FollowUp 35: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Voting begins in Wisconsin recall election in the morning.  Today's Fox News Opinion page featured a column by Arthur Herman of the American Enterprise Institute.  You won't be surprised that I disagree with much of what Mr. Herman has to say.

A lot hinges on whether Wisconsin voters decide to keep Gov. Scott Walker, or put a Democrat in his place who’s heavily backed by public-sector unions, who’ve been fighting a bitter 18-month battle with Walker. What’s happening in Wisconsin is really a battle for everyone’s future -- and whether government employees are our servants or our masters.

Recent polls suggest Walker may survive the recall effort. Certainly Democrat Tom Barrett’s campaign has largely downplayed the issues that led to the recall in the first place, namely raising the contribution Wisconsin public employees make to their health benefits and pensions, and ending compulsory collective bargaining. Everyone is realizing that Walker’s prediction that passing these two provisions would save the Badger State from insolvency, and return power over their government to voters, is coming true.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has not been downplaying the issues that led to the recall.  Mr. Herman is not addressing those issues in a way that makes this clear.  The question of health benefits and pensions is not the problem.  When Governor Walker asked for concessions from the unions, he got them.  The immediate response was not to agree to every request but to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss them.  There were no absolute negatives at first.

The problem comes in that the Governor did not simply ask for financial concessions from every public sector union in Wisconsin (most of which do not affect the state budget), he demanded that the unions give up the right to negotiate for the restoration of these concessions in the future.  That is where the unions said no.

Legislating the end to collective bargaining did not affect the budget as Mr. Herman, parroting Governor Walker, suggests, did not "save the Badger State from insolvency", and did not "return power over government to voters".  Those are all lies.  They are big lies and those lies are at the heart of why Mr. Walker is facing this recall election.

Wisconsinites are funny. They love their individuality and their freedom -- which is why Wisconsin is big on the right to bear arms. But they also pride themselves on being progressive-minded. Wisconsin was the first state to allow public sector unions back in 1959. Wisconsin residents never have been instinctive foes of big government -- that is, until big government began to drain them dry.

While it is certainly true that Wisconsinites love both their individuality and their freedom, Mr. Herman is confusing ideas here again.  The right to bear arms is not under threat by Mayor Barrett, but by Governor Walker's "deer czar".  Wisconsinites are upset because Governor Walker has proposed legislation that is intrusive into the doctor's office.  That kind of government is not welcome.

In 2010 they elected Walker to deal with the issue. Facing a massive $137 million deficit, Walker asked workers like teachers and firefighters to make a tiny increase in the amount they had to pay for their health and future benefits -- less than half what government workers pay on average elsewhere- -- and allow local communities to decide for themselves how much to pay their municipal employees. Otherwise, he said, some 5,500 Wisconsin public jobs would have to go.

Teachers' health benefits had zero effect on the state budget.  Mr. Herman is lying.  Most of what Governor Walker requested was granted by the unions, but the GOP proceeded to kill collective bargaining anyway.  But the big issue is buried here.  Balancing the Wisconsin budget, something that Governor Doyle managed to do after being left with a huge mess by Governors Thompson and McCallum, did not require cutting back on public sector employee costs.  It was only because Governor Walker and the GOP majority legislature gave huge tax cuts to big businesses that cuts in expenditures were needed.  This was a problem that Governor Walker created, not one that he inherited.

The unions screamed no, and pushed back hard. Americans remember the scenes last February, with pro-union demonstrators camping out in the State Capitol, shouting obscenities, scrawling graffiti and trying to intimidate legislators into rejecting any reform that would save their state from fiscal collapse, no matter how tiny. Not very Wisconsin-like behavior. It was, in fact, a preview of Occupy Wall Street -- and, like Occupy Wall Street, it woke up people to what can happen when you hand over power to people who have no stake in your posterity.

Mr. Herman is implying that the unions rejecting cutting back on health benefits and pension benefits.  That is a lie.  The unions "pushed back hard" to the proposal to eliminate collective bargaining.  They did shout and they did occupy the Wisconsin State Capitol building.  But after occupying the Capitol for weeks they did far less damage than Mr. Herman, again parroting Governor Walker, alleges.  But he is correct that this was the real start of the Occupy Movement.

