Monday, February 21, 2011
David Brooks will not mention taxes:Instead, offers this solution: (emp add) Getting state and federal budgets under control will take decades. It will require varied, multipronged approaches, supported by broad and shifting coalitions. It’s really important that we establish an unwritten austerity constitution: a set of practices that will help us cut effectively now and in the future.
The foundation of this unwritten constitution has to be this principle: make everybody hurt. The cuts have to be spread more or less equitably among as many groups as possible. There will never be public acceptance if large sectors of society are excluded. Brooks is really slipping. In the past he'd suggest some sort of bipartisan/commission kind of approach that would have some taxes (likely sales) or increased fees, along with cuts. But he, along with other formerly moderate-sounding conservative pundits are not being as coy anymore. It's almost as if they don't feel the need to hide their true feelings now that Republicans are in the driver's seat in so many states.
posted by Quiddity at 2/21/2011 11:46:00 PM
7 comments
> Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, demanded cuts only from people in the other party
Nonsense. All Republican school teachers in the school system will have to take the same cuts as the Democratic school teachers.
Oh wait, there aren't any? Well well well. I guess there's some downside to successfully eliminating virtually all Republicans from the teachers union!
Same downside here: Labor unions like AFSCME donated 96%-100% of all their donations (depending on who you believe) to Democrats, and now that the Republicans have taken over, shockingly the knives come out and boy do they gleam.
Didn't anyone ever tell the Democrats that a good politician stays bought? True true. However, they don't stay bought if you never buy them in the first place!
Lots of deliciously painful political lessons here.
Nonsense. All Republican school teachers in the school system will have to take the same cuts as the Democratic school teachers.
Nonsense, it's not about cuts, it's about losing the ability to collectively bargin as a union.
Nonsense. It's about forcing people to be in a union to keep their jobs.
The unions would be perfectly happy to negotiate the percentages. The real issues here are:
1) Whether or not union membership is mandatory.
2) Whether union dues can be deducted from paychecks (where they are not noticed), or whether union members are forced to mail a check to the union each month
3) the mandatory annual union decertification election, sort of the anti-card check.
Nothing in this legislation prevents public workers from collectiving bargaining their base wages as a union. They just can't force people to collectively bargain if they don't want to, and they can't bargain on anything else than base salary.
This is absolutely proper. Base wages are the proper subject of negotiation. Benefits are provided by the state at the discretion of the legislature. Unions have no business negotiating future benefits that neither they nor the current legislators will live to see pay.
The unions brought this on themselves when they fought for card check. They thought they were riding an eliminationist wave that would sweep all conservatives out of power forever, but they were actually putting the entire union social contract on the table just as Democrats were being thrown out the door. And not donating a single penny to Republicans just added moral clarity to the situation. Democrats have no right to manipulate the state government into cutting a check directly to their political labor arm, and Republicans have a right to hold and work a state job without being forced to pay monthly tribute to the Democratic owned unions.
1) Whether or not union membership is mandatory.
2) Whether union dues can be deducted from paychecks (where they are not noticed), or whether union members are forced to mail a check to the union each month
3) the mandatory annual union decertification election, sort of the anti-card check.
Nothing in this legislation prevents public workers from collectiving bargaining their base wages as a union. They just can't force people to collectively bargain if they don't want to, and they can't bargain on anything else than base salary.
The plan calls for all collective bargaining rights to be removed for state employees effective July 1, except with regard to wages. But any salary increase could not be higher than the consumer price index unless voters approve otherwise, the Huffington Post reports.
All contracts would be limited to one year, with no raises between contracts. Public employees would not be allowed to collect union dues, the Huffington Post reported.
Police and firefighter unions would be exempt.
Walker is trying to close a $3.5 billion budget hole. He tells WTMJ radio in Milwaukee that his proposal would help save money, partly by making government workers pay bigger shares of their pensions and health care costs.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/wisconsin-teachers-angry-over-bill-curbing-unions/
Why not apply these restrictions to police and firemen?
They certainly have higher salaries and pensions than their fellow public employees in the teaching profession, wouldn't that make sense, if the emphasis was on saving money?
This is your brain on Fox News.
Any questions?
Gosh, I'm old enough to remember that Bush inherited a fucking budget surplus!!!! How about we just replicate what got us that surplus? Huh?! There's your solution to this (ginned up) deficit "crisis" Mr. Brooks.
Why not apply these restrictions to police and firemen?
Probably because of a widespread public perception, with which I agree, that police and firemen actually earn exceptional benefits by virtue of the exceptionally dangerous work they do on a daily basis.
Or you could just say that it's smart politics. I remember when Democrats were politically smart. It seems like ages since those days.
Gosh, I'm old enough to remember that Bush inherited a fucking budget surplus!!!! How about we just replicate what got us that surplus?
Sorry, we already dumped the Social Security trust fund receipts into the general fund once. I don't think you can do that every year and get the same effect, especially since the surplus is now a deficit and the "lock box" is now full of socks and rocks.
|
