From either camp, is this something we want our children to learn?

[rigney]

Wis. GOP sends state troopers after Democratic senate leader

02-18-2011 10:56 AM EST

MADISON, Wis. (Associated Press) --

Republicans in the Wisconsin state Senate have asked the governor to send state troopers after Democratic leader Mark Miller.

 

Senate Democrats are boycotting a Senate vote on a bill that would strip public sector workers of their collective bargaining rights. They have been missing from the Capitol for a day and a half.

 

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says he has asked Gov. Scott Walker to send two state troopers to Miller's home in Monona. He says he believes the troopers are en route.

 

The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits police from arresting legislators while they're in session. Fitzgerald says he just wants to send a message to Miller, if he's even home; that he must bring his caucus back to Madison.

[Blahah]

I don't understand, can politicians in the USA tell the police what to do? And why would the police want to arrest Miller?

 

In the UK, no politician could order the police to go to someone's house, and any MP has the right to abstain from a vote.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Blahah

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, that situation there is just crazy. Of course, it's a political maneuver. Not sure how the children are in danger here Rigney - that's a bit dramatic for a political boycott, man.

 

I don't understand, can politicians in the USA tell the police what to do? And why would the police want to arrest Miller?

 

In the UK, no politician could order the police to go to someone's house, and any MP has the right to abstain from a vote.

 

A governor of a state is the chief executive and they command the police in their state. I'm not sure how that really plays out, or any of the particulars, but they're supposed to have control over their police forces.

 

The police would not arrest Miller, if I understand correctly, since they are in session. The issue is that they cannot have a house vote without at least one present democratic senator.

 

But perhaps they should be able to arrest him, because - in theory anyway - they could hold up emergency legislation using the same tactic and could paralyze part of the government in a crisis. Some might characterize this budget issue as such a crisis.

[Blahah]

I see, so the democrats are (ironically) trying to bypass the democratic process by preventing the vote from taking place because they know they'll lose? I suppose that might feasibly be against some law or other.

[Pangloss]

This sort of thing has come up a couple of times before. Notably a couple of years ago when some Texas legislators fled the state to avoid some redistricting votes that would have cost their party significant representation. They had a valid point of view too -- gerrymandering has gotten out of hand.

 

Both sides seem to have legitimate points in this debate as well. Union labor's power over state employees and thus state governance is a valid concern, and the other side has valid concern as well (representation, pension promises, etc).

 

My concern with the general issue of "let's lay off some teachers and first responders" thing is that it may have become a cover for deeper budget problems. What I suspect is that the payroll cost of teachers and first responders pales in significance with the cost of entitlement spending that was added during more prosperous recent times. Such spending is mandated by law, so may be easier -- but not necessarily cheaper -- to lay off teachers and first responders. But I can't state that factually -- I haven't read up on it yet.

 

Whatever the case turns out to be, state budget cuts is going to be one of the big stories of 2011. I believe I read somewhere that 44 states are in the red now.

[jackson33]

In all probability there were laws broke and frankly if you throw in conspiracy, by several groups'

 

1- The Union leaders had to play a roll in the incident....If so, they broke their own contract which was first set up and agreed to, prevent this very type of incident.

 

2- The teachers must have either organized or been incited in some manner for a thousand to call in sick. Which not only a legal problem (breach of contract), but possibly a wilful act to disrupt. If the teachers also asked or as some students suggested, were told to attend the Demonstrations, that would also be a violation of Teacher privilege, without the consent of the parents.

 

 

3- The 14 State Democratic Senators also involved by wilfully fleeing the State, to avoid a vote, they knew about and were liable to be at that session. Since this identical procedure was used in Texas about 7-8 years ago over a redistricting dispute, going to Oklahoma for four days, there must be some law they were trying to evade.

 

I'm personally more concerned with the FEDERAL Administration becoming involved or not demanding the teachers to return to work either directly or by way of the Union. Reagan made such an order, during the Traffic Controllers strike. I understand he is a former Community Organizer, has very strong ties to Organized Labor and is dependent on them for Campaign Funding, but he is the President of all the people and a majority placed Walker into office, for campaigning on this issue and should be supportive of THEM, too.

