A CEO, a union worker and a Tea Party member are sitting at a table.

On the table is a plate with 10 cookies.

The CEO takes 9 of the cookies, then says to the Tea Party member, "Watch out! That other guy is trying to take part of your cookie!"

My wife and I paid over $3000 dollars in state and local taxes last year not including federal income taxes and we cannot afford a pension or decent healthcare. The only healthcare insurance we can afford is over $500 per month for $10,000 deductable with no drug coverage. I have no problem furnishing public employees with pensions and healthcare from our taxes but first the government must leave us enough money to provide for ourselves.

The Long History of Labor Bashing - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

a short history of the rather dismal history of conservative union-bashing.

I don't understand. What is your solution? Defund all public employee pension plans until the government can ensure that each private citizen can afford to fund their own retirement?

Yes, until we (our government) can figure out a way to get the money from somewhere other than from those who cannot afford these things for themselves. At the very least it is very unfair to force people who cannot afford healthcare etc.. to pay for others. Why can't we design a system that allows people to keep enough money to provide these benefits for their own families before forcing them to provide for others?

in significant measure because conservative continue to insist on tax cuts for the wealthy that undermines the ability of these systems to function equitably. it is one of the many insanities of conservative economic "thinking"....it might have made sense as a purely theoretical construct in the early 1980s, but after 40 years it's pretty obvious that this doesn't work. unless you're part of the top one percent in terms of income. then you have more money to spend on your yacht upkeep. they're expensive you know, yachts.

Well, the free marketeer in me wants to be snippy and say that its your own fault you can't afford to pay for your retirement and that you should stop engaging in class warfare against unionized public employees, but since I know that the free marketeer in me is easily placated by nice-sounding, but overly simplistic and unworkable solutions, I choose to ignore him.

I'm right there with you when it comes to designing a system that allows people to take home enough money to provide for the long term well-being of their families. Unfortunately, the direction we're heading is exactly opposite that, and the main reason for this is that we've been getting the bulk of our economic advice from people who'd love nothing more than to turn our nation into Mexico. They don't want livable wages because livable wages cut into their profits. They don't want regulations because regulations cut into their profits. They could really give two shits if you or I can save for retirement. In fact, they stand to make more money if we can't, because that means more cheap, desperate labor for them.

Oddly enough, the best bet you have for being able to save for retirement might be to join a union. If the people demand the things they want, the economy will adjust to accommodate them.

I'm in favor of private sector unions. My father was a union steward for years. If a company agrees to a union contract that requires them to raise prices then consumers can take their business someplace else. Not so with our government. When our politicians agree to increase wages and benefits more than likely they will raise the money by taken some away from those of us who cannot afford these benefits for ourselves. Perhaps we need some kind of means test to allow us to take care of our own families before making us take care of others.

perhaps we need to vote out conservatives who continue to work actively to gut the public sector on the one hand and then basically lie about the role of unions in making them financially precarious.

in principle there's no problem with public-sector unions representing employees of the state. what the right has done is to basically mischaracterize by erasing the nature of the state as employer and replacing it with an image of the state as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth.

the second mischaracterization is that the problems of financial sustainability states are confronting follow from the application of conservative economic policies. period.

classic divide and conquer. turn one segment of folk who struggle to make ends meet against another, like has been said before.

but the real problem is conservative economic ideology, conservative economic policy.

Well the divide and conquer thing seems to be working. I don't think it would make much difference whether the Democrats or Republicans were in charge. I suspect the $3000 in state and local taxes we pay will continue to go up no matter what. There is some hope that our healthcare insurance could stabilize after 2014 if Republicans don't repeal the whole thing before then.

flstf... $3000 seems like a very small number. How much do you and your wife make each year?

That is just state and local taxes, add to that federal income taxes, sales taxes and other various license fees etc... for the total tax bill which is much higher. Since I was laid off about 9 years ago I have been unemployed and we have been living by withdrawing from our savings which varies from year to year. The $3000 for state and local taxes is the amount probably most used along with sales taxes to help pay for state and local public employee benefits etc.. which are members of the public unions being discussed here.

A few thousand dollars in our world is a lot of money to buy others benefits when we cannot afford our own.

