WI Assembly passes budget-repair bill

posted at 8:48 am on February 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The vote came in the weest hour of the morning, and it came so quickly that more than two dozen members didn’t get a chance to cast a vote — mainly Democrats.  In the end, the bill that frightened off the entire Democratic caucus in the Wisconsin state Senate passed easily in the lower chamber, 51-17, in what had been a foregone conclusion:

After a bitter, 61-hour debate that was the longest in living memory, the sleep-starved state Assembly voted in just seconds early Friday to approve a watershed proposal repealing most union bargaining rights held by public workers.

Just after 1 a.m., Republicans cut off debate on Gov. Scott Walker’s bill and in pell-mell fashion the body voted 51-17 to pass it. In the confusion, nearly one-third of the body – 28 lawmakers including 25 Democrats, two Republicans and the body’s lone independent – did not vote on the bill at all.

Democrats in the lower chamber reacted in the mature fashion their party has exemplified for the past two weeks:

Democrats erupted after the vote, throwing papers and what appeared to be a drink in the air. They denounced the move to cut off debate, questioning for the second time in the night whether the proper procedure had been followed.

“Shame! Shame! Shame!” Democrats shouted in the faces of Republicans as the GOP lawmakers quietly filed off the floor and a police officer stood between opposing lawmakers.

Yes, shame …. because sixty-one hours of debate is obviously not nearly enough to conduct the state’s business.  At least these Democrats remained engaged in the process, though.  They may have stalled the bill as long as possible, but they did so within the rules.

The same cannot be said of their Fleebagger colleagues in the state Senate.  Minority Leader Mark Miller continued his Irony Tour of Everywhere But Wisconsin with this reaction:

“(Walker) just seems to say he can wait it out and not feel any consequences and be impervious to public opinion,” Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said in a telephone interview. “He’s got to realize there’s more to leadership than just demanding your own way.”

Er … like stamping one’s feet and fleeing the state, with the minority refusing to participate and do their jobs unless Walker makes changes to a bill that would easily pass the legislature?  That kind of “just demanding your own way” is exactly what the minority caucus has been doing for over a week.  If Miller wants to negotiate, the state of Wisconsin has a forum for that: the legislature.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“He’s got to realize there’s more to leadership than just demanding your own way.”

Yeah, there’s getting in the face of your associates and screaming shame, shame at them. There’s going to your associates’ homes and scaring the crap out of their family.

Does anybody believe these thugs any more?

PattyJ on February 25, 2011 at 10:48 AM

OK, here’s a serious question: I couldn’t agree more that unions have abused their position. But the loss of collective bargaining rights troubles me. If they can’t bargain together (within reasonable limits – no wildcat strikes by essential personnel, etc.), how are they supposed to work with their employers to get a fair shake? Are we saying that collective bargaining rights are bad in themselves? By my understanding, in the past bargaining helped workers who really were being treated unfairly. Are those days just gone?

Rosmerta on February 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM

1)Who are they bargaining with?
A: Politicians. This is a problem because the politicians do not actually pay their wages, sure they can set the amount of the wage, but the money comes from the taxpayer. This is different from a corporation in several ways, but the most important one here is that a private company cannot force you to give them money…they government can and does. If you disagree with the wages set by your representatives you cannot refuse to pay it. In short, they do not negotiate with their true employer, but simply another employee. It’d be like the mail room negotiating with the tech department over how much they should be paid…

2) There are already laws that cover any possible abuse of the teachers. That means the collective bargaining can only be truly useful for salary and benefits. For the teachers, it’s all about the money.

3) The unions collect dues and ARE allowed to donate to political campaigns. In other words, the unions can bribe politicians via campaign donations in order to get their way. It’s win-win for all but the taxpayer who is footing the bill. This is not negotiation. This is called buying votes.

There are plenty more reasons, but those three should be enough on their own to eliminate “collective bargaining.”

Pattosensei on February 25, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Yeah, the democratically elected government that unions negotiate with are just like the private coal-mine and mill owners of the 1920′s.

Get a clue.

slickwillie2001 on February 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM

It’s also a good time to remind the terminally uneducated public sector unions that all union reforms (the 40-hour work week, etc) came about through unions in the PRIVATE SECTOR, not the public sector.

And it’s funny that they stick to the 40-hour week like it’s a sacred right or something. Many successful and well-to-do people work longer than a 40 hour wee, take work home, do work off the clock, work two jobs, etc.

It’s not like your “rights” are violated if you’re working any less or more than 40 hours.

