Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
 

Ah, but union political contributions ... those are as pure as the driven snow, right?

Do you really think a conversation between the union bosses and the dem representatives would be much different?

Not at all smooth. I'd love for them all to be recorded and played publicly.

Is this that thing I hear about, "moral relativism"?

This is issue is just stupid. I've listened to both sides and have come to the conclusion that if everyone just stopped yelling and attacking each other they will realize that they could easily come to an agreement.

All the teachers I've talked too said they are willing to give up pay and benefits as long as they keep collective bargaining. Maybe I've missed something but I thought republicans were (more or less) for less government spending and less government control (getting rid of collective bargaining gives the government more control). Both sides seem too busy convinced the other is out to screw them over to listen to each other.

Scott Walker, and others, are just trying to make a statement by holding their ground and Wisconsin education will suffer.

Nope. It's that thing you hear about, "Hypocrisy".

They are more against unions than they are against "government control". And they aren't against "government control", they are against Democrats. Unions tend to support Democrats, except for police and firefighters, which he exempted. But they recognized that union-busting damages them, even if not (for now) aimed at them, so they're supporting the protests.

The unions made themselves political. Now, they're fair game for politics.

This Wisconcin Governor wants to destroy all unions except three. Exempt from his bills are three unions who endorsed him for Governor. This is not what an honest leader does. This is a classic example of self serving corruption by the Governor.

His bills are examples of a politican working for a poltiical agenda and his own glory. Not working for his state and citizens.

If he really wanted to after the problem, then previous politicians who gave away the state would be forced to pay for all their mismanagement. And put before the national press to apologize for being so corrupt. We don't hold the actual criminals to task. Because spread sheets are only reporting ten years later what those previous governors and WI State Congressmen did.

And this is something new?

Classicman is a union supporter?

As your friend Uday understand it, moral relativism is define as:

"moral relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective."

So is okay or not so bad for Governor Walker to be a crook, because unions are also crook. So it is a matter of what side you are on, not anything to do with principles?

Nope, both are wrong. It's hypocrisy to only point out the wrongness of the other side.

So is morally wrong to talk about one person without mandatory equal time for others?

KOCH!


Jim, where are you?

Neither is a crook. Unethical and self serving - yes. But not the #1 crook.

The 'crook' (if one exists) were top management of many (ten) years earlier. When bills come due, those most guilty parties are long gone.

To understand problems (ie excessive pensions), instead, view (identify) people who promised those pensions by doing what corrupt leaders do. Ignore the numbers. Had they been doing their jobs, spread sheets (financial accounting) would have said back then that pension plans were unreasonable. Crooks routinely ignore actuarials. Instead, they used ‘creative accounting’. Same techniques were also used by the mafia and General Motors. And also by Chavez in Venezuela

Conflict is between a current government and its employees. But the crooks were a Governor and congressmen ten or more years earlier. Almost nobody here is discussing the most guilty.

Well, a solution is to fix this problem by making everyone pay - heavy. Every single person in WI should suffer because they did not blame the previous governor and Congressman. Being a citizen who remains ignorant means that citizen deserves the pain. Includes raising taxes. Instead, this Governor is taking a cheapshot advantage rather than address the problem where it must be solved. Every citizen should see tax increases and less government services.

Basic economics. Money games used to create economic growth (ie tax cuts to the rich) means economic forces force punishment years later. Instead, this Governor wants to punish others. To protect his elite supporters. That is not being a crook. But it is similar to a crook. And not something that a true or ethical leader would do.

Was he a priest before elected Governor? Maybe he thinks unions are being childish. It would explain his actions.

And that, folks, is the catch with democracy. People very often elect whoever tells the most pleasing lies, and then feel that they have been cheated when the impossible promises don't come true, and blame the incumbent.

Uday, don't expect too much from freedom.

Maybe is better to say "don't expect too much freedom".

While we're talking about Kochs, if this doesn't bring Pie back, I don't know what will.

The 1.2619 dimensional Koch curve, one of the simplest of fractals.

Attachment 31264

Not a lawyer, but here's a thought. Since the Supreme Court has granted personhood to organizations, can't the affected unions sue the state using the equal protection clause to argue that they are being treated differently than other unions?