This is once again arguing from the false point of view that the issue in Wisconsin is a budget one. The unions have already conceded on the benefits. And the same bill that removes their collective bargaining rights also reduces taxes for the top tax bracket. So whether or not they actually go through with the bill will have zero impact on how much you currently pay in taxes. So again this is a false dichotomy.

According to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, "less than three percent of all state and local government spending was used to fund public pension benefits..."

http://www.nasra.org/resources/ERContributions.pdf

Of your $3,000 state/local tax bill, that amounts to less than $90.

But as dippin noted, this is not about pensions costs or state budget deficits...it is simply anti-union politics, particularly given than the unions in WI have agreed to significant cuts in the state's contribution to employee pensions.

I had no idea it was only 3% so I guess they should have no problem giving that up. How much more can I keep to help pay for my healthcare insurance if I don't have to contribute to theirs?

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ----------

I'm in Ohio but I guess the same is true here. It is sad that they won't pass the spending cuts down to us. I guess there is no trickling down once they get the money.

Somewhere around 2/3 of all Americans have employer-sponsored health care.

Are you suggesting that police, fire fighters, teachers etc, shouldn't?


Spending cuts alone wont solve either the federal or state budget deficits.

Until Republicans at both levels are willing to consider tax increases, particularly on the top bracket and on corporations, deficits will not go away.

Attempting to balance federal/state budgets on the backs of the working class is not the solution.

Look at the federal level and proposed Republican budget cuts as opposed to tax breaks for the wealthy:

http://i.imgur.com/tlG0Y.jpg

Not what I would describe as a fair and balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Yet another false dichotomy. You speak of this as if this were a matter of income redistribution, not of public employees. If you don't think there should be public education, that is one thing. If you think there should be, then there will be some sort of compensation that will come from your taxes and paid to them. You don't get to have one without the other.

In the mean time, most Americans complaining about where their taxes are going will receive more in direct services from the state than what they pay in taxes.

---------- Post added at 11:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

On an unrelated note, let's be clear here. If the real issue in Wisconsin was the budget the same bill that cuts collective bargaining wouldn't also have tax cuts only for the top bracket. If the real issue was, say, quality of education, the #2 state in the nation wouldn't be trying to implement the model of the bottom 5. If the real issue was the inefficiency of public sector unions, the unions that supported Walker wouldn't be exempt.

The real issue here is demobilizing organizations that are historically democratic.

Just like all the blame the teacher rhetoric is also about attacking a democratic base.

Eliminating collective bargaining rights reduces the possibility the unions will hold the state hostage if and when the economy improves. Eliminate them, pass right to work laws, and pay state employees fair market value.

You know who else wanted to get rid of labor unions?

/GODWIN'D!!!

SO what you are saying is that you agree with me that this bill isn't about balancing the current budget at all, but instead demobilizing a key democratic constituency so in the future they can't have much of an impact? I'm glad you've come around.

No, only that our government allow those of us who must buy healthcare, etc.. on the open market to keep enough to provide these benefits to our families before forcing us to pay for others. This is besides the point but we cannot even claim healthcare insurance as a deduction on our income taxes except on the amount that exceeds something like 6-7% of our income unlike employer and government furnished insurance which is totally tax free to the employees.

Getting way off course here, particularly given that the public sector unions in WI have agreed to pay higher share of health costs in addition to higher share of pensions.

I agree it is beside the point, but now evidently, your complaint goes to all employees, public and private who receive employer-based health insurance.

Your concern is addressed in the new health care reform law that will subsidize those currently w/o health insurance or purchasing health insurance on the open market (those w/up to incomes = 4x poverty level or $88,000) AND will tax large employer high end health plans.

No. What I'm saying is that it fixes the current budget problems, and it fixes the problem if/when the economy recovers of the unions holding the state hostage then by saying we gave up xxx in 2011, we deserve xxx + yyy now.

the budget problem is directly caused by the tax cuts for the wealthy that Walker just passed.

Public subsidies for employer provided health insurance takes up a higher proportion of the budget than public pensions. So unless you are completely against the very existence of public servants there is no way to make this argument work.

But the unions have already agreed to the current cuts, so the bill as it stands does nothing for the current budget crisis. As such, the only reason for the existence of the current bill in its unadulterated form is to prevent mobilizing by a key democratic constituency in the future.