Good Lt on February 25, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Will the continuous Obama and union inspired howling and protesting over this make Republican knees in congress even weaker, per the democrats’ plan? If so, nothing meaningful will get done and what may be America’s last chance to prevent complete economic disaster will go by the boards.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 25, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Please stop using the term “fleebagger”. It’s childish, low-class and only serves to legitimize the term “teabagger”, that we have justly denounced for the past couple of years. Also, it’s just really lame. Grow up.

sartana on February 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM

For the record, the “teabag” insult was initiated by Anderson Cooper. At the time, maybe 1% of Americans were aware of this obscure sexual act. It was used to slander millions of Americans who simply wanted government to return to its proper, constitutional role.

The “fleebagger” snark is directed at 14 Democratic politicians, who decided that they wanted to shut Democracy down because they didn’t like the outcome.

As far as Internet snark goes, “fleebagger” is darn near Shakesperean.

Lighten up there Francis. This isn’t the Oxford debating society. Nobody is forcing you to participate in hotair forums.

johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Has any national Republican congressional leader spoken out about the violence and disruption arising in various union-inspired “protests” to Wisconsin’s bill?

GaltBlvnAtty on February 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Those in the public sector have their wages and benefits set by legislation.

They ALREADY have ‘collective bargaining’ in that they get a VOTE into their legislative branch AND the right to petition it: both guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is the people who set the agenda for the public sector via the legislative branch of government.

When you Unionize to go against the legislature, you are going against the representative system in which the employee ALREADY has a say via their vote. They don’t need to Unionize. Unless you are advocating the will of the few to be imposed on the many by utilizing the striking of public employees AGAINST their employers, which is the people.

How hard can this be to understand?

ajacksonian on February 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Will the continuous Obama and union inspired howling and protesting over this make Republican knees in congress even weaker, per the democrats’ plan? If so, nothing meaningful will get done and what may be America’s last chance to prevent complete economic disaster will go by the boards.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 25, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I have a different take. I can’t imagine that these thuggish union protestors have swayed anyone who is one degree to the right of Noam Chomsky. And the fleebaggers (sorry sartana) can’t hold out forever. Walker just needs to hang in there for a couple of weeks. This ain’t the siege of Stalingrad.

But you are right. We do need to keep the wobbly RINOs from caving.

johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM

johnboy:
I sure hope you are correct.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Does WI pay for the Dem Senators’ mobile broadband connections? If so, cut ‘em off while they’re AWOL.

Missy on February 25, 2011 at 11:12 AM

sartana on February 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Would you rather that we use “Affordable Care Act” instead of “Obamacare”? Shorthand identifications serve a useful purpose and especially so when they invoke visions of multiple negative images. Learn to live with it, sartana. Fleebagger isn’t going away.

SKYFOX on February 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

But you are right. We do need to keep the wobbly RINOs from caving.

johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I am more worried about wobbly RINOs than I am about Walker.

Missy on February 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Correction: “Fleebagger” isn’t going away. Fleebaggers did go away.

SKYFOX on February 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

johnboy:
I sure hope you are correct.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 25, 2011 at 11:10 AM

I think the situation in Indiana is instructive. The fleeing Dems told Mitch that they were protesting the “right to work” proposal and wanted Mitch to take that off the table. Mitch did. And, the Dems, instead of returning, merely escalated their demands.

You can’t negotiate with terrorists Democrats.

johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:15 AM

When I was a Cub Scout Leader, one of the rules I went by was to not argue with children. As a leader you can listen to what the kids want but you are in the end responsable for their well being and safety.
This applies to the State of Wisconsin in that the Govenor is responsable for the well being of the state.
Gov. Walker for the good of the state, stick to your guns and do not argue with children.

mechkiller_k on February 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Bishop on February 25, 2011 at 10:06 AM

The beer and cheese will bring them back sooner or later!

WisCon on February 25, 2011 at 11:32 AM

the body voted 51-17 to pass it. In the confusion, nearly one-third of the body – 28 lawmakers including 25 Democrats, two Republicans and the body’s lone independent – did not vote on the bill at all.

Yeah, “confusion,” I’m sure that’s why most of the (physically) present democrats “forgot” to vote.

They kept screaming: “Shame!” And they meant it; in the ass-backwards way all liberals mean everything they say.

logis on February 25, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I think the situation in Indiana is instructive. The fleeing Dems told Mitch that they were protesting the “right to work” proposal and wanted Mitch to take that off the table. Mitch did. And, the Dems, instead of returning, merely escalated their demands.

