Scott Walker WI governor vs the Packers & teachers (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

I don't really know enough about pre-K education to have an opinion on this, but if we only asked our government to provide services to children that can't be provided by "relatively decent parenting," we'd be in big trouble.

I am really scratching my head trying to figure out what your point is (if any). Help me out here.

Our standard for what government should or should not do can't be based on whether "relatively decent parenting" could provide something in the absence of government action. Because the sad fact is that "relatively decent parenting" is kind of rare.

And 'relatively decent teaching' isn't? If it just becomes the usual battle of bashing parents or teachers, nothing will be gained.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. I have no idea what goes on at pre-K and whether and how it helps children. All I said was that the argument that it provides nothing that can't also be provided by "relatively decent parenting" is meaningless, because the truth is that there are a ton of young children who don't receive relatively decent parenting. Whether, why and how Wisconsin chooses to provide pre-K education for these children is a decision that is entirely Wisconsin's.

 

[bueno]

I don't really know enough about pre-K education to have an opinion on this, but if we only asked our government to provide services to children that can't be provided by "relatively decent parenting," we'd be in big trouble.

I am really scratching my head trying to figure out what your point is (if any). Help me out here.

Our standard for what government should or should not do can't be based on whether "relatively decent parenting" could provide something in the absence of government action. Because the sad fact is that "relatively decent parenting" is kind of rare.

I agree that what the governemnt should or should not do should not be based solely on perceived need, but on what powers have been assigned to said governemnt, and raising our children is not on that list.whether relatively decent parenting is rare or not (I do not think it is) is not relevant to what actions the government should take. (Which could start a right vs left pissing contest, but so be it.)

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't really know enough about pre-K education to have an opinion on this, but if we only asked our government to provide services to children that can't be provided by "relatively decent parenting," we'd be in big trouble.

I am really scratching my head trying to figure out what your point is (if any). Help me out here.

Our standard for what government should or should not do can't be based on whether "relatively decent parenting" could provide something in the absence of government action. Because the sad fact is that "relatively decent parenting" is kind of rare.

I agree that what the governemnt should or should not do should not be based solely on perceived need, but on what powers have been assigned to said governemnt, and raising our children is not on that list.whether relatively decent parenting is rare or not (I do not think it is) is not relevant to what actions the government should take. (Which could start a right vs left pissing contest, but so be it.)

Yeah, clearly we're just going to disagree on this from a left/right perspective.

 

[bueno]

I don't really know enough about pre-K education to have an opinion on this, but if we only asked our government to provide services to children that can't be provided by "relatively decent parenting," we'd be in big trouble.

I am really scratching my head trying to figure out what your point is (if any). Help me out here.

Our standard for what government should or should not do can't be based on whether "relatively decent parenting" could provide something in the absence of government action. Because the sad fact is that "relatively decent parenting" is kind of rare.

I agree that what the governemnt should or should not do should not be based solely on perceived need, but on what powers have been assigned to said governemnt, and raising our children is not on that list.whether relatively decent parenting is rare or not (I do not think it is) is not relevant to what actions the government should take. (Which could start a right vs left pissing contest, but so be it.)

Yeah, clearly we're just going to disagree on this from a left/right perspective.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that government does not have a vested interest in an educated citizenry, but from what I have seen, doing that education can be a conflict of interest.

 

[Ranethe]

It doesn't really matter what you say, you're wrong.

http://nieer.org/pdf...ial-4-years.pdf

You do realize the studies you quote are on the National Institute for Early Education Research website. Of course they cherry-picked and provided only the studies which advance their agenda. There are plenty of studies which show the opposite, such as one just released a few days ago...

A just-released study by the Department of Health and Human Services delivers incredibly harsh news about Head Start. A large, nationwide survey of 4,600 preschoolers who were randomly assigned to either the Head Start (experimental group) or no program (control group) were studied on 114 measures ranging from academic skills to social-emotional development, to health status. The study found no statistically relevant effects from the Head Start program by the end of first grade.

These early childhood programs have been largely ineffective at producing significant results, and considering their costs, the money could be much better spent elsewhere.

Yeah I do realize that. It was a convenient source for the studies. That does not invalidate the studies themselves. There are others out there not cited on that site. And as I admitted in my post, there are some mixed results.Also, I was responding specifically to Dr. Awesome who said "pre-k programs don't really do anything". The study you mention refers to Head Start. Head Start is one example of a pre-k program, targeted specifically to those families below the federal poverty line. It is not the same as state pre-k programs and it's underfunded. Head start is typically part year, part day, and the teacher requirements have been much lower than most universal pre-k programs (though that changed in the recent past I believe). Head Start teachers were only required to have a certificate or 2 year degree. As an aside, not to get into a debate about the effectiveness of Head Start (my rant at you was about ridiculous comments where you said it was glorified babysitting, or the only effective teaching is one-on-one, not necessarily about Head Start per se-though I am a proponent), but Head Start provides other benefits other than academic.

The link you provide gives a summary but does not link to the actual study. While I didn't look in depth at the studies showing no effect on pre-k education I couldn't help but notice where they were quoted, by John Stossel, on websites like creator.com, etc. Draw your own conclusions.

eta: the title of the article you link to is : Liberals disregard Head Start’s failure. When you google Department of Health and Human Services head Start study it brings up this: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/01/20100113a.html from a study submitted to congress in 2010. It's not the actual study. Also, this:

The study showed that at the end of one program year, access to Head Start positively influenced children’s school readiness. When measured again at the end of kindergarten and first grade, however, the Head Start children and the control group children were at the same level on many of the measures studied.

is somewhat ambiguous (though does suggest the fading effect I mentioned in my previous post) and says "many" of the measure studied, not all which is suggested by the article you linked. Without access to the study it's difficult to evaluate the methodology. Maybe this isn't the study referred to in your article but it was the most recent I could find.

another edit: from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/01/14/18headstart.h29.html

The authors of the impact study write that “although the quality is high on average, Head Start programs vary in terms of instruction in the key areas measured as part of this study.” They also stressed that children in the control group participated in a mixture of alternative child-care settings, including care by their parents. So the study is reporting only how Head Start children benefited above and beyond children in other kinds of early-childhood settings.

and: Mr. Ramey questioned the quality not only of some Head Start programs, but of the impact study as well. He characterized it as an example of “poor scholarship and reporting of data.”

He said, for example, the study reports only effect sizes and doesn’t provide information about the performance of children on average. The federal government was supposed to have released data two years ago to scientists so they could analyze the information, he noted, but such data have not been released as part of the impact study. It is not possible to tell by the study whether Head Start students are “humming along at the national average” in terms of their cognitive learning, or if they are “at the 10th percentile” on standardized measures of cognitive learning, he said

Conservative sites have jumped all over this, it's kind of funny.

 

[Statorama]

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR boycott story about death threats made to Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin

Indefensible considering their coverage of tea party rallies last year and the Gabby Giffords shooting this year.

(videoes referenced in the story appear embedded at the link)

Numerous death threats were made against Wisconsin Republican lawmakers last week, but you wouldn't know about it if your only news sources were ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR.

Bucking the boycott was Fox News's Bill O'Reilly Friday (video follows with transcript and commentary):

BILL O'REILLY: But first, death threats in Wisconsin and that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points" memo. The attorney general's office in that state investigating a number of death threats against some Republicans who voted to diminish union power.

A radio station obtained this email, quote: "Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will be killed due to your actions I the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell," unquote. Wisconsin authorities are taking this stuff seriously. They have a suspect, has not been charged as far as we know.

