Labor unions hoped to turn the Wisconsin recall election into a rallying cause for their ailing movement. But a Democratic president couldn’t be dragged off the sidelines for the fight.And let me add that even the Democratic candidate in that election avoided talking about labor union matters. Tom Barrett talked — with stunning blandness — about a restoration of civility and working together.
When you get a few paragraphs into the long article, you'll see it's mostly complaints about the dynamics of campaign finance with lots of quotes from people Martin counts among the few "unapologetic populists" left in the party. But there's this nice summary:
*The political infrastructure doesn’t exist. Class-based partisan appeals by Democrats in the early and mid-20th century were typically supported by a robust and well-organized labor movement. That doesn’t exist in any similar form these days.
*Even populist politicians need money. Conspiracy theorists who believe campaign contributions drive the agenda aren’t altogether wrong. It is virtually impossible to be a successful national Democrat without relying heavily on business interests, including the financial industry, for campaign funds.
*The president, a man comfortable in elite circles, is not temperamentally inclined for the kind of sustained, rough-edged partisan combat that true populist politics requires. So, while he is tempted by populist appeals on some days, he often turns ambivalent and changes his message the next.
*Most important of all, lots of Democrats simply do not support populism, on either ideological or stylistic grounds. Many upscale Democrats believe that Washington needs less combat, not more, and populist messages strike them as irrelevant at best, demagogic at worst. Even some working-class voters have their assets in the stock market, because of their 401(k)s and IRAs, making even the most traditional of Democrats believe their interests are more in line with Wall Street than opposed.
पोस्ट्स
९१ टिप्पण्या:
So, while he is tempted by populist appeals on some days, he often turns ambivalent and changes his message the next.
So he also sucked when he was just a community organizer?
Not all Democrats work for government, higher ed or non-profits.
Some actually own businesses and work in the private sector.
Being a Democrat doesn't make their businesses and workplace immune from the outcomes of liberal policies.
And, with the 2010 Citizens United decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down key limits on contributions
They're never going to get tired of lying about this, are they?
Be fair, Paul. They aren't all lying, some of them are merely ignorant.
Paul,
Well...it's not a lie. Citizens United did strike down monetary limits on certain types of political campaign contributions.
I mean, the intent of the case was to allow for a movie to be aired during an election period, a simple First Amendment case. But the law was so grotesquely overbroad that a simple First Amendment case brought the whole stupid thing down.
So really, what they are saying is Citizens United struck down key limits on a hypocritical, overreaching, patently unconstitutional law that I supported for purely political reasons.
Yeah this will be the strategy. Bad evil Citizens United means Democrats are at a disadvantage and will never be able to compete fairly. Please send money.
Nothing about ideas, failed promises, bad results. Racism and money is why we will lose.
The Democrats are no longer the "party of the people" if in fact they ever were. They cater to the elites, in finance, Hollywood and academia. They spout enough BS to on occasion pick up enough votes of those who are either looking for a handout or those independents who are just sick of the GOP.
If the left can't manipulate and lie, they really don't know what to do.
Once again, Ann, I commend you for your post on Rahm Emanuel, Tom Barrett, and the WI Governmor race and recall.
It has revolutionized my thinking. Claire McCaskill is complaining that Obama is not campaigning in Missouri.
Thanks to your post it is clear what is going on: Obama has already thrown her under the bus just as he did with Kathleen Falk and the unions in Wisconsin.
The other thing I learned from you is that Rahm Emanuel is probably the smartest guy in the Democratic Party right now.
He is a fan of charter schools and has now taken on the Chicago teachers unions. He understands they are a losing issue for Democrats.
Conservatives need to pay close attention to him. In a recent video interview he said that the election comes down to five states and 500 precincts.
I would love to know what he thinks they are. My guess would be Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.
The fact that government employee unions are bankrupting cities and states have gotten the attention of the voter. That is disaster for the Democrats after they have evolved into a handout machine for these special interests. It's one thing if the special interests are merely feeding at the trough. When they eat the trough and nobody else can get any, it gets noticed.
The "occupy movement" didn't fade away, it exploded. That got noticed, too. William Jennings Bryan wasn't too smart but he was honest. That would just about exclude him from Obama's party.
Who's going to break the news to Fighting Ed Garvey, Comrade John Nichols, and Mr. Ed's Comedy-Variety Hour?
