Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

This is in part a test run for a Federal Govt shut down next month if the Republicans don't raise the national debt limit.

Maz, Maz, Maz.

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. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

In this particular case you are completely wrong, and you know it but won’t admit it. Following your line of reasoning ad infinitum we should also reject the works of this nation’s Founding fathers and such quaint notions as: “all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (BTW, I am still wondering why Obama can never get that quote quite right.)

Teachers cannot teach in Wisconsin without being “taxed” by unions they may or may not agree with politically. Those obligatory dues (evidently, the one Wisconsin statute that is enforceable)—public tax money in origin—are used by the unions to “buy” the votes of key politicians that support the unions’ agenda—more money. Unions contribute massive financial and human support to the electoral campaigns of their primary political allies: the Democrats. A quick review of legislation proffered and supported by union financed Democrat office-holders shows that such contributions are repaid in the form of granting unions generous legislated benefits, both monetary and in the form of rules that strengthen the political power of union officials. Wisconsin’s wayward Democratic senators have, in a totally unoriginal (and IMO illegal) exercise in futility, chosen to absent themselves from the state assembly in what appears to be a desperate ploy to preserve the flood of union money coming to them. Republicans, it appears, are every bit as hopeful of stemming that massive flow of tax dollars to their political opponents.

Reflect on this for a moment—teacher’s unions are completely financed by American tax payers. Union presidents, secretaries, office utility bills, etc., are all paid for by all American tax payers—not just teachers. As a voter in Wisconsin, do you have any say in setting union budgets or salaries? Turn off that spigot. Take out the union middleman and allow teachers the personal choice to donate or not donate money to political candidates. Now, that would be a step in the right direction.

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. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

No one is claiming FDR is a proponent for modern liberalism, and if you want to reject him as such, that is fine. But, aren’t you libeling FDR—a liberal hero—by inferring he is a “crazy liberal” when you suggest his antitheses are men like McCarthy and Goldwater? Plus, just because these men were wrong most of the time didn’t make them wrong 100% of the time. As history has shown, there were communist agents at work in the U.S. government.

Nice try, but it ain't workin'. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Serious, serious case of “opti-rectitus." You really should have that checked.

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. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Fundamentally, Smith’s major premise is/was that wealth is not finite. That has not changed. Furthermore, Smith’s work, like Locke, Rousseau, etc., influenced the Founding Fathers. Refer to my first paragraph above.

You better just click your heels three times, put on your tin foil cap, and wish you were back in the Kansas of 1835. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

And the tin foil cap is supposed to protect his hair from the Comanche or Kiowa? How? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

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.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

so what realities of today, as opposed to the realities of yesterday, make the observation of Mr. Roosevelt inapplicable?

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

I thought thats what Obama wants to be.

This is in part a test run for a Federal Govt shut down next month if the Republicans don't raise the national debt limit. Originally Posted by gnadfly

:th umbup: Shut that mofo down!!!

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.

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

follow the conversation and the arguments will make sense...

i said the following:

"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 would prefer a different system. You attacked that by saying i dont give education a lot of money. Now you say "we dont have a different system...
[so my] argument falls". What argument? The argument that i'd prefer something different? Now charles, how logical is that? How can it be that my preference can fail when all it is is my preference?

Teachers cannot teach in Wisconsin without being “taxed” by unions they may or may not agree with politically. Those obligatory dues (evidently, the one Wisconsin statute that is enforceable)—public tax money in origin—are used by the unions to “buy” the votes of key politicians that support the unions’ agenda—more money. Unions contribute massive financial and human support to the electoral campaigns of their primary political allies: the Democrats. A quick review of legislation proffered and supported by union financed Democrat office-holders shows that such contributions are repaid in the form of granting unions generous legislated benefits, both monetary and in the form of rules that strengthen the political power of union officials. Wisconsin’s wayward Democratic senators have, in a totally unoriginal (and IMO illegal) exercise in futility, chosen to absent themselves from the state assembly in what appears to be a desperate ploy to preserve the flood of union money coming to them. Republicans, it appears, are every bit as hopeful of stemming that massive flow of tax dollars to their political opponents.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

IBH--I'm just curious about where you got this information (no, I didn't bother to look it up). The reason is that the US Supreme Court seems to have prohibited the practice you describe. The following quotation comes out of a California Supreme Court case (1999):

The [U. S. Supreme] Court drew its distinction between regulatory and ideological activities from a line of labor union cases.   The most important of those cases, Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), held that Michigan could compel state employees who did not belong to the employees union to contribute money to the union only to the extent the money was spent on “collective-bargaining, contract administration, and grievance-adjustment purposes.”  Id. at 232, 97 S.Ct. 1782.   Mandatory contributions could not be spent on “political and ideological purposes unrelated to collective bargaining.”  Id.;  see also Ellis v. Brotherhood of Ry. Airline and S.S. Clerks, 466 U.S. 435, 104 S.Ct. 1883, 80 L.Ed.2d 428 (1984).

