Wisconsin protests: Obama goes too far by mobilizing opposition
There are many lessons to be learned from the protests and outright abdication of duty by public labor unions and Democrats (but I repeat myself) in Wisconsin. One of them is that there can no longer be any doubts that President Obama has radical ideas about the proper balance and relationship between the federal and state governments.
From the Washington Post:
President Obama thrust himself and his political operation this week into Wisconsin’s broiling budget battle, mobilizing opposition Thursday to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits and planning similar protests in other state capitals.
Obama accused Scott Walker, the state’s new Republican governor, of unleashing an “assault” on unions in pushing emergency legislation that would change future collective-bargaining agreements that affect most public employees, including teachers.
The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.
Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.
By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were organizing additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers. Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Let me make my position perfectly clear: The president of the United States has no business whatsoever interfering, especially by using his campaign apparatus, with a state government’s dealings with its employees.
No. Business. Whatsoever.
His eagerness to jump into the fray in Madison, like his ill-advised wading into the dispute over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates two summers ago, not only betrays his disturbing instinct to think nothing is beyond the bounds of his office. It actually demeans the office itself. As Matt Welch writes at Reason.com:
Just think — there once was a time (for more than a century, actually), when the president of the United States thought it too imperious to deliver the State of the Union via a speech to a joint session of Congress, since that would smack of telling a co-equal branch of government what to do. Now we have a president not just taking rhetorical sides in a state issue, but actively mobilizing his political organization to affect the outcome(s), even though (to my knowledge) nothing that Gov. [Scott] Walker or any other belated statehouse cost-cutter is doing has a damned thing to do with federal law.
This is not sending in the National Guard to enforce a federal court order to integrate the schools in Little Rock. Despite what you may have heard — from President Obama, for instance — Wisconsin’s governor is not “making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally.”
What the governor, newly elected Republican Scott Walker, wants is to sharply curb collective bargaining for benefits — which in that state, like many other jurisdictions, are unsustainably generous and threaten to sink the entire state’s finances — and require employees to contribute less than 6 percent of their salaries toward their pension plan and pay $1 for every $7 that the state pays for their health-insurance premiums.
The horror!
But even if Obama personally finds such a policy as horrific as Wisconsin’s revolting teachers (oops, teachers in revolt) do, the fact remains that it is not the president’s business.
If Obama or his attorney general thinks Wisconsin would be violating an aspect of federal law, then the Department of Justice could sue the state — but only after it acts. Instead, he and his political organization are trying to pre-empt an ostensibly lawful action by the state’s government.
Folks, in case it wasn’t clear before: There is nothing — nothing — that Obama considers outside the purview of the federal government. His meddling in Wisconsin is the logical conclusion of that ideology.
Speaking of which, Welch argues this is about much more than Obama alone:
We are witnessing the logical conclusion of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, and it is this: Your tax dollars exist to make public sector unions happy. When we run out of other people’s money to pay for those contracts and promises (most of which are negotiated outside of public view, often between union officials and the politicians that union officials helped elect), then we just need to raise taxes to cover a shortfall that is obviously Wall Street’s fault. Anyone who doesn’t agree is a bully, and might just bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler.
The president’s heavy-handed involvement, along with House Republicans’ refusal to sign off on any new bailout of the states, means that this may very well be America’s biggest and most widespread political fight in 2011. It’s a cage match to determine first dibs on a shrinking pie. A clarifying moment.
Indeed.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
130 comments Add your comment
Linda
February 19th, 2011
5:02 pm
left@4:04, It’ common knowledge that the union bosses & the Dem. legislators have had an incestuous relationship for decades & that the American taxpayers have been footing the motel bills for millions/billions of dollars. You are comparing that to $108,000 in campaign contributions? You must be kidding!
The Democrat National Committee & Organizing for America, the group the Obama announced 3 days before he was inaugurated to be his personal army to mobilize & support his agenda, are 2 of the groups working in very close coordination with state union officials to oppose these state budget cuts, including busing in protesters.
I don’t think the union protesters have been successful in mustering up new support for their cause.
Left wing management
February 19th, 2011
5:36 pm
Linda 5:02:
I’ve heard that the Koch brothers have been involved in busing in some of the Tea Party counter-protesters, which is legal and fine, and I have no doubt that the union groups have probably helped bring in supporters for their side too. But let me ask you: are you implying that there is not a significant amount of real support for actual Wisconsin residents represented among the protests? If so, that’s a wildly implausible assertion and I’d like to see evidence. I don’t buy it for one second.