But you think like one.;) That's a nice tactic to try.

Not what they did. They said that organizing together does not negate the freedom of speech that individuals have. If a person can freely speak, then 100 people under the banner of an organization can also speak.

Well the original precedent didn't go that far, but with some expensive lawyering, it might be stretched a bit. Interesting idea.

I have, amusingly, watched internet Libertarians who support corporate personhood then slam unions because they are using "collective bargaining" to get their way.

No joke. Apparently when management do it, it's different. For reasons that do not concern you, untermenschen. Maybe they're under the impression that the John Galt-esque CEOs and political leaders bargain personally, on their own, against hundreds of highly trained, yet fundamentally lazy, union negotiaters?

Public Sector Unions are paid with taxpayer dollars. Before taxes are paid on that income the union dues are subtracted and given to the union bosses who then take that money and use if lobbying and buying Democratic politicians more than 90% of the time. This is a problem. The Democratic politicians in turn give the unions anything they want and have set them up with unrealistic benifit packages that are now breaking the bank. The estimated unfunded pensions of public sector unions are in the billions, billions the states don't have. Not sure of the collective bargining issue as a personal matter, but public sector unions only represent 7% of the total workforce in the US. Time for a change.

It doesn't matter what the ultimate source of the income is. When you work, you get paid by your employer. Whether the employer gets its money from consumers or taxpayers, it's still income for the employer, and they still have their obligations to their employees.

The Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to have their income stream, the corporations, protected. The partisan Supreme Court guaranteed that by granting person-hood to corporations. Now the Republicans want to take the income stream away from Democrats. That's why they are attacking the unions.

You can try to dress this up in any other terms you choose, but this is a simple political power slug fest where the Republicans are trying to destroy the Democrats any way they can. It's not about balancing any budget. The governor said that in his own words in the prank phone call.

That would all be good if the empolyee was not mandated to work for the union and they could chose to join or not. But in this case there is no choice. And there is no choice if dues are subtracted before they are paid, which go to the union.

I guess I don't see much of a difference there either. There is nothing preventing corps from giving to the Dems, or people like Soros who is ignored when they try to demonize the Koch bros. It is all the same bs, different side of a coin.

Regardless of what that idiot said in a phone call it does not diminish the issue of public sector unions and the financial burden of unfunded pension plans which are estimated to be in the billions.

The media have been very careful not to distinguish between regular unions, who seem to be doing just fine, and the public sector unions who make up only 7% of the workforce. And this whole issue is just about public sector unions. I am not anti-union myself but I do think the time has come for some changes when it comes to the burden of local and state government and tax dollars that go to pay for perks like 100% benifits with no contribution from the employee. You are not going to get a lot of sympathy from the masses of unemployed or under employed or from non-union workers who make up the majority of taxpayers.

I guess if people say "corporate personhood" enough times, it makes it true? Again, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled. They made a very narrow ruling on free speech, and when and how it can be limited by federal law. In this case, they ruled that if 1 person has the right to speech, 100 people together as an organization also have that right.

I have no objection to collective bargaining. The right to negotiate for salary, the right to refuse to work for less than a certain wage, those are deeply important, fundamental rights in a capitalist marketplace.

I object very strongly to the protected status that unions have under our current system. They are allowed to form mandatory local monopolies over a company's labor force, and then use that monopoly to void the employers right to hire workers at a wage determined by the labor market.

If we are going to preserve the fundmental right to not work unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the worker, then we must also preserve the fundamental right not to hire unless the terms of hiring are satisfactory to the employer. It is unfair to enter negotiations where the rights of one side enjoy protected status under the law and the rights of the other do not.

I was pretty sure when this first started that there would be the typical lacking of support for the 'union' in this fight. Well of course, msm followed suit, but that's expected considering their fealty to their corporate paymasters. But I figured it would be like Merc expresses...the average working stiff would not waste any sympathy on them. A few years back that would certainly have been the case. But polls are actually starting to say otherwise. There seems to be more solidarity for these workers and unions in general. I may have to change my pessimistic outlook now.