You can’t negotiate with terrorists Democrats.

johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:15 AM

You and I and others on this site know that, but I am not so sure about the Republican leadership.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 25, 2011 at 11:38 AM

For the record, the “teabag” insult was initiated by Anderson Cooper. At the time, maybe 1% of Americans were aware of this obscure sexual act.
johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Actually, it’s an obscure homosexual act.

BTW, do you know where the liberal epithet “chicken hawk” originally came from? It’s what adult homosexuals call one of their own who “gets lucky” with young boys. And, members of Anderson Coopers’ community apply that term to themselves, it is most definitely NOT used as an insult.

logis on February 25, 2011 at 11:41 AM

passing the measure early Friday morning before sleep-deprived Democrats realized what was happening.”

You snooze, you looze Lucy.

Public unions have their fingers wrapped around our necks in this country, extorting ever more, now they’ve along with their un-holy alliance with Democrats, put us in fear of economic collapse, states are forced to act in self defense.

Speakup on February 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Naww. Centipedes, on the other hand….
Sekhmet on February 25, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Centipedes? In her vag?

It’s more likely than you think.

Vyce on February 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM

OK, here’s a serious question: I couldn’t agree more that unions have abused their position. But the loss of collective bargaining rights troubles me. If they can’t bargain together (within reasonable limits – no wildcat strikes by essential personnel, etc.), how are they supposed to work with their employers to get a fair shake? Are we saying that collective bargaining rights are bad in themselves? By my understanding, in the past bargaining helped workers who really were being treated unfairly. Are those days just gone?

Rosmerta on February 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM

As I pointed out to my sister who is a teacher (back when she was still speaking with me)…

We do it in the private sector all the time. My company employs about 1400 people, across half a dozen states, with ony 4 HR folks… and we do just fine. If we don’t like the conditions, or wages, or managers… WE LEAVE. And you can figure out several of those factors from the job interview.

Only a union person would argue that it can’t work… even when I’m proof that it does. And yes, she really couldn’t believe that it actually works. When did my family members become such socialists…?

dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM

What I’m worried about is this: what happens if the unions decide to go all in? Let’s say they get violent. This could get out of control easily. What’s the solution if the astroturfed SEIU types show up with weapons?

Once the police decide who they are gonna fight with (and seeing how much crap the protestors have already gotten away with, I’m not at all sure they wouldn’t support the unionistas), then what? Walker has to call in the National Guard. But who is the supreme commander? Why, Obama, of course! Just a “stand down to not interfere in internal state affairs” or something and viola–nothing Walker can do. It then comes down to who the National Guard is proposing to follow–Obama and Walker.

It’s in revolution time then. And I wouldn’t put it past Illinois to order their national guard to “protect the rights of the oppressed labor types against the Hitler Walker” either.

I’m sorry, but if the Unions decide to go violent, and Obama is backing them–if they have the police union on their side, what is gonna stop them from winning? Aside from a civil war?

Vanceone on February 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM

What the hell did they think would happen. They didn’t have the votes. They waited 20 hrs. Where were they the past 2 weeks? On Mars?

wi farmgirl on February 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

johnboy on February 25, 2011 at 11:03 AM

For me, it also reminds me of the term “carpetbagger”, which was a derogatory term used to describe people who tried to exploit the economic situation of the South after the Civil War.

For me, that term seems to fit here also… exploiting struggling people for personal gain…

dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Democrats:

Teaching 2-year-olds how to throw tantrums!!

landlines on February 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM

I’m sorry, but if the Unions decide to go violent, and Obama is backing them–if they have the police union on their side, what is gonna stop them from winning? Aside from a civil war?

Vanceone on February 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Very interesting point. Problem is, Obama doesn’t have anything as high-minded as quelling race riots over school segregation. He would be stripping a state of the ability to defend its Republican form of Government from acts of sedition. He would be committing an impeachable offense, one that few would be able to defend.

I don’t think it will come to that. I think the unions will continue self-destruction in slow motion. I believe Obama will have words, but won’t intervene militarily.

dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I think it’s an appropriate term. It sums up what the Democrats have been reduced to and it mocks them for their insulting term that they continue to use to describe members of the Tea Party. I have no problem with conservatives continuing to call them that.

Doughboy on February 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM

I agree.

wi farmgirl on February 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Very interesting point. Problem is, Obama doesn’t have anything as high-minded as quelling race riots over school segregation. He would be stripping a state of the ability to defend its Republican form of Government from acts of sedition. He would be committing an impeachable offense, one that few would be able to defend.