You and I know that both parties have relationships with large constituency groups and that the public unions are a major one for Democrats. That’s fine. But what I find interesting is that when workers band together to protect their legitimate rights – and we’re talking about workers who do essential, valuable work for society to boot – and they also look to find some expression for those interests in their political behavior too, that’s somehow maligned as “incestual’. But when one of the biggest and most powerful interest groups in the world – the US Chamber of Commerce, for ex. – tries to work its will in politics, that’s somehow just fine and organic. It’s a crock.
Sherry Edwardson
February 19th, 2011
6:12 pm
You said “The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.” Now how would you even know that.
Linda
February 19th, 2011
6:43 pm
left@5:36, What I’m saying is that the Dem. party & Obama, via his OfA, is continuing to support the unions. They are encouraging teachers to violate their contracts by calling in sick & jeopardizing their jobs, setting a poor example for the children they are teaching & even encouraging students to skip school & protest. There is a liability here: classic tort by interfering with a contractural relationship. Aiding & abetting is a violation of contract law. When the president of the US summons a Wisconsin reporter to the White House to give an exclusive interview siding with the unions and involves himself directly & covertly into a dispute between a state & unions, he is in violation of the tenth amendment of the Constitution, that is, states’ rights.
When a governor & his legislature are trying to get their state out of a budget deficit & on the road to prosperity, they do not need the meddling of a president who thinks he & his party can spend borrowed money as a way out of a recession & out of debt.
Let me explain the difference between how the Chamber of Commerce “tries to work its will in politics” & how the public employees’ unions do it. When private companies donates to a political party, checks are written to political campaigns in EXPECTATION of political favors. When a public employees’ union injects itself into politics, it requires the employer (federal, state or local govt.) to collect dues from its employees & send the union dues to the unions, which then divvies them out to political campaigns & the union DEMANDS/COLLECTIVELY BARGAINS/PRESSURES for wages, hours, conditions, health care, retirement, etc. in exchange for showing up for work, i.e. not striking.
Union workers have no more & no less rights than non-union workers. A union member teacher has no more & no less rights than a non-union member teacher.
Monngie
February 19th, 2011
6:50 pm
How ordinary working people can be anti-union is beyond me. If it were not for Unions we would still be working 7 days a week with no fringe benefits, Our children would have to work under horrible conditions to help support our families. Most of the anti union ilk criticize Union workers because they tend to make more money and enjoy fringe benefits that non-union workers don’t have. Instead of criticizing, how about JOINING. Instead of DRAGGING down Union pay and benefits, JOIN a union or bring a Union to your work place to RAISE your pay and benefits. Worker productivity has made great strides in the past ten years, unfortunately wages have not followed suit. Middle Class salaries have stagnated for the past ten years………..no raises for ten years………is that the Unions fault – I don’t think so. It’s the fault of Management and employer inequity. If they had Unions they would realize atleast some of the benefits of THEIR productivity gains and THEIR labor. Productivity has risen atleast 3% per year for the last 10 years……That’s 30% did you get a 30% raise over the last ten years…….NO. Why not? Because you didn’t JOIN a UNION to represent you. You cannot or will not stand with courage along side your fellow workers.
Linda
February 19th, 2011
6:53 pm
Sherry@6:12, Read Kyle’s blog again. The statement you placed in quotation marks was Kyle’s quote from the Washington Post, verbatim.
Left wing management
February 19th, 2011
7:07 pm
Linda: When a governor & his legislature are trying to get their state out of a budget deficit & on the road to prosperity, they do not need the meddling
But this is just the problem. As I mentioned, the problem is not actually about the budget at all. Many – though not all- of the budget measures that brought about the looming shortfall were revenue-cutting programs that favored tax cuts, tax cuts that obviously the state of Wisconsin can’t afford. But leaving that aside, why was it necessary for the governor to include the specific measures, clearly intended to cripple unions, if not for the simple reason that he wants to bust the public unions, which as we already know from recent statements by other Republican leaders (e.g. Gingrich) is a major part of Republican strategy in the near future. This clear attempt to break the back of unions means that – with regard to honoring contracts, setting examples, etc. which you mention – all bets are off.
As to your last point “When a public employees’ union injects itself into politics …” I don’t follow you exactly. You may have to try to explain that argument differently.
