Hey, man, I was a supporter of Social Security...in the 1930s. The program as it now exists is an income transfer program from younger workers to relatively more affluent seniors.
Gov. Walker ran on an explicitly anti-union platform. It is disgusting that the minority party refuse to accept the result and let Walker do what he was elected to do. After all, the GOP didn't like it either when Obama won the Presidency on an central pledge to reform health care... but they manned up and accepted the verdict of the people, in the spirit of fair play.
It's a sad day when a tool like Paul Krugman can accurately slap the taste out of the GOP's mouth:
"The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence."
This yellowbellied refusal to vote in a quorum is truly shocking. You could knock me over sideways, just like Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR) being physically carried feet-first back into the chamber by Capitol police. (Idaho's Steve Symms was more spry, and escaped by racing down a dark hallway at 1:00 A.M.)
Gov. Scott Walker and the Republicans tried to act so swiftly that there could be no organized opposition, nor public attention. Didn't work. Awww. And now we're finding out the delayed bill allows Walker to sell the state's power plants without taking bids.
How swiftly did they hope to act? Governor Walker, Feb. 12: "I'm just trying to balance my budget. To those who say why didn't I negotiate on this? I don't have anything to negotiate with. We don't have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we're broke. And it's time to pay up."
Wisconsin had a $121 million surplus on January 31, 2011, less than two weeks before the Governor made the the above claim. In that time, Walker put the state into deficit with tax giveaways and privatized health car accounts. Then he said he faced a budget crisis. http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf
So maybe the tax initiatives were necessary? According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations in the state pay no taxes, and the share of corporate tax revenue funding the state government has fallen by half since 1981.
Also, Krugman's... a dirty Yippie? Lame retort to a completely true statement. Hope my harsh vibes don't send you on a bum trip.
Wow, that's what you're going with? Two fugitive Republicans from 20 years ago is the same as coordinated actions to thwart democracy in Wisconsin, Indiana and (soon) Ohio?
I've always thought Democrats only believe in democracy when it suits them. Otherwise, the people must be ignored (see: Florida recount, health care bill).
I don't know about Wisconsin's budget deficit but my buddy and SEIU chief Andy Stern says it's $1.8 billion and that's not enough to listen to Wisconsin voters.
It was many more than two Republican Senators, silly. Those are just the two funniest examples. More Republicans ducked that federal vote (or tried to) than there are Democrats in the 2011 Wisconsin Senate.
Talking about the need to "listen to Wisconsin voters" in the very next sentence after citing health care reform as an example of "the people being ignored"? Come on. Are we being punk'd?
Walker's 124,000 extra votes (52%-46%) = a sacred mandate that must not be impeded Obama's 9,522,083 extra votes (53%-46%) = very iffy, the jury's still out
I liked the Examiner link: Rasmussen's poll has suspect wording but the AFL/CIO poll is A-OK. And the Gallup poll is a national poll which only has 1/50th to do with Wisconsin.
But you keep conflating elections and issues so let me clarify. When Obama ran for president, he explicitly campaigned AGAINST an individual mandate for health care. Once in office, he changed his mind. At no point before, during, or since the HCR bill has the reform received majority support. But screw the people, let's pass it anyway.
In Wisconsin, Walker campaigned explicitly FOR scaling back union power, a position he has held as long as he's been in politics. In 2010, Wisconsin saw a tidal shift away from the Democrats and elected Walker, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and even kicking out Russ Feingold. Charged to do the very thing the Wisconsin voters elected them to do, the Republicans have to wait for the Dems temper tantrum to subside.
I've never questioned the ability of elected officials to do what they want. What I've questioned here is how they regard the will of the people.
No, it's false that candidate Walker ever promised to strip unions of their collective bargaining ability. Nor did he even address the subject during his campaign.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on the polling to date: "Because [Gallup] is a national poll, it doesn’t measure opinion in Wisconsin. But it’s by a very reputable independent pollster. And you would expect a national poll to be if anything slightly less favorable to unions than a Wisconsin survey, since Wisconsin has a higher share of workers in unions than the US as a whole. In that sense, the Gallup poll is not great news for Walker." http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116744394.html
The "temper tantrum" stuff is just crapola, but you know that. Because after all, Scott Walker is a TYRANT... or so I've been told by other people who also let their one-sided frustrations color their framing of the situation.
Walker has already achieved his budget reduction without a vote - the unions have agreed to all of the contract readjustments - but we all know that's not what the GOP's trying to do. The public certainly understands that. It's odd... in this case, the longer the Democrats petulantly thwart "the will of the people," the closer the will of the people shifts to the Democrats.
15 comments:
FDR opposes government unions = words to live by.
FDR supports Social Security = a policy that has failed us.
But what did FDR think about Justin Bieber?
Hey, man, I was a supporter of Social Security...in the 1930s. The program as it now exists is an income transfer program from younger workers to relatively more affluent seniors.
Hey, man, I was an opponent of government unions... in the 1930s.
I was also a big proponent of having 12-15 Justices on the Supreme Court. Our day will come!
Hey, man, I was a supporter of democracy until those stupid Wisconsin people voted for the Republicans. Now I'm hiding out in Illinois.
