On Senate calls for Democrats to be taken into custody
Posted on March 3 at 3:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
After reading some of these posts the last couple weeks I can finally say I truly understand why some mothers eat their young! I seriously think some people need to revisit the golden rule and learn how to act in public. This is a public forum. I honestly believe that a majority of the people posting these inflamatory statements would hesitate doing so if not behind the cover of their computer screen. Some people need to grow up.
On Wis. Democratic senators still staying away
Posted on February 23 at 10:41 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Countywrker94 if you had been listening and reading the reports of the bill instead of reading conjecture and only hearing what those against the bill have to say, you might have caught that the governor, all the state senators, assembly members, and capitol employees, are subject to this bill as well and will be paying the same percentages as being requested of everyone else. So in answer to your question is he giving up his benefits .... YESSSSSSSSSSSS
On Walker says layoff notices could be sent soon
Posted on February 22 at 12:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
nugnrose - You made my point....
Under state's rights, each state has the right to grant collective bargaining rights to it's government employees,
The state has teh right to withdraw collective bargaining rights at anytime just as they had to right to grant them. That was the point I was trying to make. It was the State's right and the State's choice to recognize the union. If the State chose to no longer recognize the union, they have the right to do so.
On Walker says layoff notices could be sent soon
Posted on February 22 at 10:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of ignorance that flies around these message boards. For those of you who cannot research and investigate for yourself, or choose to read opinion pieces and far left conjecture, you might have missed that it isn't just teachers being threatened with layoff, IT IS EVERY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE.... hmmmm isn't that what you said it should be so it would be fair.... Well ya got your wish, too bad you didn't read up on that before you opened mouth and inserted typing hands. Secondly... you say "why doesn't Walker and his clan take the pay cuts too" again... READ AND RESEARCH.... the bill applies to him too!! He is not doing to others anything less than is being done to himself as well.
As for collective bargaining rights..... Go read about LBJ's Great Society. You will see that the only way governments would recognize unions is if they were exempt from having to negotiate with them. What does that mean?? It means they don't have to collective bargain, they can do it if they want to but it is not required. AAAAAAAAND they can terminate collective bargaining at ANY point they feel like doing so. It's part of the law. READ IT!
On Walker renews call for Democrats to return
Posted on February 22 at 7:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rizzo
They were bills introduced by him, that's how.
-
"Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January."
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/......
Might be nice to quote facts instead of an OPINION POST. You do realize that editorials and opinion pieces put a spin on the facts to make them science fiction right??
On Key part of Walker's budget plan faces deadline
Posted on February 21 at 3:02 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I actually posted this on another story, but thought it would be good to post here as well.
-
A point of interest from some research I was required to do for a term paper.
The problem with public unions, especially in education is the conflict of interest. We talk about our health care and that prices should be displayed so that as consumers we know what we are paying for services before we receive the bill. We cannot do that with education. We are forced into districts, good or bad, and our tax money is sent to that school district regardless of whether we send our children to public or private schools. What needs to happen is the privatization of education as a whole. Look at the parachial schools and how they are forced to educate with less funds but provide a better education. If we privatized education the union issue would not be a non-issue. The teachers could collectively bargain for their benefits like regular private unions, and not have an adverse affect on the tax-payers. Right now this whole situation gets the political spin.
I see people saying "the teachers have agreed to the cuts so why take their rights". Firstly, its not cuts being requested, it's paying for a small portion of their insurance and retirement. Secondly, if those items are able to be bargained later, won't we end up in the same mess we are in already? So they negotiate for the State to pay more of their insurance and pension and we are right back to square one. Thirdly, when LBJ established the public unions through his "Great Society", the ONLY way he got it to pass was to make States exempt from bargaining. The States are NOT required to collectively bargain, and collective bargaining is not an inalienable right. States choose whether to recognize the union and have certain guidelines they can follow if they choose to recognize the union. As part of LBJ's bill, States can be as restrictive or loose in their scope of what items to collectively bargain. This scope can be changed at any time. From LBJ's "Great Society" which put forth public unions :
"These restrictions are the legacy of constitutional sovereignty – the government remains the supreme representative of the citizenry, including those represented by a labor union."