I don’t think it will come to that. I think the unions will continue self-destruction in slow motion. I believe Obama will have words, but won’t intervene militarily.
dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I agree that it would be impeachable…. but with the Senate, Obama’s not going to be actually removed. And he would claim that labor isn’t performing acts of “sedition” anyway. Look at the Left: they are claiming they are “for democracy by running away.” The whole narrative is that those evil Rethuglikkkans are grinding the fascist boot on the working class, blah blah blah.

Point is, with the media going whole hog for him, it sure seems like going violent and Obama ordering the military to stand down seems like a fairly probable ploy. Certainly better than their chances of getting the Wisconsin senate Republicans to back down.

It all comes down to how important Wisconsin is. We all know that the union is vital to Democrats. Can they take this bill? No, it’s life or death for them, I’m guessing. I hope I’m wrong, but Walker has struck at the heart of funding the democrats here–they cannot let this go. And once wisconsin goes, they know full well that other states will follow–its why they have gone all in.

Why wouldn’t they go violent? The key is the police union: who would they back? Walker doesn’t have the ability to run the national guard, and if all else fails, Obama can call them up to Afghanistan to get them out of the picture, if he doesn’t want to directly order them to stay in the barracks.

If the police stay loyal, then Walker can crush the violence if need be. If they don’t…. then why wouldn’t the unions go violent? I see this “50 state protest” as their last attempt to “persuade.” If that doesn’t work, then I see incidents starting to happen. Small scale at first, but quickly escalating.

And the only way it can be stopped is for individuals and states to buck their orders. Because I am sure that Obama will try to neutralize our military if he can’t enlist them on the side of the labor unions.

I would love to be wrong, but why isn’t a union bet that violence will win not a good bet for them? Sure, it’s one thing to defend yourself, but how many people will form up to crush a union thugocracy, especially when they have the leftist states to support them?

Vanceone on February 25, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Vanceone on February 25, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Sedition -noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic . rebellious disorder.

And he would claim that labor isn’t performing acts of “sedition” anyway.

What if union members commit violence on the legislators themselves? You can try to make the argument that labor isn’t really shutting down business, but with the union anger, I’m not convinced it won’t cross the line and endanger members of the legislature. If they cross that line, all bets are off…

dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

OK, here’s a serious question: I couldn’t agree more that unions have abused their position. But the loss of collective bargaining rights troubles me. If they can’t bargain together (within reasonable limits – no wildcat strikes by essential personnel, etc.), how are they supposed to work with their employers to get a fair shake? Are we saying that collective bargaining rights are bad in themselves? By my understanding, in the past bargaining helped workers who really were being treated unfairly. Are those days just gone?

Rosmerta on February 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Okay. First things first. Collective bargaining is not a “right”. It’s a privilege granted by the government. That privilege is in the process of being revoked due to it being abused.

What do you mean “work with their employers to get a fair shake”? We have a free market in this country. To get a “fair shake” you provide the the best services to your employer that you can. You show them you are the best at what you do. In turn, you get provided job security.

If your employer doesn’t provide the benefits or pay you feel is good enough for you, then go get a job elsewhere. It’s that simple. No one is forced to keep a job.

Private unions did help create legislation that assured employee safety and “fair” wages. Since the vast majority of that legislation is now federal, then yes, we are beyond the need of unions.

The mere idea of a public sector union is ludicrous on so many fronts. The same government you look to to protect you in every possible way, is the same one you need protection from? Really? That’s insane.

Then a union is going to do everything in it’s power to get someone elected that will support them, then sit across from then a “bargain” benefits, work conditions and pay. That’s asinine. It’s a circular payoff at the expense of the taxpayer.

John Q. Public pays taxes to pay the employee who in turn pays the union, who in turn pays the legislator who in turn controls the tax rates John Q. Public is paying. Does that make sense to any rational person at all?

ButterflyDragon on February 25, 2011 at 1:09 PM

And I should have stated…

If unions cross the line, and violence occurs against members of the legislature, and if Obama intervenes… not even the Senate Dems could deflect charges.

Lots of ifs, not much chance of happening… but the key point is that even the Senate Dems are acknowledging that the mood of the country has changed, and that people are angry over politics as usual.

dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I saw that Gov. Walker decided to not go forward on the layoffs today. He’s a new governor, but he really shouldn’t threaten something unless he’s prepared to follow through.

It now would seem that he was, indeed, merely making threats.

