talkpolitics | Lawless

Entry tags:

Lawless

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

debergerac I also grew up in the north-east where it was routinely the Democrats who were screwing over minorities and the poor. In my opinion it is the political establishment in general that is corrupt.

Forget about Republicans and Democrats, people in general do things for petty selfish reasons.

As for the specific topic of your original post. My (admitedly limited) experiance with unions has been prdominantly negative. My mother was a teacher who had very liitle polite to say about the local Teachers Union. Likewise when I entered the workforce as an EMT I had a lot of dealings with Police and Firefighter Union reps who were more concerned with safe-guarding thier own position than actually representing the interests of thier members.

Forgive me if I find it difficult to muster a great deal of concern.

Do you honestly believe that the Wisconsin State Legislature will be able to stop disgruntled workers from organizing or that a minor loss of funding for the Dems will result in a single party system a la the Soviet Union? Because frankly I don't buy it.

s: Forget about Republicans and Democrats, people in general do things for petty selfish reasons.

When did the Democrats last have to sign a consent decree about voter suppression?

Was it the Democratic Party who used the "Southern Strategy" in the wake of the Civil Rights Bills?

sw: Do you honestly believe that the Wisconsin State Legislature will be able to stop disgruntled workers from organizing

I think they're going to try very hard. And yes, disgruntled workers HAVE in the past been prevented from organizing by powerful and entrenched institutions, as anyone familiar with the history of union organizing will attest.

sw: or that a minor loss of funding for the Dems will result in a single party system a la the Soviet Union? Because frankly I don't buy it.

Where have I said it would be like the Soviet Union?

Perhapse I read too much into your statement. The Soviet example was a bit heavy-handed, but when it comes to political suppression it's the first one that came to mind. (Coming from a family of soviet-era exiles tends to color my thinking in that regard.)

Still...

I am inclined to beleieve that both sides are comprised of a lot more bark than bite. Nor am I entirly convinced that Public sector unions shouldn't have to pay into the State pension system like any other organization (the orginal ballot that started this mess).

The public sector had already made concessions. What got them out in the streets was the attack on collective bargaining.

There's an old middle-easyern proverb on negotiating...

Translated (roughly, as my Arabic is remidial at best) it goes something like this...

"Both men leave happy or both men leave angry. Otherwise someone's been cheated."

And that applies to the current attack on unions...how?

The State bites, and the Unions bite back.

It matters because any (real) progress is likely to leave both sides bloody.

Equally bloody? Hardly. Middle class families barely holding on by its fingernails face far more dire consequences than the wealthy fat-cats who want to take away their collective bargaining power.

I am well aware of that but you asked what the proverb meant.

I didn't ask what the proverb meant. I asked how it applied to the current attack on unions.

Applying it requires unfocusing your eyes and indulging in the fiction that middle class public sector employees have the same resources and the same level of power as the forces trying to break their unions -- and can afford to lose as much "blood."

State is going to balance the budget, or at least make a show of trying.

They can do this in 1 of 3 ways; cut spending, increase revenue, or a mix of 1 and 2.

If the state cuts spending, what should they cut if not the pension system? Should they lay-off some state employees? Let roads fall into disrepair? cancel unemployment cheques? The money has to come from somewhere.

Alternately how would you propose that the state increase revenue? Jack up taxes? Start charging people for services? Sure the public-sector unions would love this but the farmer who finds himself having to shell out half his income on property taxes or to renew a drivers liscense might feel differently.

Someone's going to be "bleed" somewhere, that is the signifigance of the proverb.

How about NOT giving tax cuts to the wealthiest among us? And are you claiming that the ONLY way to reduce the deficit is by all but eliminating collective bargaining?

No

However if the unions decide to act as a road-block they mustn't be surprised when someone threatens to fire-up the bulldozer.

"are you claiming that the ONLY way to reduce the deficit is by all but eliminating collective bargaining?"

That "No" was in response to your 2nd question.

As a side question, do you have any data on coperate taxes in Wisconsin, and how much of the overall state budget/economy they comprise? The whole "tax the wealthy" argument doesn't work without data.