Monngie
February 19th, 2011
7:52 pm
The author of this article said, “It’s a cage match to determine first dibs on a shrinking pie. A clarifying moment.” I couldn’t agree more. The reason the pie is shrinking is because free trade agreements were perverted in such a way as to gut the UNION movement in this country. Why pay an American worker a living salary with reasonable fringe benefits when you can pay some one in a third world country a POTATO a day. Why negotiate with labor unions when you pack up and ship your factory to China and make a bundle off of a grateful Chinese happy to be the recipient of that potato. Big Business and Big money are destroying this great nation by destroying the middle class and the only organizations that can defend the middle class are Labor Unions. Who else will advocate for you. Yes, it is a clarifying moment. And it’s clear to me that if Unions are eliminated in this country we will have to be happy with a POTATO a day.
Monngie
February 19th, 2011
8:04 pm
James West – Excellent commentary and factual. Regrettably, you’ll never make it on FOX!
Linda
February 19th, 2011
8:09 pm
left@7:07, States all over the country have critical deficits that were primarily caused by Dems. giving in to unions & promising benefits that the states could not afford, for votes, & pushing the problem down the road after the Dem. legislators left office.
The Pew Center said of the states (2/10) that there’s a $1 T gap between what they have promised to pay retirees & what they set aside to cover the costs (sort of like Social Security).
Christie in NJ gave an example of a state retiree, 49 yrs. old, that paid $124,000 towards his retirement pension & health benefits during his career that will receive $3.3 M in pension payments over his life & nearly $500,000 for health care benefits, a total of $3.8 M on a $120,000 investment.
A retired teacher paid $62K toward her pension & nothing for full family medical, dental & vision coverage over her entire career. NJ will pay her $1.4 M in pension benefits & another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime.
This is not sustainable across the country.
It is not fair for taxpayers in the private sector to pay for their retirement & health care AND the retirement & health care for the public sector.
The left’s answer to all deficit problems is just to raise taxes. The question then arises as to why a self-employed or private sector employee should work more than 6 mts. per year to pay their taxes (which include benefits for the public sector) compared to the public sector employee who only works 9 mts. per year, only 3 mts. per year to pay their taxes & only 20 yrs. before they retire?
The next question arises from a state govt. as how to maintain & attract businesses. It’s certainly not by raising taxes. States compete with each other & must keep all taxes as low as possible.
I can’t make it any more clear than I stated above. A company can only entice a politician. A union thrusts itself into the workforce by demanding that the municipality collect its dues, send them a check & demands results in exchange for the employees showing up for work. It’s coercion.
Why do federal, state & municipal employees need unions in 2011 to protect them from the federal, state & municipal governments?
get out much?
February 19th, 2011
8:27 pm
Interesting that elected officials in Wisconsin don’t contribute to their pensions but then again, conservatives are ok with that, since they don’t belong to a union.
James
February 19th, 2011
10:09 pm
So middle class working and tax paying Americans aren’t Americans anymore. How much of a kick back do you get to work for Koch Industries and the Koch Bros., marketing and PR campaign. They have been setting up the unions to bust and deny the EPA since they financed and coordinated with Fox NewZ their Teabagging events of Health Insurance Mafia friends and family. Again, the Republicans give Trillions in tax gifts to their 1.5% of Americans, and turn on the workers and backbone of the country and say – great meal, my credit card was maxed out by George W. Bush, but we’re sure you can pay for it. You sacrifice. We the Corporate Citizen – will go take a nap and let our little teabbagers echo our demands via Hate AM Radio and Fokkks. Crazy.
James
February 19th, 2011
10:23 pm
This writer by the way works for the Koch Bros. No big surprise there. I’m surprised at the AJC – I thought it was a newspaper – not a branch of Murdoch’s propaganda arem for the Koch Bros. Republican Teabagers.
Left wing management
February 20th, 2011
1:46 am
Linda 8:09:
Lost in all of this verbiage is one crushingly simple fact: it was the scumbag Wall Street speculators
Find me a plan – I don’t care what it is, a transaction tax on speculative financial transactions, whatever – that draws some of the mountains of money chucked into a black hole by these ghouls on Wall Street, then we’ll talk about cutting pensions for middle-class people. What’s going on right now, the way the phony debate is being trumped up about ‘wasteful’ public employees is truly grotesque and obscene. Only poor devil Bernie Madoff is behind bars for the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. And the beneficiaries of it all? Scumbag profiteering Robber Baron Wall Street financiers with their sham formulas and alchemy.