Yes, I am somewhat heartened by the general support for, not just unions, but non-cop non-firefighter government workers' unions! Walker picked the unions that one would think would get the least sympathy, and people still saw through that cynicism.

And Walker still is not going to have a balanced budget in the long term without the unions' yielding, or without shrinking the State establishment until it is in line with revenue -- and that is going to put some few unions' members right out of work. Not wholly their own fault, but are they doing what's necessary to right things? There are those who say no, and point to evidence.

The unions yielded the budgetary issues. That's a moot point.

Bortz 14Mar11

It is unfair for the government to collect taxpayer funds paid to the government union and give them to a single party for support in general elections. The individual should be able to reserve the right to choose who that money should go to. Make a law that prevents public sector unions from giving money to PACs or in support of elections and they may get more support. Until then this is going to end. Many states are following the suit of WI and are not having half the battle that is being orchestrated by the Obama Administration and Democratic party on behalf of that 15% of the total Union work force in WI. They are spinning this as is it a Labor issue and they will fail again in the next national general election as these facts are discussed in the wider issue of the use of tax dollars in support of public sector Unions.

The suggestion that union members cannot "reserve the right to choose who that money should go to" is a myth.

The Federal Election Campaign Act and laws in many states prohibit unions from using general funds (dues) for political campaigns. They can create PACs for voluntary contributions from members.
It seems to me that union members should have the same rights as any Americans to voluntarily give to a PAC of their choice.

The extremist (and misleading) libertarian views of Neal Bortz from your post are not shared by most Americans.

From everything I have read, the public is on the side of the unions on this one, recognizing that the unions have demonstrated more concern for the middle class and working poor than Republican governors and legislators who are ready to cut numerous programs that go beyond the union's direct interest or the issue of dues check-offs and to the heart of millions of people living from paycheck to paycheck, while the wealthiest taxpayers and corporations get more tax breaks.

more:
On average, less than 3% of your state taxes support public employee pensions and the payback is significant, as I noted elsewhere:

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=716231&postcount=54

The spin? The unions agreed to contribute a greater share of pension/health care costs even before the governor signed the bill. The Republican Leader of the Senate in WI made it clear that this fight was not about balancing the state budget, but busting the unions simply because union members lean towards voting Democratic.

Incorrect.

You would be mistaken. The money is automatically deducted from the payroll.

Libertarian is not extremism. Although many would state that it is a branch of the conservative views, Bortz is a popular commentator on current events and does not affiliate with any particular party, which is why he is so popular.

Then you would be mistaken again.

Straw man argument. This is not about all Unions. This is about public sector Unions which represent only 15% of all Unions but also represents a major portion of States unfunded monies that will be owed to support the retirement and health benefits.

I have no problem with that when it is tax payer monies being funneled to one particular party, well over 90% of the funds.

*shrug*

I dont intend to debate the facts or the law with you.

And the law is clear, unions "may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections..."

PAC contributions, while they may be deducted from their payroll, are voluntary.

IMO, Wisconsin and other states have overplayed their hands on this and will see the backlash, which has already begun.

Which side does the public support?

These attacks against public employees union do not have public support and they, in fact, have galvanized workers, both union and non-union.

Once the law is changed there is little they can do other than vote in new people and then lobby to have the rules changed back to what they were before.

Polls don't mean shat. It is the weakest form of statistical measure.

As I stated earlier, you and others will have a hard time convincing all those people out of work or who contribute a significantly greater portion of their earnings to pay their benefits, or who have little to no benefits at all. And that is the majority of all workers in the US. Union workers make up a small amount of the work force and public sector unions make up an even small number of the total.

Thank you for no longer insisiting that it was incorrect when I stated that contributions to union PACs are voluntary.

I never suggested, nor do I support, taxpayers paying a larger share of pension/health care cost for public employee unions. The workers in WI agreed to pay more of their own pension/health care costs and I thought that was certainly appropriate.

I do support the right of those workers to bargain collectively as do a majority of Americans, by any recent measure.

And I certainly support the right of any workers, including public employees, to participate in the politicial process by VOLUNTARILY contributing to the party or candidate of their choice.

I really hope you dont want to take that away simply because they may support a party or candidate that may not be of your choosing.