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=6214

there are numerous breaks from the corporate income tax. These include scores of individual business-assistance programs that give tax credits for such things as research ($18 million annually) and investment in so-called development zones (about $14 million).

...Twenty years ago, 10% of the state's tax revenue came from the corporate income tax. Today's share is barely half that.

...The state Department of Revenue reports that most Wisconsin businesses pay zero corporate income tax. For example, of the 4,275 companies that filed returns in 2003 showing annual receipts of more than $100 million, 62% paid absolutely no corporate income tax.... Among the companies that in 2003 paid no income tax are some big names: McDonald's, Merck, Microsoft, PepsiCo, Kimberly-Clark, Johnson Controls (the largest Wisconsin-based firm), Kohl's and Snap-on Tools.

... Johnson Financial Group, Johnson Bank, Johnson Outdoors, JohnsonDiversey, along with the original S.C. Johnson & Son. From 2000 through 2004, not a single one of these firms paid a cent in Wisconsin corporate income tax.

... Tax data from 2004 were obtained for 22 firms with executives sitting on WMC's board of directors. Twelve of the 22, including Growcock's Manitowoc Company, paid zero state corporate income tax."

So how much would each of those companies have to pay to make-up the state's budget shortfall, and how does that compare amount compare to thier overall income?

sw: So how much would each of those companies have to pay to make-up the state's budget shortfall, and how does that compare amount compare to thier overall income?

I don't know, but it's bound to come much closer to making it up than gouging the middle class. The shortfall has been cited as being at $6.6 billion. According to the article I linked you to:

"...there are numerous breaks from the corporate income tax. These include scores of individual business-assistance programs that give tax credits for such things as research ($18 million annually) and investment in so-called development zones (about $14 million)."

In addition to breaks on the corporate income tax, Wisconsin businesses enjoy the following:

"...all manufacturing machinery and equipment is exempt from property taxes. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue estimates that about $12 billion worth of property is tax-exempt under this law. If taxed at the state's average tax rate, this would generate about a quarter-billion dollars in new annual revenue.

Business computers are also exempt from property tax, under a definition of 'computer' broad enough to include automated bank tellers and computerized cash registers. In this case, the state annually reimburses local governments approximately $80 million in lost revenue.

Then there are the business services untouched by the sales tax. A 5% sales tax on advertising would generate more than $100 million a year, the Department of Revenue estimates. A sales tax on computer consulting would yield more than $130 million. A sales tax on accounting would produce nearly $60 million. And so on."

Given these tax breaks, it's not surprising that Wisconsin is suffering from a budget shortfall.

Using the numbers cited above...

One Quarter Billion (250 million) + 18 million + 14 million + 80 Million + 100 Million + 130 million 60 million = 652 million (652,000,000)

If the currant shortfall is 6.6 billion (6,600,000,000) and all the expenditures you listed are removed, that still leaves a shortfall of $5,948,000,000.

What else should be cut?

No idea. Are you at last agreeing, however, that those tax cuts should be rolled back? Or are you somehow clinging to the notion that keeping those tax cuts while gouging an already badly gouged middle class is the way to make up that shortfall?

I'm saying that if the state is serious about balancing the budget, they will need to roll back the tax cuts AND slashing wages, pensions, services, etc. (this is the part that the unions are up in arms about)

Which brings us back to my comment about how any (real) progress is likely to leave both sides bloody.

The unions aren't the one's who decided to "act as a road-block." They were negotiating and making concessions. It's the Republicans who have announced that they want to make unions meaningless by reducing collective bargaining to the point where it's practically nonexistent.

What the unions are doing is insisting on their right to exist as unions.

I will reiterate the question; Do the unions have to exist in thier current form, to achieve thier stated goals?

What form would you suggest they take?

A less coercive one.

By what right does (any)union get to determine what an individual worker's labour is worth?

And what would you consider a "less coercive" form?

sw: By what right does (any)union get to determine what an individual worker's labour is worth?

I could just as easily ask by what right does management get to determine what an individual worker's labour is worth.

Should workers just be left at the mercy of what their boss' are willing to pay them? We've done that before, you know. It's why the labor movement started in the first place.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Lawless

Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...

Re: Power corrupts...