How do you oversimplify "he came in with a 1.2 million dollar surplus and spent 2.5 million unnecessarily and then declared an emergency based on a 1.3 million dollar shortfall"?
This is a copy of an Email I just sent my mom, an archconservative who asked me about Wisconsin:
> What do you think of what is happening in Wisconsin? I'd love to know
> your opinion!
Funny enough, I just turned in an article about the situation yesterday. It should come out on Monday.
It boils down to this: the Governor inherited a budget that was running a 1.24 million dollar SURPLUS:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf...and in order to create the economic "emergency" he needed to justify pushing through his bill, he deliberately went on a massive spending spree, giving money to his friends and cronies, in order to CREATE a 1.37 million dollar shortfall:
http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/press/walker-concocts-scoop-and-toss-borrowing-scheme-to-pay-for-140-million-in-special-interest-spending.htmlThen, he declared the made-up "emergency" and crammed a bill into Legislature that he knew the Republicans would pass because, if nothing else, he had just dropped 2.5 million dollars on their constituents' laps.
The bill has a lot of parts, and there's really only one that I see as completely evil: the part where, in a move that has absolutely nothing to do with his faked-up "emergency", he unilaterally strips almost every labor union in his state of it's power to collectively bargain (which is, of course, their sole purpose for existing, so it's basically like outlawing them completely.) That's a MASSIVE setback to worker's rights -- in the state that *invented* the labor union. That's the part that has the firemen and policemen protesting *in uniform* despite the fact that their unions are explicitly excluded in the bill's text. I think if he removed this one item, the Democrats would come home the next day -- but no one wants to see labor unions completely abolished, except apparently the Governor.
I'm all for public employees contributing the same way private ones do. However, this bill strangely removes the right that a public-sector employer currently has to pay the public employee's portion of the benefits if it WANTS TO. This is a right that private sector employers have; why remove it from public sector employers?
The other minor proposed changes to various governmental organizations don't seem terribly bad, though I do think it's entertaining that he's raising a part of the government's debt ceiling as part of his "emergency" response to the amount of debt the government owes:
"This bill increases the amount of state public debt that may be contracted to refund any unpaid indebtedness used to finance tax−supported or self−amortizing facilities from $309,000,000 to $474,000,000."
Oh, no -- on further more detailed reading of the bill, I found more evil:
"This bill authorizes a state agency to discharge any state employee who fails to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working days during a state of emergency or who participates in a strike, work stoppage, sit−down, stay−in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the of operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass resignations or sick calls. Under the bill, engaging in any of these actions constitutes just cause for discharge."
So basically, he's using the bill that he's cramming through during an emergency of his own creation to use that emergency to threaten everyone who protests the bill with sudden unemployment (a serious threat given the current hiring environment). That's not gubernatorial behavior, that's DICTATORIAL behavior.
(If you'd like to see what's pissing everyone off in full detail, it's right here:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf -- the first 7 pages are the important part.)
> Do teachers have a right to call in sick in mass, interferring with the education of the school kids (which is the job that they are being paid to do), and in fact, pressing some of those same kids into service protesting?
I don't know about pressing kids into service protesting -- that sounds suspicious to me. I'd imagine the kids are probably there voluntarily. Make any arguments about brainwashing you want here.
But on a fundamental level, yes, I believe that EVERYONE has the right to protest the government doing something they don't like. In fact, I do believe that that right is absolutely basic to being an American citizen. In fact, I do believe that that right is commonly referred to as the First Amendment. Let's see:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or ---->the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances<----."
Yup! In fact, now that I think of it, the Wisconsin State Constitution backs up the US Constitution on that point:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/wisconst.pdf -- page 8.
"Right to assemble and petition. SECTION 4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged."
So, that whole bit above about firing a state employee who participates in a strike, etc. isn't just immoral -- it's unconstitutional on both a state and a federal level. Yup.
> Do you think it was right fo the WI state Democratic legislators to flee
> the state, in derelection of their duty, to avoid a vote?
Seeing as it was literally the only option they had to prevent what they saw as an egregious abuse of power, I think they did exactly what they should have done. They are very clearly representing the will of The People in a way that the Governor and the Republicans very clearly are not, and as such, they are very much doing their duty as members of a government that is supposed to, at heart, be "by, of, and for The People". The Republicans are abusing what John Stuart Mill called the "tyranny of the majority", and the Democrats are perfectly right to do anything in their power to prevent that abuse.
The Republicans would most certainly do exactly the same thing if, for example, the Democrats had the opportunity to and tried to pass a bill that forced business to accede to any and all labor union demands without debate or exception -- and they would be just as correct to do so.
> Should Obama, as president, be involved in an individual State's affairs (think here, not only about morality and ethics, but also about the Constitution)?
I don't see Obama doing anything except making a statement giving his opinion on the issue. Insofar as he is also an (alleged) American citizen and covered by the First Amendment, I think that's his right. If he tried to enact some sort of law infringing on the Wisconsin government's handling of the situation, THAT would be wrong and a horrible abuse of power. But saying "hey, that sucks!" is one of those uniquely American rights that we all, including Obama, should use as vigorously as possible.
So, there's my thoughts on the matter in a neat little package.