 

rigney; This is NOT something we should want for our kids (my great grand kids) and is setting up a very poor example/precedent for them to follow or for that matter anybody who might have the same problem in other States as they try and bring Organized labor back down to some kind of fiscal reality.

[Pangloss]

I'm personally more concerned with the FEDERAL Administration becoming involved or not demanding the teachers to return to work either directly or by way of the Union. Reagan made such an order, during the Traffic Controllers strike. I understand he is a former Community Organizer, has very strong ties to Organized Labor and is dependent on them for Campaign Funding, but he is the President of all the people and a majority placed Walker into office, for campaigning on this issue and should be supportive of THEM, too.

I think I said something last week about how state's rights advocates are often the first ones to scream for federal interference?

[jackson33]

Pangloss, I'm going to assume you misunderstood something I said. Walker has told the administration to butt out and is one of 25-26 States suing Government to get out of Healthcare. In turn Christie stopped an underground tunnel to NYC, your Governor has refused funding for Rail Service and Arizona is in constant combat with Washington and I'm sure there will be more.

 

If your referring to my comment "Reagan/AT Controllers", we are talking about Unions and both are with National Unions, can be addressed by the President and under enforcement of National Law, can act.

[Pangloss]

If your referring to my comment "Reagan/AT Controllers", we are talking about Unions and both are with National Unions, can be addressed by the President and under enforcement of National Law, can act.

 

They certainly can!

 

Reminds me of a story I read yesterday:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/02/18/the-hypocrisy-of-the-tenthers-and-states-rights-defenders/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

[rigney]

Yeah, that situation there is just crazy. Of course, it's a political maneuver. Not sure how the children are in danger here Rigney - that's a bit dramatic for a political boycott, man.

 

Rigney:There was no intent to say it's the same as playing with loaded firearms or keeping drug paraphernalia in their pockets. But we have enough dirty politics going on, to hopefully not saddle our kids with the same concepts.

 

A governor of a state is the chief executive and they command the police in their state. I'm not sure how that really plays out, or any of the particulars, but they're supposed to have control over their police forces.

 

The police would not arrest Miller, if I understand correctly, since they are in session. The issue is that they cannot have a house vote without at least one present democratic senator.

 

But perhaps they should be able to arrest him, because - in theory anyway - they could hold up emergency legislation using the same tactic and could paralyze part of the government in a crisis. Some might characterize this budget issue as such a crisis.

Edited February 19, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

Conservative Republicans make a great show about states’ rights these days. It’s all the rage. The Tenth Amendment, they say, limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. All other responsibility resides with the states. They’re also not real happy with the way the commerce clause — in their eyes — has been stretched to apply to areas well beyond what the Founders intended, particularly health care.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, from your link and does give a correct definition of Conservative Ideology, including many Democrats, Independents or others in the political and judicial arena. The antonym of Conservative is "Liberal" not necessarily Republican.

 

Basically the rest of the article tells how States are not capable of handling there own affairs and the Federal is capable. While this makes no sense, in that a Union of 50 States, with some very different cultures, demographics, resources and traditions, cannot be manhandled by a Central Authority and EXACTLY why the 10th A and Constitutional LIMITS were placed there in the first place.

 

I believe or certainly hope, the end of extending "The Commerce Clause", well beyond it's intended purpose, will come to an end over the Health Care Bill. There is not one thing you do day to day in Florida, that could not be implied also under that clause, if the purchase of a service under penalty is acceptable under law.

 

They certainly can![/Quote]

 

Yes, IMO they can act (preferably through the Governor), if any aspect of National Security is threatened, that's a Federal Duty under the Constitution. The Teachers Union (a National organization) organized protest and disruptions (school/government and economy) has the potential of spreading into other States.

[Pangloss]

Basically the rest of the article tells how States are not capable of handling there own affairs and the Federal is capable. While this makes no sense, in that a Union of 50 States, with some very different cultures, demographics, resources and traditions, cannot be manhandled by a Central Authority and EXACTLY why the 10th A and Constitutional LIMITS were placed there in the first place.