Gov. Walker ran on an explicitly anti-union platform. It is disgusting that the minority party refuse to accept the result and let Walker do what he was elected to do. After all, the GOP didn't like it either when Obama won the Presidency on an central pledge to reform health care... but they manned up and accepted the verdict of the people, in the spirit of fair play.
It's a sad day when a tool like Paul Krugman can accurately slap the taste out of the GOP's mouth:
"The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence."
When will the NY Times be embarrassed enough to finally drop Krugman? This reads like the manifesto of a sixties-era Yippie.
Power to the people, man! Unless they vote for a Republican governor and legislature. Then it's "On the Road" to Illinois.
This yellowbellied refusal to vote in a quorum is truly shocking. You could knock me over sideways, just like Senator Robert Packwood (R-OR) being physically carried feet-first back into the chamber by Capitol police. (Idaho's Steve Symms was more spry, and escaped by racing down a dark hallway at 1:00 A.M.)
Gov. Scott Walker and the Republicans tried to act so swiftly that there could be no organized opposition, nor public attention. Didn't work. Awww. And now we're finding out the delayed bill allows Walker to sell the state's power plants without taking bids.
How swiftly did they hope to act? Governor Walker, Feb. 12: "I'm just trying to balance my budget. To those who say why didn't I negotiate on this? I don't have anything to negotiate with. We don't have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we're broke. And it's time to pay up."
Wisconsin had a $121 million surplus on January 31, 2011, less than two weeks before the Governor made the the above claim. In that time, Walker put the state into deficit with tax giveaways and privatized health car accounts. Then he said he faced a budget crisis.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf
So maybe the tax initiatives were necessary? According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations in the state pay no taxes, and the share of corporate tax revenue funding the state government has fallen by half since 1981.
Also, Krugman's... a dirty Yippie? Lame retort to a completely true statement. Hope my harsh vibes don't send you on a bum trip.
Wow, that's what you're going with? Two fugitive Republicans from 20 years ago is the same as coordinated actions to thwart democracy in Wisconsin, Indiana and (soon) Ohio?
I've always thought Democrats only believe in democracy when it suits them. Otherwise, the people must be ignored (see: Florida recount, health care bill).
I don't know about Wisconsin's budget deficit but my buddy and SEIU chief Andy Stern says it's $1.8 billion and that's not enough to listen to Wisconsin voters.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-20/wisconsin-union-fight-is-really-a-15-state-gop-power-grab/
It was many more than two Republican Senators, silly. Those are just the two funniest examples. More Republicans ducked that federal vote (or tried to) than there are Democrats in the 2011 Wisconsin Senate.
Talking about the need to "listen to Wisconsin voters" in the very next sentence after citing health care reform as an example of "the people being ignored"? Come on. Are we being punk'd?
Walker's 124,000 extra votes (52%-46%) = a sacred mandate that must not be impeded
Obama's 9,522,083 extra votes (53%-46%) = very iffy, the jury's still out
Health care reform popularity, or lack thereof:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html
Thanks, Huffpost!
Translation: Elections have consequences, but only when Republicans win. Zzzzz.
But since you appreciate a good survey, enjoy the shiny new polling on Wisconsin and Walker.
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/more-polls-show-public-siding-with-wisconsin-protesters
Thanks, Gallup! Better luck next time, Rasmussen!
And while we're at it:
Health care defunding/repeal popularity, or lack thereof:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/144447-poll-majority-disapprove-of-defunding-health-reform
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/01/25/181996.htm
Thanks, The Hill! Thanks, Kaiser! Thanks, America!
I liked the Examiner link: Rasmussen's poll has suspect wording but the AFL/CIO poll is A-OK. And the Gallup poll is a national poll which only has 1/50th to do with Wisconsin.
But you keep conflating elections and issues so let me clarify. When Obama ran for president, he explicitly campaigned AGAINST an individual mandate for health care. Once in office, he changed his mind. At no point before, during, or since the HCR bill has the reform received majority support. But screw the people, let's pass it anyway.
In Wisconsin, Walker campaigned explicitly FOR scaling back union power, a position he has held as long as he's been in politics. In 2010, Wisconsin saw a tidal shift away from the Democrats and elected Walker, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and even kicking out Russ Feingold. Charged to do the very thing the Wisconsin voters elected them to do, the Republicans have to wait for the Dems temper tantrum to subside.
I've never questioned the ability of elected officials to do what they want. What I've questioned here is how they regard the will of the people.
No, it's false that candidate Walker ever promised to strip unions of their collective bargaining ability. Nor did he even address the subject during his campaign.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on the polling to date:
"Because [Gallup] is a national poll, it doesn’t measure opinion in Wisconsin. But it’s by a very reputable independent pollster. And you would expect a national poll to be if anything slightly less favorable to unions than a Wisconsin survey, since Wisconsin has a higher share of workers in unions than the US as a whole. In that sense, the Gallup poll is not great news for Walker."
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116744394.html
The "temper tantrum" stuff is just crapola, but you know that. Because after all, Scott Walker is a TYRANT... or so I've been told by other people who also let their one-sided frustrations color their framing of the situation.
Walker has already achieved his budget reduction without a vote - the unions have agreed to all of the contract readjustments - but we all know that's not what the GOP's trying to do. The public certainly understands that. It's odd... in this case, the longer the Democrats petulantly thwart "the will of the people," the closer the will of the people shifts to the Democrats.
Post a Comment