Just wondering.

Take out the union middleman and allow teachers the personal choice to donate or not donate money to political candidates. .
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Teachers that do not care for unions dues going to the DNC can go into another profession just as shareholders that do not care for coporate money going to the GOP have to do.

This is politics pure and simple. But if you love the last SC ruling on this , you can't then blame the union.

Government is nothing more than a reflection on whether labor or mangement is in charge. Ideally they would work hand in hand.

What people like you fight for is big business dominance.

Teachers that do not care for unions dues going to the DNC can go into another profession just as shareholders that do not care for coporate money going to the GOP have to do.

Originally Posted by WTF

how can it be that you think it appropriate that a government of the people, by the people and for the people..a government of all the people..can rightly be a party to such an arrangment of affairs that only people of a certain mindset be at repose working for that same government?

What people like you fight for is big business dominance. Originally Posted by WTF

What the hell does a fight between public unions and a governor have to do with big business dominance?

IBH--I'm just curious about where you got this information (no, I didn't bother to look it up). The reason is that the US Supreme Court seems to have prohibited the practice you describe. The following quotation comes out of a California Supreme Court case (1999):
Just wondering. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I learned it from the media (Fox, HLN, CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, but I don’t remember which outlet?). Here are some other examples. See @

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41707888

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133942326

“Under Walker's plan, most state workers would no longer be able to negotiate for better pensions or health benefits or anything other than higher salaries, which couldn't rise at a quicker pace than the Consumer Price Index. Walker and state Republican leaders have said the plan to limit the collective bargaining rights of state employees is necessary to deal with the state's budget shortfall.
“The budget proposal includes other provisions to strip the public employee unions of power, as well -- notably getting rid of the state's process of automatically collecting compulsory union dues from state paychecks. Furthermore, the proposal would require the unions to win a new certification election every year in order to maintain their representation.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/labor-pains-pro-walker-troopers-union-repudiates-endorsement-in-wisconsin.php

Walker's proposals would strike hard at the power of the public employee unions. They would no longer have the right to bargain for fringe benefits, which are threatening to bankrupt the state government, and they would no longer be able to count on government withholding dues money and passing it along to them.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/02/24/public_unions_force_taxpayers_ to_fund_dems

As I looked for evidence to support my claim, I’m noticing - surprise, surprise - the more liberal press seems not to be addressing this latter issue. But I also found this:

Wisconsin Statute 111.85 Fair−share and maintenance of membership agreements. (1) (c) If a fair−share or maintenance of membership agreement is authorized in a referendum, the employer shall enter into such an agreement with the labor organization named on the ballot in the referendum. Each fair−share or maintenance of membership agreement shall contain a provision requiring the employer to deduct the amount of dues as certified by the labor organization from the earnings of the employees or supervisors affected by the agreement and to pay the amount so deducted to the labor organization. Unless the parties agree to an earlier date, the agreement shall take effect 60 days after certification by the commission that the referendum vote authorized the agreement. The employer shall be held harmless against any claims, demands, suits and other forms of liability made by employees or supervisors or local labor organizations which may arise for actions taken by the employer in compliance with this section. All such lawful claims, demands, suits and other forms of liability are the responsibility of the labor organization entering into the agreement.

Texas is a “right-to-work” state. As such, teachers are free to join or not join a union.

I thought thats what Obama wants to be. Originally Posted by pjorourke

He's working on it and unless people wake up, he will be.

notably getting rid of the state's process of automatically collecting compulsory union dues from state paychecks.

Walker's proposals would strike hard at the power of the public employee unions. They would no longer have the right to bargain for fringe benefits, which are threatening to bankrupt the state government, and they would no longer be able to count on government withholding dues money and passing it along to them.

As I looked for evidence to support my claim, I’m noticing - surprise, surprise - the more liberal press seems not to be addressing this latter issue. But I also found this:

Wisconsin Statute 111.85 Fair−share and maintenance of membership agreements. (1) (c) If a fair−share or maintenance of membership agreement is authorized in a referendum, the employer shall enter into such an agreement with the labor organization named on the ballot in the referendum. Each fair−share or maintenance of membership agreement shall contain a provision requiring the employer to deduct the amount of dues as certified by the labor organization from the earnings of the employees or supervisors affected by the agreement and to pay the amount so deducted to the labor organization. Unless the parties agree to an earlier date, the agreement shall take effect 60 days after certification by the commission that the referendum vote authorized the agreement. The employer shall be held harmless against any claims, demands, suits and other forms of liability made by employees or supervisors or local labor organizations which may arise for actions taken by the employer in compliance with this section. All such lawful claims, demands, suits and other forms of liability are the responsibility of the labor organization entering into the agreement.