On Walker renews call for Democrats to return
Posted on February 21 at 2:14 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
A point of interest from some research I was required to do for a term paper.
The problem with public unions, especially in education is the conflict of interest. We talk about our health care and that prices should be displayed so that as consumers we know what we are paying for services before we receive the bill. We cannot do that with education. We are forced into districts, good or bad, and our tax money is sent to that school district regardless of whether we send our children to public or private schools. What needs to happen is the privatization of education as a whole. Look at the parachial schools and how they are forced to educate with less funds but provide a better education. If we privatized education the union issue would not be a non-issue. The teachers could collectively bargain for their benefits like regular private unions, and not have an adverse affect on the tax-payers. Right now this whole situation gets the political spin.
I see people saying "the teachers have agreed to the cuts so why take their rights". Firstly, its not cuts being requested, it's paying for a small portion of their insurance and retirement. Secondly, if those items are able to be bargained later, won't we end up in the same mess we are in already? So they negotiate for the State to pay more of their insurance and pension and we are right back to square one. Thirdly, when LBJ established the public unions through his "Great Society", the ONLY way he got it to pass was to make States exempt from bargaining. The States are NOT required to collectively bargain, and collective bargaining is not an inalienable right. States choose whether to recognize the union and have certain guidelines they can follow if they choose to recognize the union. As part of LBJ's bill, States can be as restrictive or loose in their scope of what items to collectively bargain. This scope can be changed at any time. From LBJ's "Greaty Society" which put forth public unions :
"These restrictions are the legacy of constitutional sovereignty – the government remains the supreme representative of the citizenry, including those represented by a labor union."
On Key part of Walker's budget plan faces deadline
Posted on February 21 at 11:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
We are probably paying for it wislady. If they turn in expense reports for this while they are on the lam it would be considered fraud. If some union steps up to pay it, it would be considered bribery. Bet that wouldn't look so good on a record.
On Erpenbach: Dems to meet in Illinois
Posted on February 18 at 4:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Joe -
Maybe you should read previous posts. I am not low income and I am not waiting for anything to trickle down to my level. I do what I have to do for my family and I don't complain about it. But I see you completely missed the point of the post and instead of offering anything of value back you decided to trying and diminish another individual.
"typical babbling from a low income repub sitting on the wrong side of the fence and dont know it.sitting waiting for the repubs tax breakes to come down to their income level,,,just dont get it do ya,,,,,,,,just sayin :)"
Actually NO.... Master's Degree with good job at one of the State's top companies. Just sayin!
Page 1 of 2 | Next
On Walker has no immediate plans to grant pardons
Posted on November 28 at 9:21 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Analertcitizen,
You hit one scenario on the head in why pardons need to take place, but the article also mentions unintended consequences.... I know someone who fits this bill. The laws have been twisted and manipulated over the years, and some times for good reason, but when this happens there are always people that get screwed over. My husband, when he was 18, got into a fight with his brother at home, it was ruled a disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, but since it took place at home, they consider it a domestic, and now my husband is not allowed to own a gun (shotgun, pistol, etc.), because he has a domestic dispute on his record. This was 23 YEARS ago.
My husband was not aware there had been a law change that used to cover only those with felonies, but now covers misdemeanors as well. He was able to purchase several shot guns for hunting, and never drew a flag during the purchases. Now he goes to buy a hand gun for when he goes hunting up north, so he can protect my kids if they run into a bear or pack of wolves while bow hunting, and he is declined. And do you know that because the government let him buy those shot guns when they weren't supposed to, that if he has them on the premises he could get a felony and serve time in prison, and that because of all of this crap that happened before I ever met him, that I cannot own a gun because he might have access to it.
I really don't think my husband was who they were intending to restrict when they made their sweeping law changes, and now they aren't intending to rectify any injustices. But I can tell you one thing from this pardon process that my husband has been going through, they were still working on pardons that had been filed in 2008, so this isn't just Walker, Doyle wasn't speedy either.