The real problem with unions is that they lock employer and employed in a status quo based on the present. They say to their members, “you’ll be able work at this job for this employer, for these wages -- wages we will fight to raise year after year for every employee, regardless of who’s better at his or her job later on, or whether the company is doing well or not.”

Wrong.  Collective bargaining is about negotiating.  The "status quo" is the starting point for those negotiations, not necessarily the final product.  Of course unions fight for the best pay and benefit package that they can negotiate, but it is a negotiation.  Unions typically don't get all of the benefits that they request and businesses or governments don't get all of the concessions that they request.  If a company isn't negotiating based upon how well they are doing, then they do not have effective negotiators.

The dynamic of economic growth and capitalism, by contrast, is built around the future: anticipating and adapting to changes in the marketplace, incorporating new inventions and technologies to produce more at a lower cost, finding workers who are willing to leave work in an industry that’s unprofitable to go to one that is (just as millions of Americans left dirt poor farms in the 20th century to work in factories and plants).

That is not a contrast to the reality of businesses and unions, only to the caricature that Mr. Herman and the folks at the American Enterprise Institute portray it to be.  Unions negotiate.  I have been part of a union negotiating team where we got most of what we wanted.  Later, in worse economic conditions, I was part of a group advising a union negotiating team where we got far less of what we wanted.  Reality does play a big part in the negotiations and both sides always have to give a little.

Mr. Herman hints here at one of the myths that his organization likes to tell.  "You can't fire a teacher who is not teaching well."  It is a myth.  When a teacher has tenure, that means that the teacher cannot be fired without showing cause.  It is a system that prevents a teacher from approaching retirement and being fired to save money on pension expenses, unless that teacher is failing to do her or his job.

Families, like capitalism, look to the future. How will we pay the mortgage next month and next year? How can we help our kids to get to college? Will they have a better life than their parents? In 2010 Wisconsin families realized that future was about to be crushed under an avalanche of debts and rising taxes. They asked Scott Walker to find a solution, and he did. The unions fought a brighter future for the sake of a disastrous present -- one that even doomed their own jobs -- and lost.

Scott Walker is on tape campaigning and saying that he was not going to go after the unions.  He lied.  Wisconsin was not "about to be crushed under and avalanche of debts and rising taxes" except that Mr. Walker gave tax breaks to those who needed them least.  Unions didn't doom their jobs, the GOP did.

If Wisconsin families win again now in the recall fight, it will send a clear message to state capitals across the country and Washington: The future is important to us. Step up and save it, as Scott Walker did, and we will reward you by keeping you in office. It will also send a clear message to America’s unions: help us to move this country forward or get out of the way. This Tuesday, we are all from Wisconsin.

Wisconsin families win if Governor Walker is removed from office.  Wisconsin has always been a purple state, with give and take between the Republicans and the Democrats.  Under Governor Walker, there was no give and take, he just took.  The balance needs to be restored.

As I write, it is less than twenty-four hours before the polls close in Wisconsin and we learn whether the Republicans or the Democrats did a better job at turning out their voters.  Less than twenty-four hours before we learn whether balance is restored to the Dairy State.  I agree with Mr. Herman that this Tuesday, we are all from Wisconsin.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.

5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Repudiation: AP Misleads on Cost of OWS

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an estimate that the municipal cost of the Occupy movement is at $13 million and climbing.

During the first two months of the nationwide Occupy protests, the movement that is demanding more out of the wealthiest Americans cost local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services, according to a survey by The Associated Press.

The heaviest financial burden has fallen upon law enforcement agencies tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camps. And the steepest costs by far piled up in New York City and Oakland, Calif., where police clashed with protesters on several occasions.

There is an important breakdown for these figures that is missing from the article.  The most expensive parts are said to be monitoring, which one can argue is an important service for both the protesters and the cities, and the evictions, which one can argue is an unnecessary cost.  Allegations of violence on the part of the protesters can be found on various Fox News articles and assorted right-wing blogs, but not so much in the mainstream news.  The same event (about a week ago) in the British news focused on police brutality.

The spending comes as cash-strapped police departments have cut overtime budgets, travel and training to respond to the recession. Nonetheless, city officials say they have no choice but to bring in extra officers or hold officers past their shifts to handle gatherings and marches in a way that protects free speech rights and public safety. In some cities, officials say the spending is eating into their overtime budgets and leaving less money for other public services.