I think it does. None of the taxes we pay should be used to provide healthcare insurance to public employees until we have sufficient income to provide it for ourselves. It seems only fair. Private employers can provide whatever wages and benefits they want as long as we are not forced to buy their higher priced products and services. Also, if I have to buy healthcare insurance with after tax dollars then all employer provided insurance should be taxed as income to public and private employees as well. This too seems only fair.

I realize this thread is about union busting but whether public employees have a union or not the above conditions should be followed in my opinion.

SO what you are saying is that public employees should be the least paid members of society regardless of occupation?

There is no reason to go to extremes here. I don't see why allowing people to keep enough of their money to buy their own healthcare and pensions before taxing them to pay for others should cause public employees to be the least paid members of society?

Well, if everyone else should have healthcare and benefits first, wouldn't that make them the last ones to ever get it?

This is a perfect example of the sad state of affairs of American politics. That in a situation where some have a hard time making ends meet, the reaction is not to propose a more progressive tax system (or to even react to a proposal that makes the tax system less progressive), or discuss public alternatives to health care. It is to demand that people who make as little as 25k a year go with even less. It's the public fighting the teachers while the same bill has a bunch of gifts for the wealthy.

I can't quite wrap my ahead around why billionaires are entitled to tax cuts but teachers and firefighters aren't entitled to pensions.

The way I think about it is, they work for us. And I am quite content to pay what is an insignificant amount of my own money in order to be a fair and ethical employer.

And if you don't like it, then find yourself a government job. That's the American way isn't it, after all? You don't like your job, you can go out and find the one you do want?

I'm not so concerned about what the billionaire's problems are, they can take care of themselves. But if it's not fair to raise my taxes, then I don't consider it fair to raise the taxes on the billionaires either. Raise their taxes high enough and they will take their investments elsewhere, as with the UK back in the 60's timeframe with their 95% tax rate on highest incomes.

When my total tax bill, federal, state and local, approaches 40% of my income, that's way too high.

When my town tried to raise school taxes by 12% last year (and inflation somewhere in the 2-3% range) that got voted down. Then the town came back with an 'austerity' budget with an increase only a couple percent lower, instead of a 2-3% increase that would really be an austerity budget, that's too much.

If public employee's pensions and other benefits were more in line with what private sector employees get, maybe it wouldn't be a big deal. But when I read about public employees who game the system with overtime, etc in their last years of employment so they get pensions that are a very large percentage of their final year's salary, that's outrageous.

I'm in favor of the unions getting their wings clipped, severely.

I'm sure the government is quite willing to accommodate people who think their taxes are too low. The federal government even has a mailing address where people can send their surplus cash.

When the wealthy liberals like Michael Moore, etc contribute the bulk of their wealth to benefit the poor, then they will have a valid point. Until then they have less credibility than Fox News.

Finally, you're right. If you don't like your job, you can find a better one. I've done that four times since I started working full time.

I guess I'd prefer that we all pay a little bit more in taxes so that we don't become a rotting shithole full of unwashed and undereducated menial laborers. That's just me. Good countries are expensive, and you can't have a good country if you aren't willing to pay for it.

This is easier said than done especially if you are in your mid fifties and the company you worked at for over 20 years is sold and you are downsized. There are not enough jobs with good benefits in the private and public sectors to go around even for the younger workers. The company I worked for also eliminated their pension and dental plans as well as doubling employee healthcare contributions for those who are left. Your comment seems almost like "Let them eat cake".

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

If you have to tax people who cannot afford their own healthcare and benefits in order to provide these benefits to others than they should be the last ones to get it.

Being mad at union workers for getting benefits from tax dollars seems like wildly misplaced anger. Why aren't you raving about CEO's getting millions in bonuses w/ tax payer bailout money?

OK, but this thread is about public unions and I was just pointing out what I thought was unfair about the present system in regards to healthcare and pension financing. I didn't mean to write as though I was angry or raving.

my comment was meant to be facetious. You deserve a pension and so do I.

I was parroting conservative platitudes that have been used for decades to give working class people the false assurance that they have control over their livelihoods. 'In the capitalist system, you can be whoever you want to be!' Which any working person who has been out there more than 15-20 years knows is a crock of shit. The companies that we work for have been chiseling away at what is rightfully ours for decades so that now we are in the position of resenting the few who still have the benefits and job security that our parents had. I mean, my father went to work for Southern Bell right out of college, stayed there for more than 50 years and retired with a pension. It's the way things used to be. Therefore, I cannot find it - not in my heart and not in my mind - to resent the few people who still have these benefits when it is my opinion that more people should have them, not less. Particularly when they are the people who are teaching our kids or protecting our streets or keeping our neighborhoods from burning down.

