Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

I B , have you gotten your WI law degree yet? Originally Posted by WTF

WTF, you haven’t been listening. Maz-man told us last night that Wisconsin laws, as written, cannot be enforced. He is telling us today that Wisconsin has a bogus legislative process where state legislators only “play” at lawmaking. So I ask, “Why do I need a Wisconsin law degree?” Oh! Come to think of it, there is one reason I might need a Wisconsin law degree, but I bought toilet paper at the market last week. Thank you for your concern, but you and Maz-man can keep that degree and share it as needed. Remember. Wash your hands when your done.

No what pisses us off most is the way it passed -- the cram downs, the buying of votes, the delivering a 2,000+ bill in the dead of the night and voting the next day when nobody had read it, the overreaching, the hubris, I could go on. Originally Posted by pjorourke

OK PJ, I'm calling your bullshit on this one because I'm sick of hearing these outright lies from the right about this.

Here is the COMPLETE legislative history of the health care act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...umm2=m&#status

Now put your money where your bullshit is.

Where in this record is there a single instance of somebody "delivering a 2,000+ bill in the dead of the night"?

Where is there "voting the next day when nobody had read it"?

This is ACTUAL HISTORY straight from the Congress. Use it show me - and everybody else here - why you aren't full of pure bullshit on this.

Cheers,
Mazo.

WTF, you haven’t been listening. Maz-man told us last night that Wisconsin laws, as written, cannot be enforced. He is telling us today that Wisconsin has a bogus legislative process where state legislators only “play” at lawmaking. So I ask, “Why do I need a Wisconsin law degree?” Oh! Come to think of it, there is one reason I might need a Wisconsin law degree, but I bought toilet paper at the market last week. Thank you for your concern, but you and Maz-man can keep that degree and share it as needed. Remember. Wash your hands when your done. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You need a Junior High reading degree along with basic government understanding 101!

That is not WTF he said. Damn, do you even read? What was said was that like our own congress there are two legislative branches that write and pass laws. Only one body in the WI body has voted on this bill. The Senate version has not passed it nor does it look like they will. Remember 14 people are not there in WI to vote. Until they do so it is not law.

Holy Shit, I hope this is not an indication of what one learns in the military.

OK PJ, I'm calling your bullshit on this one because I'm sick of hearing these outright lies from the right about this.

Here is the COMPLETE legislative history of the health care act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...umm2=m&#status

Now put your money where your bullshit is.

Where in this record is there a single instance of somebody "delivering a 2,000+ bill in the dead of the night"? Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

There is no record there of when the bill was delivered -- thus no record of it not being delivered at night and voted the next day.

No what pisses us off most is the way it passed -- the cram downs, the buying of votes, the delivering a 2,000+ bill in the dead of the night and voting the next day when nobody had read it, the overreaching, the hubris, I could go on. The way it was passed is the primary reason Nancy doesn't have a gavel any more.

And many of those reasons why unions exist (sweat shops, starvation wages, etc.) no longer exist and others have no application whatsoever in a public employees.

The fundamental difference that everyone glosses over is that public employees work for the people, not some "blood-sucking" capitalist. When you bargain with a private company, you have opposing sides - labor and ownership (represented by management). If management gives away too much, the business can't sell its products and the company fails. Governments are monopolies, where the people are required to pay taxes -- a totally different dynamic from the private sector. Also, the "management" in a public setting is politicians who want to get elected -- and strangely, the union supports them in elections (with money and workers) if they play ball. Would it be a considered a normal labor practice for the UAW to bribe the CEO of Ford to give them a sweet deal. What if the UAW offered more than he made by working at Ford? Of course not! But that is exactly the situation you have in public sectors and why Governor Wilson is right to be doing what he has proposed.


But strangely, private schools, who have very good teachers, pay less. Unions and bureaucracy have driven more good teachers out of the system than lousy pay. Education pay structures with the overwhelming emphasis on retirement benefits are designed to reward the survivors, not the best teachers.

It already is. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and then expecting different results. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Bravo to your analysis.