Protesters blame excessive police presence for the high costs in some places. And they note the cost has been minimal in other cities, and worth the spending because they have raised awareness about what they call corporate greed and the growing inequality between rich and poor.

Cities and their police departments are cash-strapped largely because of an economy devastated by the unregulated misdeeds of what the Occupy movements calls the 1%.  An article on Think Progress today puts the numbers into some perspective.

$13 million for policing of ongoing protests all over the country for two months is not a particularly large sum. For example, the 2004 Republican National Committee protests, which lasted for a single week and took place in a single location, cost $50 million to secure. A small tea party rally in November 2010 that attracted only a few dozen people cost $14,000, paid for by official congressional money.

The cost of securing these protests against economic inequality and political corruption also pales in comparison to one large figure: the wealth destroyed by Wall Street’s recession. The recession caused by Wall Street’s misdeeds destroyed $50 trillion of wealth globally by 2009, $20 trillion of that wealth in the United States alone. ThinkProgress has assembled the following chart to visualize these comparative costs:

Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $13 million every 40 minutes this year, and the multibillionaire magnate Koch Brothers increase their wealth by $13 million every eleven hours.

The chart is slightly misleading.  Think Progress was unable to depict the left column as smaller than one pixel in height.  If you grossly round up the left column to $20 million dollars, then it is easy to compare $20 million to $20 trillion.  The left column should be less than 0.0001% the height of the middle column.  A much larger chart would not be convenient for a computer screen, but the columns currently look closer than the really are.  Considering how many months and how many cities and how many people have been involved, $13 million dollars seems pretty inexpensive.

Some of these costs, monitoring citizens expression of their right to assembly and right of free speech, are reasonable.  Most of the police have done a good job in working for the benefit of their cities and their citizens.  Some, spraying a chemical weapon in the faces of those who were not engaging in violence,  was a violation of decency and an unreasonable waste of taxpayer dollars.

 Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Repudiation: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Since Governor Walker took the oath of office, Wisconsin has been in turmoil.  The Republicans, led by Mr. Walker, endeavored to undo decades of progressive Wisconsin laws leading to huge protests back in February.  In response, this Summer Wisconsinites recalled some of their state senators.  But, it was not without some underhanded moves by Republicans.

Now, a year after Scott Walker was elected to office, it is legal to begin a move to recall him.  It has begun.  This isn't just dissatisfaction with the political success of the Republicans.  It is anger at a bait and switch tactic of numerous lies curing his campaign for governor.  From the One Wisconsin Now page:

#OccupyWalker will flood social networks with the truth about every aspect of Scott Walker's disastrous agenda, with the scores of facts uncovered by the One Wisconsin Now reseach team and the individual stories of working Wisconsin families personally harmed by Walker's anti-middle class schemes.

It's been over two years since Scott Walker stepped into the spotlight and started laying out his Koch-funded, pro-corporate agenda. The list of Walker's failures seems endliess: from his early failure to report information on $500,000 worth of his top campaign contributors, to spending 20 minutes on the phone with who he thought was billionaire David Koch talking about stripping away the rights of 175,000 Wisconsin workers, to his most recent decision to cut 65,000 of our state's most vulnerable residents - including 29,000 children -- off health care.

Then there's this latest piece we just uncovered. In 2006 during first run for governor, Walker made some pretty bold campaign promises, including this one:

"Scott Walker will not accept any campaign contributions (from any source) from the time he takes office (January 3, 2007) until the state budget is signed into law. (100 Day Agenda)" [Link to source]

Now consider this: from the time Scott Walker took office on January 3, 2011 to the time the budget was signed on June 26, 2011, Walker received $2,174,501.39 in campaign money. That would be a $2 million broken promise to the people of Wisconsin. This is all not to mention the latest campaign finance scheme, where a GOP donor nefariously filed recall petition, allowing Walker to begin raising unlimited campaign money.

Before looking at the future lies and dirty tricks, I want to mention that it took me a while to accept the title "Occupy Walker".  Normally a person is not something that one occupies (unless one is a demon that needs to be exorcised).  However, the timing of the Madison WI sit-ins as a prelude to the Occupy Wall Street movement is not coincidental.  In many ways the good people of Wisconsin inspired OWS.  The name fits.