And yet you advocate Federal intervention in Wisconsin.

 

Yes, IMO they can act (preferably through the Governor), if any aspect of National Security is threatened, that's a Federal Duty under the Constitution. The Teachers Union (a National organization) organized protest and disruptions (school/government and economy) has the potential of spreading into other States.

By that broad definition, national security is also impacted by unregulated financial practices in the computerized and globalized world, yet you oppose federal regulation. Ditto immigration policy.

 

And if the Federal government banned abortion but explicitly specified that the states have the right to ban it (on the basis of -- you guessed it -- "states' rights"), would you support the right of individual states to ban it? I'm thinking probably not.

 

---

 

In other news today, Tea Party protesters were outnumbered in Wisconsin today, but this interesting article suggests that the unions may not have as much support as they think. They do have a lot of support, especially when they go up against a government, but it's not at all universal.

 

Although the share of respondents taking some form of favorable view (45 percent) was slightly larger than the camp with unfavorable views (42 percent), support for unions has clearly ebbed over the past decade. When Pew asked the same poll question in 1999, the margin was 59 percent "favorable" to 36 percent "unfavorable."

 

Moreover, deeply held views of unions are more likely to be negative (17 percent say their view is "very unfavorable") than positive (11 percent say "very favorable). The opposite was the case as recently as 2007.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0219/Wisconsin-protests-Do-Americans-agree-with-tea-party-view-of-unions

[jackson33]

And yet you advocate Federal intervention in Wisconsin. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss, not really, what I'm saying is that he legally can, IMO, even if not going through the Governor. I implied this in post number 6, because of the Union/Administation relationship and a way for the President to show leadership. In the day's to come I think your going to find, that the DNC, has also been involved.

 

And if the Federal government banned abortion but explicitly specified that the states have the right to ban it (on the basis of -- you guessed it -- "states' rights"), would you support the right of individual states to ban it? I'm thinking probably not.[/Quote]

 

If the Federal Government bans something, normally that ban infers all States or if something is accepted as a State Right, Government can't intervene, assuming not contested. Portions of bortion made legal, but States rights have nothing to do with Women's Rights, which was the reasoning behind the R v W Decision.

 

On the TP entering the demonstrations, I don't believe the numbers of either side mean very much or do I feel they should have got involved. I'll repeat The recent elections State Election decisively elected Walker, Walker ran on a "Balanced Budget" and he has a cooperative State Legislation. Elections have consequences.

[Pangloss]

On the TP entering the demonstrations, I don't believe the numbers of either side mean very much or do I feel they should have got involved. I'll repeat The recent elections State Election decisively elected Walker, Walker ran on a "Balanced Budget" and he has a cooperative State Legislation. Elections have consequences.

 

I agree. Wisconsin taxpayers also ate a massive tax increase in the current (about to end) budget cycle. So the new governor's promise not to raise taxes this time is hardly a short-sighted ideological thing. The problem they're having now apparently stems in part from a new program that constructed a $200 million medical malpractice fund that they "borrowed" from to balance the budget three years ago. They were supposed to end the current cycle in the black, but because of the ruling they have to refill the fund right now, so they'll be in the red. (source)

 

Departing jobs has had an impact, but I think this underscores the fact that spending was greatly increased during recent prosperous times, and states are just taking the easy way out by pounding on teachers and first responders, hoping that the publicity will produce federal dollars. Now that it's become clear that that's not going to happen, the plan is backfiring and the states are getting hammered on a new front.

 

If I were a teacher or first responder I'd be angry too, and I'll bet they have a lot more in common with the Tea Party people than they realize. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the conversations that took place on the ground between the two groups in Madison today were along the lines of "you know, you're absolutely right", followed by an angry glare by both parties in the direction of the state capitol building.

[Mr Skeptic]

Where's the outrage? Where's all the Democrats complaining about how Republicans abuse procedural rules to delay necessary bills? Wait, sorry, wrong team. Forget I said anything.