Not taking this seriously were ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR. LexisNexis and closed-caption dump searches of "Wisconsin and 'death threat'" produced zero results for these so-called news outlets throughout the month of March.

Zero.

When you compare this to the hysterical coverage of last year's Tea Party rallies and town hall protests, where conservatives were regularly depicted as either hostile or fomenting violence, one has to wonder how actual death threats against sitting politicians would not be considered newsworthy.

This seems particularly curious after all the talk about hostile rhetoric immediately following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in January.

Now, less than two months later, actual death threats against politicians are being investigated in Wisconsin, and five major news outlets are boycotting the story.

(Readers are advised that MSNBC only provides transcripts for its extended prime time programs making it possible the network did cover this story at some point.)

Would they have reported these threats if they were made against Democrats? Seems a metaphysical certitude, correct?

For the record, according to LexisNexis, leading the way on this coverage was Fox News which has done seven reports on this issue. CNN has done four.

As far as print is concerned, this matter hasn't received a lot of attention there either.

The New York Times has published one story this month referring to death threats in Wisconsin, but it was quite non-specific and didn't mention which Party received the threats:

A number of legislators told law enforcement authorities that they had received death threats, an Assembly spokesman said. And Democrats in the Assembly tried, briefly, to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed as speaker for what they said was his “incredibly impaired” judgment.

That's it. Nothing more about this from the Gray Lady.

But that's more than the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times who have all completely ignored this story.

In case you were wondering how serious these threats are, here's what Green Bay's Fox affiliate WLUK reported Friday:

So, the threats are so serious that two Wisconsin legislators chose not to participate in a parade.

I guess that's not newsworthy because they're Republicans.

 

[Class Dismissed]

When you're a Republican, it's different.

 

[cr8f]

When you're a Republican, it's different.

Like this Fitzgerald ups the mean and crazy

Sen. Fitzgerald: Email re: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

3/14/2011

From: Sen.Fitzgerald

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:52 PM

To: *Legislative Senate Republicans

Subject: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

Dear Members,

With the return of the Senate Democrats this weekend, questions have arisen regarding Democrat members’ participation in Senate standing committee public hearings and executive sessions.

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected in the Records of Committee Proceedings or the Senate Journal. They are free to attend hearings, listen to testimony, debate legislation, introduce amendments, and cast votes to signal their support/opposition, but those votes will not count, and will not be recorded.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact my office.

Thank you,

Scott Fitzgerald

Senate Majority Leader

13th Senate District

 

[cr8f]

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR boycott story about death threats made to Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin

You mean the guy(O'Reilly) who already was found to fabricate claims with the Wisconsin palm trees in the background? Consider the source. I expect they are are waiting until real news outlets confirm these stories.

I heard some a few days ago but the police said none checked out except that idiot emailing something.

How many hate mail threats does the Daily Kos and others get everyday that don't amount to anything.

I've been to several rallies and all I've seen is chants of "SHAME" and "RECALL". This is Wisconsin we do things differently up here.

I don't want any violence or threats of it but angry people on blogs say a lot of dumb things that don't pan out.

When they are made I hope they all get busted. I want peaceful rallies that lead to new elections where the voters decide who they want to represent them.

Like recalls.

 

[The Kerminator]

M & I Bank Vandalized

M&I branch vandalized with anti-Walker graffiti

By Don Walker of the Journal Sentinel

Updated: March 14, 2011 1:46 p.m. |(412) Comments

Greendale - Police said Monday they are investigating an incident Saturday night in which a citizen saw someone spray-painting anti-Gov. Scott Walker graffiti on the side of an M&I Bank branch at Southridge.

Interim Police Chief Bob Malasuk said Monday the bystander spotted the vandal just after 10 p.m. spray-painting the building. No suspect has yet been apprehended.

Malasuk said words such as "Traitor" and "Unions are Forever," as well as profanity directed at Walker were spray-painted on the wall.

The damage has been cleaned up.

Last week, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311, Madison Teachers Inc., Green Bay Education Association, Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association and the Madison Professional Police Officers Association announced a boycott against businesses for either supporting Walker directly, or its executives supporting Walker's campaign, or because the companies are members of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a pro-business group that supported the governor, or all three.

The groups formally asked the bank to express support for public employee collective bargaining rights. The groups said they would encourage their members to boycott if the bank didn't express support.

M&I Bank was the first company named as part of the boycott.

Later Monday, Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, denounced the vandalism.

"Wisconsin has established a new standard when it comes to civil discourse, and illegal acts like vandalism only serve to undermine what has been a peaceful outpouring of support for Wisconsin's public employees," Palmer said in a statement. "Voluntary consumer activism is one way to protest the position of M&I and others who choose not to support collective bargaining. Vandalism, on the other hand, is unacceptable."

The bank has said that it has not taken, or will not take, a position either for or against the governor's budget-repair bill.

The bank said in a statement that it has not contributed to any candidate and did not contribute to Walker or Mayor Tom Barrett in the gubernatorial election.

M & I Bank was one of the businesses listed on the unions boycott list. Also listed was Sendik's grocery stores. Reports on the radio this morning reported that over the weekend the Sendik's on Downer Avenue had their doors and locks superglued.Oh, wait. This is Wisconsin. We do things differently here.

 

[jon_mx]

I am getting real close to adding my first person to my ignore list.

 

[The Kerminator]

More Schools could drop insurance

More districts now could drop insurance arm of teachers union

Costly coverage is 'low-hanging fruit,' hasn't had to compete as hard, some school business managers say

By Amy Hetzner of the Journal Sentinel

March 13, 2011 |(437) Comments

In freeing school boards from bargaining with employees over anything but inflation-capped wage increases, Wisconsin lawmakers might have opened the floodgates for districts seeking to drop coverage by the state's dominant - and highly controversial - health insurance provider for teachers.

WEA Trust, the nonprofit company started 40 years ago by the state's largest teachers union, currently insures employees in about two-thirds of Wisconsin school districts. The company's market dominance has dropped in recent years, although not as much as some school officials who complain about the company's costs would like.

After switching the district's nonunion employees to a different health insurance carrier, Cedarburg School Board President Kevin Kennedy said his school system is likely to look at cost savings by doing the same for its unionized teachers after unsuccessful attempts in previous years.

"It's such a large-ticket item; it's such low-hanging fruit," he said. "You can lay off an aide or increase your student fees, but that doesn't make up such a magnitude of saving as insurance does."

The survival of WEA Trust's health insurance corporation will depend on its ability to compete with other providers that have more pricing flexibility and a greater range of services, said Dale Thoma, managing partner for insurance broker Willis of Wisconsin Inc. Until now, the insurer was negotiated into contracts by adamant union leaders.

"They're going to have to compete in a different, more wide-open arena," he said. "That's what other insurers deal with, and their ability to respond to that and just compete, I guess, will ultimately determine their position in the market."

Because WEA Trust is named as the carrier in so many school district contracts, it has been largely shielded from such competition in the past, said Andy Serio, a group health insurance consultant.

"There literally is no competition if you're named in the collective bargaining agreement, so that would be the most dramatic effect on WEA," he said. "Because clearly, if you're in a collective bargaining agreement, you're in."

At the beginning of this fiscal year, last July 1, the Brown Deer School District began using a different carrier after years with WEA Trust. The district saved $170,000 in just one year - the equivalent of at least two teachers.

But Steve Lyons, director of public affairs for WEA Trust, said the company is named in only one-third of the school district contracts where it provides health insurance. And of those, in about one-third of contracts it is named as the "standard-bearer," meaning that districts can switch to other carriers if they can find substantially similar plans at lower costs, he said.