So, after the campaign lies and the fake candidates during the senatorial recalls, it should not surprise anyone that Wisconsin Republicans plan to continue in the same vein.  Mother Jones had an article last Friday about plans to destroy recall petitions, a felony offense in Wisconsin.

These plans, discussed in Facebook posts that were first reported by the blog PolitiScoop, entail posing as recall supporters and gathering signatures, only to later destroy the petitions. They also include telling Wisconsinites that they can only sign one recall petition (which is false—they can sign different petitions as long as they each correspond to a different organization) and directing signature collectors to the homes of registered sex offenders.

Surprised?  No, I'm no longer surprised.  Offended?  Absolutely.  This is an affront to our democratic republic.  Such endeavors to interrupt legal petitions and elections are unAmerican.

Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.

30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Repudiation: Rena Lindevalvdsen Objects to Occupy DC

Rena Lindevalvdsen is a Liberty University law professor, Liberty Counsel attorney, and the author of a book about and in support of baby kidnapper Lisa Miller and blog, both by the name Only One Mommy.  This caught my attention because of how far off Ms. Lindevalvdsen is from reality.  Of course, I expect that from one involved with one of the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate groups.

She complains about the guidelines adopted by the general assembly of Occupy DC.

Rule 1: “Respect each other, each others’ stuff and space.”Hmm, the irony of this one speaks for itself: a group of illegal squatters on publicly-owned property are demanding respect for the stuff and space of others. Well, then, get off property that does not belong to you and go home and go to work. Then you won’t find yourself in the situation of the occupier in New York who threw a hissy fit in a McDonald’s restaurant after they refused to give her free food.

It is public property.  In the United States of America we have the right to assembly and the right to access our public property.  Many who are party of the Occupy movement do not have jobs.  They would like to.  We have a system in place that rewards malfeasance among the richest (with notable exceptions like Bernie Madoff who stole from others who are rich).  Without reasonable oversight, many corporations run roughshod over individuals.  We hear in the news that corporations are sitting on a lot of money but not hiring.  Where are the jobs?

Rule 5: “We consider working class police officers a part of the 99%. However we will not carry out or enforce their orders that jeopardize the safety of other residents of McPherson Park. We will strive to maintain each other’s safety without relying on the police.” The working class reference immediately reminded me of the Communist Manifesto with its reference to the plight of the working class who needed to rise up against the oppressive bourgeois class.

There is a similarity.  That similarity does not mean that the Occupy movement is a facade for Communists.  Looking out for the safety of one another is not a Communist ideal, it is a human ideal.

Rule 10: “Don’t assume anyone’s gender. When possible go with gender neutral pronouns and nouns, such as friend/comrade instead of brother/sister.” After quickly highlighting the good communist reference to “comrades,”I’d like to point out the wholesale adoption of the idea that gender is fluid –you are what you think you are. I guess it should come as no surprise in today’s culture that those seeking to further entrench socialistic ideas in America also seek to legally sanction a view of human sexuality that is directly contrary to the binary nature of sexuality created by God. All forms of lawlessness travel together and work hand in hand to destroy the true meaning of liberty.

Those of us blessed with gender certainty have difficulty understanding that it is not so for everyone.  Ignorance can be cured with some education.  Given the religious nature of Ms. Lindevalvdsen's group, one might think charity would be in order instead of animus, except that religion is their excuse for hate.  God creates us in far more diversity than the "Liberty" folk are ready to accept.

Rule 13: “Be an ally. Take care of yourselves and your friends/siblings/homies in the struggle.” I had to include this one for two reasons. First, the “ally” language reminds us yet one more time of the socialistic tendencies of this group. Second, I’m a bit surprised that the best the “Guidelines Super Committee” could come up with is a rule that refers to taking care of one’s “homies.”

Allies was the term used for those who fought against the National Socialist party of Germany called the Nazis.  There is nothing wrong with the word ally.  Unlike ally, homies is not part of normal academic discourse.  Some in the Occupy movement are academics, but most are regular people.  Many regular people say homies.

Perhaps you have struggled as I have with understanding the purpose of the group or, even more so, the mentality that would cause a group of people to pitch tents on public property for more than a month.

