Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

Overview: Democrat state legislators from both Wisconsin and Indiana are now camped out in Illinois to prevent their respective states from passing laws limiting the power of public employee unions. Wisconsin requires a quorum of 20 to pass laws that deal with finance and budget, Republicans are a 19-14 majority. Indiana requires 67 to be present and Republicans are a 60-40 majority. Democrats also did this in Texas a few years back to prevent a new redistricting plan.

Overview: Democrat state legislators from both Wisconsin and Indiana are now camped out in Illinois to prevent their respective states from passing laws limiting the power of public employee unions. Wisconsin requires a quorum of 20 to pass laws that deal with finance and budget, Republicans are a 19-14 majority. Indiana requires 67 to be present and Republicans are a 60-40 majority. Democrats also did this in Texas a few years back to prevent a new redistricting plan. Originally Posted by discreetgent

That is not thwarting the will of the people it is giving them who they elected. They do not like what they did they can always vote them out next election that is what Texas did.

The TX thing failed in the sense they were gone for only a few days. And then (I guess) they got voted out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Eleven

As long as it's legal...

OK, I'm going to partially out myself here for the sake of the thread:

I happen to live in Wisconsin, very near Madison as a matter of fact. My state senator is actual the Dem leader. I've been down to the capitol to watch this thing live and I have to say it's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long, long time. Nothing better than democracy in the streets!

I personally don't have a dog in this fight and I'm pretty much on the fence on the union rights thing. However, I TOTALLY support what the Democrats are doing with the walkout because it's not just about union rights.

The Republicans tried to rush this thing through ala the Patriot Act. It turns out that there's lots more in it besides the union killer. The bill also allows the Governor to sell the state's publicly owned power plants without competitive bidding - something that will grossly benefit the Koch brothers who literally paid his way into office. It also allows the Governor to strip Medicare and other state health benefits without the approval of the legislature. The union part is getting all the press attention, but it's about a lot more than that.

The Republicans tried to come in and ram this thing through before the public knew what hit them. The Democrats are holding it up so that people can see what's really going on and have a chance to at least express its opinion. The state assembly is also getting into the act now. They're offering hundreds of amendments to the bill in order to stall it in that house as well. It's ballsiest showing from the state Dems I've seen in a long time.

As far as the tactics, I'm all for 'em. The reason you need a supermajority quorum for spending bills here is to prevent exactly what the Republicans tried to do. That provision is in there so you can slow down the process. The Democrats are doing the right thing by using the rule as it was intended to be used - stalling the bill and giving the public time to react to it.

And before we hear the inevitable whine about how it's always the Dems using such tactics: go and check out the Republican record in Congress on the appointment of cabinet members and federal judges. The same story goes on up there as well. It's just that under the federal rule you don't need to leave Washington in order to hold up the country.

Cheers,
Mazo.

OK, I'm going to partially out myself here for the sake of the thread:

I happen to live in Wisconsin, very near Madison as a matter of fact. My state senator is actual the Dem leader. I've been down to the capitol to watch this thing live and I have to say it's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long, long time. Nothing better than democracy in the streets!

I personally don't have a dog in this fight and I'm pretty much on the fence on the union rights thing. However, I TOTALLY support what the Democrats are doing with the walkout because it's not just about union rights.

The Republicans tried to rush this thing through ala the Patriot Act. It turns out that there's lots more in it besides the union killer. The bill also allows the Governor to sell the state's publicly owned power plants without competitive bidding - something that will grossly benefit the Koch brothers who literally paid his way into office. It also allows the Governor to strip Medicare and other state health benefits without the approval of the legislature. The union part is getting all the press attention, but it's about a lot more than that.

The Republicans tried to come in and ram this thing through before the public knew what hit them. The Democrats are holding it up so that people can see what's really going on and have a chance to at least express its opinion. The state assembly is also getting into the act now. They're offering hundreds of amendments to the bill in order to stall it in that house as well. It's ballsiest showing from the state Dems I've seen in a long time.

As far as the tactics, I'm all for 'em. The reason you need a supermajority quorum for spending bills here is to prevent exactly what the Republicans tried to do. That provision is in there so you can slow down the process. The Democrats are doing the right thing by using the rule as it was intended to be used - stalling the bill and giving the public time to react to it.