That shows, he said, that the company did not have an unfair advantage, as some critics have contended, based on the company's ties to the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

"What happens at the local level is, in the past, prior to the budget, is the local school boards would bargain with the local union and they would come to a consensus and often they chose us," Lyons said.

"We're very competitive in pricing and have been and continue to be."

Lyons also said in an e-mail that the insurer returns 93 cents out of every health care premium dollar back to the districts in health care coverage, while "some of our for-profit competitors keep more than 20 cents out of every dollar."

But Emily Koczela, director of finance for the Brown Deer School District and a former Shorewood School Board member, said the company regularly resorts to methods other than competitive pricing to keep its business.

Earlier this year, the Brown Deer district's teachers union filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission over the district's decision to switch from WEA Trust. Koczela suspects the move was aimed at protecting the insurance company rather than the employees' benefits, which she said remained the same with the lower-cost carrier.

"They don't know how to compete," she said. "Their way of competing to get my business back is to sue me. That's not how you get business back."

She said she expected the company will encounter a similar reaction from other business managers who have had difficulty in dropping the company in the past, even when they thought they had a contractual right.

"They've provided good service to the teachers, but they haven't provided good service to the people in the business office who sign their contracts," Koczela said.

This one of the reasons Gov. Walker sited for wanting to limit collective bargaining to salaries.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

More Schools could drop insurance

More districts now could drop insurance arm of teachers union

Costly coverage is 'low-hanging fruit,' hasn't had to compete as hard, some school business managers say

By Amy Hetzner of the Journal Sentinel

March 13, 2011 |(437) Comments

In freeing school boards from bargaining with employees over anything but inflation-capped wage increases, Wisconsin lawmakers might have opened the floodgates for districts seeking to drop coverage by the state's dominant - and highly controversial - health insurance provider for teachers.

WEA Trust, the nonprofit company started 40 years ago by the state's largest teachers union, currently insures employees in about two-thirds of Wisconsin school districts. The company's market dominance has dropped in recent years, although not as much as some school officials who complain about the company's costs would like.

After switching the district's nonunion employees to a different health insurance carrier, Cedarburg School Board President Kevin Kennedy said his school system is likely to look at cost savings by doing the same for its unionized teachers after unsuccessful attempts in previous years.

"It's such a large-ticket item; it's such low-hanging fruit," he said. "You can lay off an aide or increase your student fees, but that doesn't make up such a magnitude of saving as insurance does."

The survival of WEA Trust's health insurance corporation will depend on its ability to compete with other providers that have more pricing flexibility and a greater range of services, said Dale Thoma, managing partner for insurance broker Willis of Wisconsin Inc. Until now, the insurer was negotiated into contracts by adamant union leaders.

"They're going to have to compete in a different, more wide-open arena," he said. "That's what other insurers deal with, and their ability to respond to that and just compete, I guess, will ultimately determine their position in the market."

Because WEA Trust is named as the carrier in so many school district contracts, it has been largely shielded from such competition in the past, said Andy Serio, a group health insurance consultant.

"There literally is no competition if you're named in the collective bargaining agreement, so that would be the most dramatic effect on WEA," he said. "Because clearly, if you're in a collective bargaining agreement, you're in."

At the beginning of this fiscal year, last July 1, the Brown Deer School District began using a different carrier after years with WEA Trust. The district saved $170,000 in just one year - the equivalent of at least two teachers.

But Steve Lyons, director of public affairs for WEA Trust, said the company is named in only one-third of the school district contracts where it provides health insurance. And of those, in about one-third of contracts it is named as the "standard-bearer," meaning that districts can switch to other carriers if they can find substantially similar plans at lower costs, he said.

That shows, he said, that the company did not have an unfair advantage, as some critics have contended, based on the company's ties to the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

"What happens at the local level is, in the past, prior to the budget, is the local school boards would bargain with the local union and they would come to a consensus and often they chose us," Lyons said.

"We're very competitive in pricing and have been and continue to be."

Lyons also said in an e-mail that the insurer returns 93 cents out of every health care premium dollar back to the districts in health care coverage, while "some of our for-profit competitors keep more than 20 cents out of every dollar."

But Emily Koczela, director of finance for the Brown Deer School District and a former Shorewood School Board member, said the company regularly resorts to methods other than competitive pricing to keep its business.

Earlier this year, the Brown Deer district's teachers union filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission over the district's decision to switch from WEA Trust. Koczela suspects the move was aimed at protecting the insurance company rather than the employees' benefits, which she said remained the same with the lower-cost carrier.

"They don't know how to compete," she said. "Their way of competing to get my business back is to sue me. That's not how you get business back."

She said she expected the company will encounter a similar reaction from other business managers who have had difficulty in dropping the company in the past, even when they thought they had a contractual right.

"They've provided good service to the teachers, but they haven't provided good service to the people in the business office who sign their contracts," Koczela said.

This one of the reasons Gov. Walker sited for wanting to limit collective bargaining to salaries.

I thought Scott Walker told us that school districts were forced to buy from WEA?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I don't like extreme right or left when they manipulate facts to win an argument.

I'm going to make this my sig. cr8f has consistently ignored questions he doesn't like/know how to answer and continues to post ridiculously slanted articles while refusing to participate in any kind of level headed discussion. At least Mr. Pack, tim, and even stat (plus the other regulars), have been pretty reasonable.Goodness cr8f is thisclose to going on my ignore list. Just awful work.

 

[Novice2]

The Lib Secretary of State will delay publication of the law so all the Libs running the schools will give their lib union pals sweetheart deals.

 

[jon_mx]

The Lib Secretary of State will delay publication of the law so all the Libs running the schools will give their lib union pals sweetheart deals.

Our grandchildren aren't strapped in debt quite enough, let's pile on some more!

 

[jon_mx]

The ridiculous thing is, they still have collective rights in bargaining salary, just not under the table benefits. In reality, all this does is add transparency to these bargaining agreements, so the public knows exactly what we are paying teachers and aren't surprised 20 years down the road with billions of dollars in sweetheart retirement deals which were hidden in the fine print. The people who are suppose to be our representatives are literally whores for the unions.

 

[cr8f]

First teachers

Then farmers(they use collective bargaining and coops to set prices and compete with corporate farms) No corporate farms here

Now veterans?

Veterans Affairs: Walker budget endangers trust fund

Posted: Mar 14, 2011 3:18 PM

MADISON (WKOW) -- The Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs says the 2011-13 budget proposed by the governor would endanger the Veterans Trust Fund.

In a letter to Governor Scott Walker released Monday, Secretary Kenneth Black said Walker's budget plan would "not provide additional support to ensure the solvency of the Veterans Trust Fund."

The statement also says the Walker budget does not fix the structural deficit in the Fund. Black says the proposal would divert money dedicated to Veterans Homes to fill the deficit and subsidize veteran benefit programs.

Read the entire statement below:

Dear Governor Walker,

The state is facing challenging economic times and I certainly recognize that you have very difficult decisions to make as you prioritize the needs of the state and move forward with the 2011-2013 State Budget.

Wisconsin has a long, historic tradition of supporting its veterans. Even during difficult times, Wisconsin has honored the achievement and sacrifice of those who nobly served this state and nation. The Department of Veterans Affairs has thoroughly examined the Budget Proposal, and while it is a fair beginning, it does not reflect Wisconsin's commitment to provide the benefits and services our veterans need and deserve.

The budget proposal does not provide additional support to ensure the solvency of the Veterans Trust Fund.