Hmmm...interesting to term the Democrats' abandonment of the interests of working people (to the tender mercies of the ravening financial industry parasites hollowing out our economy from the inside) as "giving up on class warfare."
"The fact that government employee unions are bankrupting cities and states have gotten the attention of the voter."
Is this a fact?
Martin conflates populism with class warfare. This is incorrect.
Populism is characterized by rhetoric intended to connect to the basic aspirations and beliefs of the broadest number of people at any given point in time.
By contrast, the rhetoric of class warfare pits "our side" against The Other. This can certainly be expressed in populist movements, but it's possible for populism to exist without the notion of class. The Tea Party movement is definitely populist but definitely not engaged in class warfare. And conservative radio talk show hosts promote a kind of populism that isn't couched in class rhetoric.
Martin is also wrong in stating that Democrats have abandoned class warfare. They haven't. They just realize that the rhetoric is a turn-off to most Americans. So they'll continue to tweak their message until they find something that people will listen to. They just haven't found the right spot on the dial yet.
It has revolutionized my thinking. Claire McCaskill is complaining that Obama is not campaigning in Missouri.
She's announced that she's not going to the DNC convention. At least she is being partially honest about it, saying that she's in a tough re-election bid.
One faction that hasn't given up on class warfare are the financial elites: they continue to wage war on the rest of us with unabated industry.
Hmmm...interesting to term the Democrats' abandonment of the interests of working people (to the tender mercies of the ravening financial industry parasites hollowing out our economy from the inside) as "giving up on class warfare."
The thing is, especially recently, "class warfare" was the sole way in which the Democrats paid any attention at all to the "interests of working people."
Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.
New Mexico is not in play, nor I suspect Colorado (unless its a rout). Ohio and Iowa
RC: your failure to recognize a fact does not mean its in question
One faction that hasn't given up on class warfare are the financial elites: they continue to wage war on the rest of us with unabated industry.
To the extent that is true, it is made possible by their cronies in DC. Because the Federal government is so powerful, all they have to do is line up at the trough, pay the man and reap the rewards. If you think that a more powerful government will take care of "the rest of us," I urge you to reconsider. Starve the beast, make it not worthwhile to spend zillions to finance these politicians.
There's too much merde on the hands of the nouveau rich who are actually hands on. It's the old rich, the established rich, the coupon clipping rich with clean well manicured preferably gloved hands that the Dems are comfortable with. Not only are they only comfortable with those to the manor born, the Dems increasingly are the manor born themselves
Good, now they can focus on race and sex warfare.
Surely amnesty is in the best interests of the American working class. So sez President Goldman Sachs, and we know he wouldn't lie...
Occupy Wall Street has evanesced
Is that Latin for "collapsed under its own bad optics"?
Robert Cook said...
"The fact that government employee unions are bankrupting cities and states have gotten the attention of the voter."
Is this a fact?
6/27/12 11:43 AM
Yes it is a fact. The next congress ought to compel public sector pension funds to comply with the requirements that private pension funds are required to comply with. Virtually every public pension plan would be vastly underfunded and the taxpayers would see just how screwed they are. Walkers reforms would pocket change in comparison to the clawbacks needed to bring the plans into solvency.
Both parties are now intractably beholden to Wall Street and large monied interests. This is a much bigger problem for Democrats. First, large monied interests are at best just going to fund the Democrats as an insurance policy. Second, to the degree that the Democratic party curries favor with large monied interests it separates itself from its progressive base. This places the Democratic party in an untenable position. The Republican party does not face this problem.
We are entering a period where we have one dominate party, the Republicans, who are using money and other means (voter suppression, union busting, etc.) to cement this into place.
The result is going to be a further erosion in faith in the United States political system.
Robert Cook said...
Hmmm...interesting to term the Democrats' abandonment of the interests of working people (to the tender mercies of the ravening financial industry parasites hollowing out our economy from the inside) as "giving up on class warfare."
6/27/12 11:42 AM
As opposed to public sector and entitlement parasites?
The Democrats have long been at war against the private sector taxpayers. The private sector taxpayers are finally realizing this.
So which is Mr. Obama, a community organizer, or "a man comfortable in elite circles." Normally, the circles don't intersect in that particular Venn diagram. If they do, then its fair to ask who is selling out whom?
"The Democrats are no longer the "party of the people" if in fact they ever were. They cater to the elites, in finance, Hollywood and academia."