Oh well, we can’t expect no missteps from newbies.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Let’s say they get violent. This could get out of control easily. What’s the solution if the astroturfed SEIU types show up with weapons?

Other than whack a sign at an activist journalist, I wouldn’t worry too much. The worst I’ve seen were the Townhall confrontations.

This is more regular protest stuff. I found the WI tradition of allowing them to sleep in the capitol to be very, very sweet. It says alot about that area.

In LA, you can’t walk into even a city building without major checks for weapons, etc. LOL*

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I saw that Gov. Walker decided to not go forward on the layoffs today. He’s a new governor, but he really shouldn’t threaten something unless he’s prepared to follow through.

It now would seem that he was, indeed, merely making threats.

Oh well, we can’t expect no missteps from newbies.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM

He didn’t say anyone would be laid off today. He said it could be as soon as next week. This was said on this Tuesday. It’s not next week yet.

I see you chomping at the bit, but at least get the facts right.

ButterflyDragon on February 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Sedition -noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic . rebellious disorder.

And he would claim that labor isn’t performing acts of “sedition” anyway.

What if union members commit violence on the legislators themselves? You can try to make the argument that labor isn’t really shutting down business, but with the union anger, I’m not convinced it won’t cross the line and endanger members of the legislature. If they cross that line, all bets are off…

dominigan on February 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Oh, I agree that it would be sedition. It really would. But the question becomes: Obama’s going to argue (somehow) that it isn’t, thus justifying his stand down order. At that point, people have to make choices, just like in 1860. Do you follow the president, who is the elected commander in chief, but blatantly not obeying the Constitution? Or do you go the way of Robert E Lee, etc?

Look, any union violence will be excused on the part of the MSM and Obama. How, not sure, but it will be. If they start beating legislators or killing them, it will be explained somehow. Or ignored.

But I really don’t see how we the people can stop the unions if Obama and the Democrats/left goes all out, short of being in the 1800s once again.

Vanceone on February 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM

He didn’t say anyone would be laid off today. He said it could be as soon as next week. This was said on this Tuesday. It’s not next week yet.

I see you chomping at the bit, but at least get the facts right.

ButterflyDragon on February 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM

The article I read said that he was going to officially notify today so that they could prepare for future layoffs. They have to give notification, remember.

And the article said that he refused to specify when he might make that decision.

The article is on RCP.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Did you ever notice: When you put the two words “The” and “IRS” together, they spell “THEIRS”?

February 3, 1913: 16th Amendment was ratified.

FleeGate™

but at least get the facts right.

ButterflyDragon on February 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Ann is playing the middle, like the center of the pivot. That way she can slide into any direction, kind of like Obama and any ‘good’ leftie.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2011 at 1:35 PM

So how did you view him announcing this, getting everyone’s attention on this “drop dead” date and then withdrawing it?

I simply said it was a PR mistake.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 1:41 PM

So how did you view him announcing this, getting everyone’s attention on this “drop dead” date and then withdrawing it?

I simply said it was a PR mistake.

You are mistaken or sorely misinformed.

The mistake is the belief or assumption that today was the day that layoffs or notices about layoffs would go out. There has never been an explicit date for that, beyond Walker stating that the layoff process or layoffs could begin as early as next week.

The misinformation would be if anyone is saying that Walker has changed his mind or tune. It’s simply not true.

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 1:48 PM

For Annin CA

To prepare for changes to Wisconsin’s contract renewal procedure, the New Richmond School Board issued preliminary notices of non-renewal to all of its certified teaching staff.

And the Superior School Board meets in emergency session today to consider how the district will proceed in light of the governor’s budget repair bill.

The notices are issued to teachers to inform them that the district is considering the non-renewal of his or her contract.

Currently, Wisconsin law says that preliminary notices must be served by Feb. 28 unless another date is specified in the local collective bargaining agreement. According to New Richmond’s current teacher contract, the school board has until April 15 to issue non-renewal notices.

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget repair bill might change all of that.

Walker’s bill, which would require teachers and other public employees to contribute to his or her retirement/pensions and health insurance, would also limit collective bargaining. That means teachers and districts would not be able to negotiate an alternative non-renewal date and therefore would need to notify teachers by the state’s Feb. 28 deadline.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2011 at 1:54 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20110224-233157-2558&show_article=1

Here you go.

Purely editorializing. The facts remain the same. If the bill isn’t passed by the end of the day today, the debt cannot be refinanced and layoffs will be necessary. There’s been no change to that. So where has Walker backed down from the issue of the need for layoffs if the bill isn’t passed by the end of the day today?