It's sick, what is happening to this country.

Let them eat cake? It's not me who is saying it. It's your employer.

Yeah, I guess my previous posts do read like I am somewhat resentful of paying taxes to provide benefits to others that I can't even provide for myself. I'm really not just looking for company in the race to the bottom but more or less complaining about our current method of taxation.

I suspect millions of us will have to lower our standard of living trying to compete with lower wages and benefits in this worldwide economy.

Shamefully sick.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...t-popup-v5.gif

Among advanced economies, the U.S. is:

* near the very bottom in income inequity -- and the Republicans want to make permanent the lower tax rate (from the 2000 rate) for the top 1 percent of wage earners

* near the very bottom in unemployment -- and the Republicans want to cut job retraining funds and limit unemployment insurance....which contributes to...

* the very bottom in food insecurity -- and the Republicans want to cut funding for food stamps, school lunch programs,

* the very bottom in prison population -- and the Republicans want to cut funding for social programs that are proven deterrents to some from turning to crime

* near the bottom in student performance -- and the Republicans want to cut investments in education, including the capacity to attract people into the teaching profession, with good benefits to offset mediocre salaries.


/end thread jack

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

I doubt your total federal/state/local taxes are anywhere near 40% . Most likely, you are confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

Yay, Canada!

Do you think there should be public schools and other public services?
If not, that is fine and at least consistent.

But if you do believe that there should be those things, then they inevitably have to have some level of benefits, and unless you think they should be the worst paid people in the state, their benefits will be better than someone else's.

I mean, if you are struggling the get health insurance and a retirement plan, it seems to me that the goal then is to make health insurance and retirement plans more affordable. Not to strip them from others who have it.

I do understand the difference. I just looked up my 2009 1040. Dividing my total federal income tax, state income tax and local property tax by my W2 income is about 25%. Add in the 15.3% I and my employer pay for Social Security and Medicare and I'm just over 40%. Add in a few percent more to cover sales taxes, gas taxes, corporate taxes buried in the price of products, and I'm over 40%.

It just passed. Republican State Senators realized that if they stripped the bill of all the financial elements, they didn't need the full senate for it to pass. So, as of tonight, collective bargaining is now illegal in Wisconsin.

GOP Senators find way to advance collective bargaining ban without Democrats present | Defend Wisconsin

Protesters are already returning to Capitol Square due to this cowardly move. I'm thinking about taking a week off work to get to Madison. This is quite simply unacceptable.

So wait.... It's now purely, solely, a bill to remove collective bargaining?

It was always that. As always, the GOP used their fiscal responsibility lies to cover their real intentions. The thing is, this is only just getting started. 8 Wisconsin Senate Republicans are likely to be impeached in the near future, possibly with more in the pipeline. If we can get enough control, Walker will eventually be impeached.

You mean recalled not impeached.

Here is my prediction: This will now go to the courts and will be overturned due to procedural issues. Then their will be a thread on this forum about activist judges and finally that thread will discuss the right to bear arms thanks to DK ;)

Ah yes, recalled.

As I said before, discussing your particular situation is irrelevant because this is the internet. The average effective total tax rate for the richest 10% of Americans is 34%, and much lower than that for all other groups.

The average percentage of family income that goes to all taxes is closer to 30%, according to this source:
PolitiFact Texas | Phil King says 40 percent of family incomes goes to taxes

dogzilla also counted the employer half of of social security on his taxes which is a bit disingenuous.

And why is that? If I was self employed I would be paying the full amount. As it is, it's just a hidden tax that my employer pays that is directly tied to my salary. But whether my taxes are over 35% or over 40%, they are still way too high.

Unless you are also counting the other things that your employer pays elsewhere and are not a part of your w2 as part of your income (health insurance, employer matching for retirement, etc), then you can't also count their tax payments.

And in any case, it has already been shown that regardless, the national average is nowhere near close to 40.

In fact, for federal taxes the national average is at their lowest point since 1950.

Because the business is paying it not you. If tomorrow the government said employers no longer have to pay that half your employer would get that money not you.