The Democratic party is a party of special interests and those special interests don't always have shared values. The elites, the blacks, the public sector unions and academia make for a big tent of special interests.
The result is going to be a further erosion in faith in the United States political system.
The faith has already eroded precipitously. Now we just need the various organs and apparati to die quickly. The less power the federal government has, the less fraud and waste will occur.
Stockton, a workers paradise where the government is 7 of the top 10 employers is bankrupt. This is a fact.
Is this a fact?
LOL. You should know better than that.
Robert Cook and Jay Retread's problem is that they think the Democratic party's base is "progressive." They are, but the "base" is not and never has been.
"'One faction that hasn't given up on class warfare are the financial elites: they continue to wage war on the rest of us with unabated industry.'
"To the extent that is true, it is made possible by their cronies in DC. Because the Federal government is so powerful, all they have to do is line up at the trough, pay the man and reap the rewards. If you think that a more powerful government will take care of 'the rest of us,' I urge you to reconsider. Starve the beast, make it not worthwhile to spend zillions to finance these politicians."
I do not think a "more powerful" government is necessary, but a government responsive to the needs of the public rather than to the elites, that crafts policy that will enhance the general welfare, rather than further aggrandize the wealth and power of the 1%, that holds these Wall Street criminals, these banksters, to account.
"'Is this a fact?'
"LOL. You should know better than that."
Well, I do, but I wanted some sort of substantiation of the claim...which he has not provided.
The more power we give to government over a particular industry then obviously the more that industry has to lobby government. The more power we give to government means more special interests because its the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
Even some working-class voters have their assets in the stock market, because of their 401(k)s and IRAs, making even the most traditional of Democrats believe their interests are more in line with Wall Street than opposed
I wonder where the public employees think their vaunted pensions are invested?
There was a time when Wall Street was an exclusive club of investors but not so much anymore.
But Cookie, you are "the elite."
I agree that the Democratic party does not care about working people. Neither does the Republican party. The trick is figuring out which one will accidentally help the most.
The Dems did not give up on OWS- it failed politically & strategically & demographically. Only the far left embraced it.
Being a Democrat doesn't make their businesses and workplace immune from the outcomes of liberal policies.
But being a Democrat does make it easier for a business owner to get a waiver from onerous liberal policies and regulations.
I will admit it is tough being a Democrat. On one hand you need to pander to the wealthy in order to finance your campaigns yet at the same time try to confiscate more of their money to redistribute to the have-nots and never-will-be's.
Robert Cook
I could agree that when the government acts, it should act in accordance with the general welfare. The trouble is that when government acts, there are invariably winners and losers. Government is a zero sum game, the economy is not.
Another problem is this: How do you make government responsive to the needs of the group you want it to help without making the government more powerful. The government cannot act without power and force. If you want it to do something, you must make it more powerful.
"The president, a man only comfortable in elite circles..."
He simply can't stand the smell of bitter clingers in the morning. Of any kind.
Huzzah! New avatar works.
Simply put, we are screwed. Wall Street won, did we ever have a chance?
Retail politics depends a lot on focus groups and you can tell that team Obama is not hearing the populist love that they want.
Populism depends on grievance or anger and the Ds just don't have enough of it. The poor have their EBT cards and the free cigarettes and booze that they can buy with it. The unemployed have extended unemployment benefits. Blue collar workers are worried about the health of the companies they work for and their grievances aligned with the tea party.
When you saw how tiny the OWS protests were in comparison to the TP rallys, you could tell that the jig was up for populism of the Democrat's variety.
"Simply put, we are screwed. Wall Street won, did we ever have a chance?"
Wall Street isn't the problem, big government socialist/liberal Democrats are the problem and we're going to mitigate some of that problem come November.
Class warfare was already losing in the 1980s. That's why the whole "New Democrat" phenomenon emerged.
Look at the elections since 1976. Republicans do well when they're perceived as solidly conservative. Democrats do well when they're perceived as centrists. So the ideal matchup from a Republican perspective is perceived conservative versus perceived liberal, while the ideal matchup from a Democratic perspective is perceived centrist versus perceived centrist.
1976? Centrist D beat centrist R, if narrowly.
1980? Conservative beat liberal.
1984? Conservative beat liberal.
1988? Conservative ("no new taxes") beat liberal.
1992? Centrist D beat centrist (raised taxes) R.