Texas is a “right-to-work” state. As such, teachers are free to join or not join a union. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't think your underlined citations conflict with the Abood case. The Court there said that "state employees who did not belong to the employees union to contribute money to the union only to the extent the money was spent on “collective-bargaining, contract administration, and grievance-adjustment purposes.” The Court went on to say, "Mandatory contributions could not be spent on “political and ideological purposes unrelated to collective bargaining.”

At least this has been my understanding of the (what I will call) mandatory membership cases. The ones I am most familiar with are the state bar associations that require lawyer membership. In most case, the bar associations are prevented from lobbying or supporting political or ideological issues because they draw their income from the whole membership, and not every lawyer would agree with whatever political position the bar might take. A minority of states do not have an integrated bar, and those are able to engage in lobbying.

By getting rid of collective bargaining, the state can shed the duty to collect union dues out of paychecks. But I don't think that the money collected could have gone to lobbying activities other than collective bargaining and benefits.

But I present that as I understand it. There are lots of nuances to which I have not kept up.

I. B., thanks for so effectively pointing out the fatuousness of Mazo's argument. Saved me some keystrokes!

It's hilarious to see someone argue that any statement made, say, 75 years ago can't possibly be relevant to today's world.

A particularly rich irony is that many liberals revere John Maynard Keynes. Although his seminal work was published in the 1930s, and he died in 1946, many left-of-center economists still proudly wear the label "Keynesian" or "neo-Keynesian" or "New Keynesian." This doctrine has enjoyed quite a renaissance over the last couple of years, since it seemingly undergirds arguments in favor of attempting to boost the economy with large fiscal surges, always a popular practice of politicians who want to buy votes with taxpayers' money. (If I may digress for just a moment, I might just note that many students of Keynes argue, correctly in my opinion, that he would not have advocated huge spending increases in the presence of already large structural budget deficits. Remember that in his day, industrial nations generally ran balanced budgets or even surpluses in good times. Therefore, they could well afford a little "countercyclical punch" during down times. So the problem is not that what Keynes said is wrong, it's that it's often grossly misinterpreted, even by Ph.D. economists -- who should know better!)

Regarding the inappropriateness of public-sector unions, as with so many things you can cut to the heart of the matter by simply following the money. Tax money flows from the electorate to public sector paychecks, and some of it is sliced off to pay compulsory union dues. Then union campaign contributions buy more favors which lead in turn to more and larger public-sector paychecks and benefits. It's a vicious circle, and at times when union-friendly politicians control legislatures and governors' mansions, the total costs of all the benefit packages are ratcheted up to higher and higher levels -- and once you've given lots of stuff away, it's very hard to take it back. A particularly big problem is the exploding cost of defined-benefit pensions. The corporate world recognized long ago that such promises are simply unaffordable in the long run.

All of that seemed to work OK when everyone was enjoying the fruits of an unsustainable debt-fueled consumption boom. But now that we can obviously see that we are not living in the land of plenty, not so much. When the tide goes out, everyone can see who's been swimming naked.

Politicians should have learned a lesson or two from the 2010 elections. They weren't endorsements of the Republican Party. Far from it, since Republcans spent most of the '00s fucking up big time. But one thing should be crystal clear. The majority of Americans don't seem quite ready to turn the U.S. into a European-style social democracy.

Regarding the inappropriateness of public-sector unions, as with so many things you can cut to the heart of the matter by simply following the money. Tax money flows from the electorate to public sector paychecks, and some of it is sliced off to pay compulsory union dues. Then union campaign contributions buy more favors which lead in turn to more and larger public-sector paychecks and benefits. It's a vicious circle, and at times when union-friendly politicians control legislatures and governors' mansions, the total costs of all the benefit packages are ratcheted up to higher and higher levels, and once you've given lots of stuff away, it's very hard to take it back. A particularly big problem is the exploding cost of defined-benefit pensions. The corporate world recognized long ago that such promises are simply unaffordable in the long run. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

First of all, some states are right to work states so that not everyone is required to be a union member. Second, union dues withheld from paychecks can only be used in the collective bargaining process. Not for campaign contributions, not for bribes, not for some of the illegal activity you inferred. Just read the Abood case. Clearly, the use of union dues is strictly limited. That does not mean union members cannot contribute a portion of their pay to lobbying activities, or would you restrict that freedom of expression, also.

Finally, I'm sure you're one of those that thinks public sector employees should not be protected by the establishment of a union. Well, I can tell you that if those employees couldn't band together to protect themselves, the public sector would suck. I know. I was an employee with no protections in public sector work, and subject to the whims of the department head. I was paid shit, and could have been fired at anytime and replaced with a person whose only qualification for the job was his or her "friendship" (read fucking) with the department head. Is that the kind of public sector you want in this country??? If so, you deserve what you get, and don't complain about it.