Whatever. I think my taxes are too high, and there's lots of other people who think similarly. If the current set of politicians doesn't understand that we will keep voting them out until we get ones that do understand that.

If that means breaking the stranglehold the unions have on state and local governments, so be it.

It's time for the Democrat representatives in Wisconsin to quit playing hide and seek and do their jobs. If I was a Wisconsin resident, I would be protesting that and insisting on their recall.

If some upper income people are getting to keep more of their money so they can invest it in the economy, that's at least a start. It's not like they have vaults full of cash just doing nothing.

I wouldn't expect a substantial reduction in taxes anytime soon (or ever). As an American, you are already enjoying what is one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Well, unless you include the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Eastern Europe. Even still, the average U.S. tax rate is close to the global average.

If you consider the richer, developed nations exclusively, I would say the U.S. tax rate is relatively low, not high.

Do you think that the compensation received by union members wasn't going into the economy at all? I'm pretty sure that pension funds are invested prior to being paid out.

Speaking of vaults full of cash:

Companies Flush With Cash - Newsweek

I guess we're all pretty lucky that tax rates aren't higher or they'd be investing even less. ;)

The vast majority of Americans receive more in direct services and transfers (which means I am not even counting abstract things like national security and science investment) from the government than they put in. I would bet that most here, if not all, will be part of the group once social security and medicare expenditures are taken into account.

If given a choice, no one would pay taxes. That is why they are taxes, not donations. But people who want lower taxes without corresponding cuts in spending are hypocrites.

And people who think that scapegoating teachers and other public servants for the budget hole is the right thing to do are also uninformed.

I was going to say this...

But, 40% is possible. At least in certain lower income brackets that have to pay set fees at least. It also depends on what house you bought and the state you live in... There are a lot of taxes in other parts of life as well outside of the Federal Income tax. State, city, school, sales, gas,...

And tax rates should be higher, since the government is spending this money and putting off taking it in on a different administration for the past 30 years...

As for the Union thing, I hope they go on strike...

I rarely post anymore, but this I do not get.

How are they the cowards when it was the Democrats who ran away and refused to be involved to vote no. That is what happens when there is a majority who feels that way.

You may disagree with the bill, go protest it, but coward way, no.

The Democrats didn't flee the state out of cowardice, but rather desperation. What they're doing is actually very risky for them and involves real sacrifice, because they can't return to their own homes and their families without the risk of being arrested. They believe in protecting collective bargaining rights for public workers so much, they've actually left the state as it's the only way they can protect the people of Wisconsin from the Republicans. That's bravery.

On the other hand, we have the GOP in Wisconsin who are lying through their teeth about why they're trying to strip collective bargaining from state workers. They put up these pretexts about a budget crisis and how unions are to blame and have to give up their rights, when in actuality the Wisconsin GOP are responsible for the deficit. This is all just smoke and mirrors hiding the true reason for the GOP's actions, namely to defund unions to win the 2012 election. It's a cowardly, dishonest political move that's going to hurt real people.

I was coming here to post the link that Willravel posted. But in case anyone missed, here's what the WI Majority leader said about the bill:

And yet even after the Republicans have essentially openly admitted that this is about electoral politics (which they've not only through the statement above but through the fact that they removed every single budget provision to pass the bill), we still have to put up with people trying to spin this in the "future budgets" BS, because as we all know that 3% of the budget might one day become 3.1%, and then we are all screwed...

What real risk? When the dust settles, any prosecutions and such will silently disappear under the guise of amnesty, bipartisanship, or other nonsense. The Democrats could have been just as effective just doing their jobs instead of playing hide and seek.

Maybe you missed the video of Wisconsin state senator Nick Milroy being tackled by the police for trying to enter the state Capitol? This situation is spinning out of control, and the Wisconsin state senators are doing the only thing they can to protect collective bargaining for Wisconsin state workers. The absolute last thing they are is cowards.

Palm trees are sprouting up here & there in Madison:
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...stpalmtree.jpg

There are plans to occupy the capitol building tonight.

My cousin is setting aside his agoraphobia
and bravely hitchhiking into the city this afternoon.

Go Vaughnie!

Oh, and @ Will. Nick Milroy said he and the cops both acted a little aggressively.
A "No harm no foul" kinda thing. Emotions were running high & all.

Things are getting more interesting by the hour here.

The economy benefits on both sides of public sector pension funds.