1996? Centrist D beat centrist R.
2000? Centrist R tied centrist-liberal (Gore, who was a natural for a More of Clinton run, stupidly ran a class warfare campaign.)
2004? Centrist R beat liberal, by relatively narrow margin.
2008? Centrist D beat centrist R.
The Republicans this year were utter idiots and nominated a centrist, indicating their desire to lose the election. However, Obama's record is left enough that he can't avoid being a liberal, which gives the Republicans a good solid chance when combined with the economy.
Robert Cook:
I can't find a state that has gone bankrupt, but Stockton CA is declaring bankruptcy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/stockton-california-bankruptcy_n_1629390.html
And they aren't the first.
The article is a bit weasely in asserting loss of tax revenue as the main culprit but do at least mention "Multi-year labor contracts for city workers carrying escalating costs and generous retirement plans added to the burden."
As for the truth in saying "bankrupting", that tense does not require a "bankruptcy".
WV - workhea - recruiter's call in New Hampshire.
"'Simply put, we are screwed. Wall Street won, did we ever have a chance?'
"Wall Street isn't the problem, big government socialist/liberal Democrats are the problem and we're going to mitigate some of that problem come November."
If you really believe this you should change your nom de blog from "dreams" to "delusions."
"The Republicans this year were utter idiots and nominated a centrist, indicating their desire to lose the election. However, Obama's record is left enough that he can't avoid being a liberal, which gives the Republicans a good solid chance when combined with the economy."
I believe Romney will be more conservative than most people expect.
Well...it's not a lie. Citizens United did strike down monetary limits on certain types of political campaign contributions.
No, it struck down limits on spending by independent orgs during campaigns. Not quite the same thing.
What's weird to me about this article is that it ignores the only successful populist movement in the past few decades, the Tea Party. Liberal populism fights economic elites; conservative populism fights political elites.
Dreams, I fear Romney is an Obama lite.
I had a problem with the word populist and the rest didn't make sense because of that one thing.
You can't just go throwing it around and expect me go along with you.
Unless it is accompanied by sign that clarifies and then it is okay.
I just now made up a word for supreme court in Chip Ahoy syntax with their vocabulary, their forms, and their systems. I provided an Egyptian hieroglyphic-style determinative, the little scale, the cutest little thing, up there as high as I could reach which breaks through the bounds of ordinary expression, and the individual knew exactly what I said. The movements went in smooth succession as if one continuous thing: success success success top shelf scales (up down like dink dink dink) way up there, group sign made with two C hands, half a doughnut around the scales ending in a bubble as high as can be reached.
So if he showed populist then I would get it, but since I can't see it, the word is rejected for improper usage and so is the rest, because, no, populist does not mean what you want it to mean unless you also show it.
In my world.
Politico, pffft. I just did the burp on you sign so you know exactly what I meant.
The article is a bit weasely in asserting loss of tax revenue as the main culprit
the loss of revenue being Wall Street's fault due to the mortgage crisis ignores that revenues would be where they are now or lower and would have been lower in the past without the bubble.
'Robert Cook' said, "One faction that hasn't given up on class warfare are the financial elites: they continue to wage war on the rest of us with unabated industry."
Because in order to obtain more than you need, there must be someone else who does not have enough?
How does that work, exactly?
"What's weird to me about this article is that it ignores the only successful populist movement in the past few decades, the Tea Party. Liberal populism fights economic elites; conservative populism fights political elites."
What makes you think the Tea Party is truly "populist," and how have they been successful?
Oh, and the financial elites and political elites work like hand in glove...the hand of the financial elites shoved up the fundament of the political elites, managing their every move.
"If you really believe this you should change your nom de blog from "dreams" to "delusions.""
I believe it and I've been an avid follower of politics going on 50 years. I can remember watching the 1956 political conventions both the Democrat and the Republican conventions when I was 11 years old and back then they where real conventions that determined each party's Presidential candidate. It was watching the Democratic convention that I became aware of JFK.
Are we going to mitigate some of the damage that the socialist/liberal Dems have done to our country come November, Oh yeah, Hell Yeah!
Illinois has taken to not paying vendors on time. Not bankruptcy, but reflective of poor fiscal stewardship. Funny thing about this article is that the vendors highlighted are probably part of the problem.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Illinois-withholds-payment-to-vendors-for-months-2325366.php#page-1
"Under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, big spending collided with a recession that sent state revenue spiraling downward."