I copied the below but it makes your point:

In 2006, 10,000 public employees staged a rally outside the New Jersey State House to protest the mere discussion of a cut to their gold-plated salaries and benefits. Then-Gov. Jon Corzine leapt onto the stage shouting: "We will fight for a fair contract!"

Only later, someone noticed: Wait -- isn't he management?

Service Employees International Union officials openly threaten California legislators. At a 2009 legislative hearing, an SEIU member sneered into a microphone: "We helped to getchu into office, and we gotta good memory. Come November, if you don't back our program, we'll getchu out of office."

It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president beloved by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees.

I, personally, would love teachers to make more money. I'd want a system where the best teacher rose to the top and there would bidding for them. where they could command ceo type salaries for the service they provided andthe dynamism they brought to the classroom and the idealism they invested in our children.

I want the best to get the best, not some same level, humdrum, protect the worst. least common denominator, system we have that eliminates all incentive but the incentive of time spent.

I, personally, would love teachers to make more money. I'd want a system where the best teacher rose to the top and there would bidding for them. where they could command ceo type salaries for the service they provided andthe dynamism they brought to the classroom and the idealism they invested in our children.

I want the best to get the best, not some same level, humdrum, protect the worst. least common denominator, system we have that eliminates all incentive but the incentive of time spent. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Everyone says this, yet teachers still make shit salaries. We entrust our kids to them, yet we don't pay them what everyone says they should be paid. If this were truly a priority, it would be fact.

So, you may want to have teachers make more, but not enough to do anything about it.

Give me your personal checkbook, and I can tell you your priorities. It is where you tend to spend your money, and the results are pretty easy to determine.

I'll bet education ain't in your checkbook. It's in mine.

There is no record there of when the bill was delivered -- thus no record of it not being delivered at night and voted the next day. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well, then how about you tell us exactly which vote it was that happened the way you say it did and so we can pull up the exact, word-for-word, moment-by-moment record of the event (all of which is stored on the congressional records server) and see for ourselves what actually happened?

Cheers,
Mazo.

I'll bet education ain't in your checkbook. It's in mine. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

It was big time when my kids were in school. Now its in my substantial property tax bills.

It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president beloved by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

How about we change a couple of words in this passage to point out just how absurd it is to argue about present events with quotes from distant history?

"It used to be widely understood that poison gas has a place in warfare. In 1937, the British Prime Minister beloved by conservatives, Churchill, stated that "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilized tribes." Barry Goldwater, head of the Conservative Movement for a quarter century, said poison gas was appropriate for use in warfare. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of countries had poison gas in their weapons stockpiles."

So if, by your logic, the liberals should be heeding the words of FDR and Meany on unions, does that mean that conservatives should be heeding the words of Churchill and Goldwater on the use of poison gas?

Hey. It's your basis of argument, not mine.

Cheers,
Mazo.

It used to be widely understood that collective bargaining has no place in government employment. In 1937, the American president beloved by liberals, FDR, warned that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service." George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO for a quarter century, said unions were not appropriate for civil servants. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of states prohibited unionization of government employees. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

+1
The full text of FDR's letter

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,

FDR- August 16, 1937

I believe FDR's words are just as pertinent today as they were 70 years ago. IMO collective bargaining by government employee organizations takes away from local taxpayers the ability to control their budgets; hence, the level of their local taxes. Collective bargaining might be feasible in regards to dealing with private enterprise, but when government employee organizations rather than elected officials can dictate the budget; then it means local tax payers are being taxed without representation.

Everyone says this, yet teachers still make shit salaries. We entrust our kids to them, yet we don't pay them what everyone says they should be paid. If this were truly a priority, it would be fact.

So, you may want to have teachers make more, but not enough to do anything about it.

Give me your personal checkbook, and I can tell you your priorities. It is where you tend to spend your money, and the results are pretty easy to determine.

