I'm not really familiar with the specifics, mainly what was reported in the national press. It's being reported that the pro-Walker, anti-union forces (Koch Bros, et al) outspent the recall effort by an 8-to-1 margin. If so, it portends a pretty grim future for the true root source of our nation's prosperity...the American middle-class.
Go back to the first post from March of 2011, this is the middle class tired of gov't benefits for public employees.
Whether the spending was 8-to-1, 7-to-1, or something in excess of 2-to-1 (the most reliable number I've seen) the fact is that the recall effort was seriously outspent by the opposition. Money buys influence. That why so much of it is spent on political campaigns on the days leading up to elections, or in this case, a recall. We don't know how much influence it brought to this recall, but the final vote was close enough (53% to 46%) to raise questions about what the middle-class really wants from their Governor vis-à-vis public unions, especially when the police and fire unions were specifically excluded from his efforts to "reform" them. If cost to the taxpayers was the core-issue and his plan for reform was "so popular among the people," why exclude those groups?
There is no question that government unions can be tamed...Ronald Reagan proved that in 1980. Whether any politician has the will and political capital to do so is another matter. I think this recall was more a showdown between the ability of big-money to influence political outcomes and the right of ALL workers to bargain collectively. Scott Walker ran on the platform of reforming public unions, not that of gutting them entirely. His actions in this case were clearly a post-election switch-up on his part, and probably led in-part to his recall. Voters tend to respond negatively to politicians who lie, break promises, or carry out secret agendas after they're elected.
How do I respond to something posted on the internet by an unnamed person, regarding the pension provisions of an unspecified labor contract, affecting the employees of an unspecified county in an unspecified state? Labor contracts with public employees are public knowledge. The fact that the author provides absolutely NO details about which government agency he worked for or in what capacity make his claim of such largesse highly questionable.BTW From another thread, tell me in your response which private company provides this?
Originally Posted by CiFIknow
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting....If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary.
So do I read this money is OK if it is union money spend like in Ohio? Plus you did not comment that 67% of the voters who supported Walker considered themselves blue collar workers.
No, it's not OK, but it is a fact-of-political life in government these days, and citizens have a right to know who's b1tch their Governor is before they go to the polls. In this case, it was Big Money, coming in from the outside the state;
In order for than number to have any statistical significance, we'd need to know what percentage of the total number of voters consider themselves "blue collar." Even then, it would be hard to draw conclusions as to what the real "message" was, given the great disparity in spending and the fact that Walker spared police and fire unions from the pending legislation. How many governors have faced recall elections in the last 30 years? A few, at most?
No the real message is that public employees have a monoply on services, and they can not put the gov't out of business with unrealistic pay and benefits. Like the UAW and GM. Pay and benefits that now outstrip the average non-gov't worker. The tax pavers are sending a message to the policitians that they are tired of funding this luxury that they as non-gov't workers do not have. The politicans who receive money from the union members through forced dues vote for benefits they do not have to pay inorder to get the money top keep them in their job. FDR was right in 1938 when he saiod public empoyees should not be union members.
Where I live, about the only government workers who still have a blue-chip "monopoly" on public services are police and firemen...two groups specifically excluded from Walker's union reform bill.
Much has been made in this debate of "forcing" people to pay union dues. Personally, I don't have any problem with that, as those being "forced" receive the benefits of membership in that union....benefits that far outstrip those they would receive in the private-sector, according to you. Many property owners in Wisconsin are "forced" to pay higher taxes in order to provide tax-abatements and other incentives to companies that want to locate in Wisconsin. Do you think there's any chance that Governor Walker will make "paying taxes" optional for people who have a fundamental objection to subsidizing private industry?
There are a lot of things public employees should not be. "Retired at 30 years of service" for one. "Double-dippers" ("retired," but working for the government) would be another. I can think of a dozen more, as I'm sure you can also.
This doesn't bother you?