At least they conceded that loss of state "revenue" "collided" with big spending.
Oh, and there's this gem:
"Blagojevich's replacement, Democrat Pat Quinn, raised income taxes and trimmed spending, but that money was gobbled up by other needs, primarily rising pension costs. Under budget agreements with legislative leaders, all Democrats, bills continued to go unpaid."
So, the "revenue increases" that were pushed through, were not helping at all. Maybe we should try something else...
"Dreams, I fear Romney is an Obama lite."
Fear or hope? I think you hope.
Robert Cook said...
"'Is this a fact?'
"LOL. You should know better than that."
Well, I do, but I wanted some sort of substantiation of the claim...which he has not provided.
All you have to do is look at Illinois. Some 47% of their public pension funding is, well, unfunded. This adds up to 10s if not hundreds of billions of dollars. These pensions, by law, must be paid. Who do you suppose is going to pay them? What is going to happen when they can't? Keep in mind these pensions aren't subject to private pension laws.
Who has run Illinois for god only knows when?
What makes you think the Tea Party is truly "populist,"
Because I've been paying attention to it. Contrary to propaganda, it started as a series of uncoordinated efforts by various groups all around the country. It still sustains itself without any national organization or central authority. Is it truly populist? Yeah, I think the votes and grassroots efforts show it. Unlike so many astroturfed efforts on the left, no one gets paid to show up to Tea Party rallies.
and how have they been successful?
Because they've become a successful insurgent force within the Republican Party. What Democrats got all wrong was the notion that the Tea Party was an astroturfed invention of the Republican Party. It wasn't. It was an effort to break up the stranglehold on the party by a small group of elites. That's why most of the Tea Party's efforts went into primary races--they weren't trying to start a third party, but rather reshape the Republican Party. And if you don't think they've been successful in that, then you haven't been paying attention.
Oh, and the financial elites and political elites work like hand in glove...the hand of the financial elites shoved up the fundament of the political elites, managing their every move.
See, you sound just a Tea Partier.
What makes you think the Tea Party is truly "populist," and how have they been successful?
What makes you think the TP isn't populist. They've been far more successful at influencing the GOP to play their tune than OWS has been with the Dems.
Not that beating OWS is a high bar to meet, but just sayin'...
West Town
"6/27/12 1:24 PM"
And I love how they throw the old guy, Blagojevich, under the bus while pointing to who they seem to think is "the adult", Quinn.
Yeah, Blago's corrupt, the trial proved that. All Illinois corruption began and ended with Rod Blagojevich...
'Robert Cook' said, "One faction that hasn't given up on class warfare are the financial elites: they continue to wage war on the rest of us with unabated industry."
Because in order to obtain more than you need, there must be someone else who does not have enough?
You and I think it's funny, but I'd say a majority of liberals actually believe that wealth is static and that any income is zero-sum. You can see it whenever there's a financial meltdown or a bubble bursts and the libs start screaming "Someone stole the money! Where's the money!"
"Give up" only in the sense of "surrender".
lord knows it hasn't been working.
Steven said...
Class warfare was already losing in the 1980s. That's why the whole "New Democrat" phenomenon emerged.
1976? Centrist D beat centrist R, if narrowly.
1980? Conservative beat liberal.
1984? Conservative beat liberal.
1988? Conservative ("no new taxes") beat liberal.
1992? Lefty D beat centrist (raised taxes) R.
1996? Lefty D beat centrist R.
2000? Centrist R beat Lefty (Gore, who was a natural for a More of Clinton run, stupidly ran a class warfare campaign.)
2004? Centrist R beat Lefty, by relatively narrow margin.
2008? Lefty D beat centrist R.
FIFY
AllieOop said...
Dreams, I fear Romney is an Obama lite.
Mr/Ms FUD rides again.
All you have to do is look at Illinois. Some 47% of their public pension funding is, well, unfunded.
Wisconsin has always been 100% funded, and was just rated the best pension fund system in the country. Maybe IL should look at how we have run our pension system. Naturally Walker wants to tinker with it, since it's run so well.
"Blogger garage mahal said...
All you have to do is look at Illinois. Some 47% of their public pension funding is, well, unfunded.
Wisconsin has always been 100% funded, and was just rated the best pension fund system in the country. Maybe IL should look at how we have run our pension system. Naturally Walker wants to tinker with it, since it's run so well.