Monngie
February 20th, 2011
2:38 am
Left Wing………keep up the work………more people like you and the truth has to get out eventually. The half truths, lies the Republicans are inundating the American public with are just remarkable. They’ve been perpetrating their lies and half lies for years while hiding behind hot button issues. Your right on with the Bernie Madoff and Robber Baron Wall Street Financiers, but, couldn’t we give them just one more little tax break???????? Then we can lay off some more public servants…..like food inspectors to pay for it…..heck we don’t have enough salmonella poisoning!!!!!!!!
Left wing management
February 20th, 2011
10:29 am
Monngie: “heck we don’t have enough salmonella poisoning!!!!!!!!”
Right on. Yep, we got salmonella poisoning, bridges collapsing in major cities, oil wells blowing up in the Gulf of Mexico and hemorrhaging for months on end, profiteer military contractors and corrupt puppet-government associates in far-flung locales hauling away payola cash by the suitcase (and probably running heroin to boot – why not!), kids who can’t read, the mentally ill just roaming the street and some of them walking into gun shops where they pass under the non-existent radar of background checks no one takes seriously, and on and on the list goes ….
But hey, what’s not to like? It’s still America! And didn’t the Gipper teach us how to approach problems? Just slap a smile on our face, dial up some home-spun notion of national greatness off you go into the future of the greatest country the world has known, which is waiting for us with open arms. Yippee!
Linda
February 20th, 2011
12:40 pm
Left@1:46, FDR froze wages. It was govt. intervention that caused the beginning of companies offering benefits.
The trend has completely reversed. Companies no longer need to offer benefits to attack employees. It’s an employers’ market. Companies are hiring seasonal workers with no benefits & no job security.
Simplified, there are 3 types of employers. If you work for a typical business, you work directly for an individual or family. If you work for a corporation, you report to a supervisor, who reports to the officers, who report to the board of directors, but you actually work for people all over the US who hold stock in the corporation. If you work for the government, you actually work for the taxpayers.
If you are a union member, your loyalty could be skewed. The best interests of the union might prevail over the company, stockholders or taxpayers, & in the case of teachers, even over the children.
I agree that unions were needed years ago. However, unions have been loosing members for decades, especially in the private sector, & will loose the public sector over the next decade. I agree with FDR that the public sector should not have been unionized. There is absolutely no need in 2011 for unions to protect workers from abuses from the government. There is no need & no money.
The crisis on Wall St. did not begin on Wall St. It was also caused by govt. intervention in the housing market. WE are Wall St. The American people are the stockholders, the employees, the employers, the officers, the board, the lenders, etc. We should hope that Wall St. succeeds with the best people money can buy. Its success determines our financial future. Our investments & our taxes depend on it. It effects every taxpayer & citizen.
Left wing management
February 20th, 2011
2:26 pm
Linda: Companies no longer need to offer benefits to attack employes
Interesting slip, Linda. I’m sure you meant to write “to attract employees”. But in fact “attack employees” is perfectly appropriate because that’s just what’s been happening to middle-class employees and workers for at least 4 decades now since workers’ real wages started flattening out relative to corporate profits in the 1970s.
Just too much to go into here and obviously we’re not going to agree on this anytime soon, but let me just say that I think Roosevelt, who was right about so much, was wrong on this one. We do need unions in the public sector as Roosevelt himself would have likely realized had he lived further into the post-war period, a period in which it was widely accepted both by government and the workers, just as it was in the private sector, that unionization was a win-win and a boon to both sides (helped worker morale, created stability and a process for communication, etc.). The real lesson in the fact that public workers are now more often seen as doing better than their private counterparts is not that public workers are greedy or have managed to rig the system for lucrative pay and pensions, but precisely that the private sector has by contrast performed at a horrendous level when it comes to providing decent pay and long-term security for its workers. That’s the real lesson here; this is (should be) about the greediness of the powers in the private sector and not any greediness on the part of public workers.
As to the cause of the financial crisis, these causes are too complex to simply say the meltdown was caused by the attempt to expand home ownership among the poor, etc. as many powerful interests have a strong interest in making it seem so that they can white-wash the catastrophe they brought on. It’s just as correct to say it was caused by the deregulation of the 1990s – most notably the Glass Steagall rollback under Clinton – and it’s also quite correct to say it was brought on by a fundamental imbalance in unbridled capitalism itself – a tendency towards speculation,.i.e. runaway financialization that is more and more divorced from the ‘real’ economy. But as I said, I understand we’re unlikely to agree on much here.