At a time of unprecedented need in the veterans community, the budget proposal does not fix the structural deficit in the Veterans Trust Fund by providing additional state support to veterans assistance programs, the Wisconsin Veterans Museum, and Wisconsin Veterans Memorial Cemeteries.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Service Organizations, and numerous other stakeholders have called for state support to ensure the solvency of the Veterans Trust Fund since 2004. Now we have reached the breaking point, and a delayed solution is a non-solution. In this time of extended wartime and economic instability, it is absolutely critical that we continue to fulfill our responsibility to our veterans and we don't push this off onto the next Legislature.

The budget proposal diverts revenue dedicated to our Veterans Homes to subsidize veteran benefit programs and fill the deficit in the Veterans Trust Fund.

The Department is seriously concerned that shifting revenue out of the Homes will lead to a structural deficit in the Homes Fund and significantly undermine the agency's ability to care for members now and to meet their increasing needs in the future.

This is particularly true as the Department prepares to convert an under-performing assisted living facility at its Veterans Home at Union Grove to skilled nursing and to plan for a projected declining census at itsVeterans Home at King. All of which will occur during the time the Department is starting up its newest skilled nursing facility in Chippewa Falls.

The budget does not continue the Veterans Homes' exemption from the bed tax.

In most private care settings, the bed tax increase would be offset by a similar increase in Medicaid reimbursement or daily rates. However, because Wisconsin Veterans Homes are already reimbursed at the Medicare upper limit, payment of the bed tax would not generate additional offsetting Medicaid revenues.

Payment of the bed tax would, however, increase the projected cost of providing care and private pay rates for members of the Homes would need to be increased to recover the costs.

If the exemption is discontinued, $3.7 million would be pulled from the Veterans Homes over the biennium, and private pay rates would increase by approximately $2,200 annually.

The budget proposal cuts veterans assistance programs.

The budget proposal re-estimates projected program use and cuts several veterans assistance programs, including a 38% reduction to Veterans Service Organization Claims Services, a 10% reduction to the Military Funeral Honors Program, which provides funeral honors to over 6,200 veterans every year at no cost to their families, a 19% reduction in Assistance to Needy Veterans, which provides hearing aids, dentures and eye glasses to the neediest of veterans, and a 53% cut in the Veterans Assistance Program, which helps homeless veterans obtain rehabilitation services.

It is estimated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) that 1,000 veterans of World War II die every day. Korean War veterans are being lost in similar numbers. Vietnam era veterans are aging and confronting employment and mental health issues in unprecedented numbers. The veterans returning from the Persian Gulf face limited employment opportunities and unique health issues from their service.

Claims with the USDVA are at the highest levels since the period following the end of the Vietnam conflict. The proposed re-estimates do not adequately reflect the need for increased outreach and increased demand for programs which assist Wisconsin's most needy veterans.

The budget proposal recommends outside contracting for the staffing and operation of the Veterans Home in Chippewa Falls.

The Department is seriously concerned that outside contracting for the staffing and operation of the Veterans Home in Chippewa Falls will create unintended consequences for members of the Home. The Department is actively investigating whether outside contracting will have a negative effect on the costs of care, the liability exposure of the state, and most importantly, the high quality of care provided to members of the Veterans Homes, as recognized by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Also, federal law requires the Department provide at least one member of its staff on-site to ensure federal funding for building grants, per diem and other federal programs. The coordination with the other skilled nursing facilities operated by the Department and the projected savings by centralizing multiple functions, such as finance and human relations, maybe lost under this proposed mode of operation.

Your leadership as Governor is essential to shape and uphold Wisconsin's historic tradition of supporting its veterans. Accordingly, the Department requests your support in working with members of the Legislature, particularly members of the Joint Finance Committee, to introduce budget amendments that address these immediate challenges.

The Department will continue to work on behalf of Wisconsin's 417,000 veterans, their families and their survivors. I look forward to discussing these and other issues concerning our veterans with you in the near future. Together we can provide solutions that support Wisconsin's veterans and serve the best interests of the state. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

KENNETH B. BLACK

Secretary

 

[jon_mx]

The Lib Secretary of State will delay publication of the law so all the Libs running the schools will give their lib union pals sweetheart deals.

Our grandchildren aren't strapped in debt quite enough, let's pile on some more!

This tactic needs to be bumped and not buried by one of cr8f's latest pinched loafs.

 

[cr8f]

No corporate farms here in Wisconsin (unless Walker plans on changing that too) but they use collective bargaining and coops to set prices. So they are fighting with union members and many others here. This isn't just democrats, Walkers poll numbers have dropped 12-18 points recently especially among independents.

 

[Teumessian Fox]

What is behind the rush to push through new contracts before the law goes into effect? Even after, a local government can still sign whatever contract they want with a union, can't they?

 

[The Kerminator]

Not sure what the point of your posting this speech is.

Also noted that he says that in his school district 14 of 42 teachers got pink slips because of this bill. He's incorrect. They got pink slips in case they did not pass the bill. Since they passedthe budget repair bill Walker has rescindedthose pink slips.

Link to the recent polls that show Walker's support among independents have dropped 12-18 points, please.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The Lib Secretary of State will delay publication of the law so all the Libs running the schools will give their lib union pals sweetheart deals.

Our grandchildren aren't strapped in debt quite enough, let's pile on some more!

This tactic needs to be bumped and not buried by one of cr8f's latest pinched loafs.

I don't fault the unions for feeding while they can, but I question the Secretary of State. I don't know how long it typically takes him to publish a bill but huge thumbs down if he's delaying this thing longer than normal. I don't want to vote for any Democrats in California based upon the actions of Democrats in Wisconsin.

 

[cr8f]

M & I Bank Vandalized

M&I branch vandalized with anti-Walker graffiti

Vandalizing is stupid. I hope they catch and prosecute all those people.

 

[cr8f]

M & I Bank Vandalized

M&I branch vandalized with anti-Walker graffiti

Vandalizing is stupid. I hope they catch and prosecute all those people.

 

[snogger]

What is behind the rush to push through new contracts before the law goes into effect? Even after, a local government can still sign whatever contract they want with a union, can't they?

These contracts will be good to the "end date", usually 2 to 3 years.. So they want to push through everything they can now, that they won't be able to once the law goes into effect.I've posted it before.. The Teachers Union in our local district sat on a contract renewal for two years.. The latest offer sitting on the table had been there for 4+ months.. as soon as all this hit the fan the Teachers couldn't sign YES fast enough. Something that was getting a from them for 4 months was suddenly

 

[jon_mx]

What is behind the rush to push through new contracts before the law goes into effect? Even after, a local government can still sign whatever contract they want with a union, can't they?

I don't think so. Benefits are non-negotiable. So I think the biggest difference is that if they want to funnel more money to teachers they have to do it by increasing salary. So in the future you can't give teachers a contract package worth $100K with $50K in salary and $50K in benefits, you will have to bump their salary up to $75K and keep their benefits at $25K or whatever it is. The biggest change I see is that it gives citizens better transparency into what is in these contracts. I thought Democrats loved transparency, no?

 

[cr8f]

That's not true. The budget he proposed cuts $900 million from education and prevents local govts from raising money on their own through property taxes even if local governments agree. The state telling local communities how to run their affairs is pretty radical.

Walker has said when his budget passes local towns will have tools to pass these budgets locally but what tools? He hasn't explained that or even why collective bargaining is necessary after the unions gave him everything he wanted.They gave him the increases in health and pensions right away.

In a Fox interview Fitzgerald admitted this is about Obama losing Wisconsin so it isn't even a state issue.