You fail. Union members get no say in where the PAC dollars, as directed by the unions, dollars go.

The problem remains, Taxpayer Dollars are being used to support one political party.

I dont know how to say it any other way that to again refer to the Federal Elections Campaign Act:
Unions are prohibited by law from using dues to support the PAC.

The law refers to PACs as “separate segregated funds” because money contributed to a PAC is voluntary and kept in a bank account separate from the general union treasury.

You are confusing mandatory dues to a union for general, non-political activities with voluntary contributions to a union PAC. Perhaps your confusing arises from the fact that both the union dues and PAC contributions may be collected as part of one check-off or payroll deduction....but then they must be segregated by law.

afterthought:

If you are suggesting that public employees should not have the right to VOLUNTARILY contribute to the candidate/party of their choice, whether through a union PAC or a direct contribution, because their salaries are paid by taxpayers, I would strenuously disagree.

If a union member would prefer to not support the union PAC and instead, contribute to a different candidate/party, they have that right. I will say it again, PAC contributions by union members are voluntary.

Every worker, public or private, should have the right to participate in the political process by contributing to a candidate/party of their choice.

I'll give you this. One change that did result from the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case last year (a terrible decision IMO) is that unions (and corporations) can now use general funds for political advertising, but still cannot use those general funds to contribute directly to a candidate/party.

Given that corporate PACs outspend union PACs by about 3:1, the playing field still significantly favors corporate interests over workers interests.

Union equates lavish benefits to black civil rights

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...#ixzz1GxfFBvQv

Actually, there is a very involved discussion to be had about the rise of the black middle class and it's role in civil rights. Conversely, there can be a similar discussion about the erosion of the middle class and the loss of said rights.

Hey, as long as the erode or eliminate the power of the Public Sector Unions I am good with whatever they come up with. Those people have been sucking on the teat for a long time.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1209569.story

So it's simply a voluntary deduction from the paycheck that is administered by the employer, the government.

Since it's voluntary, it's clear that the Republicans are doing this as a dirty trick to try to siphon money from the Democrats.

I support the stopage of "voluntary deductions" because in the end you know that they are not really voluntary. And public sector unions still exist in Right to Work states. Same in GA where I live. If the government is the employer, and tax dollars come from the payroll, then you are basically taking tax dollars from all persons and giving it to one party, of which the unions overwhelmingly support only Dem canidates and causes. The government should not be involved in this. Let the individuals contribute after they have the money deposited in their own bank accounts.

Cite please?

The article says they are voluntary. You say they aren't. You need to back that up with a cite.

The law requires that PAC contributions be volunatry and any check-offs be separated from dues.

I too would like to see a cite where unions have broken the law.

"Florida is a "right to work" state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions."

Certainly you guys are not foolish enought to think that the pressure by unions which dominate a work place are truely voluntary? In many places you can't even get a job unless you belong to the union.

"....state employers typically withhold union dues from workers' paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions." Wow. Really, how do they separate that?

I think I explained earlier how dues and voluntary contributions can be checked-off at the same time, then separated, as required by law.

And you still have not provided a cite that any actions by public unions have broken the law.

Who says they had to have broken a law? I stated I am against the state employer taking tax dollars out of the paychecks before the employee is paid and sending that to the union bosses.

Mandatory payment of dues is not the same as voluntary contributions for political purposes.

It is really not that hard to understand.

If you claim those contributions are not "voluntary," provide a cite that proves your point.

Obviously this is a big issue or why would the Unions try to fight so hard to defeat prop 75 in Calif?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_n...f/entire75.pdf

I have.

But the employee asked the employer to do that.

I ask my employer to put some of my paycheck in my 401k, some of it in checking, and some of it in savings. It's a request I made of my employer. These employees are making a similar request of their employer. It's voluntary. And the Republicans are putting a stop to it, because some of those funds are going to oppose them. The Republicans are claiming it's so people can choose what they want to do with their money, but these are people who have already chosen. The Republicans are just putting barriers in their way.

You did?

Where did you cite any facts that voluntary contributions are, as you suggest, not really voluntary?

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

You may not be required to join, but you may have to pay dues unless you are in a right to work state.