished. Police have discretion for a reason. They use their best judgment on whom to arrest, what level of force to use, when to hold back and let things blow over.

Even though I strongly disagreed with the protestors and did not agree with their tactics, it seemed to me that the police played it right. (I did not see Gov. Walker pushing for more aggressive policing, for example.)

I don't know where you live that things would have been handled differently. I live in South Carolina, and my guess is that police in Columbia would try to approach things in a similar way,

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Asking the protesters to pay the bill would be like asking an involuntarily committed mental patient to pay for his own care.

Last time I looked the protesters were voluntarily attending the protests. I didn't see anyone who seemed to be forced to protest (unless you want to count the minor children brought to the festivities by their parents)

They made the mess. They caused the extra costs. They should be made to pay for it.

David said...

And Clem--the legislature was hardly intimidated. They did not back down an inch.

Scott M said...

They should be made to pay for it.

Who are they "They" and how could they possibly be made to pay for it? Were there specific groups that applied for access to the capital building for public demonstration purposes (ie filled out forms) or did everyone just kinda show up?

garage mahal said...

ScottM
I was in the crowd where the Fox reporter said he was "hit". He was obviously wasn't, as the tape showed. If Fox and other outlets (inc Althouse) weren't portraying the protests as violent, how come so many people think they were?

Oligonicella said...

David --

"And Clem--the legislature was hardly intimidated. They did not back down an inch."

Not backing down has nothing to do with whether intimidation (coercion) was attempted.

Scott M said...

What constitutes "so many"?

I seem to remember a certain congressman saying he was called racial epithets while walking through a crowd of tea partiers in DC. That he was spat on. Did it happen? Video suggests otherwise and no proof of his claims have ever surfaced...still, how come so many people thought he had been called nigger and spat on?

Calypso Facto said...

Purple: Since I've already quoted Sheriff Mahoney upthread flat out REFUSING the direct request of government officials for Capitol protection, the determination of levels of staffing needed to patrol Madison must have come from elsewhere.

State Trooper and Capitol Police expenses were readily paid for by the legislature that used their services. The City of Madison and Dane County determined how much to spend on controlling the mobs at the square, and in your estimation apparently, spent too much. Some of the legislators agree with you, saying they did not receive a significant value from the city/county cops. I think asking why the state legislature should take on responsibility for reimbursing these local agencies, and to what level, is a fair question.

PS-correction: I meant Madison Police Chief Wray in my last post when I said (Capitol Police Chief) Tubbs.

garage mahal said...

What constitutes "so many"?

Just this thread?

You played it straight, so respect, by the way.

Triangle Man said...

ScottM
I was in the crowd where the Fox reporter said he was "hit". He was obviously wasn't, as the tape showed. If Fox and other outlets (inc Althouse) weren't portraying the protests as violent, how come so many people think they were?


It's not an idea that would require that Althouse or Fox perpetuate it if it is something people want to believe. When Althouse tried to counter the notion that the protests were violent, the numbskulls ignored her. As Scott M points out, it works the same for numbskulls on the other side too.

Curious George said...

"Scott M said...
...how come so many people thought he had been called nigger and spat on?"

Because it was stated as fact by the MSM, left blogs, and idiots on the left. And repeated over and over and over. You can still find references to it.

Triangle Man said...

I think asking why the state legislature should take on responsibility for reimbursing these local agencies, and to what level, is a fair question.

This is a fair point, and I am surprised that there isn't a clearer mutual aid agreement in place. It's also puzzling that, as the protests continued, a clearer agreement about staffing levels and payment wasn't drafted.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

You'd think that video showing a spitting incident would cut through right wing talking points.

But, no.

VanderDouchen said...

Penis butter and jelly,

Is that spitting incident? it looks like a yelling incident to me. I'm certain they've collected the 100k from whoever it was offering it for proof.

Stay focused, son. You and everyone else spinning in circles on here about things other than the topic, have lost sight of the reality of existance outside the boundaries of political servitude.

Serve yo masta. Serve yo masta.

WV: wayeduco

Wayduco, guys. Trolled another thread into the crapper.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Cool, VD can look a someone clearly being spit on...and deny reality.

That's one.

Anybody else joining VD? Curious G?

Triangle Man said...

Spitting stories are notoriously difficulty to disentangle .

gregq said...

Levi Starks said...
Question: Who pays for the increased police force required at Tea party protests?
Answer: Additional police really aren't required.


Bingo. I've been to a TEA Party protest. People showed up, walked around, speakers made some points, people waved lots of signs and took pictures of each other, then we cleaned the place up and left.

That is "peaceably assembling to petition the government for redress of grievances."

Shouting, esp. shouting down those you disagree with, vandalizing, blocking entrances, trying to take over rooms so they can't be used for their normal purposes, threatening violence against those who disagree with you, that is violent criminal behavior.

One man (or woman), one vote. The fact that you live in Madison, and have so little life that you have nothing better to do with your time and go down to the Capitol to protest, does not make you the slightest bit more important than the people who have lives, have real jobs, and voted in the Republicans you so hate.

Contra David: it is a bad thing when cops ignore "minor" crimes in order to keep potentially rioting thugs protesters "peaceful". You want to have a say in or political system? Great, honor everyone else's right to have a say, too. Follow the damn law.

Finally, we have this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVE_rLjxnfU&feature=player_embedded

"Police Union announces solidarity with students, workers, and Wisconsin residents occupying the State Capitol in Madison. February 24, 2011."

There is no reason why the State should pay a single penny for those thug supporters (if you're "occupying the State Capitol", you're a thug).