The WPRI poll is very conservative and his unfavorabililty went from 19-41%. As for other polls google them. The Journal-Sentinel (who supported Walker) has reported on them. Or look up WPRI.

This from the Wa Times Walker would lose by 7 points if election was held today and he won by 5 so that's a 12 point swing. It's probably worse now with farmers joining the protests.

 

[jon_mx]

The state telling local communities how to run their affairs is pretty typical.

fixed.

I don't like extreme right or left when they manipulate facts to win an argument.

 

[Statorama]

The Lib Secretary of State will delay publication of the law so all the Libs running the schools will give their lib union pals sweetheart deals.

Our grandchildren aren't strapped in debt quite enough, let's pile on some more!

This tactic needs to be bumped and not buried by one of cr8f's latest pinched loafs.

I don't fault the unions for feeding while they can, but I question the Secretary of State. I don't know how long it typically takes him to publish a bill but huge thumbs down if he's delaying this thing longer than normal. I don't want to vote for any Democrats in California based upon the actions of Democrats in Wisconsin.

They're typically published in a day, but the SoS has up to 10 days to publish them. It's going to go the full 10 days due to it being a Democrat.The most important thing to the unions is that the money keeps flowing. If these local communities sign contract renewals, then everyone is still under the same old system where you have to be in the union whether you want to be or not. It kills me that Democrats hate freedom of choice. The world would be such a better place if Democrats believed in giving people the freedom to make choices in their lives.

 

[Statorama]

Unions vs. the little guy

If you're a Republican, it's a scenario straight out of "Alice in Wonderland." Fourteen Wisconsin state senators, all Democrats, flee the state for three weeks, bringing government to a halt in an effort to stop Gov. Scott Walker's budget bill. After three weeks, the fugitive Democrats return in failure. And then, when a rich and highly organized effort to punish lawmakers is launched, it's directed not at the Democrats who ran away but at the Republicans who stayed home and did their job.

That is precisely what is now happening in Wisconsin. Local and national labor organizations, enraged by the successful Republican effort to limit the collective bargaining powers of public employees unions, are pouring money and manpower into petitions to recall GOP state senators. At the same time, Republican drives to recall runaway Democrats, while rich in volunteer spirit, are working with far less money and organized support.

On the Democratic side are the AFL-CIO, the big public worker unions, party organizations and activist groups like MoveOn.org, which have already raised millions of dollars online. On the Republican side are a few Tea Party groups, taxpayer organizations and not a lot more.

"They're off to a quicker start," Wisconsin Republican Party executive director Mark Jefferson says. "We have some structural disadvantages because taxpayer groups and volunteer organizations are more loosely put together than a union syndicate."

Officially, there are eight Republicans and eight Democrats facing recall petitions. But it appears the most serious challenges involve three on each side. Democrats are working hard to knock off Republican senators Dan Kapanke, Alberta Darling and Randy Hopper. Republicans are targeting Democratic senators Robert Wirch, Jim Holperin and Dave Hansen.

Wisconsin law requires recall petitioners to gather thousands of signatures before an actual election is held. The specific number, based on voting in the most recent elections, is different for each district but ranges from about 15,000 to 22,000.

That's where the organizing strength of the AFL-CIO and its unions come in. Labor and its Democratic allies realize that Wisconsin is a critical battle and are desperate to make sure other states do not follow Wisconsin's lead. Republicans, meanwhile, seem less aware of the stakes.

"If Republicans do not take this very seriously, they could be in trouble here," says Steve Baas of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, which supports Walker's budget reforms.

The imbalance of power might be alarming to national conservatives, but it doesn't seem to worry the troops on the ground trying to recall Democratic senators.

"I think it's a huge advantage for us because we are really, really grass roots," says Dan Hunt, an out-of-business real estate developer in the Kenosha area who heads Taxpayers to Recall Robert Wirch. While the other side has more money, Hunt says, "We haven't had a problem raising funds. We're fully funded as of now. We're getting national support; it's just national individual support."

Beyond organization, there is a difference in the two recall efforts. The conservative drive to recall Democratic senators began in outrage over the Democrats' flight from the state. How could lawmakers who took an oath of office do that? The liberal drive to recall Republicans began as an effort to pressure those senators to vote against Walker's budget bill. Now that the bill has passed, it's an effort to make examples of the senators who supported it.

For Hunt, it's about principle.

"I'm doing it because my senator didn't represent me in Madison," Hunt says. "He left, and I think that is the worst thing that can happen in a legislative democracy. People who choose to leave their post on purpose, just to avoid a vote on a bill -- that's an egregious act that requires citizen reaction."

Both sides have several more weeks to gather signatures. After that, there is a period for legal challenges of the petitions and then another period before the actual recall election, which could come in mid-to-late summer. Will the intensity of union activists last until then? And just as important, will the intensity of ordinary citizens, the people who are volunteering for Hunt's group and others like it, stay alive as well?

Unions are very good at things like gathering signatures and chartering buses to take people to the polls. But don't rule out the team that's fighting on principle.

 

[cr8f]

Why does someone from Louisianna in here everyday? Shouldn't you be working on your own state?

These are education rankings of the 10 worst states along with rankings of midwestern states. Walker is trying to turn us into Mississippi with snow.

41 Georgia

42 Hawaii

43 New Mexico

44 Louisianna

45 Alabama

46 Alaska

47 California

48 Mississippi

49 Nevada

50 Arizona

24 Indiana

9 Iowa

39 Michigan

13 Minnesota
22 Missouri

34 Ohio

21 N Dakota

17 S Dakota

8 Wisconsin

METHODOLOGY--This fifth Smartest State designation is awarded based on 21 factors chosen from Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book, Education State Rankings, 2006-2007.  To calculate the Smartest State rankings, the 21 factors were divided into two groups: those that are “negative” for which a high ranking would be considered bad for a state, and those that are “positive” for which a high ranking would be considered good. Rates for each of the 21 factors were processed through a formula that measures how a state compares to the national average for a given category. The positive and negative nature of each factor was taken into account as part of the formula. Once these computations were made, the factors then were assigned equal weights. These scores then were added together to determine a state’s final score (“SUM” on the table above.) This way, states are assessed based on how they stack up against the national average. The end result is that the farther below the national average a state’s education ranking is, the lower (and less smart) it ranks. The farther above the national average, the higher (and smarter) a state ranks. This same methodology is used for our annual Healthiest State, Safest and Most Dangerous State and Safest/Dangerous City Awards.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm#METHODOLOGY

 

[LAUNCH]

Why does someone from Louisianna in here everyday? Shouldn't you be working on your own state?

These are education rankings of the 10 worst states along with rankings of midwestern states. Walker is trying to turn us into Mississippi with snow.

41 Georgia

42 Hawaii

43 New Mexico

44 Louisianna

Tee meet ball.

 

[Shtaym Syek]

Why does someone from Louisianna in here everyday?

 

[sho nuff]

The Lib Secretary of State will delay publication of the law so all the Libs running the schools will give their lib union pals sweetheart deals.

Our grandchildren aren't strapped in debt quite enough, let's pile on some more!

This tactic needs to be bumped and not buried by one of cr8f's latest pinched loafs.

I don't fault the unions for feeding while they can, but I question the Secretary of State. I don't know how long it typically takes him to publish a bill but huge thumbs down if he's delaying this thing longer than normal. I don't want to vote for any Democrats in California based upon the actions of Democrats in Wisconsin.

The problem is, with the proposed cuts, pushing these contracts through could hurt the municipalities and schools even worse.Then instead of blaming the unions for pushing these contracts through, they will just keep blaming the governor.