And before we hear the inevitable whine about how it's always the Dems using such tactics: go and check out the Republican record in Congress on the appointment of cabinet members and federal judges. The same story goes on up there as well. It's just that under the federal rule you don't need to leave Washington in order to hold up the country.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

You have no problem with the officials that were elected in the majority to be able to pursue the programs and platforms they ran on and were elected to do being stonewalled by the minority? Also, is it proper to continue to pay the missing senators while they are not in the state capitol doing what they are paid to do?

The dems in Washington rammed the healthcare bill through with no discussion or no input from the minority and with no openess at all about what was in the bill. Pelosi said pass it so we will know what is in it statement was a true winner.

My point and I am an independent is that the Republicans won the majority of both houses running on the issues they are now trying to implement and the democrats ran out the door. The process should continue and the bill passed and if the majority of people in Wisconsin do not like the bill, next election replace all of the Republicans.

This Republic runs on the the will of the majority. Sometimes I do not like the outcome, but that is why we have elections and that is what costs the Democrats so many seats last election.

As for tactics, both sides get into fine lines that are not acceptable in our form of government. That does not mean either side is correct in what they are doing.

My big contention if I was a voter and taxpayer in Wisconsin would be the fact that public union workers paying union dues that go to lobbyists and candidates that do not share my views would be paid out of my tax dollars.

Another point about right to work states. I work for a company that has some offices in strictly union states. We go in and renovate a building or build a new building and we must use union labor for some of the functions I pay and maintain staff to do. As a private company worker, is it right that I should have to pay for union labor at much higher rates when I have qualified people on payroll that can do the job cheaper and faster? Ever wonder why the unemployment rate is so high in your state and others that are strictly union? I just answered it in this paragraph, because we are now greatly limiting any expansion in these locations because of labor issues.

One other factor, many years ago, I did belong to a union and they did not save my job when cutbacks began and took union dues out of my final pay check. Made me mad as hell. Unions in the private sector are one thing, but in public jobs funded by the taxpayer is wrong. I have no problem with unions in the private sector as long as people have a right to belong or not belong to the union because last time I checked, this is still a free country. Your comments and mine are why I gave 20 years of service to the military to allow this type of open discusion. Now that I am in the private sector in my second career, I see what impact many of these issues cause.

This is not a personal afront to your comments. Just one old man's opinion and I value and respect the right you have to your opinion. Don't we live in a great country and I wish you and your state the best in seeking an equitable solution to the problem confronting it.

Cheers,

Top

You have no problem with the officials that were elected in the majority to be able to pursue the programs and platforms they ran on and were elected to do being stonewalled by the minority? Originally Posted by topsgt38801

Last I checked, our entire system of government was designed to prevent exactly what you just advocated. Division of power in the United States is there to ensure that majorities don't just walk in and impose the agenda of the moment. It seems to have worked pretty good for a couple hundred years. I'm not willing to give it up yet.

Also, is it proper to continue to pay the missing senators while they are not in the state capitol doing what they are paid to do?

My state senator IS doing his job. He's doing exactly what he was elected to do: represent the best interests of his constituents. My district is overwhelmingly opposed to passage of this bill. He's doing exactly what he should to best represent us.

The dems in Washington rammed the healthcare bill through with no discussion or no input from the minority and with no openess at all about what was in the bill.

H.R. 3962 (the health care law) was introduced on October 29, 2009. It became law on June 25, 2010 - eight months later. I'm not even going to comment on the amount of debate it got because I think everybody here knows that story. By comparison, the Patriot Act was introduced on October 23, 2001 and became law on October 26, 2001 - three days later. I really don't think there's room to talk about Democrats abusing the process on this one.

The bill at issue in Wisconsin was introduced on a February 14th and set for a vote by the Republican majority just three days later. The Republicans had pre-written financial reports without even letting the Democrats see the bill in order to shove it on the schedule without committee hearings. If the Dems hadn't stopped it the public would never have even seen the thing until it was already law.

If you want to talk about ramming something down the voter's throat you need to start with this example. It's not democracy when the people don't get a chance to even read or comment on legislation before it gets thrust upon them.

My point and I am an independent is that the Republicans won the majority of both houses running on the issues they are now trying to implement and the democrats ran out the door.

And my point is that the people of Wisconsin specifically set up a system that allowed all of this to happen because they believed it was an appropriate safeguard against political majorities. Who are you to say that they can't do so or that the system shouldn't be used as designed? There are safety checks at all levels of our government to prevent sudden action on the whim of a new majority. They work quite nicely AFAIC.

