Something important from Wisconsin that isn't Aaron Rodgers

[IBCoupe]

I call BS. NJ has some of the strictest gun control laws there are so there is no way violent crime can be increasing just because there are less Police to protect us, even though the Supreme Court has concluded protecting us is not their job anyway.

What a tipsy world.

New Haven Police Union President got his foot all up in his mouth, recently. Mayor announced that he'd be terminating 16 of the over 400 officers, and the guy said that people ought to start arming themselves.

[IBCoupe]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/bi ... 1&iref=BN1

Ok Mr. Walker show me the new 250000 jobs mk?

Something interesting I heard about this situation - for those of you in the "elections have consequences" crowd, note that Walker campaigned on getting union concessions, but the collective bargaining thing was a shock to everybody in WI. Also, note that public opinion polls from liberal and conservative groups has it against Walker on the collective bargaining issue.

[AppleBonker]

Well, since it was all about balancing the budget, it certainly makes sense to remove this from the "budget reform bill". Or maybe the governor and other senators just wanted to strip these rights away and used the budget as a cover? I'll go ahead and say actions speak louder than words...

[stebo0728]

Ya, it really sucks that they are being so devious about it, as I am with them on ending public sector bargaining, but they could at least be genuine about it I suppose.

[IBCoupe]

The problem is, Stebo, every poll fielded is showing public opinion against those changes. If they were being genuine about it, they'd lose.

[96Qowner]

Here's a new poll from Gallup - pretty interesting.

the March 3-6 poll finds Americans closely divided on the primary issue in the Wisconsin budget battle -- whether to "[change] state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions." About half of Americans polled, 49%, say they would favor this in their own state; 45% are opposed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146525/Ameri ... orrow.aspx

[bigbadberry3]

Examining the poll I can see that the people who were polled also opposed taking money away from public workers, weird.

[Eikon]

Ya, it really sucks that they are being so devious about it, as I am with them on ending public sector bargaining, but they could at least be genuine about it I suppose.

I disagree.. I don't think what they did was devious. It was just finding a loophole in the rules and regulations to allow them to pass legislation. Now.. before you say... "THAT is what is devious".. I'll remind you that it's no more devious than the Democrats action of leaving the state to prevent a vote on the bill.

The bill is/was going to pass eventually because the republicans had the votes to do pass it. The dems used a loophole to prolong the inevitable. I'd say their action was worse than the republicans loophole because they are completely grinding all legislative action to a halt. They didn't show up to work for 3 weeks. Somehow they didn't get fired for that... then they are up in arms saying the republicans pulled a dirty stunt. Rediculous!!!

[bigbadberry3]

Ya, it really sucks that they are being so devious about it, as I am with them on ending public sector bargaining, but they could at least be genuine about it I suppose.

I disagree.. I don't think what they did was devious. It was just finding a loophole in the rules and regulations to allow them to pass legislation. Now.. before you say... "THAT is what is devious".. I'll remind you that it's no more devious than the Democrats action of leaving the state to prevent a vote on the bill.

The bill is/was going to pass eventually because the republicans had the votes to do pass it. The dems used a loophole to prolong the inevitable. I'd say their action was worse than the republicans loophole because they are completely grinding all legislative action to a halt. They didn't show up to work for 3 weeks. Somehow they didn't get fired for that... then they are up in arms saying the republicans pulled a dirty stunt. Rediculous!!!

I thought Stebo was referring to the fact that they were trying to hide stripping collective bargaining with unions with new financial obligations (which again I would like to bring up that the unions had agreed too but wasn't enough). The bill from what I'm reading has only removed those right now and has no impact on the part where public employees would have to increase their contributions to health care and such.

So yes, it was a devious move to try and distract everyone with the financial aspect when what was wanted was the removal of collective bargaining .

[Eikon]

Ah.. maybe I read that wrong.. I guess I was thinking he was referring to the splitting of the bill in order to be able to force the vote to pass without the dems being on location

[IBCoupe]

I thought he was referring to the fact that nobody could have seen this coming, because it was a secret agenda item on Candidate Walker's list.

...Stebo? Maybe you can clarify.

Although I do like the nifty list we just conjured.

[stebo0728]

I was referring to splitting it off into a separate bill, a bill not needing a quorum. I guess it's not really a "devious" action comparative to modern day politics, but still it shows that their whole intention was to stip the bargaining, or at least it gives that impression. Again, I agree with that end, I dont think public sector employees deserve a right to bargain against the taxpayer (against themselves in a way) but I like to think were I Walker, I would have had the balls to announce that as my goal from the start.

That of course does not excuse the actions of the 12 or 13 democrats who just up and left to avoid the quorum. Just shows that politics isn't "the gentlemans" practice anymore.

[IBCoupe]

I dont think public sector employees deserve a right to bargain against the taxpayer

Stebo, I want to make sure we're clear, here. You think public employees shouldn't be allowed to group together when they bargain, or you think public employees should not be allowed to negotiate at all with their employer?

I can actually better understand the latter, more than I can the former. The latter is a consistent line of reasoning, whereas the former draws an arbitrary distinction.

[stebo0728]

Thank you for asking that, as I had not clarified it, but yes the latter. If negotiation was allowed, then it would seem odd to limit the collective nature, but actually I dont afford them the art of negotiation period. Once a year, public sector compensation should be tooled to match some sort of medium average of the private sector, regionally I would say, and that's that. No negotiation, your compensation is such and such. Thank you for your service.

[IBCoupe]

That's a pretty fair position in my mind. I'm not suggesting that I'll buy into it (I think that the same benefits afforded to individuals in the private sector should be given to public sector workers, with few exceptions arising out of practical necessity), but intellectually, I completely respect it.