Not only are the funds invested in the national economy on the front end, there is also a huge local pay-off on the back end - when retirees spend their pension funds....spending those funds primarily in their community and state.

In Wisconsin:
Take away their pensions....and you take away the positive economic impact. The result? Jobs in the state are lost, tax revenues decline...

So the Republicans in charge of WI cut taxes for a select group of wealthy folks, and in order to pay for it, they cut wages and killed jobs for members of the middle class. Interesting. Kind of a reverse-Robin Hood thing going on.

This is the best description I've come across for the modern GOP.

Shall we call it "Hood Robin"?

I started to get a sense of this a few days ago, but here's an article on CNNMoney that takes a look at the irony behind the move to shut unions down: it mobilizes people to support the workers movement.

(Emphasis mine.)
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker energizes the labor movement - Mar. 11, 2011

Yes, this is what the GOP does best - gain support from the very people they care nothing about. They use the Bible and the 2nd amendment as giant nets to scoop up anyone not really paying attention.

To the people of Wisconsin (and America after the 2010 elections) I would say - You have my sympathy, but what did you expect after electing Republicans? If you learn only one thing about politics, learn this: The Republicans are the party of Big Business. They care nothing about the daily struggles of the 98% of us making less than $500K per year.

I wish them the best of luck with the forthcoming recall petitions. I hope that movement continues to gain momentum.

And I hope the rest of America is paying attention.

The "Wisconsin 14" Return Home:


Some of the response on Saturday, built around a farmers' tractorcade:

So, a pro-union rally in Madison, WI, over the weekend ends up being substantially bigger than any Tea Party rally---ever.

Is this getting proportionate news coverage to reflect that?

Anyone?

ThinkProgress Madison Rally Bigger Than Biggest Tea Party Rally

Wow. That didn't make it to the International press in the way the Tea Party protests did.

Then again, the press is a little occupied with covering Japan and Libya right now.

The GOP just can't handle winning, they are much like my favorite band the KINKS. Just when things seem to be looking up they shoot themselves in the foot and self destruct.

However, the Dems running and crossing state lines was extremely cowardly. Above someone stated that was all they could do to protect the people. I call BS on that. They have voices and know people at radio and television studios, they could have debated on those. I'm sure any station (except Clear Channel owned stations) would have been glad to have had a televised debate.

I have a GOP City councilman as a great friend here and he thinks that SB5 in Ohio which is similar to the Wisconsin bill, lays more problems on cities that are going bankrupt and is speaking out against his own party. As many here have.

Making it illegal to strike I understand for emergency services that being ok. For teachers and other employees, They should have the right to strike. It's becoming obvious everywhere that those who are ultra rich and own everything are trying to bust the unions. Because as the states take away the rights to strike, so to will all companies. Granted the unions served a purpose at one time to get better wages and benefits, they then became gluttonous and pac's for the Dems.

The right sells the BS through people who want their audience to believe they are just humble working men/women like them. Yet, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly all have mansions and make millions (so someone explain to me, how any of these guys are suffering like the rest of middle class) I just don't get it. Just like I don't get why people buy what they say.It's obvious to anyone with half a brain they are selling nothing, snake oil maybe.

I'm not so sure about this. When you have the GOP strongarming and ramming this through the process, there isn't much time to go courting a media that may or may not be willing to give a platform of debate or protest. The process itself came undone, and so leaving the state became a last-ditch effort to create a stall to what they viewed as an undemocratic process.

Is this really the case? Is there evidence of this or a precedent?

Would you say unions have become more gluttonous or less gluttonous than corporate management? Public management?

There is a new GOP sponsored House Bill that says (in part) that if an able-bodied worker goes on strike, that worker's family members (spouse, kids, dependents) would be ineligible for food stamps.

Why do working class people vote for a party that openly hates them?

Unlike the federal Congress where the minority party can filibuster or use other rules to require super-majorities for passage of legislation, most state legislatures provide little in the way of rights for the minority party.

And, Lincoln, when he was a state senator, reportedly was one of the first to use the tactic the Democrats used in Wisconsin to prevent the legislature from voting on a particular bill.

In Wisconsin, a state judge has issued a temporary hold on the legislation that effectively busts the public sector unions, alleging that the Republicans may have acted illegally in passing the law by violating the state open meeting law.