[Pangloss]

Yup, that's the problem with fleeing votes -- it's a double-edged sword. A lot of partisan political moves have that drawback, and it's through that process that new low bars are set for future behavior. Republicans fleeing over gerrymandering leads to Democrats fleeing over budgetary disputes -- the escalation is obvious. Pretty soon it'll be over major policy direction, and then it'll start happening at the national level, and matters will come to a head.

 

Some of our more knuckleheaded types are cheering the similarities between Madison and Cairo. Such people should be careful what they wish for.

 

(First time I've ever referenced Perez Hilton in a political discussion. Anybody got any hand sanitizer?)

[rigney]

There are hundreds who may have posted this differently and better. Unfortunately I made the ignorant statement "Is this something we want our children to learn"? That statement hasn't been answered not even once. Everyone wants to talk about the big issue. Today Feb, 21 2011, the issue remains insolvent. Listen, I've worked both sides of the fence for years, and watched a maniacal display from both, and the middle; "I want to kick some ass" to show who's boss. Until that frame of mind ends and goes away, we're in deep do-do! pal. There is no way to have your cake and eat it to, regardless of which part of the triangle you represent. Should we pick on our teachers, firemen, police, politicians or the poor bastard trying to live and pay your salary? "Hell no"? Let's kill off this whole damned miserable system, put everyone on a subsidy of sorts, turn America over to another country and let them deal with it. The way we are going, it's only a matter of time anyway. Wake up thieves, have nots, and want mores, there's a fork in the road, just up ahead.

Edited February 22, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

There are hundreds who may have posted this differently and better. Unfortunately I made the ignorant statement "Is this something we want our children to learn"? That statement hasn't been answered not even once.[/Quote]

 

rigney, the below comment is from my post 5, this thread. It was intended to answer your question from my viewpoint.

 

rigney; This is NOT something we should want for our kids (my great grand kids) and is setting up a very poor example/precedent for them to follow or for that matter anybody who might have the same problem in other States as they try and bring Organized labor back down to some kind of fiscal reality. [/Quote]

 

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what's intended serious or in jest, but those things are important and are being addressed by the American System and since it's founding. The elections of 2008 and 2010, were the beginning of an acceptable American Style Revolution and 2012 will be the next step. If the downhill trend is continued by the voters or those we elect, the debt's and obligations are ignored, the destruction of "Free Market Enterprise" continues, replaced by more and more Federal Government over States, then yes "we're in deep do-do", at least in my opinion. I'll go the next step and say if Obama is elected period, it's probably over and frankly I'm not impressed with any current republican Candidate, that will accept being a "one term President" in order to do what's needed, one segment of society will be happy.

[rigney]

rigney, the below comment is from my post 5, this thread. It was intended to answer your question from my viewpoint.

 

 

 

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what's intended serious or in jest, but those things are important and are being addressed by the American System and since it's founding. The elections of 2008 and 2010, were the beginning of an acceptable American Style Revolution and 2012 will be the next step. If the downhill trend is continued by the voters or those we elect, the debt's and obligations are ignored, the destruction of "Free Market Enterprise" continues, replaced by more and more Federal Government over States, then yes "we're in deep do-do", at least in my opinion. I'll go the next step and say if Obama is elected period, it's probably over and frankly I'm not impressed with any current republican Candidate, that will accept being a "one term President" in order to do what's needed, one segment of society will be happy.

 

 

Pardon me Jackson!. I did see your reply, but sometimes it's hard looking at a single tree while scanning an entire forest, even though that tree is a Maple shedding in autumn, and the rest; all pines. The American system has changed constantly as far back as I can remember. Do I like all of those changes? No! Do I try keeping up with all of them? No! But it's Americans making these changes, not some foreign power. My hope is that it stays that way and we don't awake some morning to find that the rules are totally alien. Now that would be a shock and revelation to many, while pleasing others. History tells us, complacency is the greatest downfall of any nation.

Let's just don't drive bamboo splints under our own fingernails and blame it on the other guy. There's enough guilt to go around. I've said it many times, just don't know where the expression came from. But, "water will seek it's own lever and eventually find it". America is no different than any other super power that has ever been. It will only remain super as long as there is a moral purpose and a decorum to match.

Edited February 25, 2011 by rigney