 

[Statorama]

Why does someone from Louisianna in here everyday?

I live and pay taxes in Wisconsin for those wondering.

"New civil tone" only applies to the right - Time Magazine calls the Governor "Dead Man Walker"

 

[cr8f]

Recall elections against GOP senators If the court throws the law out because they broke the open meetings law and they re-submit it all we need are 2 senators to vote no.

They have the financial concessions so all the dems want is to remove the collective bargaining provisions.This could save 2 from getting thrown out.

We asked our pollster, Public Policy Polling, to test the waters in all eight Republican-held state Senate districts in Wisconsin which are currently the target of recall efforts. PPP went into the field over the weekend, and the numbers we got back are very interesting. I've summarized the key results in the table below.

We asked a battery of questions in each poll (links to full results are at the end of this post). One basic question asked whether respondents approve of the job performance of each senator—those numbers are in the first two columns after each incumbent's name. Four senators have negative ratings, and one is even—not particularly welcome news for Republicans. We also asked whether respondents support or oppose the idea of recalling their senators. As you can see in the next pair of columns, this question doesn't test as well—pluralities say they favor recall in just three districts—but in a way, it's the least important question we asked. As long as canvassers collect enough valid signatures, a recall election will happen automatically under Wisconsin law. So while this is helpful information to have, it is far from dispositive, especially when contrasted with the next pair of columns.

"Vote Incumbent" and "Vote Democrat" summarize data from our most critical question. We asked poll-takers whether, in a hypothetical election that would be held later this year, they'd support the incumbent (whom we mentioned by name), or his/her "Democratic opponent." (This sort of question is often described as testing a "generic Democrat.") Here, the results give us reason to be cautiously optimistic.

Three Republican incumbents actually trail "generic Dem": Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, and Dan Kapanke. Two more have very narrow leads and garner less than 50% support: Rob Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf. And one more, Alberta Darling, holds a clear lead but is still potentially vulnerable. (Two recall-eligible senators, Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman, sit in extremely red districts and look to have safe leads.) These numbers suggest we have a chance to make five and possibly six recall races highly competitive.

But a key thing to remember, though, is that if any of these senators have to face a recall election, we'll need an actual candidate to run against each of them. In that regard, Wisconsin's recalls are very different from California's, where in 2003 voters were simply asked if they wanted to remove Democratic Gov. Gray Davis from office. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected (with less than a majority) by means of a separate ballot question. In my view, California's system makes it easier to boot an office-holder, because at bottom, the first question simply asks if you'd prefer some other—any other—alternative. If your answer was "yes," you then had your choice on the second question, whether it was Arnold ® or Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) or Gary Coleman (?). In Wisconsin, if a recall election makes it on to the ballot, there is no California-style first question—we go directly to a head-to-head between candidates (with a possible stop along the way for primaries). So for a recall to succeed, we'll need to convince voters to support a real live Democrat—and that means we'll have to recruit some good candidates.

 

[cr8f]

Why does someone from Louisianna in here everyday?

I live and pay taxes in Wisconsin for those wondering.

"New civil tone" only applies to the right - Time Magazine calls the Governor "Dead Man Walker"

Yeah where? What's your phone number so we can chat?

 

[Statorama]

Newsweek : We no longer need public employee unions

The manufactured Madison, Wis., mob is not the movement the White House was hoping for. Both may find themselves at the wrong end of the populist pitchfork. While I generally defend collective bargaining and private-sector unions (lots of airline pilots in my family), it is the abuse by public unions and their bosses that pushes centrists like me to the GOP. It is the right and duty of citizens to petition their government. The Tea Party and Republicans seek to limit government growth to protect their pocketbooks. Public-union bosses want to increase the cost of government to protect their racket.

1. Public unions are big money.

Public unions are big money. Paul Krugman is correct: we do need “some counterweight to the political power of big money.” But in the Alice in Wonderland world where what’s up is down and what’s down is up, Krugman believes public unions do not represent big money. Of the top 20 biggest givers in federal-level politics over the past 20 years, 10 are unions; just four are corporations. The three biggest public unions gave $171.5 million for the 2010 elections alone, according to The Wall Street Journal. That’s big money.

2. Public unions redistribute wealth.

Public employees contribute real value for the benefit of all citizens. Public-union bosses collect real money from all taxpayers for the benefit of a few. Unlike private-sector jobs, which are more than fully funded through revenues created in a voluntary exchange of money for goods or serv-ices, public-sector jobs are funded by taxpayer dollars, forcibly collected by the government (union dues are often deducted from public employees’ paychecks). In 28 states, state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired. A sizable portion of those dues is then donated by the public unions almost exclusively to Democratic candidates. Michael Barone sums it up: “public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.”

3. Public unions silence the voters’ voice.

Big money from public unions, collected through mandatory dues, and funded entirely by the taxpayer, is then redistributed as campaign cash to help elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. In effect, the unions sit on both sides of the table and collectively bargain to raise taxes while the voters’ voice is silenced. But the noisy mob in Madison is amplified beyond its numbers. Wisconsin faces a $137 million deficit this year, and a $3.6 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget. The proposals offered by Gov. Scott Walker would avert 5,500 layoffs of public employees and save $300 million. The public unions, representing just 300,000 government employees in the Badger State, are trying to trump the will of the voters. Though voters don’t get to sit at the bargaining table, they do speak collectively at the ballot box.

4. Public unions are unnecessary.

The primary purpose of private-sector unions today is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But with a power greater than their numbers, these unions have destroyed the manufacturing sector, forcing jobs overseas by driving labor costs above the price consumers here will pay. The government is a monopoly and it earns no profits to be shared. Public employees are already protected by statutes that preclude arbitrary hiring and firing decisions.

The primary purpose of public unions today, as ugly as it sounds, is to work against the financial interests of taxpayers: the more public employees are paid in wages and uncapped benefits, the less taxpayers keep of the money they earn.it’s time to call an end to the privileged class. And the White House makes a mistake if it thinks it can grow a manufactured and uncivil unrest into a popular movement. Voters will not follow those who flee.

 

[cr8f]

So it's OK to send cops to private homes but not picket?

RACINE - After protesters picketed at Sen. Van Wanggaard's house in recent weeks, he is now looking into a bill to prohibit picketing at private residences.

"When they come to my house it's intimidating and threatening," said Wanggaard, R-Racine.

There are some local ordinances against certain picketing at private residences, he said. He would like to see it included in state statutes and is in the initial stages of drafting a proposal.

That is one of the items Wanggaard brought up when he met with The Journal Times editorial board Monday in Racine.

When people went to his house picketing he wasn't even there, he said.

He doesn't have a problem with them going to his office, he said, but when people picket in neighborhoods that is a different story.

People picketed at his house before his vote in support of Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, but Wanggaard said if he hadn't voted for it, it would have affected jobs.

People would have gotten layoff notices, he said.

"These are dollars that translate into jobs," he said.

But regardless he said he would not have voted for it if the Legislature had not amended the bill to require local governments to establish workplace safety provisions and a termination grievance procedure. He spoke with the governor and Republican leadership to make sure it was included in the budget repair bill, he said.

Now with the vote behind him, he said he is moving forward focusing on jobs and creating a more business-friendly environment, specifically in Racine.

He wants to continue to look at changing regulatory items and unfunded mandates that have been put on businesses, schools and municipalities.

"A lot of times the state means well," Wanggaard said. "It might be good in Hudson, but it doesn't really fit what is going on down here in Racine."