Well done, good sir.

[srellim234]

Thank you for asking that, as I had not clarified it, but yes the latter. If negotiation was allowed, then it would seem odd to limit the collective nature, but actually I dont afford them the art of negotiation period. Once a year, public sector compensation should be tooled to match some sort of medium average of the private sector, regionally I would say, and that's that. No negotiation, your compensation is such and such. Thank you for your service.

Some other tooling protecting the public employee's job would then be necessary. Particularly in an "at-will" state. You scenario only lends itself to average or below average employees in the long term. I can't see your suggested policy working for skilled positions or those requiring special knowledge. It fails to provide incentive.

[AppleBonker]

I think stebo would rather not protect the public employee's job. Might allow for a private-sector position to cover it instead?

[srellim234]

As I said, only certain positions. You can't privatize everything.

[IBCoupe]

Well, you could (and I don't know that it's Stebo's position), but it wouldn't be terribly prudent.

[stebo0728]

Well actually, Apple, your mostly right. I dont care so much about protection of public sector jobs, save the jobs that need be held by the public sector, by necessity. And yes you could argue that NO job really HAS to be held by the public sector, but I do believe some do just work better that way. Basically, my view is, any good or service that can be provided by the private sector, with at least nominal level of efficiency and affordibility, should on principle, be left to the private sector to handle. Then there are so many areas where the private sector exponentially outperforms the public sector, even when the public sector has a bottomless purse.

Im not convinced that we HAVE to keep public sector compensation "equal" to private sector compensation in areas of equalized goods and services. If public sector employees desire to make more, they can work private, and hence the public service would eventually fail. Thats ok, it wasnt needed anyway, as the private sector is handling it just as well or better.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, is it really the case that if the private sector is doing a thing that the public sector is also doing, that they are probably doing it better? That the public service is no longer necessary?

I think there is something to be said for the extra restrictions placed on public services. For example, public schools don't get the luxury of choosing who is qualified to attend. Similarly, private efficiency isn't always to be assumed. Look at the overhead costs of Medicare, versus even the most efficient private insurance company - they can't come close to Medicare's 2% of all costs.

[stebo0728]

I dont say you can assume that just because, look at the facts:

Post office is in the tank, UPS and FEDEX rule the day.
How much did we spend to get into orbit back in the day (adjusted for inflation of course) and SpaceShip One did it in a fraction of the time, and a fraction of the cost.
I would argue superiority in private education, I know some would disagree

The private sector just does better, on principle, even if its just the fact that "its not government" doing it.

I understand your "have to take" argument, you've made it before, but how much of the private sector's avoidance is due to the fact that government school CANT turn anyone away, and if thats the case, why cater to them. The private sector isnt "heartless" and I can assure you entire systems would be devised to cater to special needs individuals, if the demand was there without a supply to meet it.

Im not convinced you have a good argument there on Medicaid either, thought I'm not quite in the mood to go there just yet. Ill just say, Medicaid is part of the problem with pricing, as they give pennies on the dollar for services, and force the provider to take it, since they have those shiny guns and all, so providers have to make it up on NON government funded care.

BUT - the point of my argument before was, perhaps there are some areas that can be better served by the public sector, and if this is the case then I dont have a problem letting them handle them, in fact it would be prudent for the private sector to just leave that service alone if its not a tenable business venture. But if the private sector can handle something with superiority, then the government need not handle it, perhaps regulate it a bit, but even then I'm not a huge fan of government regulation either, but some regulation may be necessary.

[IBCoupe]

USPS- required by law to do some pretty unprofitable things.
Spaceship One- didn't have to do any of the technological research necessary to develop that rocket technology.
Private schools perform the same, when you use the same sorts of students.

Government isn't the answer for everything of course, but it's not the pinnacle of inefficiency you make it out to be.

[audtatious]

http://host.madison.com/news/state_and_ ... 4373e.html


"The Milwaukee teachers union has dropped a lawsuit seeking to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back."

[bigbadberry3]

Wonder if that cost more than the bank bail outs.....

[audtatious]

Yeah, because that's a wonderful comparison.

[bigbadberry3]

Can I get some inputs on the NFL unions?

Personally I think the players get enough money as is.

EDIT: To clarify i'm talking about football.

[AZhitman]

Spaceship One- didn't have to do any of the technological research necessary to develop that rocket technology.

Uhhh, wait.

So, you're crediting the SS1 team's successes to work that our government did FIRST?

Because if we're going there, your history is wrong, as is the contention that they "didn't have to do any of the technological research necessary".

C'mon - Let's not be silly.

[AZhitman]

Can I get some inputs on the NFL unions?

Personally I think the players get enough money as is.

EDIT: To clarify i'm talking about football.

New thread. It'll be a good one.

[IBCoupe]

Spaceship One- didn't have to do any of the technological research necessary to develop that rocket technology.

Uhhh, wait.

So, you're crediting the SS1 team's successes to work that our government did FIRST?

Because if we're going there, your history is wrong, as is the contention that they "didn't have to do any of the technological research necessary".

C'mon - Let's not be silly.

It's the same principle as the pharmaceutical industry, Greg. The 500th generic pill costs exactly the same as the 500th name brand pill: about two cents. But the generic has the advantage of not having to spend $400 billion on the first one. Stebo's comparison of the costs of Spaceship One to the costs of NASA projects is analogous, because a lot of Spaceship One's research and development was already done for them, so they didn't have to incur those costs.

I'm not saying that SS1 only accomplished what they did because of what the government did first, I'm saying that comparing the costs involved is not a direct, reliable comparison.