The recent trend by Republican governors and legislators to bust the public sector unions wont carry over to the private sector. Federal law protects the rights of workers in private companies to unionize.

As to unions being PACs for the Democrats, perhaps that is because the Democrats are generally more representative of the rights of the working class.

And, still corporate PACs outspend union PACs by about 3:1.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

Since the Republicans in Congress cant directly bust private sector unions, they found another cheap tactic.

It wont see the light of day, but it still says alot about their priorities.

if PAC's are protected under the First Amendment, conservatives can't bitch about union donations.

I mean, they WILL bitch, but they shouldn't

They not only bitch, they spread misinformation (outright lies) on a regular basis spreading bullshit that Union members are forced to contribute to their union PAC, despite the fact that the law says union PAC contributions are voluntary.

Or the implication that every union contributes millions to campaigns. There may be millions donated in total, but the breakdown of contributions per union is a pittance compared to corporate donations

Not satisfied with taking away the collective bargaining rights from public workers, the republicans now want to make public the emails of state employees who spoke out publicly against the law:

My Worlds Collide | Talking Points Memo

dippin,

Were the emails sent from publicly owned email accounts?

In this case, yes (university of wisconsin emails). Of course, whether the Republican party will be able to obtain these emails is a legal matter and by itself constitute no wrong doing. On the balance will be whether public records laws trump FERPA, academic freedom and other laws (since his email likely contains communications with students, communications about hiring decisions and so on). But that is beside the point (and the professor himself has already stated that he has long used a private email account in order to abide by the University of Wisconsin's own policies). That is, the issue is less whether the Republican party CAN do this, but more that it is willing to do so.

The fact that the Republican party's legal team has decided to do this over a blog post is a clear indication that it will try any possible legal maneuvers to intimidate any potential opposition.

I would mention wikileaks, but I won't.

Well, Mr. Ironic, I'm not sure you'd want to compare Wikileaks to the Republicans.

Just like how I would mention Joseph McCarthy but probably shouldn't.

I wouldn't be comparing Wikileaks to the Republicans. I would be comparing your kinsmen's impending righteous indignation over this with their Wikileaks soliloquies on "the people have a right to know what their public officials are doing."

But I won't.

Oh, I get that. But why make this about them when the issue is about the Republicans and members of public unions? The motives of Wikileaks vs. the motives of the Republicans require two different sets of considerations and have two different sets of implications and consequences.

Or is this just about my "kinsmen" (whatever that means)?

What is the relationship between someone publishing leaked emails about public policy where the "leaker" has been arrested and requesting the emails of a professor who is not otherwise related to policy making in an attempt to intimidate opposition?

How is the wikileaks in any way related to this?

Was wikileaks created in order to intimidate opposition to a certain policy?

Wikileaks has nothing to do with the use of FOIA and related laws, and the person who leaked those documents is arrested under pretty severe conditions. In fact, FOIA and related laws pretty explicitly require that public interest be greater than privacy and confidentiality concerns. The worst that the professor may have committed here is violating University of Wisconsin terms of use for their email system, so it is not a legitimate concern with public interest that motivates this. It is about maybe finding some embarrassing email in this fishing expedition and using it as a way to intimidate other people who might use that radical tool of writing blog posts.

This was a very weak attempt at a to quoque fallacy. There is no contradiction between supporting FOIA and related "right to know" laws (such as defending the publishing of now publicly available information without endorsing the leakers themselves) or demanding more government transparency and recognizing when these laws are being abused in an attempt to silence opposition. There is no real public interest in reading these professor's emails.

The professor in question has a pretty thorough explanation of why he thinks the request is problematic (Abusing Open Records to Attack Academic Freedom | Scholar as Citizen). He seems reasonable to me and it seems like the decision to comply is out of his hands. The Wisconsin Republican Party's response is classic: they accused him of attempting to intimidate them. Apparently, the big old meany history professor wrote a big old mean blog full of mean old context and the Republican Party got intimidated.

Though I guess I'm not surprised that a hyperpartisan political organization would be intimidated by the prospect of the rational weighing of facts.

Yeah, I know. It's never the same.

Maybe because they aren't, and no sarcastic one liners will make them the same?

Of course, if this is what passes for an attempt to discuss an issue, might as well limit yourself to sarcastic one liners and save us time.

Repeating, again, that the issue is not the request itself, but the intention behind it. McCarthy also used a perfectly legal tool, the subpoena, in his witch hunts.