Some of the changes to regulatory items and unfunded mandates are included in the budget, he said.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Newsweek : We no longer need public employee unions

The manufactured Madison, Wis., mob is not the movement the White House was hoping for. Both may find themselves at the wrong end of the populist pitchfork. While I generally defend collective bargaining and private-sector unions (lots of airline pilots in my family), it is the abuse by public unions and their bosses that pushes centrists like me to the GOP. It is the right and duty of citizens to petition their government. The Tea Party and Republicans seek to limit government growth to protect their pocketbooks. Public-union bosses want to increase the cost of government to protect their racket.

1. Public unions are big money.

Public unions are big money. Paul Krugman is correct: we do need "some counterweight to the political power of big money." But in the Alice in Wonderland world where what's up is down and what's down is up, Krugman believes public unions do not represent big money. Of the top 20 biggest givers in federal-level politics over the past 20 years, 10 are unions; just four are corporations. The three biggest public unions gave $171.5 million for the 2010 elections alone, according to The Wall Street Journal. That's big money.

2. Public unions redistribute wealth.

Public employees contribute real value for the benefit of all citizens. Public-union bosses collect real money from all taxpayers for the benefit of a few. Unlike private-sector jobs, which are more than fully funded through revenues created in a voluntary exchange of money for goods or serv-ices, public-sector jobs are funded by taxpayer dollars, forcibly collected by the government (union dues are often deducted from public employees' paychecks). In 28 states, state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired. A sizable portion of those dues is then donated by the public unions almost exclusively to Democratic candidates. Michael Barone sums it up: "public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party."

3. Public unions silence the voters' voice.

Big money from public unions, collected through mandatory dues, and funded entirely by the taxpayer, is then redistributed as campaign cash to help elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. In effect, the unions sit on both sides of the table and collectively bargain to raise taxes while the voters' voice is silenced. But the noisy mob in Madison is amplified beyond its numbers. Wisconsin faces a $137 million deficit this year, and a $3.6 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget. The proposals offered by Gov. Scott Walker would avert 5,500 layoffs of public employees and save $300 million. The public unions, representing just 300,000 government employees in the Badger State, are trying to trump the will of the voters. Though voters don't get to sit at the bargaining table, they do speak collectively at the ballot box.

4. Public unions are unnecessary.

The primary purpose of private-sector unions today is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But with a power greater than their numbers, these unions have destroyed the manufacturing sector, forcing jobs overseas by driving labor costs above the price consumers here will pay. The government is a monopoly and it earns no profits to be shared. Public employees are already protected by statutes that preclude arbitrary hiring and firing decisions.

The primary purpose of public unions today, as ugly as it sounds, is to work against the financial interests of taxpayers: the more public employees are paid in wages and uncapped benefits, the less taxpayers keep of the money they earn.it's time to call an end to the privileged class. And the White House makes a mistake if it thinks it can grow a manufactured and uncivil unrest into a popular movement. Voters will not follow those who flee.

Wow, even ultra liberal Newsweek gets it.

 

[Fallerjw]

So it's OK to send cops to private homes but not picket?

RACINE - After protesters picketed at Sen. Van Wanggaard's house in recent weeks, he is now looking into a bill to prohibit picketing at private residences.

"When they come to my house it's intimidating and threatening," said Wanggaard, R-Racine.

There are some local ordinances against certain picketing at private residences, he said. He would like to see it included in state statutes and is in the initial stages of drafting a proposal.

That is one of the items Wanggaard brought up when he met with The Journal Times editorial board Monday in Racine.

When people went to his house picketing he wasn't even there, he said.

He doesn't have a problem with them going to his office, he said, but when people picket in neighborhoods that is a different story.

People picketed at his house before his vote in support of Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, but Wanggaard said if he hadn't voted for it, it would have affected jobs.

People would have gotten layoff notices, he said.

"These are dollars that translate into jobs," he said.

But regardless he said he would not have voted for it if the Legislature had not amended the bill to require local governments to establish workplace safety provisions and a termination grievance procedure. He spoke with the governor and Republican leadership to make sure it was included in the budget repair bill, he said.

Now with the vote behind him, he said he is moving forward focusing on jobs and creating a more business-friendly environment, specifically in Racine.

He wants to continue to look at changing regulatory items and unfunded mandates that have been put on businesses, schools and municipalities.

"A lot of times the state means well," Wanggaard said. "It might be good in Hudson, but it doesn't really fit what is going on down here in Racine."

Some of the changes to regulatory items and unfunded mandates are included in the budget, he said.

Isn't it considered trespassing to picket on someone's private property who doesn't want you there? Big difference between picketing on private vs. public property, right?

 

[LAUNCH]

So it's OK to send cops to private homes but not picket?

No. Would you want a bunch of Tea Party activists picketing your next door neighbor?

 

[cr8f]

Newsweek : We no longer need public employee unions

Manufactured mob? That would be the bussed in and Fox promoted teaparty.

Whether unions are required or not anymore is up to employees. If they vote to have one I say they should have one.

If you look at wages sinmce 1980 they've been flat or depressed while they have gone up where unions are present. I think organizing and bargaining in a group still helps when fighting a far more powerful employer. For disputes who can you go to?

The Labor Dept keeps getting defunded and weaker.

I'm not a union member but they are the only non big business group that spends big money after Citizens United. Gert rid of big spending and I'll go along with you.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Newsweek : We no longer need public employee unions

The manufactured Madison, Wis., mob is not the movement the White House was hoping for. Both may find themselves at the wrong end of the populist pitchfork. While I generally defend collective bargaining and private-sector unions (lots of airline pilots in my family), it is the abuse by public unions and their bosses that pushes centrists like me to the GOP. It is the right and duty of citizens to petition their government. The Tea Party and Republicans seek to limit government growth to protect their pocketbooks. Public-union bosses want to increase the cost of government to protect their racket.

1. Public unions are big money.

Public unions are big money. Paul Krugman is correct: we do need "some counterweight to the political power of big money." But in the Alice in Wonderland world where what's up is down and what's down is up, Krugman believes public unions do not represent big money. Of the top 20 biggest givers in federal-level politics over the past 20 years, 10 are unions; just four are corporations. The three biggest public unions gave $171.5 million for the 2010 elections alone, according to The Wall Street Journal. That's big money.

2. Public unions redistribute wealth.

Public employees contribute real value for the benefit of all citizens. Public-union bosses collect real money from all taxpayers for the benefit of a few. Unlike private-sector jobs, which are more than fully funded through revenues created in a voluntary exchange of money for goods or serv-ices, public-sector jobs are funded by taxpayer dollars, forcibly collected by the government (union dues are often deducted from public employees' paychecks). In 28 states, state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired. A sizable portion of those dues is then donated by the public unions almost exclusively to Democratic candidates. Michael Barone sums it up: "public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party."

3. Public unions silence the voters' voice.

Big money from public unions, collected through mandatory dues, and funded entirely by the taxpayer, is then redistributed as campaign cash to help elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. In effect, the unions sit on both sides of the table and collectively bargain to raise taxes while the voters' voice is silenced. But the noisy mob in Madison is amplified beyond its numbers. Wisconsin faces a $137 million deficit this year, and a $3.6 billion shortfall in the next two-year budget. The proposals offered by Gov. Scott Walker would avert 5,500 layoffs of public employees and save $300 million. The public unions, representing just 300,000 government employees in the Badger State, are trying to trump the will of the voters. Though voters don't get to sit at the bargaining table, they do speak collectively at the ballot box.