Linda
February 20th, 2011
3:46 pm
left@2:26, Bottom line, what do you want? Do you want to end the US States as we have known it for over 200 yrs.? Do you want us to be a socialist country? Where has it ever worked? Do you want to limit profits on small businesses & corporations? Do you feel the need to end the American Dream? You you want to kill free enterprise & capitalism? Do you want to scrap the Constitution? Do you want to grow the fed. govt. & have it decide what’s fair & what’s not fair, who’s deserving & who isn’t? Do you want to end prosperity? What’s happened to personal responsibility? What about equal opportunity?
Could it be that the private sector could not AFFORD to pay lucrative benefits? Could it be that unionized industries also could not AFFORD to pay lucrative benefits (steel, airlines, auto manufacturers, etc.)? Could it be that the public sector also could not AFFORD to pay lucrative benefits (natl. debt, unfunded liabilities to social security & medicare, half the states close to bankruptcy, etc)?
The difference between the private sector & the public sector is not greed. It’s profit. Greed & profit are not one in the same. Being successful should be commended, not condemned.
Could you give me just one example of that boon you mentioned. What industry, company, corporation, state or county is booning/booming today that is unionized?
I don’t know of anyone calling public workers greedy. They do, however, feel entitled, like millions of others in the US. There is no sector that is more & less entitled to jobs, benefits, collective bargaining, tenure, etc. than another sector. We have equal opportunities & equal rights. Discrimination is illegal & immoral. That includes class warfare.
I know of no one who was more disadvantaged than my father. He made it & lived the American Dream, without ever walking a step in his life, with no govt. assistance.
I agree with your last paragraph except to clarify that speculation followed in the 2000s. Kudos.
Left wing management
February 20th, 2011
4:36 pm
Linda:
Again, I’m afraid we’re going around in circles and going over ground we’ve already covered before. Just to pick a couple of the points you mentioned: the immorality of “class warfare”. I agree it’s terrible and really wish the greedy and powerful were not allowed to trample on the less powerful as much as they are. To once again quote one of our country’s richest men, which I did Friday, who said it best: ““There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
On the issue of personal responsibility. What does it say about a system that preaches personal responsibility and then allows the most outrageous abuses by those at the top of the all-powerful financial sector, who nearly wreck our financial system, then get bailed out by taxpayers and pocket hefty bonuses. These obscenities undercut any talk of ‘personal responsibility’. Last week on one of our discussions at Bookman’s blog a colleague of mine posted the following description of the robber barons running our financial system, which I’m reposting here bec I don’t think I can explain it any better:
.. a robber baron is somebody who knowlingly makes a bad loan, which he is certain will never be repaid, then packages “secrutitizes” several of these bad loans, but secures AAA rating, then sells the bad loans to a pension fund or other investor; AND blames the the mortgage borrower (but not the lender who refused to perform due dilligence, at the expense of shareholders, I might add). then, when the house of cards collapses, he grabs $25 or $45 billion in TARP, pulls the rip cord on his golden parachute, pays a 60 million fine, but still walks with $250 or $300 million.
As to your observation: I agree with your last paragraph except to clarify that speculation followed in the 2000s. Kudos.
Yeah, exactly, the rollback of Glass Steagall in ‘99 followed by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act in ‘00 which gutted regulatory oversight of stock trading, setting the table for the wild wild west in financial speculation that we saw in the 2000s.
One more thing. You make a big point of the distinction between greed and profit, but one thing’s noticeably absent in your discussion: service. Where in your understanding of work and compensation is there room for the cultivation of careers in public service employment in traditionally less lucrative occupations – putting out fires, arresting criminals, delivering mail, teaching children – to offer people some measure of security in return for their foregoing more lucrative, private sector jobs? I never said I opposed success or profit per se. What I do oppose is a system that white-washes the crimes of those who rig the system through financial power and then when it blows up stick the workers and middle class with the bill. As Michael Lewis said best, we’ve arrived at the most absurd of situations, where “we have socialism for the capitalists and capitalism for everyone else”. That is not sustainable.
