He's getting therapy after all these blowback actions...

"legitimate political process in Wisconsin". That's a hoot. Do people really think that the abandonment of their posts by the minority members of congress as a way to subvert the constitutional legislative process and silence the will of the majority is a "legitimate" political act?

Bonus: Tell me the essential difference between the Koch brothers and George Soros.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

"legitimate political process in Wisconsin". That's a hoot. Do people really think that the abandonment of their posts by the minority members of congress as a way to subvert the constitutional legislative process and silence the will of the majority is a "legitimate" political act?

Bonus: Tell me the essential difference between the Koch brothers and George Soros.

Three words, Goob: John Birch Society. Bircher rhymes with birther.

I was referencing the expressions "abandonment of their posts," "subvert the constitutional legislative process" and "silence the will of the majority."  I agree that it is a sad comment on the state of politics that legislators sneak across the border to avoid being dragged into session to face a certain defeat.  However, even if sad, it is a time-honored (time-worn?) device.  Abraham Lincoln himself did it at least once when he was a member of the Illinois legislature.

The smaller the minority, the more protection it needs, of course.  And don't confuse a minority of legislators with the kind of minority to be protected constitutionally, and least not in the typical case.  In this instance, the minority would be the public sector union members.  But the only reason I mentioned the constitution was to follow up on your reference, which I believe to be misplaced, at least to some extent.   

I would have little interest in the whole thing if it were not patently obvious that the Governor is NOT just trying to cut costs.  The union agreed to the budgetary measures he proposed.  What he really wants, and what is the Koch's wet dream, is to neuter the union.  His dishonesty on the subject is patent.

Of course the Koch's don't care about anyone else. Why should they? All they want is a level playing field, just like anyone else. Why should they give a rats ass about the ability of government workers to strike for higher pay and benefits? Oh yeah, because it costs them, and everyone else, more money for no net discernible benefit. Will the DMV worker or county clerk work 20% harder when they get over their tantrum?

I really have no problem with George Soros. He is even down with the medical MJ. He's just a scrappy guy who happens to have made a shit-ton of money by speculating on the weakness of governments to meet their social obligations. Then he donates heavily to politicians to ask them to spend more money they don't have on social programs, overextending the budget and making them borrow heavily against the bonds he happens to hold. It really is a great racket.

Tall Paul wrote:

Fled wrote:

Let's hope Phreddy finds away to fill the void.

Phreddy has wisely been keeping his head down these past few weeks as there's no way to defend what the Repubs have been up to. Of course, when he does come back he'll claim he has been 'to busy being sucessful' to bother with us various forms of riff-raff.

My head has been down, but not because I'm ashamed of the fine work of the Republican governors and the citizens who elected them to kick ass on public employee unions.  Between a bout with the flu and a huge pile of work that was waiting for me, I have not had the pleasure of gloating over citizen revolutions taking place in the midwest.  People have finally had enough of the public employees financing campaigns and electing those who negotiate benefits with their unions.  This unholy process has put several states squarely in the shit can.  Unfortunately for California, the process has gone on so long that the unions are in total control.  The state is $30 billion in the hole and the new uniion sponsored governor has a plan to keep raising taxes and stealing money from the cities and counties to support the state worker's lifestyles.

Dmtdust wrote:

Glad you are feeling better.

It seems Dmtdust thinks phreddy should be feeling twice better. The concern is touching.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

These union members are basically still getting the basic deal that corporations once gave out to the majority of their workers.  Phwedd, instead of condemning them for holding onto benefits that most everyone had at one time, join those of us trying to restore what most workers once had.  After all, the corporations did an end run with that whole 401k BS, and have abandoned their obligations to the communities that support them with tax cuts, public support etc.

As far as the Unions donating money, I think there is something like a 10 to 1 ratio favouring the corporate donations to politicians over the unions. 

You are on the wrong side son, don't be a Koch Sucker.

Dmtdust wrote:

As far as the Unions donating money, I think there is something like a 10 to 1 ratio favouring the corporate donations to politicians over the unions.

Aren't unions corporations?

Just a note here Dusty.  Federal workers do not have collective bargaining rights and they do not have the ability to strike, and yet they are the highest paid government workers in the country.  How can that be?

Also, just for your information, Wall Street donates to the party with the most power.  Until recently, the Dems controlled everything and received the vast majority of corporate donations.  The notion that Republicans are tied to big money is nothing more than liberal propaganda.  Whereas the unions are staunchly in the liberal corner and always have been.