6/27/12 1:34 PM"
http://www.fdlreporter.com/viewart/20120627/FON0101/120626109/Walker-Willing-look-pension-system?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
"a contention that helps explain why he was at the Commercial Club of Chicago, which has warned that companies will leave the state if Illinois does not reform its pension system. "
Not quite "saying" the same thing, but close enough to where you should be thoroughly disgusted with yourself.
One more thing:
“What I’ve said is I’m not proposing any changes at this time,”
That must mean, "I want to tinker with it"
WV- efendote - a personal story laced with profanity
“What I’ve said is I’m not proposing any changes at this time,”
The full quote: "What I've said is I'm not proposing any changes at this time," he said after a speech at the Commercial Club of Chicago. "That doesn't mean I won't be open to them."
Walker’s has mandated study of the WRS, which will “specifically address establishing a defined contribution plan as an option for WRS participating employees,” is due on June 30th.
"Naturally Walker wants to tinker with it, since it's run so well."
Oh, garage, I forgot that you can divine intent.
Is it really so bad to do a fiscal review of things?
Blue@9
You still haven't said how the Tea Party has been successful. What have they done? What material results have taken place as a result of their existence, what policy changes have occurred or are pending?
Also, your "observations" notwithstanding, what evidence do you have they are actually "populist?" How do you define that and what have they done or are they doing that proves they meet your definition of "populist?"
What makes you think the Tea Party is truly "populist,"
They certainly were opposed to the bailouts of the so called financial elites as well as the runaway Federal debt that they know all to wepll who will be stuck with the tab.
Based upon your comments I would have pegged you as a Tea Partier.
What makes you think the Tea Party is truly "populist,"
I'm still waiting for RC to give us his definition of populism and explain to us why the tea party doesn't meet it.
The full quote: "What I've said is I'm not proposing any changes at this time," he said after a speech at the Commercial Club of Chicago. "That doesn't mean I won't be open to them."
While I am happy working in my current job, I would be open to consider other opportunities doesn't mean I'm actively looking for a new job.
He is disappointed in Obama's lack of taking politics to the streets and forming a revolutionary people's army to redistribute everything.
That's so 1918. Obama is smoother than that. He is like the cult doctor cutting food intake as a healthy thing to do until he has starved the country to death.
Obama's neo-Marxist gang is in the EPA amd the TSA and leveraging the Environmental Hoax du jour to energy strangle the American colossus and watch its military wither and die.
Everything else is smoke and mirrors to keep the corrupt Dems and RINOS quiet until he finishes us off.
That's why the Tea Party in all of its rude and crude anger is our ONLY line of defense.
"You still haven't said how the Tea Party has been successful. What have they done?"
-- There's this little thing. It's called 2010.
I'll put my faith in a Wall Street hedge fund manager above a union boss any fucking day of week!
Scott Walker is the ultimate Tea Party candidate, look what damage he's inflicted on the Wisconsin left wing machine. He's like The Terminator!
Even some working-class voters have their assets in the stock market, because of their 401(k)s and IRAs, making even the most traditional of Democrats believe their interests are more in line with Wall Street than opposed.
The last sentence of the post is the operative sentence of the post. Everything else is flying spittle.
Wisconsin has always been 100% funded
Wisconsin SELF REPORTS to the Pew Foundation that it's doing better than all other states, and for that limited success I applaud the system administrators (and the politicians who put in the country's only variable benefit schedule, to the chagrin of union leaders).
But still, a key (rosy) assumption of the fund is that "Wisconsin expects to earn 7.2% a year in investment returns". Yes, it's lower than many other states use as an assumption, but it's also higher than the fund has realized consistently.
Cookie,
How has the Tea Party been successful? I wouldn't know, go ask Bob Bennett.
You still haven't said how the Tea Party has been successful.
Seriously? They're the most powerful faction in the Republican Party right now. They've put up a ton of primary candidates against Republican incumbents or party-designated candidates and won. The last time we saw a major party get upended this way was in the 60s.
What have they done? What material results have taken place as a result of their existence, what policy changes have occurred or are pending?
I'd say Republican control of the House owes a lot to their efforts. How is that not a success? Tell me, how has the Coffee Party or OWS done when it comes to changing the political conversation in this country?