Linda
February 20th, 2011
6:38 pm
Enter your comments here
Monngie
February 20th, 2011
8:24 pm
Linda, what do you call class warfare? I call class warfare the upper 2% getting the lions share of tax breaks. This is a demand driven recession; Give the upper 2% billions of dollars in tax breaks and what do they do with them? Our factories are generally running at 70% capacity, so they are NOT going to invest in new plants…..there’s no demand. They’re not going to hire more people….there’s no demand. What there going to do is invest in emerging markets overseas. They are pillaging this country and selling the middle class down the river. THAT IS CLASS WARFARE. Give the billions to the middle class to spend and invest in alternate energy infrastructure and electric/hybrid automobiles, high speed rail, roads and bridges, smart grid and high speed internet access for everyone, and this countries economy will take-off. Regrettably the Republican Party has no vision and is set on destroying the middle class.
Monngie
February 20th, 2011
8:41 pm
Linda, I hope you are young enough to benefit from our lack of Unions in this country if the power elite are successful. As soon as there is no SOLIDARITY among workers they will have a field day. We, or our children will be doomed to repeat history. But, if your not young enough, Oh Well, your kids will have a ball. The reason membership has been decreasing is because free trade agreements were perverted in such a way as to gut the UNION movement in this country. Why pay an American worker a living salary with reasonable fringe benefits when you can pay some one in a third world country a POTATO a day. Why negotiate with labor unions when you pack up and ship your factory to China and make a bundle off of a grateful Chinese happy to be the recipient of that potato. They’ll probably even get a tax break for moving. Big Business and Big money are destroying this great nation by destroying the middle class and the only organizations that can defend the middle class are Labor Unions. Who else will advocate for you. Yes, it is a clarifying moment. And it’s clear to me that if Unions are eliminated in this country we will have to be happy with a POTATO a day.
Wisconsin Patriot
February 20th, 2011
11:26 pm
@don: Google is your friend. A simple search would tell you that the “Wisconsin had a surplus” line is a LIE, and a very poor one at that. In fact, in the 6 months prior to the election, both candidates were asked how they were going to deal with the $2 billion deficit. Once the Republican got elected….whoopsie, did we mention we “miscalculated” and it’s really THREE BILLION?
Monngie
February 20th, 2011
11:54 pm
I Googled Patriot…..not one reference to Republicans!
tom
February 21st, 2011
12:49 am
john.
Regarding your comment:
“Has anyone noticed the bill in Wisconson bill exempts those unions who supported Republicans in the last election (police, fire, etc.) and only attacks those that supported Democrats.”
That is a lie that has already been debunked.
Police and firefighter are exempt.
Do you know how many local police and firefighter unions there are in Wisconsin?
314.
Do you know how many endorsed Walker?
4
All the rest endorsed his Democrat opponent.
If you are going to lie..at least lie about something that isn’t so easily disproven.
Here Spot
February 21st, 2011
8:27 am
For this latest act of treason, Emporer Obama will probably go to hell.
Junior Samples
February 21st, 2011
11:09 am
I take exception to Obama being caled the worst Prez ever. That award goes to Georgia’s head peanut (or Goober) Jimmy Carter.
Monngie
February 21st, 2011
1:07 pm
Junior you just don’t know what your talking about. If we had continued the energy policies of Jimmy Carter and expanded on them our Sons And Daughters wouldn’t have had to get their asses shot off in the middle east we would be energy independent. TREASON???? How about lying to get us into an unnecessary and I would argue unjust war in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, thousands of our Sons and Daughters and injuring tens of thousands more. I’d say the NEOCONS have cornered the market on TREASON. We would have been done in Afghanistan years ago if we hadn’t gone into Iraq. Regrettably, because of that NEOCON act of treason our Sons and Daughters are still getting killed and injured there. But, then again, if we continued Jimmy Carter’s energy policies we would not have had all those foreign entanglements which caused all this.
SD
February 25th, 2011
2:55 pm
Let me ask you demented readers a few questions which all ref. Georgia being a ‘right to work state’ with no unions in their public sector. If unions are the cause of states experiencing budget shortfalls then WHY?
Does Georgia have a budget short fall and it doesn’t have a Union?
Georgia teachers pay higher prices for their benefits, but they experience furloughs, and cuts in pay, but they don’t have a UNION? hmmm…
Georgia Schools score 47 & 48 respectively on standardized testing where children in Wisconsin are scoring 3 & 4th, why is this? hmm
When we start treating are teachers like they are worth something, then we will get better students..
Temporary sit backs dude, I guarantee, this Gov. won’t be re-elected and Wisconsin will be back blue in 1.5 -2 years. This Gov. never campaigned on removing collective bargaining rights, OH, and my the way he doesn’t have a college education, he dropped out of College….hmmm