4. Public unions are unnecessary.

The primary purpose of private-sector unions today is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But with a power greater than their numbers, these unions have destroyed the manufacturing sector, forcing jobs overseas by driving labor costs above the price consumers here will pay. The government is a monopoly and it earns no profits to be shared. Public employees are already protected by statutes that preclude arbitrary hiring and firing decisions.

The primary purpose of public unions today, as ugly as it sounds, is to work against the financial interests of taxpayers: the more public employees are paid in wages and uncapped benefits, the less taxpayers keep of the money they earn.it's time to call an end to the privileged class. And the White House makes a mistake if it thinks it can grow a manufactured and uncivil unrest into a popular movement. Voters will not follow those who flee.

Wow, even ultra liberal Newsweek gets it.

Newsweek: Do we still need unions? yes

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s effort two weeks ago to end collective bargaining for public employees in his state was the worst thing to happen to the union movement in recent memory—until it unexpectedly became the best thing to happen to the union movement in recent memory. Give the man some credit: in seven days, Walker did what unions have been trying and failing to do for decades. He united the famously fractious movement, reknit its emotional connection with allies ranging from students to national Democratic leaders, and brought the decline of organized labor to the forefront of the national agenda. The question is: will it matter?

At this point, it’s a safe bet that the proposal Walker is pushing in Wisconsin won’t spread far. Ambitious Republican governors in Indiana and Florida have backed away as unions have made it clear that trying to yank away collective-bargaining rights is a lot of pain for modest gain. But therein lies the problem: a “win” for unions here is no win at all, but, at best, the avoidance of a loss. It doesn’t end their seemingly decades-long slide into irrelevance—fewer than 7 percent of private workers are unionized, down from about 25 percent in the 1970s. It doesn’t earn them new members, or make it easier to organize Walmart, or create a new model for labor relations that’s better suited to the modern economy. But it does give them a fleeting instant in which America is willing to ask questions that have been ignored for years: Do we need unions? And, if so, how can we get them back? What we’re about to find out is whether the unions have answers. In recent years they haven’t. “They seem like a legacy institution and not an institution of the future,” says Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union.

But unions still have a crucial role to play in America. First, they give workers a voice within—and, when necessary, leverage against—their employer. That means higher wages, but it also means that workers can go to their managers with safety concerns or ideas to improve efficiency and know that they’ll not only get a hearing, they’ll be protected from possible reprisals. Second, unions are a powerful, sophisticated player concerned with more than just the next quarter’s profit reports—what economist John Kenneth Galbraith called a “countervailing power” in an economy dominated by large corporations. They participate in shareholder meetings, where they’re focused on things like job quality and resisting outsourcing. They push back on business models that they don’t consider sustainable for their workers or, increasingly, for the environment. In an economy with a tendency toward bigness—where big producers are negotiating with big retailers and big distributors—workers need a big advocate of their own. Finally, unions bring some semblance of balance to the political system. A lot of what happens in politics is, unfortunately, the result of moneyed, organized interests who lobby strategically and patiently to get their way. Most of that money is coming from various business interests. One of the few lobbies pushing for the other side is organized labor—and it plays a strikingly broad role. The Civil Rights Act, the weekend, and the Affordable Care Act are all examples of organized labor fighting for laws that benefited not just the unionized. That’s money and political capital it could’ve spent on reforming the nation’s labor laws.

Of course, organized labor is not always at its best. It can be myopic and hidebound. It can fight for rigid work rules that make workplaces less efficient and workers less happy. It can argue for pension and health-care benefits that, in the long run, are simply not sustainable.

But to paraphrase Tolstoy’s insight about families, all institutions are broken in their own unique ways. Corporations and governments have their flaws, too. Like labor, they’re necessary participants in a balanced economy. A world without organized labor is a world where workers have less voice and corporations are even more dominant and unchecked across both the economy and the political system. That isn’t healthy—not for workers and, in the long run, not even for corporations. But to change it, labor has to do more than cheat death. It has to find a new lease on life nationally.

 

[Statorama]

Newsweek: Do we still need unions? yes

But unions still have a crucial role to play in America. First, they give workers a voice within—and, when necessary, leverage against—their employer.

Pssssst, in this case the employers they're leveraging are the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

Unions are a cancer in America, and the symptoms are visible all over. See: Detroit.

 

[hooter311]

Saw about a dozen "Recall Walker" protesters along the side of the highway on my way into work this morning.

Laughable.

Go to work, go looking for work, or protest an actual cause, not the "boogeyman".

 

[cr8f]

There's a Miller boycott. Fosters, Molson, Blue Moon, Tyskie, Aguila, Coors and Leinies are all Miller now? Wow.

I don't drink them but am surprised by some of those brands.

Interesting story (with links)on union rights, wages and education

To make their case during the stand-off in Madison, conservatives took aim at Wisconsin's teachers. Unfortunately for their GOP echo chamber, the right-wing blogosphere made the mistake of complaining that Wisconsin received millions of dollars in federal education aid when solidly Republican red states get much, much more. Then, the would-be Republican union busters are whining that Badger state students can't read. As it turns out, Wisconsin students outperform their counterparts in those reddest of states where collective bargaining rights are few - or non-existent.

Like in Mississippi.

The education of its children provides just one of many heart-breaking stories of failure for the people of Mississippi. At $7,890 per student per year, Mississippi ranks 45th in school funding. (And even that meager figure is only made possible by substantial funding from the federal government.) According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department Education, only 22% of Magnolia State fourth graders read at or above grade level. By eighth grade, the figure falls to 19%. (Only the District of Columbia does worse.) It's no surprise that Mississippi has the lowest mean score on the ACT college admissions test taken by 96% of the state's high school graduates. And as it turns out, only 63% of its children even graduate, less than the national average of 69% (and much lower than the 81% in, for example, Wisconsin.)

Union loyalty here is pretty strong-I wonder how many would voluntarily pay in if they had a choice. The right likes to think everyone is so selfish few would but I don't think that's true here. It would be interesting to see if collective rights were restored but dues was voluntary.

 

[Statorama]

There's a Miller boycott. Fosters, Molson, Blue Moon, Tyskie, Aguila, Coors and Leinies are all Miller now? Wow.

I don't drink them but am surprised by some of those brands

Never heard of Aguila, but surprised to see Tyskie have a Miller/Coors association.

 

[Statorama]

Wisconsin Democratic State Senator wants to outlaw what the Democratic State Senators did

Madison —A Democratic state senator wants to make it impossible for senators in the future to block legislative action by leaving the state.

Sen. Tim Cullen of Janesville was one of the 14 Democrats in the Senate who sought unsuccessfully to block Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair law by driving to Illinois on Feb. 17 and only returning last week. That law drew massive protests by repealing most collective bargaining by public employees in the state.

"The main point I want to make is that what we did we had every legal right to do. It was an extraordinary step against an extraordinary bill," Cullen said. But "the institution of the Senate is not well-served going forward by having this particular avenue available."

Cullen said his proposal for a constitutional amendment would simply eliminate the requirement currently in the state constitution that three-fifths of state senators be present for the body to vote on certain fiscal bills, including those that contain spending items.

A constitutional amendment must be approved by two consecutive Legislatures and voters in a statewide referendum, meaning it takes at least two years to accomplish.

The Senate couldn't vote on Walker's budget-repair bill because Republicans have 19 seats and 20 are needed to reach the three-fifths threshold. All 14 Democrats remained in Illinois because Walker wouldn't agree to remove the collective bargaining language from the bill.

To pass the proposal, Republican lawmakers had to remove provisions such as spending items so they could vote on it with only 19 senators present.