Onward to the Wisconsin protest thingy.
If you didn't know already Governor Walker did sign the collective bargaining bill in a signing ceremony. I have a few questions for you Deaf Echo-ers and readers here. But correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the voters pick Governor Walker?
Didn't the voters understand who they were voting for? Despite fliers circulated during last fall’s campaign by union AFT-Wisconsin who warned voters that Walker wanted to curb the unions’ power to negotiate? But they still voted for him? Why is that?
Maybe the people of Wisconsin want to see their state regain control and get the state's fiscal sanity back for once?
Scott Walker was elected by the people as a fiscal conservative Republican, and he is governing as a fiscally conservative Republican. He is doing exactly what he promised he would do. And because of that campaign platform he won the largest landslide victory of any party in any election since 1928. A 54-45 percent landslide win in Wisconsin.
Isn't that Democracy in action?
And lastly, how it is that public employees in 24 other states — and in the federal government — have managed to survive without collective bargaining rights? Imagine that.
On collective bargaining when compared to those with no collective bargaining:
The boldest and most effective option is to prohibit collective bargaining entirely in the public sector. Virginia and North Carolina do this. Twenty-two other states forbid collective bargaining for some classes of public employees or allow it only by local option.
Not having to bargain employee contracts makes it easier for elected officials to control employment costs. The Washington Post has written extensively about the different budget environments in Fairfax County, Virginia, which does not use collective bargaining, and Montgomery County, Maryland, which does:
Virginia law denies public employees collective bargaining rights; that’s helped Fairfax resist budget-busting wage and benefit demands. As revenue dipped two years ago, Fairfax officials froze all salaries for county government and school employees with little ado. By contrast, Montgomery leaders were badly equipped to cope with recession.I strongly suggest you read the link to the The Washington Post above. It's really an eye-opener to understand when it comes to the ability to control cost.
Now, if you want to discuss this, fine. But if you disagree, just say so instead of making up fantasy excuses in the effort to silence me for my opinions. Let's avoid the echo chamber effect.
11 comments:
A lesson to be learned: VOTE. Many didn't.
In WI, the people spoke. Walker didn't listen.
There's more I can get into, but, why bother? People already are set in their opinions.
Make no mistake, the people in WI have spoken and this ain't over for them. Recalls are in progress. No one has ever seen anything like this before.
BTW, this has nothing to do with Wisconsin School for the Deaf. Yes, there will be major cuts in education which is in the second part of the budget bill. And, it probably will affect ALL schools including WSD.
Republican moderates, I have no problem with. Tea F baggers, I do.
And, finally, don't believe everything you hear and read from Faux News! ;)
What say you about these tea F baggers posing as SEIU protestors in Madison?
They don't have enough integrity to show up and pose as who they are? Oh, I know..they want to make it look like the workers are violent. yup yup.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10047/tea-party-leader-urges-agent-provocatuer-plan-disrupt-and-discredit-protests
Shame.
I can ask the same question about the numerous Senators who received death threats.. But that's not the issue here. The main issue is about state's fiscal ability to control costs and still be able to keep jobs.
Wait till the investigation is done with the threats, we'll know more.
WI is not broke.
http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/03/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-wisconsin-broke/
See how he fares with his statements:
http://politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/
If costs go out of control then certainly the prospect of a state going "broke" increases. This is a matter of being able to pay what you can while still holding a debt. The killer here is the cumulative and growing debt to the point where you are in a virtual financial hole unable to dig yourself out.
Your best bet is to prevent from getting yourself into that kind of a situation. Don't make promises you cannot or unable to keep. Read a Washington Post article on two counties with one without collective bargaining and another with collective bargaining.
If you are going to use Politifacts then consider this.
In 2011, "the average annual compensation for a teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools system will exceed $100,000."
Politifacts says it's true.
Politifacts says "the number is accurate. The same holds for several other Milwaukee area districts."
Based on many things I've been reading up, I am leaning more towards the rationale for Walker and Republican's going after the union. It's not about the budget (and they will say it is, just like others who argue this). This all has to do with control of Americans and to ensure that Obama will not be elected into second term. That's the master plan. There's already statements that refer to that.
Ever hear of the Guilded Era?
Do we want to go back to that?
I do believe that we all should earn our keep. I've worked almost all of my life. Need money? get a job. My kids asks me for money, I tell them to get a job. They hate it when I say that. However, there are exceptions for some Americans who cannot work or are unable to and with those exceptions there should be better oversight.
Unions, I think there's good and bad unions. It has done good for many and if workers are willing to shell out $$ to be a member of the union, that's their right. I am not a member of any union. That was my choice.
It's much more than just the budget. It's a political game at the expense of Americans.
I've left a link to a Washington Post article that exemplifies the problems of collective bargaining.
Also, there are 24 states who appear to manage just fine without collective bargaining in place.
As for the budget, it's about projected shortfall. In other words, the deficit of $3.6 billion dollars worth isn't a bogus thing according to Politifacts.
So, from the outset it does appears that it's all about the budget and the ability to reign in costs to come in line with the revenues the state brings in each year.
Like I said, taking away the collective bargaining rights of workers is just a ploy. About control. We'll see more of that in the future. I can point to several statements that clearly reflects the true purpose of their agenda.
We can go on and on and probably not get anywhere. ;)
Discussions such as this one is best done in person. Too bad you and I don't live close by cuz I'd have fun with this one.
Still waiting for the Deaf Echoers to show up. haha.
Sure. It's about control for both sides. But the state is the one who hands out the money. If not enough revenues come in to help pay for costs then the state need to somehow control the amount of spending. It's not a taxing problem but a spending problem. Or in this case, lack of efficient spending (i.e. bang for the buck). But to have a guaranteed "income" along with an annual percentage increase each year set in stone and non-negotiable then the state cannot effectively budget with what money they have. The cost of everything simply goes up. Which is why I put a Washington Post article that cites two counties as an example of what collective bargaining could do to a county treasury.
As for Deaf Echo-ers, I'm wondering about that, too.
Post a Comment