I am among those who were initially unsure about the Occupy movement.  A group having no explicit platform of demands is difficult to categorize.  With time, I have come to see that there is a common set of complaints without a common set of solutions.  Even without agreement as to the solutions, the complaints must be addressed for the sake of our culture and economy.

Their signs only further confound me. Here’s one: “Cancel All Debt.” It specifically lists student loans, electricity bills, and mortgages. The facebook page for Occupy DC K Street states that the occupiers allegedly represent the 99% of the people in the nation who pay the taxes and maintain the economy. Without even turning to statistics – how can I possibly believe that people who sit around all day carrying signs asking that the government cancel all their debt somehow actually pay 99% of the taxes. I do believe you’d have to work in order to pay taxes.

There are numerous misconceptions here.  First, taxation is not limited to employment.  I pay taxes on my home, on products that I purchase, on capital gains and dividends, and in various other ways such as on my continued ownership of a car.  Second, we used to have affordable higher education.  That was a large part of what built a great economy in the United States after World War II.  Student loans are too onerous for many to repay.  This needs to be addressed.  Third, a large part of our Great Recession was caused by the sub-prime mortgage market.  There are too many Americans who have homes underwater and no prospect for financial recovery while they have been doing their best to follow all of the rules and be good citizens.  The American dream of home ownership became a nightmare based on the lies and cheating of too many in the banking industry.  This third point is a large part of why the Occupy movement exists.  Without government intervention, people are carrying signs because they feel they have run out of possibilities for other recourse.

Putting aside the obvious error in their position statement, statistics further disprove their point. A number of sources restate the statistic that the top 5% or the rich in America actually pay 50% of the taxes. So – how is it that the occupiers lay any claim to paying 99% of the taxes and therefore demanding that government use the tax money to forgive all of their debt?

No, the premise is incorrect.  The Congressional Budget Office has real data that shows what is happening.

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

• 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
• 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
• Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
• 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

The disparity in income growth is counter to the American ideal of a growing middle class.  The solution is not, as Ms. Lindevalvdsen alleges, Communism.  The solution is complicated but needs to include reparations for those stolen from by cheaters and liars, the point of the sign to which Ms. Lindevalvdsen objects, and regulations to prevent future cheating.  Back to her blog article

At its core, we are watching the results of mankind’s sinful nature: we’d rather have a handout than to have to work for our keep; we’d like to have someone come along behind us and clean up our mess (our debt); and we believe that others owe us something (rather than realizing that we deserve absolutely nothing and that anything we have is purely a gift from God).

No.  The majority of those in the Occupy movement are not seeking handouts.  They are seeking a fair playing field in which they are able to earn their keep.  Those who are responsible for the debt need to repay it (particularly fraudulent mortgage dealers on that part of the problem).  God did not force big banks, mortgage firms, and parts of Wall Street to lie and cheat.  God told us to not bear false witness.  Perhaps Ms. Lindevalvdsen should listen more to God.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of First Amendment rights. But, these occupiers have as their goal to destroy the very fabric of this nation.

Wrong.  The Occupy movement seeks to rebuild this nation from the damage wrought by some of the 1%.

During a week honoring all those who have died protecting our God-given unalienable rights, I find this movement particularly offensive because they seek to eradicate the Biblical principles upon which our nation was founded and put in its place a socialistic system that attempts to make big government the savior of all.

Removal of government watchdog systems during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in too many among the 1% ignoring the messages of God to tell the truth and to not cheat one's neighbors.  Ms. Lindevalvdsen and the Liberty Counsel work to prevent equality for all American citizens, all of whom are children of God.  The messages of the Bible are far more socialistic than the Occupy movement.

Why is it people will look every place for a savior yet reject the One who came to save mankind from its sins? Perhaps it’s the same pride and arrogance that leads people to refuse to work, ask me to pay their debts, and squat on land not belonging to them.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution prevents me from being forced to worship your "savior".  The United States is a nation with a majority of Christians which is not the same thing as a Christian nation.  We are a nation that claims to ensure the rights of minorities.  It is pride and arrogance that has Ms. Lindevalvdsen mischaracterizing the Occupy movement's nature, goals, and aspirations.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up and to the Rachel Maddow blog for the link to the CBO.