I'll bet education ain't in your checkbook. It's in mine. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

what you don't get is..under a different system, it wouldnt be up to me or you..it would be the market..just like the people on wall street....what they get isnt up to me...although through property tax i do pay quite a bit towards education and i am sure through other ways i help pay wall street salaries to an extent...

I have the best solution to stop the bickering on this thread and put all of the issues to rest. Let us put a dictator in power and let him tell us everything we can or cannot do and how much we should or should not make. He will tell us if we can go to school, go to the doctor, go to work, etc and then all of this conversation is null and void.

If we keep going the direction we are going that will be the end result anyway.

How about we change a couple of words in this passage to point out just how absurd it is to argue about present events with quotes from distant history?

"It used to be widely understood that poison gas has a place in warfare. In 1937, the British Prime Minister beloved by conservatives, Churchill, stated that "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilized tribes." Barry Goldwater, head of the Conservative Movement for a quarter century, said poison gas was appropriate for use in warfare. As recently as 1978, the vast majority of countries had poison gas in their weapons stockpiles."

So if, by your logic, the liberals should be heeding the words of FDR and Meany on unions, does that mean that conservatives should be heeding the words of Churchill and Goldwater on the use of poison gas?

Hey. It's your basis of argument, not mine. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

So the existence of an abhorrent statement made by someone with political beliefs opposite yours renders moot one made contemporaneously, with which you disagree, but which was made by a political icon whose views you generally applaud?

What kind of logic is that? Is the point that since the statement was made so long ago it can't possibly have any modicum of validity?

I guess that by that line of reasonong, nothing Adam Smith ever said can possibly have made any sense, since he lived in the 18th century.

People in all places on the political spectrum have made all sorts of foolish statements through the years. But I think FDR's 1937 statement regarding public-sector unions was spot on, and its wisdom is as evident today as at any time in our history.

I believe FDR's words are just as pertinent today as they were 70 years ago. IMO collective bargaining by government employee organizations takes away from local taxpayers the ability to control their budgets; hence, the level of their local taxes. Collective bargaining might be feasible in regards to dealing with private enterprise, but when government employee organizations rather than elected officials can dictate the budget; then it means local tax payers are being taxed without representation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

First, I guess it's OK with you that we pay service men so little that their families rely on welfare & WIC to get by. Without some sort of organization, they are at the mercy of Congress (i.e. politicians).

Second, you're not being taxed without representation (unless, of course, you're a resident of DC). You DO have representation. It's up to the elected officials to balance the budget, and they may have to cut in areas you don't like...like the military (or military contractors).

what you don't get is..under a different system, it wouldnt be up to me or you..it would be the market..just like the people on wall street....what they get isnt up to me...although through property tax i do pay quite a bit towards education and i am sure through other ways i help pay wall street salaries to an extent... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

First of all, we don't have a different system. So that argument fails out of the gate. And second, you can't count as part of your contribution to education that which you are required to pay through taxes. Get that, PJ? The point was, let me look where you put your money, and I can tell you where your priorities lie.

I have the best solution to stop the bickering on this thread and put all of the issues to rest. Let us put a dictator in power and let him tell us everything we can or cannot do and how much we should or should not make. He will tell us if we can go to school, go to the doctor, go to work, etc and then all of this conversation is null and void.

If we keep going the direction we are going that will be the end result anyway. Originally Posted by topsgt38801

Two words: St. Chris.

I guess that by that line of reasonong, nothing Adam Smith ever said can possibly have made any sense, since he lived in the 18th century. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The point, my dear sir, is that comments about the state of affairs made in long distant past simply don't reflect the realities of today.

And like most conservatives the same dirt never sticks to you, does it? It's perfectly OK for you to quote FDR and claim he's the ideal of the modern liberal (which he certainly IS NOT!) but when somebody brings up the crazy conservatives of the past like Goldwater and McCarthy you run for cover like you never heard of them.

Nice try, but it ain't workin'.

And if you truly believe that you can translate Adam Smith into a modern technological economy then you're just too far gone to save. You better just click your heels three times, put on your tin foil cap, and wish you were back in the Kansas of 1835.

Cheers,
Mazo.