Will do. Have a lovely weekend.

There were requests to the governor to release the contents of his emails related to this issue. This professor works for the taxpayers and used his employer's email system to send these emails so he has little or no expectation of privacy with them. If there's issues of student privacy, etc, then let the court resolve the conflicts with those laws and exclude what isn't required to be released.

Bottom line, by refusing to release the emails, he's raising the question of what he's trying to hide.

Why do you think he's refused to turn them over? I'm pretty sure he hasn't refused to turn them over.

If he has turned the emails over then the issue is closed, but my understanding of what I've read is that they were not turned over yet.

Perhaps it's not his decision?

First of all, I would imagine that the difference between the governor and a university professor who happens to be employed at a public university would be self evident.

Second, of course, is that the fact that the Republican party CAN request this is not in dispute. Such thing is so trivial as to be beyond dispute.

Third, this whole "what he is trying to hide" is such bullshit that it is hard to take seriously. It is ironic that such a point was raised in an anonymous internet forum. But in any case, it is not his place to disclose those emails, for reasons that I have already mentioned here. Only the legal department of the university can do so, as his emails likely involve communications with students and about students (and as such are confidential per FERPA), communications about tenure, hiring and promotion decisions within the university (and as such are protected by numerous other privacy laws) and a whole sort of other university business that may or may not be protected by corresponding privacy laws.


Finally, I think it is funny how the issue that this is clearly an intimidation attempt by the republican party is completely ignored. If people had bothered to read what has actually been posted here, they would have found out that the professor has long kept a separate email for personal business, and as such it is highly unlikely that there would be anything "embarrassing" to reveal (and if there was, the worst they would be able to find is a breach of the terms of use of University of Wisconsin emails). Of course, that is his word that it is so, but my experience in most universities is that most professors keep personal emails for anything more contentious, not because of fear of FOIA and so on action, but because IT departments are generally staffed by students and so on, with full access to databases and the like. The principle of the thing is the abhorrent part. That the publishing of a blog post about the situation would lead to something like this is ridiculous. That the usual partisans have to resort to the whole "if he is innocent he should make his emails public" is unsurprising.

It's the equivalent of "if you have nothing to hide at the airport, you should be happy to have a full body search," yet the conservatives on this board find that to be a huge viation of privacy

there's a new and improved little dust-up undertaken by those stalwarts of the wisconsin gop against william cronon. dippin alluded to it above. but i just saw cronon's blog entry from 15 march---which is what sent the wisconsin gop into a snit---and it's really quite interesting. the premise is that as much as the prank call to walker of a few weeks ago revealed about the role of those billionaire reactionary oligarchs the koch brothers, cronon just couldn't quite believe that all this legislative activity was organized by them alone. so he began to dig around and produced this interesting little x-ray of the contemporary rightwing landscape.

Who’s Really Behind Recent Republican Legislation in Wisconsin and Elsewhere? (Hint: It Didn’t Start Here) | Scholar as Citizen

i'll simply post the link because the entry is sourced extensively with hotlinks and is well worth the time to read and expand that way.

the central semi-visible institutional player in this that's not been public to now really is the American Legislative Exchange Council. reading about these reactionary assholes is a salutary exercise. enjoy.

now, as i think has been discussed in passing above already, the wisconsin gop wants to foia cronon's emails:

Wis. GOP FOIAs Emails of State University Prof Critical Of Gov. Walker | TPMDC

here's cronon's response:

Abusing Open Records to Attack Academic Freedom | Scholar as Citizen

i continue to think that the republicans have significantly overplayed their hand in these efforts to indulge good old fashioned right-wing style union busting and have galvanized a quite significant population against them and in all likelihood have done themselves more damage than they know.

i think there was a discussion about this earlier in the thread, now that i think about it---but the links here are interesting. cronon's response is from thursday (the 24th).

It's a vast right-wing conspiracy. :)

Actually, I just watched Micheal Moore's speech, and agree with him that "America Is Not Broke". They just want to make you think it is to get the workers to fight among themselves and try to cut things.

Where if we had just repealed the Bush tax cuts, and raised investment gains, brought back the estate tax, and reduced the military by 25% we wouldn't have a problem.

krugman's editorial on the mc-carthyite sleaze machine that the republican party has become:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/op...28krugman.html