The process should continue and the bill passed and if the majority of people in Wisconsin do not like the bill, next election replace all of the Republicans.

Unfortunately, that's not a viable option. Many parts of the bill - the sale of public power plants for instance - can't be undone. The Governor put up an all or nothing stance on it. That's what he's getting.

My big contention if I was a voter and taxpayer in Wisconsin would be the fact that public union workers paying union dues that go to lobbyists and candidates that do not share my views would be paid out of my tax dollars.

Doesn't every single government worker get money from your taxes whether they're union or not? Are you saying that if you work for the government you shouldn't be allowed to donate that money to a political candidate or speak out in their favor? Pretty radical position, don't ya think?

Whatever your stance on unions, the fact is that this bill is about a lot more than union busting. Like I said, it also guts medical programs for low-income families and gives the Governor power to sell off state assets without bothering to get competitive bids. This wasn't democracy, it was a late-night hatchet job. The people of Wisconsin saw it for what it was and reacted appropriately.

Cheers,
Mazo.

If the 209-10 Congress had had this option, the Republicans should have taken it and we wouldn't have that PoS Obamacare.

If you want to talk about ramming something down the voter's throat you need to start with this example. It's not democracy when the people don't get a chance to even read or comment on legislation before it gets thrust upon them. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

A particularly egregious example of this practice is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the so-called "stimulus" bill), which was crammed through without anyone having time to find out what a bunch of wasteful, ineffective giveaways it contained. We simply squandered hundreds of billions of dollars we couldn't afford to waste.

Last I checked, our entire system of government was designed to prevent exactly what you just advocated. Division of power in the United States is there to ensure that majorities don't just walk in and impose the agenda of the moment. It seems to have worked pretty good for a couple hundred years. I'm not willing to give it up yet.

My state senator IS doing his job. He's doing exactly what he was elected to do: represent the best interests of his constituents. My district is overwhelmingly opposed to passage of this bill. He's doing exactly what he should to best represent us.

H.R. 3962 (the health care law) was introduced on October 29, 2009. It became law on June 25, 2010 - eight months later. I'm not even going to comment on the amount of debate it got because I think everybody here knows that story. By comparison, the Patriot Act was introduced on October 23, 2001 and became law on October 26, 2001 - three days later. I really don't think there's room to talk about Democrats abusing the process on this one.

The bill at issue in Wisconsin was introduced on a February 14th and set for a vote by the Republican majority just three days later. The Republicans had pre-written financial reports without even letting the Democrats see the bill in order to shove it on the schedule without committee hearings. If the Dems hadn't stopped it the public would never have even seen the thing until it was already law.

If you want to talk about ramming something down the voter's throat you need to start with this example. It's not democracy when the people don't get a chance to even read or comment on legislation before it gets thrust upon them.

And my point is that the people of Wisconsin specifically set up a system that allowed all of this to happen because they believed it was an appropriate safeguard against political majorities. Who are you to say that they can't do so or that the system shouldn't be used as designed? There are safety checks at all levels of our government to prevent sudden action on the whim of a new majority. They work quite nicely AFAIC.

Unfortunately, that's not a viable option. Many parts of the bill - the sale of public power plants for instance - can't be undone. The Governor put up an all or nothing stance on it. That's what he's getting.

Doesn't every single government worker get money from your taxes whether they're union or not? Are you saying that if you work for the government you shouldn't be allowed to donate that money to a political candidate or speak out in their favor? Pretty radical position, don't ya think?

Whatever your stance on unions, the fact is that this bill is about a lot more than union busting. Like I said, it also guts medical programs for low-income families and gives the Governor power to sell off state assets without bothering to get competitive bids. This wasn't democracy, it was a late-night hatchet job. The people of Wisconsin saw it for what it was and reacted appropriately.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I have no problem with a government worker taking part of his salary and donating to whomever they please. I do have a problem when they pay union dues out of taxpayers pockets that is required and not an option and then that money goes to lobbyists and political groups that the worker does not support. I do not think that falls under the category of a radical opinion.

That is requiring them to pay union dues and then using the taxpayer money against their wishes. I also made my case for what the unions have done for your state and many like it. It has made for an unfriendly business climate which associated with high taxes makes solving your states problems even harder.