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

AnninCA,

You said:

The article I read said that he was going to officially notify today so that they could prepare for future layoffs. They have to give notification, remember.

And the article said that he refused to specify when he might make that decision.

The article is on RCP.

The article you linked to says none of that. Were you mistaken/confused?

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Here’s another: From Stocks.com

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker retreated from his self-imposed Friday deadline for lawmakers to OK his bill ending most collective bargaining for public workers.

Walker would not say how long he would wait for the bill to be passed, but repeated it was just and necessary to close a budget deficit of $137 million in the current fiscal year and $3.6 billion in the next two fiscal years.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

AnninCA… You’re referencing two different sites that are using the same, poor UPI article. Your assertions are still, as yet, unsubstantiated. Care to try again, or maybe a mea culpa is in order? It’s OK to have misunderstood what you were reading, or wanting to read.

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I presume the UPI article is wrong, in your estimation. I just read the news. That one popped up this morning, and I wondered why he made such a big deal out of Friday if the reality was that Friday wasn’t some kind of drop date.

I personally would agree that he was obviously exaggerating if he has until June.

And apparently more than a few reporters also were misled.

Anyway, I merely posted those to let you know I wasn’t making it up.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM

I personally would agree that he was obviously exaggerating if he has until June.

I appreciate you response, but I do disagree with your assertion that he exaggerated anything. There’s a payment due either today or tomorrow on bonds and without refinancing them there will be an additional $165 million (I can’t recall the exact amount) of deficit that will have to be reduced, and that will be done with layoffs. That’s reality, not exaggeration.

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I see where the confusion is. Thanks.

AnninCA on February 25, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Obama wins WI and Ohio by a 10 point margin. Calling it now.

Rainsford on February 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Obama wins WI and Ohio by a 10 point margin. Calling it now.

Rainsford on February 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Keep the laughs coming, Nostradumb@$$.

Steel on February 25, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Obama wins WI and Ohio by a 10 point margin. Calling it now.

Rainsford on February 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Nice … that must be why Wisconsin just elected a republican legislature and governor.

darwin on February 25, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Obama wins WI and Ohio by a 10 point margin. Calling it now.

Rainsford on February 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

We’ll be sure to remind you how wrong this prediction is come 2012.

Scrappy on February 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM

If the teachers are so professional and so skilled and so indespensible, then in a free labor market where wages and benefits are determined by supply and demand, they should do fine. If Wisconsin does not pay well enough, go to Illinois or New York or support vouchers and you can open your own private school and manage yourself.

Unions can cannot expect to forever maintain the binding arbitration system that has arbitors, that do not have to pay the taxes, bind communities to contracts they can no longer afford

KW64 on February 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM

I wold have thought that the Fleebaggers would have run to Chicago, after all rural IL. is relatively conservative.

On that thought.

Dear Illinois conservatives.
Please get a Fleebagger drunk until he passes out and send him home in a cab. He is good for the bill.

Slowburn on February 25, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Obama wins WI and Ohio by a 10 point margin. Calling it now.

Rainsford on February 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Actually, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

I’m still somewhat in shock he got elected the first time around.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 25, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Democrats are now looking to overturn the vote with a legal challenge.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/wisconsin-assembly-passes-budget-measure-democrats-consider-legal-options

jdawg on February 25, 2011 at 6:15 PM

What I’m worried about is this: what happens if the unions decide to go all in?

The unions (with or without the support of the rank and file, mostly without) have no choice. ALL IN is the only way collectivism works. The “Right To Work” concept is the very antitheses of ALL IN, and threatens collectivism at its core.
It took a Civil War to end slavery, and make no mistake collectivism in the public sector IS SLAVERY, except the slaves are running the plantation. Get prepared, this will not end well!

Pole-Cat on February 27, 2011 at 5:13 AM

And apparently more than a few reporters also were misled.

Reporters, especially AP, don’t get misled, they mislead. That’s their job.

Pole-Cat on February 27, 2011 at 5:23 AM

As for the United States and the Constitution, these unions have been taken international by the Leftist within. “Workers of The World Unite!” They don’t give a Rats ass about the United States or its Constitution. Which by the way is another good reason (if not the best reason) they have no business in the Public Sector. My money is in precious metals, namely Gold and Lead.

Pole-Cat on February 27, 2011 at 5:43 AM

My money is in precious metals, namely Gold and Lead.

Pole-Cat on February 27, 2011 at 5:43 AM

Brass, lead and blued steel here.

NaCly dog on February 28, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2