Dmtdust wrote:

That was a fluke if I remember; Wall Street felt the Repubs had screwed the bunny long enough.  You will find the more recent data different, and back to the norm.

Not true Dusty.  Here is Wiki's list of the top all time donors to political campaigns since 1988:
Number 1 is the American Fed of State, County & Muni Employees.  99% goes to Dems
Number's 3 & 4 are the Nat's Assn or Realtors and AT&T.  They split fairly evenly between parties.
Number 4 is Goldman Sachs.  69% to Dems
Number 5 American Assn for Justice.  90% to Dems.
Number 6 Int'l Brotherhood of Elect Workers.  97% to Dems

And so on.  All but three of the remaining top twenty are unions and they all donate over 90% to Dems. 

So, now you know the truth.

phreddy wrote:

Just a note here Dusty.  Federal workers do not have collective bargaining rights and they do not have the ability to strike, and yet they are the highest paid government workers in the country.  How can that be?

Also, just for your information, Wall Street donates to the party with the most power.  Until recently, the Dems controlled everything and received the vast majority of corporate donations.  The notion that Republicans are tied to big money is nothing more than liberal propaganda.  Whereas the unions are staunchly in the liberal corner and always have been.

As you say, federal employee compensation do not have collective bargaining rights.  Their compensation is set under the Federal Employee Compensation Act.  Federal law bars federal employee unions from collective bargaining; state law in some states does not include a similar prohibition.  If federal workers are more highly paid than state workers, it is because the law so provides.  Keep in mind that many federal workers live in high cost-of-living metropolitan areas, so their compensation cannot be directly compared to a national average. 

You are also correct that a lot of corporate money goes to the dominant party.  However, your comment (and the cited Wall Street Journal article) comparing corporate donations to democrats and republicans provides an incomplete picture of the reality.  For an accurate picture, you cannot just look at donations to the parties.  You need to look at PACs and other non-party direct spenders as well.  When you take that into account, the republicans benefit from far more corporate money than democrats.  With the change made by Citizens United, the imbalance is expected to get much worse.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Fled wrote:

If federal workers are more highly paid than state workers, it is because the law so provides.  Keep in mind that many federal workers live in high cost-of-living metropolitan areas, so their compensation cannot be directly compared to a national average.

Don't forget that the Feds have spent the last 20 years actively removing everybody they can from Federal payrolls to limit direct expenditures. That's why so many government contractors now exist. Cooking, building engineering, sanitation, transportation, program administration, even security at military bases is all run by contractors. So the only people left on the payroll tend to be the higher-ups at the GS10+ level and they are paid pretty well. I spent 10+ years bouncing around inside the beltway and the hardest thing to do was to get a good GS job that wasn't slated for removal in the next budget.

The perception that private enterprise can do it cheaper and better still pervades, it's a ridiculous concept of course.

Emmeran wrote:

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Fled wrote:

If federal workers are more highly paid than state workers, it is because the law so provides.  Keep in mind that many federal workers live in high cost-of-living metropolitan areas, so their compensation cannot be directly compared to a national average.

Don't forget that the Feds have spent the last 20 years actively removing everybody they can from Federal payrolls to limit direct expenditures. That's why so many government contractors now exist. Cooking, building engineering, sanitation, transportation, program administration, even security at military bases is all run by contractors. So the only people left on the payroll tend to be the higher-ups at the GS10+ level and they are paid pretty well. I spent 10+ years bouncing around inside the beltway and the hardest thing to do was to get a good GS job that wasn't slated for removal in the next budget.

The perception that private enterprise can do it cheaper and better still pervades, it's a ridiculous concept of course.

Most Federal workers were removed specifically because the long-term benefits, pensions and health care was too much for the GAO to swallow. They know that they can hire contractors to provide the same benefits and their future expenditures are essentially zero. They don't mind spending more now to know that they won't still be paying these guys 40 years from now. While a GS worker can't strike for better wages, they do benefit from very protective employment contracts that makes them essentially unfireable unless they do something very bad and watching a beltway maestro work the sick leave, family leave, religious leave, special accommodations rules and the like is really a sight to behold. My program coordinators back in the old govt contracting days would say that it's easier to fire a whole company than a single employee.

Perhaps if you didn't have GS employees making up the employment rules for GS employees you might get something better...