Per the healthcare debate, there was a tremendous amount of time spent debating it totally from the democratic side without input or amendments from the Republican side who were kept totally in the dark. Sounds like the same scenario going on in your state right now.

The whole key to all of this is our entire government is broke. FDR made the comments when he was president that public workers should not be under the collective bargaining process. Also, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were all democratic initiated programs that are totally unconsitutional and have expanded way outside the purpose for which they were intended.

I appreciate having a good discussion with you. As I stated, I have different political views from a lot of people, but I believe if our government would have some of these same discussions and all move towards the center and give on both sides, our country would be in much better fiscal shape.

Top

A particularly egregious example of this practice is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the so-called "stimulus" bill), which was crammed through without anyone having time to find out what a bunch of wasteful, ineffective giveaways it contained. We simply squandered hundreds of billions of dollars we couldn't afford to waste. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yep, and Bush and his economic advisers should have been held accountable for . . . .

Oh wait. Sorry. I thought for a second you were talking about the three day passage of TARP under Bush.

My bad. I forgot that only Democrats pull this kind of thing.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Yep, and Bush and his economic advisers should have been held accountable for . . . .

Oh wait. Sorry. I thought for a second you were talking about the three day passage of TARP under Bush.

My bad. I forgot that only Democrats pull this kind of thing.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Pulling this sort of thing is a bipartisan exercise! Bush and the Republican Party obviously were responsible for numerous fiscal disasters from 2003 onward, including the unpaid-for prescription drug benefit plan of 2003 -- largely designed by Big Pharma and crammed through on a party-line vote.

But since when is stacking failure atop failure a formula for success? Obama and the Democrats were hired by the voters to fix problems, not exacerbate them while creating new ones.

But the question was," Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?"


I think it is in fact the will of the people as Maz explained. A Senator represents his constitutes, if he thinks leaving the state best represents them, then leave he shall. What is wrong with that? There will be another election.

Anybody hear the clip of the fake Koch call? That Gov sure sounded fair and balanced in that conversation! No freaking wonder the Dem's aren't coming back.

If the 209-10 Congress had had this option, the Republicans should have taken it and we wouldn't have that PoS Obamacare. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Where is your yapping dog video?

Pulling this sort of thing is a bipartisan exercise! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Absolutely agreed.

But since when is stacking failure atop failure a formula for success? Obama and the Democrats were hired by the voters to fix problems, not exacerbate them while creating new ones.

Also absolutely agreed. I'm very disappointed with Big O's performance lately. I would have liked to see a few more cojones during his term.

Cheers,
Mazo.

I think if you look extremely hard, there is plenty of blame to go around for both parties. You cannot tell me Obama's anti business, tax and spend, no idea what to do on foreign policy is any better solution I would hope. He has also made the US look like some third world nation in the eyes of other foreign nations bowing down to their leaders and trying to appease them. I disagreed with many of the things Bush did including the Tarp bailout, but Obama has not shown me that he has any capabilities to solve any problems except making some speeches with the help of a telepromptor. I also know that you cannot continue to extend unemployment benefits forever the way Obama has done because it gives people no incentive to find any kind of work and it also places a burden on the already overloaded states that must help substain these unemployment benefits. I also do not like owning a major portion of General Motors and them still owing the taxpayers money , yet they are giving out big bonuses to all. I guess that is a good solution also. The money for GM would have been better spent if they had just given every taxpayer a new GM vehicle. The cost would probably have been less. Private business should succeed or fail based upon its on merits and capabilites and not government bailouts.

That is the reason I am now an independent. Do not want my name associated with either one. I am a southern conservative and proud of my upbringing and I now vote for the best person regardless of party reflecting my views or in some cases, if none of the candidates meet my views, I will vote for the lesser of the two evils. I may not like any of the candidates, but I most definitely believe a person should vote.

I am not sure either party has the capability to solve any of these problems and the country is so equally divided it will be hard to reach a consensus on anything

I am not sure either party has the capability to solve any of these problems and the country is so equally divided it will be hard to reach a consensus on anything Originally Posted by topsgt38801

True that!

I posted in one recent thread that our dysfunctional parties don't seem capable of doing much other than preventing the opposing party from cramming through a ruinous agenda.

Handing all the levers of power to either of them seems a little like handing a 500-hp muscle car to an overtestosteroned high school kid.