Also, your "observations" notwithstanding, what evidence do you have they are actually "populist?" How do you define that and what have they done or are they doing that proves they meet your definition of "populist?"
There's no one definition of populism, but I like to think of it as any ideology/movement/cause that derives its appeal from speaking to the interests of "the masses" or "the people" as opposed to "elites" whether political, business, or cultural). I'd say the Tea Party falls under this rubric, as does OWS. If you paid attention, rather than reading political agitprop from the Big Parties, you'd know this.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agrees. The Tea Party has done nothing.
It's fair to say that unions can put pressure on employers to increase pay and benefits. But it's also fair to say that such pressure can leave an employer hobbled and sometimes even bankrupt. This can include cities as well as automobile companies...The unofficial bargain with civil service jobs was that one accepted a lower wage for a more secure job with better benefits. That's gone by the wayside. Civil service jobs are now far superior by every metric to a job in private industry. A lot of civil servants have a cushy deal. They deserve their share of resentment.....I'm sufficiently agile to resent both them and corporate execs who get a performance bonus for banrupting their employer--and for the same reason.
"But it's also fair to say that such pressure can leave an employer hobbled and sometimes even bankrupt. This can include cities as well as automobile companies..."
Automobile companies and other private sector companies can leave their host state or even leave the country if their unions get too greedy but a city or any state and local government can't leave so their only option is to go bankrupt or bite the bullet and stand up to the unions like Walker did in Wisconsin.
I have to agree with AllieOop. I pray Romney isn't Zero lite. I haven't heard anything to disuade me from that belief though. Pardon, I meant seen anything, talk is cheap.
As for RC, the Tea Party has primaried, sucessfully, against several incumbent RINO's. The good news is that sometimes those Tea Party candidates have actually beaten the D nominee too. An excellent example would be mine own states Rand Paul. He not only bucked Mitch McConnels hand picked candidate, he went on and beat the states D picked candidate.
In other news, Charlie Rangle won his parties nomination again. You must be so proud.
Democrats! Because cheating isn't just for taxes, wives, and vote counts.
@dreams
Unless you're Boeing. Then Eric Holder will fuck you.
"Did the Democrats give up on class warfare?"
Did Chicago give up on metabolically challenged voters?
Did Vegas give up on slots?
Did the District of Columbia give up on rent-seeking?
Did lounge lizards give up on polyester?
Did blog commenters give up on emoticons? :-/
Did the Russkies give up on vodka?
Did Steve Green give up on vodka?
Did James Lileks give up on nostalgia?
Did the Kardadshians give up on Gucci handbags?
garage mahal said...
All you have to do is look at Illinois. Some 47% of their public pension funding is, well, unfunded.
Wisconsin has always been 100% funded, and was just rated the best pension fund system in the country. Maybe IL should look at how we have run our pension system. Naturally Walker wants to tinker with it, since it's run so well.
No it wasn't. Just because your legislature votes to fund something doesn't means the funds are there to pay for it. That WAS the problem in Wisconsin. It IS the problem in Illinois.
Your naive and very childlike belief that the public pensions are 100% funded is based on the not at all realistic return the state pension fund investors think they will get on their investment of public pension funds. The state is chugging along also with the naive and childlike belief that they will get 8% on their investment, forever. And invest in some very risky things to try and achieve that goal. Something private pension schemes are prevented from doing by law. But the reality is the public pension fund is lucky if they are making 3.5%. However because they have this unreal belief they are making 8% they claim they are 100% funded. Who makes up the shortfall, Garage?
Do you raise taxes in the middle of a depression(Biden), do you lay off public employees, or do you have those employees start to contribute to their own pension plan?
Illinois is going to do all of those things. It is going to lay off some employees. It is going to require others to contribute to their own retirement and reduce the taxpayer contribution. New hires will be required to fund their own 401k. I also suspect, since it is a totally democrat run state, that there is another state income tax hike on the way as well as a statewide property tax hike.
Just because the sign says "free lunch" doesn't mean you don't have to buy a beer first.
"Did the Democrats give up on class warfare?"
Of course not. National Democrats made a tactical decision to limit class warfare tactics to specific audiences. OWS convinced them it's a political liability to let the general public know their goals, so use academia and NGOs to push that agenda. They know 80% of the public doesn't pay enough attention for those activities have the negative impact they'll get if they allow their tactics of hatred to be generally known.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा