by Gary Farber
Don't believe how it works? Then listen for yourself.
Let's go with Adam Weinstein's take:
Is that really Scott Walker? [Update: Yep.] A New York-based alt-news editor says he got through to the embattled Wisconsin governor on the phone Tuesday by posing as right-wing financier David Koch…then had a far-ranging 20-minute conversation about the collective bargaining protests. According to the audio, Walker told him:
- That statehouse GOPers were plotting to hold Democratic senators' pay until they returned to vote on the controversial union-busting bill.
- That Walker was looking to nail Dems on ethics violations if they took meals or lodging from union supporters.
- That he'd take "Koch" up on this offer: "[O]nce you crush these bastards I'll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time."
More?
According to his Wikipedia entry, Ian Murphy is a gonzo journalist and editor of the Buffalo Beast, an online mag that was founded in 2002 as an alternative biweekly by gonzo Matt Taibbi and a band of colleagues. Murphy's probably best-known for a tough read about America's war dead called "F*ck the Troops." But if his latest Beast post, "Koch Whore," is to be believed, it's likely to be read a lot more widely.
When Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tim Carpenter complained that Walker wouldn't return any of the Dems' calls, Murphy says he wondered: "Who could get through to Gov. Walker? Well, what do we know about Walker and his proposed union-busting, no-bid budget? The obvious candidate was "David Koch." Koch, of course, is one of the right-wing brothers behind Americans for Prosperity and a host of other GOP-friendly causes; MoJo's own Andy Kroll broke the news last week on the Koch brothers' past support for Walker and his agenda.
So, Murphy says, he managed to have a phone audience with the governor by posing as Koch. And he taped the whole thing, copied on the videos below. What Walker says on the tape is pretty convincing…and sweeping. There'll be no negotiations with the unions or their legislative supporters, he says; after all, he doesn't need them:
I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders—talk, not negotiate and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn—but I'll only do it if all 14 of them will come back and sit down in the state assembly…legally, we believe, once they've gone into session, they don't physically have to be there.
At one point in the tape, Walker dismisses the left-leaning MSNBC. "Who watches that? I went on Morning Joe this morning. I like it because I just like being combative with those guys, but, uh. You know they're off the deep end."
UPDATE, 11:41 a.m.: A few items of note from the call:
* Walker doesn't bat an eye when Koch describes the opposition as "Democrat bastards."
* Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an "ethics code violation if not an outright felony" if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.
* Walker says he's sending out notices next week to some five or six thousand state workers letting them know that they are "at risk" of layoffs.
"Beautiful, beautiful," the Koch impersonator replies. "You gotta crush that union."
More soon…
UPDATE, 11:54 a.m.: In a key detail, Walker reveals that he is, in effect, laying a trap for Wisconsin Dems. He says he is mulling inviting the Senate and Assembly Dem and GOP leaders to sit down and talk, but only if all the missing Senate Dems return to work.
Then, tellingly, he reveals that the real game plan here is that if they do return, Republicans might be able to use a procedural move to move forward with their proposal.
"If they're actually in session for that day and they take a recess, this 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they'd have a quorum because they started out that way," he says. "If you heard that I was going to talk to them that would be the only reason why."
Then the fake Koch says this: "Bring a baseball bat. That's what I'd do."
Walker doesn't bat an eye, and responds: "I have one in my office, you'd be happy with that. I've got a slugger with my name on it."
12:09 p.m.: Another key exchange:
FAKE KOCH: What we were thinking about the crowds was, planting some troublemakers.
WALKER: We thought about that. My only gut reaction to that would be, right now, the lawmakers I talk to have just completely had it with them. The public is not really fond of this.The teachers union did some polling and focus groups…
It's unclear what Walker means when he says he "thought" about planting some troublemakers, but it seems fair to ask him for clarification.
UPDATE, 12:27 p.m.: One last fun tidbit: Walker appears to agree when "Koch" calls David Axelrod a "son of a bitch." Walker tells an anecdote in which he was having dinner with Jim Sensebrenner, and at a nearby table he saw Mika Brzezinski and Greta Van Susteren having dinner with David Axelrod. Then this exchange occured:
WALKER: I introduced myself.
FAKE KOCH: That son of a bitch.
WALKER: Yeah, no kidding, right?
UPDATE, 12:41 p.m.: Another great exchange:
FAKE KOCH: Well, I'll tell ya what, Scott. Once you crush these bastards, I'll fly ya out to Cali and really show you a good time.
WALKER: Alright. That would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support and helping us move the cause forward.
Reminder of how Jane Mayer develved into the Brothers Koch.
Now tell me again what a noble cause breaking unions is.
[Reminder: if the videos don't work for you, try reloading your browser, or try clicking to see them on YouTube; if you have trouble commenting at any time, try reloading your browser, try signing in via another method, try closing and re-opening your browser, if you cut and paste, add an original character, then delete it, what method you use to sign in causes different problems, your comment can time out without warning, anything is possible, it isn't us, we don't write Typepad or control your computer.]
UPDATE, 6:43 p.m.: Sam Stein reports: Gov. Walker Informed That Bill Targeting Unions May Cost State $46 Million In Federal Funds.
[…] Wisconsin received $74 million in federal transit funds this fiscal year. Of that, $46.6 million would be put at risk should the collective-bargaining bill come to pass — in the process creating an even more difficult fiscal situation than the one that, ostensibly, compelled Walker to push the legislation in the first place. The governor is certainly aware of this. While the potential loss of funds may have escaped the attention of many observers, sources familiar with the state's transportation policy tell The Huffington Post that Walker's office has been informed of the relevant legal language.
[…] Faced with the prospects of forfeiting $46.6 million in federal transit funds, Democrats in the Wisconsin House of Representatives have crafted an amendment to Gov. Scott Walker's anti-public union bill that would protect collective bargaining rights strictly for transit workers.
The amendment, authored by Reps. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) and Penny Bernard Schaber (D-Appleton), would add transit employees to the list of "public safety employees" that are exempted from some of the harsher measures under Walker's bill.
While protecting the rights of only a small sliver of the union members — Grigsby's office said she "would much rather maintain employee rights for all" — the amendment could, nevertheless, be worth tens of millions of dollars for the state.
The full analysis document from the non-partisan Wisconsin State Fiscal Bureau, is included at the link.
Meanwhile: Koch brothers quietly open lobbying office in downtown Madison.
It's good to have $43 billion lying around. You can do all sorts of things with that kind of spare change.
Just for added fun, a crazy communist at Forbes.com writes: Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions.
This includes:
[…]
The Americans for Prosperity group, a Tea Party group that is a Koch Brothers front, has put up a website and petition called www.standwithwalker.com. The website attacks all collective bargaining – not just for public employees’ unions. Americans for Prosperity is also organizing a rally tomorrow in Wisconsin to support Gov. Walker.
Why are the Koch Brothers so interested in Wisconsin? They are a major business player in the state.
This from Think Progress:
Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state; and a large network of pipelines in Wisconsin. While Koch controls much of the infrastructure in the state, they have laid off workers to boost profits. At a time when Koch Industries owners David and Charles Koch awarded themselves an extra $11 billion of income from the company, Koch slashed jobs at their Green Bay plant:
Officials at Georgia-Pacific said the company is laying off 158 workers at its Day Street plant because out-of-date equipment at the facility is being replaced with newer, more-efficient equipment. The company said much of the new, papermaking equipment will be automated. […] Malach tells FOX 11 that the layoffs are not because of a drop in demand. In fact, Malach said demand is high for the bath tissue and napkins manufactured at the plant.
You really have to wonder how long it will take for Tea Party devotees to realize just how badly they are being used.
Radical leftist Steve Forbes publishes this. At the WaPo, business columnist Steven Pearlstein writes:
[…]
a thought experiment that asks readers to consider the mirror image of what is going on. In this case, you'd be asked what the reaction would be from Republicans and business interests if a newly elected Democratic governor and legislature proposed to deal with a budget deficit by first raising unemployment benefits and then pushing through a big corporate tax increase for all but the Democratic-leaning tech sector. For good measure, the package would also contain a ban on corporations making political donations without getting the permission of each shareholder, lest they use their power to repeal the tax increase and push the budget out of balance.
This is analogous, of course, to what Gov. Scott Walker has proposed for dealing with Wisconsin's budget gap: the tax breaks for businesses, the benefit cuts for all state employees except Republican-leaning police and firefighters, the automatic decertification of all public-sector unions and the stripping of their right to bargain anything but wages. Looking at Walker's reflection in the political fun-house mirror makes it abundantly clear that the governor has a more ambitious agenda than merely closing a modest budget gap.
Gee, ya think?
That $43 billion can fund Americans for Prosperity.
Beautiful, beautiful.
Beautiful, beautiful.
This link claims that the Koch Brothers are already advertising for a manager of the power plant Wisconsin will be giving him. However, it doesn’t really verify that it is the Kochs who are advertising for a Wisconsin power plant manager: http://current.com/news/93018923_koch-bros-are-so-sure-theyll-own-wi-power-plants-that-theyre-already-hiring.htm
Here is the URL of the ad itself: http://www.thinkenergygroup.com/think.nsf/J/84239?Opendocument
I have no idea how many coal-fueled power plants there are in Wisconsin.
This link claims that the Koch Brothers are already advertising for a manager of the power plant Wisconsin will be giving him. However, it doesn’t really verify that it is the Kochs who are advertising for a Wisconsin power plant manager: http://current.com/news/93018923_koch-bros-are-so-sure-theyll-own-wi-power-plants-that-theyre-already-hiring.htm
Here is the URL of the ad itself: http://www.thinkenergygroup.com/think.nsf/J/84239?Opendocument
I have no idea how many coal-fueled power plants there are in Wisconsin.
Gary,
Have you seen the story about how Walker’s prior union-busting effort involved firing a bunch of unionized Milwaukee security guards and replacing them with [drumroll, please…]
Wackenhut?
This guy is such a principled defender of freedom, I tells ya!
Gary,
Have you seen the story about how Walker’s prior union-busting effort involved firing a bunch of unionized Milwaukee security guards and replacing them with [drumroll, please…]
Wackenhut?
This guy is such a principled defender of freedom, I tells ya!
Wonder what Walker will have to say about this? Murphy will probably get into trouble for impersonating a Koch (pronounced “cock”), but my hunch is he’ll find plenty of people willing to stand with him. Nice work, Gary.
Wonder what Walker will have to say about this? Murphy will probably get into trouble for impersonating a Koch (pronounced “cock”), but my hunch is he’ll find plenty of people willing to stand with him. Nice work, Gary.
What a maroon.
What a maroon.
There are 70 coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin.
Link
There are 70 coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin.
Link
Pronounced “Coke”, actually.
Pronounced “Coke”, actually.
You say coke, I say cock…meh. They both screw people.
You say coke, I say cock…meh. They both screw people.
Walker:Thanks for all the support and helping us move the cause forward.
This shows that lower minions are true believers. not really in bad faith, but just a lack of empathy and econ101 understanding makes them easily played with.
The fact that they can win elections shows the same about US level of education and myth believers, cult personality followers.
Walker:Thanks for all the support and helping us move the cause forward.
This shows that lower minions are true believers. not really in bad faith, but just a lack of empathy and econ101 understanding makes them easily played with.
The fact that they can win elections shows the same about US level of education and myth believers, cult personality followers.
If Obama was to order to drop a bomb on al-Gaddafy, i believe the US would recover some of the moral standing in the world. Maybe even signal some things to kings of Saudi Arabia and prevent blockage of oil from there, $200 oil price, and following US economic crash.
Sorry to get off topic, just sharing some ideas.
If Obama was to order to drop a bomb on al-Gaddafy, i believe the US would recover some of the moral standing in the world. Maybe even signal some things to kings of Saudi Arabia and prevent blockage of oil from there, $200 oil price, and following US economic crash.
Sorry to get off topic, just sharing some ideas.
Sure. Taking out despotic heads of state is almost always a good idea, and will lead to almost certain applause from the rest of the world.
Sure. Taking out despotic heads of state is almost always a good idea, and will lead to almost certain applause from the rest of the world.
What we really ought to be planning for, though, is a zombie apocalypse. Which, note to self: stock up on .30-06 cartridges.
Anyone want to hear more of my unfiltered and completely unconsidered internal conversations? Could be a hoot.
What we really ought to be planning for, though, is a zombie apocalypse. Which, note to self: stock up on .30-06 cartridges.
Anyone want to hear more of my unfiltered and completely unconsidered internal conversations? Could be a hoot.
Assassinating a head of state is (1) illegal and (2) likely to be construed as an act of war. Do we really want to have a third ongoing war with a Muslim-majority nation? All this ignores the fact that during the last Gulf War, the US military was really really bad at “targeted leadership strikes”. I believe that were about 70 such strikes directed against Hussein just before the war and they were all total failures. Many of them killed random innocent people.
I don’t know why it is so hard for Americans to accept that there are problems in the world we simply cannot solve, especially with our military.
Assassinating a head of state is (1) illegal and (2) likely to be construed as an act of war. Do we really want to have a third ongoing war with a Muslim-majority nation? All this ignores the fact that during the last Gulf War, the US military was really really bad at “targeted leadership strikes”. I believe that were about 70 such strikes directed against Hussein just before the war and they were all total failures. Many of them killed random innocent people.
I don’t know why it is so hard for Americans to accept that there are problems in the world we simply cannot solve, especially with our military.
Slarti
I you could read zerohedge.com and March 20 start of revolt in Saudi Arabia and implications it could have on delivery of oil.
Laugh at me after that
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/if-mountain-will-not-come-muhammad-revolution-will-come-saudi-arabia-march-20
Slarti
I you could read zerohedge.com and March 20 start of revolt in Saudi Arabia and implications it could have on delivery of oil.
Laugh at me after that
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/if-mountain-will-not-come-muhammad-revolution-will-come-saudi-arabia-march-20
Do we really want to have a third ongoing war with a Muslim-majority nation?
Wait, only 3? You’re making Pakistan and Yemen feel left out.
I don’t know why it is so hard for Americans to accept that there are problems in the world we simply cannot solve, especially with our military.
Because we don’t all hate the troops like you Turb. They’re Gods among (formerly straight only) Men.
Do we really want to have a third ongoing war with a Muslim-majority nation?
Wait, only 3? You’re making Pakistan and Yemen feel left out.
I don’t know why it is so hard for Americans to accept that there are problems in the world we simply cannot solve, especially with our military.
Because we don’t all hate the troops like you Turb. They’re Gods among (formerly straight only) Men.
Damn, I totally forgot about Yemen and Pakistan. Thanks for the reminder Ugh.
Damn, I totally forgot about Yemen and Pakistan. Thanks for the reminder Ugh.
CT, not a good idea. Not at all. We tried that once. We missed. He’s not a very big target.
CT, not a good idea. Not at all. We tried that once. We missed. He’s not a very big target.
What, you’re going to believe some pseudonym at zerohedge over me?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
But you’ve convinced me. Absolutely, the way to have a March 20 revolution in Saudi Arabia is to launch a Facebook page to that effect, and then have maybe 4000 people like it. It’s an idea whose time has come!
What, you’re going to believe some pseudonym at zerohedge over me?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
But you’ve convinced me. Absolutely, the way to have a March 20 revolution in Saudi Arabia is to launch a Facebook page to that effect, and then have maybe 4000 people like it. It’s an idea whose time has come!
There’s one thing I don’t understand about this notion that Koch is planning on buying up WI’s coal fired power plants. Does the state government actually own any power plants? As far as I know, they don’t, but I could be wrong.
There’s one thing I don’t understand about this notion that Koch is planning on buying up WI’s coal fired power plants. Does the state government actually own any power plants? As far as I know, they don’t, but I could be wrong.
It is different to find a leader when the whole country is available to hide in, Gaddafi is limited to movement in half of Tripoly only, and if the order includes only one attempt to hit, it will not incite a negative reaction.
It is different to find a leader when the whole country is available to hide in, Gaddafi is limited to movement in half of Tripoly only, and if the order includes only one attempt to hit, it will not incite a negative reaction.
Should I be interested in CT’s newsletter, do you think?
Should I be interested in CT’s newsletter, do you think?
Crithichal thinkherer: There are open threads here from time to time, if you’d like to bring up totally unrelated topics without looking like you’re trying to derail an existing discussion.
Crithichal thinkherer: There are open threads here from time to time, if you’d like to bring up totally unrelated topics without looking like you’re trying to derail an existing discussion.
It is different to find a leader when the whole country is available to hide in, Gaddafi is limited to movement in half of Tripoly only
When you’re hunting for one single man, there ain’t much difference between the whole country and just one city: they’re both impossible. Note that during the last Gulf War, all of the “targeted leadership strikes” were in and around Baghdad. They all failed.
and if the order includes only one attempt to hit, it will not incite a negative reaction.
I don’t know how to explain this to you, but…people don’t like getting bombed by bombers from a foreign country. Even if it is just once. It makes them really really mad. They take it personally. They generally don’t believe that the bombers are trying to “help” them…instead, they tend to assume that the bombers are trying to kill them and/or take advantage of momentary failures in their national institutions.
There are many people in the US who think that the US defense budget is way too big. But none of those people were happy on 9/11.
It is different to find a leader when the whole country is available to hide in, Gaddafi is limited to movement in half of Tripoly only
When you’re hunting for one single man, there ain’t much difference between the whole country and just one city: they’re both impossible. Note that during the last Gulf War, all of the “targeted leadership strikes” were in and around Baghdad. They all failed.
and if the order includes only one attempt to hit, it will not incite a negative reaction.
I don’t know how to explain this to you, but…people don’t like getting bombed by bombers from a foreign country. Even if it is just once. It makes them really really mad. They take it personally. They generally don’t believe that the bombers are trying to “help” them…instead, they tend to assume that the bombers are trying to kill them and/or take advantage of momentary failures in their national institutions.
There are many people in the US who think that the US defense budget is way too big. But none of those people were happy on 9/11.
All this ignores the fact that during the last Gulf War, the US military was really really bad at “targeted leadership strikes”.
C’mon, we got at least a half dozen AQ Number 3’s.
All this ignores the fact that during the last Gulf War, the US military was really really bad at “targeted leadership strikes”.
C’mon, we got at least a half dozen AQ Number 3’s.
Does the state government actually own any power plants?
These guys are publicly owned non-profit utilities, however it’s not clear they’re owned or managed by the state itself.
Everyone else I could turn up is private, i.e., investor owned.
Does the state government actually own any power plants?
These guys are publicly owned non-profit utilities, however it’s not clear they’re owned or managed by the state itself.
Everyone else I could turn up is private, i.e., investor owned.
Getting back to the original post…
The funny thing about this sort of information IMO is that we already basically knew this. We knew that the guv was out to break the unions (as opposed to having strong feelings about the state deficit), that he dislikes liberals, etc.
So we get direct confirmation. And the result is:
1)The people who already knew this yell “huzzah” and wait for it to sink in with the general population
2)The general population either doesn’t hear it or doesn’t care, continuing to work off of their preconceptions and the bland, substandard info from the MSM.
Not that I don’t appreciate the effort this guy went through to get it, but it’s not a game-changer. I wish I knew what a gamer-changer would be, something that would get the AP writers to say “Can we keep a straight face saying that this is about the budget? Nope? Ok, let’s go with the real story then: Wisconsin gov wants to break public unions at any cost despite popular support for them”.
Getting back to the original post…
The funny thing about this sort of information IMO is that we already basically knew this. We knew that the guv was out to break the unions (as opposed to having strong feelings about the state deficit), that he dislikes liberals, etc.
So we get direct confirmation. And the result is:
1)The people who already knew this yell “huzzah” and wait for it to sink in with the general population
2)The general population either doesn’t hear it or doesn’t care, continuing to work off of their preconceptions and the bland, substandard info from the MSM.
Not that I don’t appreciate the effort this guy went through to get it, but it’s not a game-changer. I wish I knew what a gamer-changer would be, something that would get the AP writers to say “Can we keep a straight face saying that this is about the budget? Nope? Ok, let’s go with the real story then: Wisconsin gov wants to break public unions at any cost despite popular support for them”.
Madison Wisconsin: Not Gov. Scott Walker’s first attempt at union-busting:
About that Afghanistan Wackenhut drunken hazing?
Some guy I know wrote about it: Wednesday, September 02, 2009
CONTRACTING FOR LORD OF THE FLIES
Madison Wisconsin: Not Gov. Scott Walker’s first attempt at union-busting:
About that Afghanistan Wackenhut drunken hazing?
Some guy I know wrote about it: Wednesday, September 02, 2009
CONTRACTING FOR LORD OF THE FLIES
That Amygdala post by some guy was fairly substantive and detailed. Funny, that.
About that oil crisis? Relax, Libya oil crisis is no big deal – watchdog. There are a ton of similar articles. Yes, there’s a momentary spike. Yes, it could get worse. Yes, there’s peak oil. Yes, to some degree they want to prevent a positive feedback of panic, and some is bs.
But, still.
Meanwhile, bombing Libya would be completely insane.
A no-fly zone, yes. But that may already be moot, with senior membes of the Air Force defecting to Malta with THEIR PLANES. 🙂
But seriously, a no fly zone is also a no-brainer. Especially given the choppers Kaddafy has, and by the way, the reports that they are Apaches is bs; they’re old Soviet Hinds, and otherwise quite old, and not American. You’d think people could figure that out, but noooooo. 🙂
But if people want to discuss that, the Libya comment thread is lonely and forlorn.
That Amygdala post by some guy was fairly substantive and detailed. Funny, that.
About that oil crisis? Relax, Libya oil crisis is no big deal – watchdog. There are a ton of similar articles. Yes, there’s a momentary spike. Yes, it could get worse. Yes, there’s peak oil. Yes, to some degree they want to prevent a positive feedback of panic, and some is bs.
But, still.
Meanwhile, bombing Libya would be completely insane.
A no-fly zone, yes. But that may already be moot, with senior membes of the Air Force defecting to Malta with THEIR PLANES. 🙂
But seriously, a no fly zone is also a no-brainer. Especially given the choppers Kaddafy has, and by the way, the reports that they are Apaches is bs; they’re old Soviet Hinds, and otherwise quite old, and not American. You’d think people could figure that out, but noooooo. 🙂
But if people want to discuss that, the Libya comment thread is lonely and forlorn.
Governor Walker snorts Koch.
Governor Walker snorts Koch.
Gary
I am sorry to get off topic, but you really covered all angles in the post and audio says it all. Nobody dares to debate about it cause of the quality and depth of the revelations you presented. Especially since in previous treads, bloggers that were warning about whats behind closed doors were called paranoid.
Gary
I am sorry to get off topic, but you really covered all angles in the post and audio says it all. Nobody dares to debate about it cause of the quality and depth of the revelations you presented. Especially since in previous treads, bloggers that were warning about whats behind closed doors were called paranoid.
“Not that I don’t appreciate the effort this guy went through to get it, but it’s not a game-changer. I wish I knew what a gamer-changer would be,”
Probably something that wasn’t this:
or if you quit making the leap that the previous quote somehow implies this:
an I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe he would deny disliking liberals.
I have no illusions that the politician in question is any more idealistically pure than, well, any other politician. I don’t believe his political opponents are either. They have their contributors who they would have similar conversations with. They just wouldn’t be talking bad about people you like.
None of this means he doesn’t care about the budget, or want to be a good governor, or care about the people of Wisconsin. It means he is a politician.
“Not that I don’t appreciate the effort this guy went through to get it, but it’s not a game-changer. I wish I knew what a gamer-changer would be,”
Probably something that wasn’t this:
or if you quit making the leap that the previous quote somehow implies this:
an I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe he would deny disliking liberals.
I have no illusions that the politician in question is any more idealistically pure than, well, any other politician. I don’t believe his political opponents are either. They have their contributors who they would have similar conversations with. They just wouldn’t be talking bad about people you like.
None of this means he doesn’t care about the budget, or want to be a good governor, or care about the people of Wisconsin. It means he is a politician.
“Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an “ethics code violation if not an outright felony” if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.”
Well, wouldn’t it be? I mean, seriously, set aside the fact that they’re your guys, wouldn’t you think it a serious ethics violation, possibly a felony, if anybody you didn’t like paid legislators to stay away from work?
“So we get direct confirmation. And the result is:
1)The people who already knew this yell “huzzah” and wait for it to sink in with the general population
2)The general population either doesn’t hear it or doesn’t care, continuing to work off of their preconceptions and the bland, substandard info from the MSM.”
Or possibly the general population does hear it, and likes it.
“Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an “ethics code violation if not an outright felony” if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.”
Well, wouldn’t it be? I mean, seriously, set aside the fact that they’re your guys, wouldn’t you think it a serious ethics violation, possibly a felony, if anybody you didn’t like paid legislators to stay away from work?
“So we get direct confirmation. And the result is:
1)The people who already knew this yell “huzzah” and wait for it to sink in with the general population
2)The general population either doesn’t hear it or doesn’t care, continuing to work off of their preconceptions and the bland, substandard info from the MSM.”
Or possibly the general population does hear it, and likes it.
As an aside, I think it is interesting to note that he doesn’t know David Koch. At least not well enough to recognize his voice on the phone.
As an aside, I think it is interesting to note that he doesn’t know David Koch. At least not well enough to recognize his voice on the phone.
Or possibly the general population does hear it, and likes it.
Nice try. FOX tried that one too.
Good to know that if you ever need a good hearty “both sides do it!” you can count on Marty.
Or possibly the general population does hear it, and likes it.
Nice try. FOX tried that one too.
Good to know that if you ever need a good hearty “both sides do it!” you can count on Marty.
“Good to know that if you ever need a good hearty “both sides do it!” you can count on Marty.”
Yes. On a recent thread he bemoaned the fact that ‘the other guys do it too’ used to ‘not be good form’ at Obsidian Wings.
He really cracks me up.
“Good to know that if you ever need a good hearty “both sides do it!” you can count on Marty.”
Yes. On a recent thread he bemoaned the fact that ‘the other guys do it too’ used to ‘not be good form’ at Obsidian Wings.
He really cracks me up.
“Good to know that if you ever need a good hearty “both sides do it!” you can count on Marty”
Occasionally pointing out that someone is complaining that the “other” guys are doing something that is really common for everyone to do seems necessary.
If for no other reason than to point out how silly it is to get all worked up because, say, a politician had a conversation with a contributor.
This isn’t even “Some of you guys are bad too”, this is “Everyone who holds an office would have this conversation with somebody”.
“Good to know that if you ever need a good hearty “both sides do it!” you can count on Marty”
Occasionally pointing out that someone is complaining that the “other” guys are doing something that is really common for everyone to do seems necessary.
If for no other reason than to point out how silly it is to get all worked up because, say, a politician had a conversation with a contributor.
This isn’t even “Some of you guys are bad too”, this is “Everyone who holds an office would have this conversation with somebody”.
Marty, given the number of people a politician running for office meets and talks too, I think it is highly unlikely he’s going to know Koch’s voice, especially attenuated over a phone line. I have a really really good memory for a lot of things (for the most part, not very useful), but I have huge problems over the phone because the bass and the treble are cut off to reduce the amount of information that is transmitted (also, though I have really good ears, when I deal with japanese people, I rely a lot on body language, facial expressions etc to get meaning)
in fact, one of the main areas of research by telephone companies was to determine how little signal was necessary for the listener to comprehend the message. This is why the voice frequency band of your telephone is 300 to 3400 Hz, even though the fundamental frequency of the human voice is around 100 hz for men and 175 for women. This is because the overtones can give the impression of the fundamental frequency, but, like the difference between listening to a recording and listening to something live, you lose something. So it is not unsurprising that Walker got punked in this way.
Brett, as his fashion, reveals his single minded focus on what the other guys are doing when he shows how concerned he is for the unsubstantiated possibility of the unions supporting the Dems in their flight from Egypt, while ignoring the fact that Walker appears to accept Koch’s offer of hospitality. Of course, now called on it, if pattern holds, Brett will say that he thinks anyone who would even consider taking on public office is a sociopath, so he can run away from the fact that Walker shows a willingness to commit the same thing that Brett has such a problem with when it is an unsubstantiated accusation against the Dems. I know Brett doesn’t live in Wisconsin, but I would think that even from where he is, he would want the governor to resolve the fricking stand off so things could go forward rather than spending his time trying to catch out the Dems with investigating whether they are getting their happy meals paid for by the constiuency they are defending. But clearly, the only one’s who can support the Dems financially are people who have absolutely no stake in the decision. That is the only way for true neutrality to be observed.
Marty, given the number of people a politician running for office meets and talks too, I think it is highly unlikely he’s going to know Koch’s voice, especially attenuated over a phone line. I have a really really good memory for a lot of things (for the most part, not very useful), but I have huge problems over the phone because the bass and the treble are cut off to reduce the amount of information that is transmitted (also, though I have really good ears, when I deal with japanese people, I rely a lot on body language, facial expressions etc to get meaning)
in fact, one of the main areas of research by telephone companies was to determine how little signal was necessary for the listener to comprehend the message. This is why the voice frequency band of your telephone is 300 to 3400 Hz, even though the fundamental frequency of the human voice is around 100 hz for men and 175 for women. This is because the overtones can give the impression of the fundamental frequency, but, like the difference between listening to a recording and listening to something live, you lose something. So it is not unsurprising that Walker got punked in this way.
Brett, as his fashion, reveals his single minded focus on what the other guys are doing when he shows how concerned he is for the unsubstantiated possibility of the unions supporting the Dems in their flight from Egypt, while ignoring the fact that Walker appears to accept Koch’s offer of hospitality. Of course, now called on it, if pattern holds, Brett will say that he thinks anyone who would even consider taking on public office is a sociopath, so he can run away from the fact that Walker shows a willingness to commit the same thing that Brett has such a problem with when it is an unsubstantiated accusation against the Dems. I know Brett doesn’t live in Wisconsin, but I would think that even from where he is, he would want the governor to resolve the fricking stand off so things could go forward rather than spending his time trying to catch out the Dems with investigating whether they are getting their happy meals paid for by the constiuency they are defending. But clearly, the only one’s who can support the Dems financially are people who have absolutely no stake in the decision. That is the only way for true neutrality to be observed.
Marty
Yes, it also shows that he never spoke with him before, and that there is no master plan to take over america, no conspiracy. And nobody was talking that there is.
The thing is that most of the liberals can not grasp what is behind such destructive policies that republicans are advocating.
Can you agree that liberals think that the policies republicans are pushing for are destructive?
I am not asking you if those policies are destructive.
I am asking you if you agree that liberals think that?
Marty
Yes, it also shows that he never spoke with him before, and that there is no master plan to take over america, no conspiracy. And nobody was talking that there is.
The thing is that most of the liberals can not grasp what is behind such destructive policies that republicans are advocating.
Can you agree that liberals think that the policies republicans are pushing for are destructive?
I am not asking you if those policies are destructive.
I am asking you if you agree that liberals think that?
“Can you agree that liberals think that the policies republicans are pushing for are destructive? ”
I agree that SOME liberals think that SOME policies that SOME Republicans are pushing for are destructive.
“Can you agree that liberals think that the policies republicans are pushing for are destructive? ”
I agree that SOME liberals think that SOME policies that SOME Republicans are pushing for are destructive.
So what you are telling me is that you believe that most of the republicans have your view, not the view of 99% republicans in legislatures across the states and federal who vote in lockstep, 99% of them vote in lockstep on about 99% of new laws.
Not all elected representative Democrats are liberal, maybe about half are. And policies i am asking about are policies that there are total divide between Dem and Rep.
Do i really need to write the whole page and cover all angles in order for you not to avoid answering?
So what you are telling me is that you believe that most of the republicans have your view, not the view of 99% republicans in legislatures across the states and federal who vote in lockstep, 99% of them vote in lockstep on about 99% of new laws.
Not all elected representative Democrats are liberal, maybe about half are. And policies i am asking about are policies that there are total divide between Dem and Rep.
Do i really need to write the whole page and cover all angles in order for you not to avoid answering?
“Do i really need to write the whole page and cover all angles in order for you not to avoid answering?”
Huh? I don’t even think that 99% of the the Republicans in the House vote in lockstep. At this point I think Boehner can count on more Blue Dog democrats than Tea Party republicans on budget issues. So what are you exactly trying to ask.
“Do i really need to write the whole page and cover all angles in order for you not to avoid answering?”
Huh? I don’t even think that 99% of the the Republicans in the House vote in lockstep. At this point I think Boehner can count on more Blue Dog democrats than Tea Party republicans on budget issues. So what are you exactly trying to ask.
JFK’s definition of a liberal:
…someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal’.[3]
Obama’s continuation of Bush policy on terrorists and recent budget proposal to cut on back of the poorest almost disqualifies him as liberal.
And republican policies are not new ideas, they were existing since the beginning of governments.
Every liberal think that policies that hurt poor and weak (unions are week comparing to lobbying power of corporations) which republicans push for, are destructive.
Do you agree with me that liberals think they are destructive?
JFK’s definition of a liberal:
…someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal’.[3]
Obama’s continuation of Bush policy on terrorists and recent budget proposal to cut on back of the poorest almost disqualifies him as liberal.
And republican policies are not new ideas, they were existing since the beginning of governments.
Every liberal think that policies that hurt poor and weak (unions are week comparing to lobbying power of corporations) which republicans push for, are destructive.
Do you agree with me that liberals think they are destructive?
Look, two points:
1. If Republican lawmakers had fled Washington to Belize in order to prevent a quorum for Obamacare, (Admittedly an impossible hypothetical, since the quorum would have been 50%, not the 3/5ths Wisconsin demands on financial votes.) and it developed that their airfare and hotel rooms were being paid for by a health insurance company, I’d certainly view it as an ethics violation, and I’m damned sure Democrats would be searching for charges to bring them up on.
Now, I don’t know if the Wisconsin Democrats were actually stupid enough to make this trip on somebody else’s dime, but if you don’t think it would be an ethics violation if they had, I think that’s evidence you just don’t think anything that advances your causes is unethical.
2. I think it’s quite possible, though certainly not assured, that if this really becomes a knock down drag out fight over whether government employee unions are a good idea, that a plurality of the public will decide it isn’t. Right now the issue hasn’t had that much salience, so public opinion is very shallow. I don’t think that will remain the case for much longer.
Look, two points:
1. If Republican lawmakers had fled Washington to Belize in order to prevent a quorum for Obamacare, (Admittedly an impossible hypothetical, since the quorum would have been 50%, not the 3/5ths Wisconsin demands on financial votes.) and it developed that their airfare and hotel rooms were being paid for by a health insurance company, I’d certainly view it as an ethics violation, and I’m damned sure Democrats would be searching for charges to bring them up on.
Now, I don’t know if the Wisconsin Democrats were actually stupid enough to make this trip on somebody else’s dime, but if you don’t think it would be an ethics violation if they had, I think that’s evidence you just don’t think anything that advances your causes is unethical.
2. I think it’s quite possible, though certainly not assured, that if this really becomes a knock down drag out fight over whether government employee unions are a good idea, that a plurality of the public will decide it isn’t. Right now the issue hasn’t had that much salience, so public opinion is very shallow. I don’t think that will remain the case for much longer.
Just saw a poll on Rachel Madow that only 78% of Democrats disagree with Walker’s proposal. That’s how many Dems are liberal. That shows that Dems did not have purity cleansing as GOP have going on.
Just saw a poll on Rachel Madow that only 78% of Democrats disagree with Walker’s proposal. That’s how many Dems are liberal. That shows that Dems did not have purity cleansing as GOP have going on.
2. I think it’s quite possible, though certainly not assured, that if this really becomes a knock down drag out fight over whether government employee unions are a good idea, that a plurality of the public will decide it isn’t. Right now the issue hasn’t had that much salience, so public opinion is very shallow. I don’t think that will remain the case for much longer.
This is Bellmore-ian for, “Well, the evidence is apparently against me, but if I just clap loudly enough . . . !”
2. I think it’s quite possible, though certainly not assured, that if this really becomes a knock down drag out fight over whether government employee unions are a good idea, that a plurality of the public will decide it isn’t. Right now the issue hasn’t had that much salience, so public opinion is very shallow. I don’t think that will remain the case for much longer.
This is Bellmore-ian for, “Well, the evidence is apparently against me, but if I just clap loudly enough . . . !”
Occasionally pointing out that someone is complaining that the “other” guys are doing something that is really common for everyone to do seems necessary.
So you really think that every other governor in the United States refuses to take phone calls from the major mayors in his state — the Democratic mayors of both Milwaukee and Madison say the governor has never taken one of their phone calls — while hopping on the phone with a billionaire, out of state campaign contributor whose identity nobody has even bothered to verify, but who led off his conversation with jokes about having his maid deported?
Really?
This isn’t even “Some of you guys are bad too”, this is “Everyone who holds an office would have this conversation with somebody”.
Everyone who holds office would tell an out-of-state campaign contributor — one who, by the by, already is viewed with suspicion for his political activities across the US — that, among other things, he had considered planting fake agitators among legitimate protestors?
Really?
Occasionally pointing out that someone is complaining that the “other” guys are doing something that is really common for everyone to do seems necessary.
So you really think that every other governor in the United States refuses to take phone calls from the major mayors in his state — the Democratic mayors of both Milwaukee and Madison say the governor has never taken one of their phone calls — while hopping on the phone with a billionaire, out of state campaign contributor whose identity nobody has even bothered to verify, but who led off his conversation with jokes about having his maid deported?
Really?
This isn’t even “Some of you guys are bad too”, this is “Everyone who holds an office would have this conversation with somebody”.
Everyone who holds office would tell an out-of-state campaign contributor — one who, by the by, already is viewed with suspicion for his political activities across the US — that, among other things, he had considered planting fake agitators among legitimate protestors?
Really?
First polls at the beginning of WI showed that 51% of Americans supported public union ideas. Seven days later, newest poll are at 61%. Which shows that WI Dem senators plan is working. “even tough we can not prevent Walker from implementing new law, we will delay it and give the chance to the public nationwide to find out more about what’s going on here”
First polls at the beginning of WI showed that 51% of Americans supported public union ideas. Seven days later, newest poll are at 61%. Which shows that WI Dem senators plan is working. “even tough we can not prevent Walker from implementing new law, we will delay it and give the chance to the public nationwide to find out more about what’s going on here”
if you don’t think it would be an ethics violation if they had, I think that’s evidence you just don’t think anything that advances your causes is unethical.
Sure, but given that the only evidence that you provide is Gov. Walker’s assertion, this is throwing mud and seeing if it sticks. Walker is not ‘searching for charges’ he is, as you are, throwing out accusations. Like your chorus on the WI prison guards, you’ve got nothing to substantiate what you said. So in this case, rather than mistaking that someone was talking about someplace else, you have to rely on the word of someone who looks sleazier and sleazier by the minute. In fact, if you read this comment, you can note this passage.
Erpenbach said the situation is difficult for all of the senators. He said he has a part-time job and will have to call in Monday morning to see if he can take off work for the foreseeable future.
I have this sinking feeling that you will take this as evidence that the senators are obviously getting funding, because people in that situation would never be able to afford to do what they have done. The logic is the same as saying that a black man driving an expensive car means that it is stolen, because he obviously doesn’t earn enough to buy it.
if you don’t think it would be an ethics violation if they had, I think that’s evidence you just don’t think anything that advances your causes is unethical.
Sure, but given that the only evidence that you provide is Gov. Walker’s assertion, this is throwing mud and seeing if it sticks. Walker is not ‘searching for charges’ he is, as you are, throwing out accusations. Like your chorus on the WI prison guards, you’ve got nothing to substantiate what you said. So in this case, rather than mistaking that someone was talking about someplace else, you have to rely on the word of someone who looks sleazier and sleazier by the minute. In fact, if you read this comment, you can note this passage.
Erpenbach said the situation is difficult for all of the senators. He said he has a part-time job and will have to call in Monday morning to see if he can take off work for the foreseeable future.
I have this sinking feeling that you will take this as evidence that the senators are obviously getting funding, because people in that situation would never be able to afford to do what they have done. The logic is the same as saying that a black man driving an expensive car means that it is stolen, because he obviously doesn’t earn enough to buy it.
lj
In short, it is Reductio ad Hitlerum
Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so “proves” that the original policy is undesirable. For example: “Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler].” Instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are often false as well.[1] Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.
lj
In short, it is Reductio ad Hitlerum
Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so “proves” that the original policy is undesirable. For example: “Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler].” Instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are often false as well.[1] Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.
I don’t believe his political opponents are either. They have their contributors who they would have similar conversations with. They just wouldn’t be talking bad about people you like.
Sure, Id expect exactly that kind of conversation. My problem here isn’t the governor’s positions per se, it’s the inability of the media to report his positions. If someone recorded a rough conversation with Obama where he swore up and down- but maintained positions consistent with his public positions and the media narrative about those positions- that’d be unsurprising. If he says “I cant wait to shut the government down and blame the GOP”, I would be surprised, and then surprised again if the media didnt front-page it.
None of this means he doesn’t care about the budget, or want to be a good governor, or care about the people of Wisconsin.
It’s not that he does or doesn’t care about the budget, people, etc. It’s that he *caused* the current deficit, and that the unions are offering short-term givebacks to meet the needs of the next few years. So this crisis *isnt* about the budget, but the media is allowing the governor to continue to portray it as driven by a budgetary crisis.
It’s that he admitted that he would try to trick the Dems into talks just to get a quorum, pretty clearly bad faith, and this doesnt raise eyebrows. It’s that he admitted that he’s threatening public workers with layoffs to put pressure on them (as opposed to some budgetary necessity) and this doesn’t raise eyebrows.
I don’t believe his political opponents are either. They have their contributors who they would have similar conversations with. They just wouldn’t be talking bad about people you like.
Sure, Id expect exactly that kind of conversation. My problem here isn’t the governor’s positions per se, it’s the inability of the media to report his positions. If someone recorded a rough conversation with Obama where he swore up and down- but maintained positions consistent with his public positions and the media narrative about those positions- that’d be unsurprising. If he says “I cant wait to shut the government down and blame the GOP”, I would be surprised, and then surprised again if the media didnt front-page it.
None of this means he doesn’t care about the budget, or want to be a good governor, or care about the people of Wisconsin.
It’s not that he does or doesn’t care about the budget, people, etc. It’s that he *caused* the current deficit, and that the unions are offering short-term givebacks to meet the needs of the next few years. So this crisis *isnt* about the budget, but the media is allowing the governor to continue to portray it as driven by a budgetary crisis.
It’s that he admitted that he would try to trick the Dems into talks just to get a quorum, pretty clearly bad faith, and this doesnt raise eyebrows. It’s that he admitted that he’s threatening public workers with layoffs to put pressure on them (as opposed to some budgetary necessity) and this doesn’t raise eyebrows.
“Really?”
Or the equivalent “oh my god i can’t believe he said that”, yep. Any given day.
“Really?”
Or the equivalent “oh my god i can’t believe he said that”, yep. Any given day.
Well, wouldn’t it be? I mean, seriously, set aside the fact that they’re your guys, wouldn’t you think it a serious ethics violation, possibly a felony, if anybody you didn’t like paid legislators to stay away from work?
Well, it’d only be a felony if there’s a law against it, right? So it ought to be easy to point to that law, rather than wondering aloud why we don’t think it would be.
Is it an ethics violation? Legislators accept trips, meals etc all of the time. There are rules around that. And without your obviously unwarranted assumption that the meals etc are bribes, without which the legislators wouldn’t be avoiding the statehouse.
Maybe they broke some ethics rules about gift giving, *if* they are in fact receiving gifts and *if* those gifts in fact violate the ethics rules in Wisconsin. Lot of ifs to get indignant about.
Or possibly the general population does hear it, and likes it.
Id believe that if the media were regularly reporting it, and the polling etc favored the governor. Instead, we get media reports that this is about the governor saving money, and the polling appears to be going against him.
If overt union-busting were popular, then it seems like the gov would just push that agenda rather than cloaking it, right? That’s indirect, but suggestive as well.
Well, wouldn’t it be? I mean, seriously, set aside the fact that they’re your guys, wouldn’t you think it a serious ethics violation, possibly a felony, if anybody you didn’t like paid legislators to stay away from work?
Well, it’d only be a felony if there’s a law against it, right? So it ought to be easy to point to that law, rather than wondering aloud why we don’t think it would be.
Is it an ethics violation? Legislators accept trips, meals etc all of the time. There are rules around that. And without your obviously unwarranted assumption that the meals etc are bribes, without which the legislators wouldn’t be avoiding the statehouse.
Maybe they broke some ethics rules about gift giving, *if* they are in fact receiving gifts and *if* those gifts in fact violate the ethics rules in Wisconsin. Lot of ifs to get indignant about.
Or possibly the general population does hear it, and likes it.
Id believe that if the media were regularly reporting it, and the polling etc favored the governor. Instead, we get media reports that this is about the governor saving money, and the polling appears to be going against him.
If overt union-busting were popular, then it seems like the gov would just push that agenda rather than cloaking it, right? That’s indirect, but suggestive as well.
I’ve included a bunch more news and links in another update. I’d love it if everyone read all of the linked pieces, but do whatever you have time for, and see what you think.
Then tell us what you think.
All you lurkers: write and argue, support, whatever. We lurve to hear from lurkers.
I’ve included a bunch more news and links in another update. I’d love it if everyone read all of the linked pieces, but do whatever you have time for, and see what you think.
Then tell us what you think.
All you lurkers: write and argue, support, whatever. We lurve to hear from lurkers.
“It’s that he admitted that he would try to trick the Dems into talks just to get a quorum, pretty clearly bad faith, and this doesnt raise eyebrows. It’s that he admitted that he’s threatening public workers with layoffs to put pressure on them
(as opposed to some budgetary necessity)and this doesn’t raise eyebrows.”To accomplish what? You are still only attacking tactics and assuming that he doesn’t think it is necessary to fix the problems. Not “as opposed to”.
“It’s that he admitted that he would try to trick the Dems into talks just to get a quorum, pretty clearly bad faith, and this doesnt raise eyebrows. It’s that he admitted that he’s threatening public workers with layoffs to put pressure on them
(as opposed to some budgetary necessity)and this doesn’t raise eyebrows.”To accomplish what? You are still only attacking tactics and assuming that he doesn’t think it is necessary to fix the problems. Not “as opposed to”.
Turbulence:
I have no idea what his immigration or citizen ship status is, but crithical tinkerer has stated that crithical tinkerer lives in Arizona, but is Croatian.
I don’t know why commenters assume that commenters are Americans.
Crithical:
Indeed, who could laugh at at a link to a link to a Facebook page that 4800 random Facebook members, out of 600,000,000 members of Facebook have gone to the huge effort of clicking “like” on, and not find that compelling evidence that absolutely proves that “the revolutionary wave will come to Saudi Arabia on March 20. That will also the day crude passes $200.”
After all, a posting from a fictional character from a movie clinches the assertion.
CT:
You may not have noticed that “in previous threads,” we’ve been talking since 2003. You possibly might want to read some of the previous threads from before the past four days. Also, I understand that English is not your first language, but referring to yourself in the third person to make yourself sound persecuted is also not a very convincing style of argument.
As a very tiny, ultra-trivial point of English, a “blogger” is someone who has a blog; a “commenter” is someone who comments on a blog. Or could you be specific as to which blogger you’re referring to? I may easily be misunderstanding you entirely.
Let’s clear that up: who, specifically, by name, at which time-stamp, in which thread, are these “bloggers that were warning about whats behind closed doors” who “were called paranoid”?
Specifically? You say it’s true. Who are they?
I also suggest considering the fact that this blog didn’t start last week, or last month, or last year, and neither did conversations here, neither did most of the readers, and neither did some of the front pagers.
It’s useful to make yourself familiar with a writer’s work, and a blog’s culture, before you lecture them on what they should know, and it’s particularly useful when you continue to do it, over and over and over again, after having it suggested to you, repeatedly, that doing so is not, perhaps, the best means to gain credibility and whuffie.
Al Sirois, very lovely to see you here, and thanks muchly for the kind words, although I’ve seen since writing my original post that everyone on teh interwebs, more or less — that is, in the blogosphere, and thus into the mainstream press, where we’re all interwoven these days — has been all over the video/audio calls for at least a number of hours.
I’m not going to time out how much sooner I got there before who, but I certainly picked it up from the sources I linked to, so it spread like… things on the internet spread. 🙂
Turbulence:
I have no idea what his immigration or citizen ship status is, but crithical tinkerer has stated that crithical tinkerer lives in Arizona, but is Croatian.
I don’t know why commenters assume that commenters are Americans.
Crithical:
Indeed, who could laugh at at a link to a link to a Facebook page that 4800 random Facebook members, out of 600,000,000 members of Facebook have gone to the huge effort of clicking “like” on, and not find that compelling evidence that absolutely proves that “the revolutionary wave will come to Saudi Arabia on March 20. That will also the day crude passes $200.”
After all, a posting from a fictional character from a movie clinches the assertion.
CT:
You may not have noticed that “in previous threads,” we’ve been talking since 2003. You possibly might want to read some of the previous threads from before the past four days. Also, I understand that English is not your first language, but referring to yourself in the third person to make yourself sound persecuted is also not a very convincing style of argument.
As a very tiny, ultra-trivial point of English, a “blogger” is someone who has a blog; a “commenter” is someone who comments on a blog. Or could you be specific as to which blogger you’re referring to? I may easily be misunderstanding you entirely.
Let’s clear that up: who, specifically, by name, at which time-stamp, in which thread, are these “bloggers that were warning about whats behind closed doors” who “were called paranoid”?
Specifically? You say it’s true. Who are they?
I also suggest considering the fact that this blog didn’t start last week, or last month, or last year, and neither did conversations here, neither did most of the readers, and neither did some of the front pagers.
It’s useful to make yourself familiar with a writer’s work, and a blog’s culture, before you lecture them on what they should know, and it’s particularly useful when you continue to do it, over and over and over again, after having it suggested to you, repeatedly, that doing so is not, perhaps, the best means to gain credibility and whuffie.
Al Sirois, very lovely to see you here, and thanks muchly for the kind words, although I’ve seen since writing my original post that everyone on teh interwebs, more or less — that is, in the blogosphere, and thus into the mainstream press, where we’re all interwoven these days — has been all over the video/audio calls for at least a number of hours.
I’m not going to time out how much sooner I got there before who, but I certainly picked it up from the sources I linked to, so it spread like… things on the internet spread. 🙂
Brett:
Or possibly I’m a dog, but we could look at what’s known:
So, Brett, what do you think are the possibilities, beyond your imagination?
Brett:
Or possibly I’m a dog, but we could look at what’s known:
So, Brett, what do you think are the possibilities, beyond your imagination?
It would be improper for a front-pager to suggest that Marty and ct should take their act on the road, but a commenter might suggest that some comedy clubs could welcome the team, although I’d have to warn anyone concerned that comedy clubs pay nothing other than exposure, just like blog comment threads do.
CT:
Give us a cite on that, please?
Or could you please stop making up numbers, facts, claims, and arguing by assertion, then throwing yourself a self-pity party?
I don’t think you’re a troll, but I have to observe that a troll couldn’t do much better of a job of looking like a troll than you are, and as Howard W. Campbell Jr. observed:
Something to consider.
Cite?
Yes, please. Write “the whole page,” give your cites, and then don’t avoid answering. Please do that thing.
Thanks. Or it might look like you’re a troll.
And intent doesn’t matter. See Howard W. Campbell, Jr.
Marty, you’e a nice guy, and I’m going to do you the favor of not otherwise commenting on your comments.
You are still only attacking tactics and assuming that he doesn’t think it is necessary to fix the problems.
Speaking purely for myself, I’m quite sure Walker thinks it’s necessary to address the budget shortfall. I applaud any constructive effort he takes to do so. Not that it’s any of my beeswax either way, I don’t live in WI.
What I find objectionable is his attempt to remove the privilege of collective bargaining. That, and selling stuff without any kind of review, which is, shall we say, bad form. But mostly removing the collective bargaining.
It’s extraordinarily hard for me to read that in any way other than his attempt to undermine organized labor. As Brett notes, for many folks that’s a feature not a bug. I’m not one of those folks.
It would be improper for a front-pager to suggest that Marty and ct should take their act on the road, but a commenter might suggest that some comedy clubs could welcome the team, although I’d have to warn anyone concerned that comedy clubs pay nothing other than exposure, just like blog comment threads do.
CT:
Give us a cite on that, please?
Or could you please stop making up numbers, facts, claims, and arguing by assertion, then throwing yourself a self-pity party?
I don’t think you’re a troll, but I have to observe that a troll couldn’t do much better of a job of looking like a troll than you are, and as Howard W. Campbell Jr. observed:
Something to consider.
Cite?
Yes, please. Write “the whole page,” give your cites, and then don’t avoid answering. Please do that thing.
Thanks. Or it might look like you’re a troll.
And intent doesn’t matter. See Howard W. Campbell, Jr.
Marty, you’e a nice guy, and I’m going to do you the favor of not otherwise commenting on your comments.
You are still only attacking tactics and assuming that he doesn’t think it is necessary to fix the problems.
Speaking purely for myself, I’m quite sure Walker thinks it’s necessary to address the budget shortfall. I applaud any constructive effort he takes to do so. Not that it’s any of my beeswax either way, I don’t live in WI.
What I find objectionable is his attempt to remove the privilege of collective bargaining. That, and selling stuff without any kind of review, which is, shall we say, bad form. But mostly removing the collective bargaining.
It’s extraordinarily hard for me to read that in any way other than his attempt to undermine organized labor. As Brett notes, for many folks that’s a feature not a bug. I’m not one of those folks.
CT, I do appreciate that English is your fifth language. But without being a troll, you might want to think carefully before hitting the keyboard, and you might want to be prepared to back your any and all statements with citations, around here, or otherwise don’t be surprised when people who can and will give citations come at you, hard, asking for them, and start laughing if you can’t or won’t.
I’m offering you advice here, as an observer of this community. It’s just a suggestion, nothing more.
CT, I do appreciate that English is your fifth language. But without being a troll, you might want to think carefully before hitting the keyboard, and you might want to be prepared to back your any and all statements with citations, around here, or otherwise don’t be surprised when people who can and will give citations come at you, hard, asking for them, and start laughing if you can’t or won’t.
I’m offering you advice here, as an observer of this community. It’s just a suggestion, nothing more.
Marty:
Marty, I’ve given you a lot of links in my posts and updates. Please go read them, then come back when you’re done, and tell us if you stand by this, okay?
Or are you telling me you actually read the articles linked in my original post?
Because people don’t like it when I start quoting at length, and I find it, frankly, impossible to believe that you could be taking these stances, and making these statements, if you’d actually bothered reading the information I’ve provided.
So please do us all a favor, and read the information, okay? Thanks muchly.
If necessary, I’ll give you more links. But there’s a point at which I run out of time for this sort of thing, and I’m already pretty much there.
Marty:
Marty, I’ve given you a lot of links in my posts and updates. Please go read them, then come back when you’re done, and tell us if you stand by this, okay?
Or are you telling me you actually read the articles linked in my original post?
Because people don’t like it when I start quoting at length, and I find it, frankly, impossible to believe that you could be taking these stances, and making these statements, if you’d actually bothered reading the information I’ve provided.
So please do us all a favor, and read the information, okay? Thanks muchly.
If necessary, I’ll give you more links. But there’s a point at which I run out of time for this sort of thing, and I’m already pretty much there.
To accomplish what? You are still only attacking tactics and assuming that he doesn’t think it is necessary to fix the problems. Not “as opposed to”.
Well, first he clearly says that he’s threatening layoffs in order to pressure the union, not out of any budgetary necessary for layoffs.
So the layoffs aren’t about fixing the immediate budgetary shortfall. And, as I pointed out, if the governor cared a great deal about the existing budgetary shortfall, he ought not have created it. If he cared a great deal about the budgetary shortfall, he would take the givebacks on the table.
So, he may care about the short-term budget, but he clearly cares more about breaking the union.
Again, it’s not the tactic of threatening layoffs. It’s that his publicly stated motives aren’t accurate, and that this is a straightforward inference from the available information.
To accomplish what? You are still only attacking tactics and assuming that he doesn’t think it is necessary to fix the problems. Not “as opposed to”.
Well, first he clearly says that he’s threatening layoffs in order to pressure the union, not out of any budgetary necessary for layoffs.
So the layoffs aren’t about fixing the immediate budgetary shortfall. And, as I pointed out, if the governor cared a great deal about the existing budgetary shortfall, he ought not have created it. If he cared a great deal about the budgetary shortfall, he would take the givebacks on the table.
So, he may care about the short-term budget, but he clearly cares more about breaking the union.
Again, it’s not the tactic of threatening layoffs. It’s that his publicly stated motives aren’t accurate, and that this is a straightforward inference from the available information.
4800 viewers in two days since it was established on 2.21.11 is not that insignificant, give it another 30 days. It could be genuine, small chance but who knows.
My use of English language is unsophisticated, and harsh on occasion, but my knowledge and experience is not, Gary. Even if i earn the whuffie crown or not i will comment less when start another job, which is tomorrow.
4800 viewers in two days since it was established on 2.21.11 is not that insignificant, give it another 30 days. It could be genuine, small chance but who knows.
My use of English language is unsophisticated, and harsh on occasion, but my knowledge and experience is not, Gary. Even if i earn the whuffie crown or not i will comment less when start another job, which is tomorrow.
You are still only attacking tactics
It goes to his underlying honesty. He obviously doesn’t want to fix the problems because collective bargaining is, in and of itself, not part of their current budget problem. And that’s what’s getting him into trouble. Marty, I’ve consistently observed that you simply lack a moral compass with these issues. You detached “both sides do it, I’m not bothered” is just a pose to cover up for the fact that you ultimately support torture and things like Walker’s thuggery and dishonesty.
You are still only attacking tactics
It goes to his underlying honesty. He obviously doesn’t want to fix the problems because collective bargaining is, in and of itself, not part of their current budget problem. And that’s what’s getting him into trouble. Marty, I’ve consistently observed that you simply lack a moral compass with these issues. You detached “both sides do it, I’m not bothered” is just a pose to cover up for the fact that you ultimately support torture and things like Walker’s thuggery and dishonesty.
Gary,
I think I read most of it. I listened to the call. I read Mother Jones. I read Forbes quoting Mother Jones. I read a few things about the Kochs spending 43k supporting him. I long ago read the New Yorker article on the how evil the Koch’s are in general and specific. I am not sure it changes my point any though.
Unless you are an avid union supporter outraged at the very thought that someone might be trying to reduce the power (or effectiveness?) of the unions, there isn’t anything very exciting here.
Everything potentially controversial in the call was raised by the Koch standin and was answered very politically by Walker. Kind of good ole boyish but not really agreeing.
And, I will repeat, even from the very start of the call, where it seemed Walker was surprised by the call, he clearly didn’t know Koch well enough to know his voice.
Gary,
I think I read most of it. I listened to the call. I read Mother Jones. I read Forbes quoting Mother Jones. I read a few things about the Kochs spending 43k supporting him. I long ago read the New Yorker article on the how evil the Koch’s are in general and specific. I am not sure it changes my point any though.
Unless you are an avid union supporter outraged at the very thought that someone might be trying to reduce the power (or effectiveness?) of the unions, there isn’t anything very exciting here.
Everything potentially controversial in the call was raised by the Koch standin and was answered very politically by Walker. Kind of good ole boyish but not really agreeing.
And, I will repeat, even from the very start of the call, where it seemed Walker was surprised by the call, he clearly didn’t know Koch well enough to know his voice.
Gary
I disagree with most of your accusations on me. I’d like a second opinion, third, fourth. Anyone??
Gary
I disagree with most of your accusations on me. I’d like a second opinion, third, fourth. Anyone??
It’s extraordinarily hard for me to read that in any way other than his attempt to undermine organized labor. As Brett notes, for many folks that’s a feature not a bug.
Those “many folks” are known, in plain English, as “conservatives”. At least, that’s what they call themselves.
I withdraw this statement, in advance, if anybody demands cites to statistics or scholarly definitions of “conservative”. Life is short.
–TP
It’s extraordinarily hard for me to read that in any way other than his attempt to undermine organized labor. As Brett notes, for many folks that’s a feature not a bug.
Those “many folks” are known, in plain English, as “conservatives”. At least, that’s what they call themselves.
I withdraw this statement, in advance, if anybody demands cites to statistics or scholarly definitions of “conservative”. Life is short.
–TP
Nice job, Gary. Thank you.
On the other hand, I welcome crithical tinkerer, even if he is a troll, which I don’t think he/she is.
If a troll, good handle.
Marty, I can’t tell you how bored I am with me, but your Dobie Gillis act is getting even older.
Nice job, Gary. Thank you.
On the other hand, I welcome crithical tinkerer, even if he is a troll, which I don’t think he/she is.
If a troll, good handle.
Marty, I can’t tell you how bored I am with me, but your Dobie Gillis act is getting even older.
“He obviously doesn’t want to fix the problems because collective bargaining is, in and of itself, not part of their current budget problem”
This is about the 5000th time I have heard or seen this now, so here is my take.
It doesn’t have to be THE current problem to be part of the solution.
Once you start cutting the state budget you also should put in place appropriate controls to ensure the spending plans over some period of time are controllable and having to renegotiate contracts with 300,000+ state workers two years from now ensures you have not done that.
It IS part of the solution, from my (and his)perspective.
It is just as valid to say he isn’t trying to solve the problem because he isn’t raising taxes, or passing an amendment requiring a balanced budget, or any of a number of possible other things that could be done if you think they should be a part of the solution.
Those are policy choices.
“He obviously doesn’t want to fix the problems because collective bargaining is, in and of itself, not part of their current budget problem”
This is about the 5000th time I have heard or seen this now, so here is my take.
It doesn’t have to be THE current problem to be part of the solution.
Once you start cutting the state budget you also should put in place appropriate controls to ensure the spending plans over some period of time are controllable and having to renegotiate contracts with 300,000+ state workers two years from now ensures you have not done that.
It IS part of the solution, from my (and his)perspective.
It is just as valid to say he isn’t trying to solve the problem because he isn’t raising taxes, or passing an amendment requiring a balanced budget, or any of a number of possible other things that could be done if you think they should be a part of the solution.
Those are policy choices.
Count,
What would you prefer?
Count,
What would you prefer?
I don’t know, “My Little Margie”, for a change.
I don’t know, “My Little Margie”, for a change.
“I don’t know, “My Little Margie”, for a change.”
I wrote a really long answer to ct today that was full of *#@’s(deleted) and then a very short one to someone else(deleted) and then I bored myself to tears with every I wrote today.
I am going back to the sports open thread.
“I don’t know, “My Little Margie”, for a change.”
I wrote a really long answer to ct today that was full of *#@’s(deleted) and then a very short one to someone else(deleted) and then I bored myself to tears with every I wrote today.
I am going back to the sports open thread.
I’m with Marty on this one. I listened to the whole thing. Walker came across as calm and reasonable. He brushes off most of the caller’s lame (really lame) attempts to get him going. Some are getting caught up in the “troublemakers” comment or the baseball bat or the ethics violations or his “trick” to get the senators to come back. IMHO, all really lame stuff. He’s being diplomatic at worst not confronting Koch on the “troublemakers” or the “Cali” etc. I think any financial pressure he can bring on the senators is fair game as is any ethics violations (if there are any). And in light of the bad faith Illinois vacation, he SHOULD use every effort to get them back. How is getting them back into session a “trick?” I took it as a condition. I would think the senators would already know the consequences of going into session. So how is this bad faith (as opposed to leaving the state)? Please tell.
I also noted he is a true believer. He spoke of doing “the right thing” several times, invoked Reagan (and noted it may have been a bit melodramatic) and pointed out that FDR himself had a problem with public unions noting the irony of using taxpayer $$ to lobby for spending more taxpayer $$. I found his tone likeable, sincere and in line with his public tone. I really don’t think he said anything damaging. I challenge you to find another politician of either stripe who could claim the same after a similar phone call.
And the caller was just lame (did I already say that?). I score it with Slarti for the tie in this thread with the “beautiful, beautiful” comment. Tied with Octopus’ “Governer Walker snorts Koch” line.
Good stuff. Beautiful.
I appreciate russell’s straightforward disagreement with Walker. Everyone knows he wants to get rid of the public unions. No secret there. Why not just disagree with him rather than focus on non-existent “gotchas” like this phone call?
I’m with Marty on this one. I listened to the whole thing. Walker came across as calm and reasonable. He brushes off most of the caller’s lame (really lame) attempts to get him going. Some are getting caught up in the “troublemakers” comment or the baseball bat or the ethics violations or his “trick” to get the senators to come back. IMHO, all really lame stuff. He’s being diplomatic at worst not confronting Koch on the “troublemakers” or the “Cali” etc. I think any financial pressure he can bring on the senators is fair game as is any ethics violations (if there are any). And in light of the bad faith Illinois vacation, he SHOULD use every effort to get them back. How is getting them back into session a “trick?” I took it as a condition. I would think the senators would already know the consequences of going into session. So how is this bad faith (as opposed to leaving the state)? Please tell.
I also noted he is a true believer. He spoke of doing “the right thing” several times, invoked Reagan (and noted it may have been a bit melodramatic) and pointed out that FDR himself had a problem with public unions noting the irony of using taxpayer $$ to lobby for spending more taxpayer $$. I found his tone likeable, sincere and in line with his public tone. I really don’t think he said anything damaging. I challenge you to find another politician of either stripe who could claim the same after a similar phone call.
And the caller was just lame (did I already say that?). I score it with Slarti for the tie in this thread with the “beautiful, beautiful” comment. Tied with Octopus’ “Governer Walker snorts Koch” line.
Good stuff. Beautiful.
I appreciate russell’s straightforward disagreement with Walker. Everyone knows he wants to get rid of the public unions. No secret there. Why not just disagree with him rather than focus on non-existent “gotchas” like this phone call?
Because “gotcha” works, Mr. Breitbart.
You mean, Democrats ought to stick to intoning on “Meet The Press”, if even invited, while “gotcha” is the winning game.
You want us to bring disagreement to a gotcha fight.
Hell, I don’t even agree with Gary Farber that Joan Baez should be wheeled out one more time to warble kumbaya.
bc, OBWI ain’t the real world.
Walker has refused discussion and compromise.
So f*ck discussion and compromise.
Because “gotcha” works, Mr. Breitbart.
You mean, Democrats ought to stick to intoning on “Meet The Press”, if even invited, while “gotcha” is the winning game.
You want us to bring disagreement to a gotcha fight.
Hell, I don’t even agree with Gary Farber that Joan Baez should be wheeled out one more time to warble kumbaya.
bc, OBWI ain’t the real world.
Walker has refused discussion and compromise.
So f*ck discussion and compromise.
Discuss with these vermin:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/02/23/a-call-for-armed-counterprotesters-to-atlanta-labor-rally/
Also, bring it the f&ck on.
Discuss with these vermin:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/02/23/a-call-for-armed-counterprotesters-to-atlanta-labor-rally/
Also, bring it the f&ck on.
I assume this deputy was not a liberal. Don’t know about his employers but at least they have shown a bit of decency (not a given with state attorney generals these days).
I assume this deputy was not a liberal. Don’t know about his employers but at least they have shown a bit of decency (not a given with state attorney generals these days).
Unless you are an avid union supporter outraged at the very thought that someone might be trying to reduce the power (or effectiveness?) of the unions, there isn’t anything very exciting here.
It is just as valid to say he isn’t trying to solve the problem because he isn’t raising taxes, or passing an amendment requiring a balanced budget, or any of a number of possible other things that could be done if you think they should be a part of the solution.
From the latest article from the AP (ie an arbitrary one): “Walker reiterated Wednesday that public workers must make concessions to avoid thousands of government layoffs as the state grapples with a $137 million shortfall in its current budget and a projected $3.6 billion hole in the next two-year budget.”
To reiterate, my point is that Walker is not being honest about his motives; if you’ve listening to him speak on the issue, he clearly paints this effort as needed to meet the current crisis, not general union-busting.
But that’s not true- he created the immediate shortfall, and the unions are willing to give back iirc everything he’s asked for over the short term (ie 2-3 years) window. The sticking point here is long-term busting of the union.
If Walker wants to push this anti-collective bargaining position because he thinks that the public wants that, he ought to say so. Instead, he’s using a short-term crisis partly of his own manufacture to justify a long-term change in the relationship between the state and its employees.
Brett seems to think that union-busting might be popular. You seem to like it. But Walker isn’t pushing that angle. And the media are letting him get away with it. And *that* is my point.
Unless you are an avid union supporter outraged at the very thought that someone might be trying to reduce the power (or effectiveness?) of the unions, there isn’t anything very exciting here.
It is just as valid to say he isn’t trying to solve the problem because he isn’t raising taxes, or passing an amendment requiring a balanced budget, or any of a number of possible other things that could be done if you think they should be a part of the solution.
From the latest article from the AP (ie an arbitrary one): “Walker reiterated Wednesday that public workers must make concessions to avoid thousands of government layoffs as the state grapples with a $137 million shortfall in its current budget and a projected $3.6 billion hole in the next two-year budget.”
To reiterate, my point is that Walker is not being honest about his motives; if you’ve listening to him speak on the issue, he clearly paints this effort as needed to meet the current crisis, not general union-busting.
But that’s not true- he created the immediate shortfall, and the unions are willing to give back iirc everything he’s asked for over the short term (ie 2-3 years) window. The sticking point here is long-term busting of the union.
If Walker wants to push this anti-collective bargaining position because he thinks that the public wants that, he ought to say so. Instead, he’s using a short-term crisis partly of his own manufacture to justify a long-term change in the relationship between the state and its employees.
Brett seems to think that union-busting might be popular. You seem to like it. But Walker isn’t pushing that angle. And the media are letting him get away with it. And *that* is my point.
And in light of the bad faith Illinois vacation, he SHOULD use every effort to get them back. How is getting them back into session a “trick?” I took it as a condition. I would think the senators would already know the consequences of going into session.
If it wasn’t a trick, if the Dems really would come back knowing that Walker could then pass the bill, then why is he talking to his lawyers about anything? If the Dems agree to that as a condition? This borders on incoherence.
Not sure what about the Illinois thing is “bad faith”- you really want a tu quoque here for some reason. Perhaps as a fallback position once your incoherent ‘is this even a trick’ first line of defense inevitably falls?
I also noted he is a true believer. He spoke of doing “the right thing” several times, invoked Reagan (and noted it may have been a bit melodramatic) and pointed out that FDR himself had a problem with public unions noting the irony of using taxpayer $$ to lobby for spending more taxpayer $$.
People rarely see themselves as villains. And do you have a problem with eg defense contractors using taxpayer $$ to lobby for spending more taxpayer $$? Agricultural businesses? Physicians or hospitals who take Medicare patients? Road-construction firms?
Everyone knows he wants to get rid of the public unions. No secret there.
And I have yet to read a newswire article that doesn’t permit him the fig leaf of the budget crisis. Some merely quote him and then quote Dems saying the opposite, others go whole hog and present the issue as primarily a budget battle- Walker trying to fix the budget, unions trying to protect their interests.
And in light of the bad faith Illinois vacation, he SHOULD use every effort to get them back. How is getting them back into session a “trick?” I took it as a condition. I would think the senators would already know the consequences of going into session.
If it wasn’t a trick, if the Dems really would come back knowing that Walker could then pass the bill, then why is he talking to his lawyers about anything? If the Dems agree to that as a condition? This borders on incoherence.
Not sure what about the Illinois thing is “bad faith”- you really want a tu quoque here for some reason. Perhaps as a fallback position once your incoherent ‘is this even a trick’ first line of defense inevitably falls?
I also noted he is a true believer. He spoke of doing “the right thing” several times, invoked Reagan (and noted it may have been a bit melodramatic) and pointed out that FDR himself had a problem with public unions noting the irony of using taxpayer $$ to lobby for spending more taxpayer $$.
People rarely see themselves as villains. And do you have a problem with eg defense contractors using taxpayer $$ to lobby for spending more taxpayer $$? Agricultural businesses? Physicians or hospitals who take Medicare patients? Road-construction firms?
Everyone knows he wants to get rid of the public unions. No secret there.
And I have yet to read a newswire article that doesn’t permit him the fig leaf of the budget crisis. Some merely quote him and then quote Dems saying the opposite, others go whole hog and present the issue as primarily a budget battle- Walker trying to fix the budget, unions trying to protect their interests.
What “fig leaf” of a budget crisis? That $3.6 billion in the next two years isn’t imaginary, and it *does* kind of have something to do with the unions, you know. The cost of union benefits is a major part of it.
What “fig leaf” of a budget crisis? That $3.6 billion in the next two years isn’t imaginary, and it *does* kind of have something to do with the unions, you know. The cost of union benefits is a major part of it.
4800 viewers in two days since it was established on 2.21.11 is not that insignificant,
As someone who makes his living in marketing, I can assure you that it is.
4800 viewers in two days since it was established on 2.21.11 is not that insignificant,
As someone who makes his living in marketing, I can assure you that it is.
I asked this on ( I believe) the LAST Wisconsin thread, and got nothing like an answer.
So, again: what are you referring to as “the current deficit” that Walker is taking issue with, and what portion of it is Walker responsible for?
Gary speaks for me in this matter. Without cites, you’re just making things up.
I asked this on ( I believe) the LAST Wisconsin thread, and got nothing like an answer.
So, again: what are you referring to as “the current deficit” that Walker is taking issue with, and what portion of it is Walker responsible for?
Gary speaks for me in this matter. Without cites, you’re just making things up.
I’d like a second opinion, third, fourth.
Consider this your third opinion then.
I’d like a second opinion, third, fourth.
Consider this your third opinion then.
I appreciate russell’s straightforward disagreement with Walker. Everyone knows he wants to get rid of the public unions. No secret there. Why not just disagree with him rather than focus on non-existent “gotchas” like this phone call?
Why not both? Nothing like the light of day to reinforce the fact that Walker is a fool and a liar.
I appreciate russell’s straightforward disagreement with Walker. Everyone knows he wants to get rid of the public unions. No secret there. Why not just disagree with him rather than focus on non-existent “gotchas” like this phone call?
Why not both? Nothing like the light of day to reinforce the fact that Walker is a fool and a liar.
In fact, I’d even suggest James O’Keefe contact Murphy and request a tutoring session.
In fact, I’d even suggest James O’Keefe contact Murphy and request a tutoring session.
It doesn’t have to be THE current problem to be part of the solution.
True enough.
There are probably 1,000 approaches to resolving the long term financial problems in WI. Walker has decided to focus, intractably, on the one that is nearest and dearest to hearts of folks who want to undermine organized labor.
So that is what the fight is about. Not about the budget, not about whatever financial reforms are needed. It’s about whether public employees can engage in collective bargaining.
This is not about the unions making concessions to help the state get past hard times, because they have already done exactly that. It’s about Walker advancing an anti-labor political agenda, in a state that’s basically one of the historical homes of progressive labor politics.
He wants to be the poster boy, so the poster boy he will be. Poster boy for what remains to be seen.
That $3.6 billion in the next two years isn’t imaginary, and it *does* kind of have something to do with the unions, you know. The cost of union benefits is a major part of it.
From here:
So, the givebacks Walker is asking for, and which the unions have agreed to, are worth a little less than one percent of the total budget shortfall for 2010-2011.
One percent does not constitute “major”.
This is about breaking the back of organized public labor. That either floats your boat or it doesn’t, but there’s no reason the unions and/or the citizens of WI generally should just roll over and take it.
There was no need to eliminate collective bargaining in order to address the financial situation in WI. The unions in that state have a record of bargaining in good faith and of giving back agreed-upon benefits when times are hard.
Walker’s making a Great Big Point. However this all turns out, this is on his head.
It doesn’t have to be THE current problem to be part of the solution.
True enough.
There are probably 1,000 approaches to resolving the long term financial problems in WI. Walker has decided to focus, intractably, on the one that is nearest and dearest to hearts of folks who want to undermine organized labor.
So that is what the fight is about. Not about the budget, not about whatever financial reforms are needed. It’s about whether public employees can engage in collective bargaining.
This is not about the unions making concessions to help the state get past hard times, because they have already done exactly that. It’s about Walker advancing an anti-labor political agenda, in a state that’s basically one of the historical homes of progressive labor politics.
He wants to be the poster boy, so the poster boy he will be. Poster boy for what remains to be seen.
That $3.6 billion in the next two years isn’t imaginary, and it *does* kind of have something to do with the unions, you know. The cost of union benefits is a major part of it.
From here:
So, the givebacks Walker is asking for, and which the unions have agreed to, are worth a little less than one percent of the total budget shortfall for 2010-2011.
One percent does not constitute “major”.
This is about breaking the back of organized public labor. That either floats your boat or it doesn’t, but there’s no reason the unions and/or the citizens of WI generally should just roll over and take it.
There was no need to eliminate collective bargaining in order to address the financial situation in WI. The unions in that state have a record of bargaining in good faith and of giving back agreed-upon benefits when times are hard.
Walker’s making a Great Big Point. However this all turns out, this is on his head.
Brett, as his fashion, reveals his single minded focus on what the other guys are doing when he shows how concerned he is for the unsubstantiated possibility of the unions supporting the Dems in their flight from Egypt, while ignoring the fact that Walker appears to accept Koch’s offer of hospitality.
I detect three separate themes here: (1) the phone call reveals Walker is a bastard, and possibly an unethical bastard, (2) they are all that way, and (3) they are all that way, so let’s chat about the substantive positions (my take on what Russell said.
I am in the ‘what Russell said’ if I am reading him correctly. It’s fair comment and more than fair comment to point out ‘the other side does it’ when that is exactly the case. Complaining that politicians are ruthless corner cutters who suck up to the money people is beyond pointless and complaining only when it’s the side you don’t like is a double standard worth noting. Did Walker create the budget crisis? It appears he did not. Is he using it to advance his agenda? Of course, and this is hardly new and there are plenty of examples ‘on the other side’ doing exactly the same, so complaining is hypocrisy. Is he out to repeal collective bargaining rights for public employee unions? Yes. Is there any justification that anyone can even dream of for allowing the unsupervised, unchecked disposition of taxpayer owned property to private interests? Not only no, but hell no.
As for the invite by Koch, that’s nothing. How many times does someone say, “Hey, we need to get together dinner” or whatever. The responding party usually says “Sure” or “that would be great”, having no intention of actually doing anything. It’s a social convention and, in this case, a set up. Had Koch said, “Look, I can have 50K in your designee’s hands by the close of business, tell me who” and had Walker replied “my main man Phil can carry the bag”, then we would have an issue. But nothing like that happened and acting like it did is a sideshow.
Brett, as his fashion, reveals his single minded focus on what the other guys are doing when he shows how concerned he is for the unsubstantiated possibility of the unions supporting the Dems in their flight from Egypt, while ignoring the fact that Walker appears to accept Koch’s offer of hospitality.
I detect three separate themes here: (1) the phone call reveals Walker is a bastard, and possibly an unethical bastard, (2) they are all that way, and (3) they are all that way, so let’s chat about the substantive positions (my take on what Russell said.
I am in the ‘what Russell said’ if I am reading him correctly. It’s fair comment and more than fair comment to point out ‘the other side does it’ when that is exactly the case. Complaining that politicians are ruthless corner cutters who suck up to the money people is beyond pointless and complaining only when it’s the side you don’t like is a double standard worth noting. Did Walker create the budget crisis? It appears he did not. Is he using it to advance his agenda? Of course, and this is hardly new and there are plenty of examples ‘on the other side’ doing exactly the same, so complaining is hypocrisy. Is he out to repeal collective bargaining rights for public employee unions? Yes. Is there any justification that anyone can even dream of for allowing the unsupervised, unchecked disposition of taxpayer owned property to private interests? Not only no, but hell no.
As for the invite by Koch, that’s nothing. How many times does someone say, “Hey, we need to get together dinner” or whatever. The responding party usually says “Sure” or “that would be great”, having no intention of actually doing anything. It’s a social convention and, in this case, a set up. Had Koch said, “Look, I can have 50K in your designee’s hands by the close of business, tell me who” and had Walker replied “my main man Phil can carry the bag”, then we would have an issue. But nothing like that happened and acting like it did is a sideshow.
McKinney,
First, re your last comment in the other thread, the Boston local of the ObWi commentariat includes me and Russell, Turbulence, Bernard Yomtov, and (sometimes) Janie M. I’m not speaking as the shop steward, only for myself: give us a heads up if you’re ever out here.
Now, about this: Is there any justification that anyone can even dream of for allowing the unsupervised, unchecked disposition of taxpayer owned property to private interests? Not only no, but hell no.
Are you referring to the provision in Walker’s bill about selling off state-owned power plants? Or are you hell-no-ing “unsupervised, unchecked” union contracts?
–TP
McKinney,
First, re your last comment in the other thread, the Boston local of the ObWi commentariat includes me and Russell, Turbulence, Bernard Yomtov, and (sometimes) Janie M. I’m not speaking as the shop steward, only for myself: give us a heads up if you’re ever out here.
Now, about this: Is there any justification that anyone can even dream of for allowing the unsupervised, unchecked disposition of taxpayer owned property to private interests? Not only no, but hell no.
Are you referring to the provision in Walker’s bill about selling off state-owned power plants? Or are you hell-no-ing “unsupervised, unchecked” union contracts?
–TP
TP–Boston it is. If I can find my way up there.
The power plants. It makes no sense whatsoever and sets an awful precedent. Seems corrupt on its face. Is anyone trying to defend it, to supply some context that I haven’t seen?
TP–Boston it is. If I can find my way up there.
The power plants. It makes no sense whatsoever and sets an awful precedent. Seems corrupt on its face. Is anyone trying to defend it, to supply some context that I haven’t seen?
There just might be some reasons for selling state-owned power plants on the cheap:
There’s more. Roughly half of the 32 state-owned power plants are being cited for violation of the Clean Air act, and will require costly renovations to bring them up to code.
Doing all of that on a no-bid basis is, I agree, a bad thing. Selling those assetts at reasonable prices in view of the information linked above is not necessarily a bad thing, in my estimation.
There just might be some reasons for selling state-owned power plants on the cheap:
There’s more. Roughly half of the 32 state-owned power plants are being cited for violation of the Clean Air act, and will require costly renovations to bring them up to code.
Doing all of that on a no-bid basis is, I agree, a bad thing. Selling those assetts at reasonable prices in view of the information linked above is not necessarily a bad thing, in my estimation.
McTx,
Take a look at this TPM article. It suggests there’s less to the power plants provision than meets the eye. Surprising.
–TP
McTx,
Take a look at this TPM article. It suggests there’s less to the power plants provision than meets the eye. Surprising.
–TP
Slarti/TP–point taken. Still though, and I am no fan of red tape, no oversight whatsoever?
Slarti/TP–point taken. Still though, and I am no fan of red tape, no oversight whatsoever?
TPM appears to be possibly a little more adept with Google than I am.
They might have mentioned the EPA CAA violations, or gotten more specific than “a few dozen”, though.
TPM appears to be possibly a little more adept with Google than I am.
They might have mentioned the EPA CAA violations, or gotten more specific than “a few dozen”, though.
Marty, Marty, Marty. Collective bargaining is one of those basic human rights of labor. Trying to take it away is just using the pretext of a crisisnto engage in some curb stomping of a hated class you want to bash on. Scott Walker, of course, is simply doing to bidding of the hate group that represents the republican party whose job it onto bash unions, and he was going to lie and steal to do it, even if it didn’t have budgetary ramifications. I think your attempt to make excuses for Waller is just some pathetic act of toadying, just as you cheered on the use of torture in the hopes that republicans would love you more and see you as “honest.
Koch groups and companies have engaged in multi million dollar independent expenditures in support of Walker and many republican causes, including the movement to indoctrinate the republicans into a fanatical bout of manic and rageful global warming denialism and spearheaded and unhinged propaganda of Al Gore hate you see vomited from right wing politicians. These are hateful, hateful people, to the point where their followers,’like Walker, felt free to threaten the use of violence against middle class protestors.
Marty, Marty, Marty. Collective bargaining is one of those basic human rights of labor. Trying to take it away is just using the pretext of a crisisnto engage in some curb stomping of a hated class you want to bash on. Scott Walker, of course, is simply doing to bidding of the hate group that represents the republican party whose job it onto bash unions, and he was going to lie and steal to do it, even if it didn’t have budgetary ramifications. I think your attempt to make excuses for Waller is just some pathetic act of toadying, just as you cheered on the use of torture in the hopes that republicans would love you more and see you as “honest.
Koch groups and companies have engaged in multi million dollar independent expenditures in support of Walker and many republican causes, including the movement to indoctrinate the republicans into a fanatical bout of manic and rageful global warming denialism and spearheaded and unhinged propaganda of Al Gore hate you see vomited from right wing politicians. These are hateful, hateful people, to the point where their followers,’like Walker, felt free to threaten the use of violence against middle class protestors.
Oh. Looks as if Walker clobbered the $250 million project to renovate that power plant.
That 9 Megawatt power plant.
Oh. Looks as if Walker clobbered the $250 million project to renovate that power plant.
That 9 Megawatt power plant.
While the dust is settling on the power plant issue, can someone tell me why the Koch brothers are widely regarded to be evil? I’ve read his Wikipedia entry and don’t see any unusual inherent evilness. I don’t know that OW has done a specific expose on the Kochs, possibly because the other left-wing blogs have been all over it.
But I don’t read any of them.
While the dust is settling on the power plant issue, can someone tell me why the Koch brothers are widely regarded to be evil? I’ve read his Wikipedia entry and don’t see any unusual inherent evilness. I don’t know that OW has done a specific expose on the Kochs, possibly because the other left-wing blogs have been all over it.
But I don’t read any of them.
I, for one, don’t really care about the Koch brothers. They’re just doing what plenty of other rich people do: invest in politics.
That politics is quite right-wing, at least economically (I actually don’t know very much about their political activities, so while it may be that they are involved in the culture wars, I’m not aware of it). Naturally, if you think right-wing econ politics is bad, the Koch brothers are funding bad things. The obvious comparison is Soros.
I, for one, don’t really care about the Koch brothers. They’re just doing what plenty of other rich people do: invest in politics.
That politics is quite right-wing, at least economically (I actually don’t know very much about their political activities, so while it may be that they are involved in the culture wars, I’m not aware of it). Naturally, if you think right-wing econ politics is bad, the Koch brothers are funding bad things. The obvious comparison is Soros.
can someone tell me why the Koch brothers are widely regarded to be evil?
they are the right-wing equivalent of what the right imagines George Soros to be. they quietly fund an uncountable number of far-right-wing causes,
can someone tell me why the Koch brothers are widely regarded to be evil?
they are the right-wing equivalent of what the right imagines George Soros to be. they quietly fund an uncountable number of far-right-wing causes,
Slart,
The best, and most realistic explanation, is in the New yorker article Gary linked to above They aren’t really nice guys.
Slart,
The best, and most realistic explanation, is in the New yorker article Gary linked to above They aren’t really nice guys.
Sounds scary. Evil, even.
Sounds scary. Evil, even.
Yes, I’m aware that there’s more.
Yes, I’m aware that there’s more.
Yeah I know, its how they spend some of the other billions that I am not fond of, even for a centro-conservative Dobie Gillis(which is now how I officially define my political affiliation, CCDG). Didn’t say they were so evil, just not so nice.
Yeah I know, its how they spend some of the other billions that I am not fond of, even for a centro-conservative Dobie Gillis(which is now how I officially define my political affiliation, CCDG). Didn’t say they were so evil, just not so nice.
Don’t go off all half-koched, Marty.
Don’t go off all half-koched, Marty.
which is now how I officially define my political affiliation, CCDG
Understandable. Tuesday Weld would turn anybody’s head.
Just remember: when you read “Koch”, think “Milton Armitage”.
which is now how I officially define my political affiliation, CCDG
Understandable. Tuesday Weld would turn anybody’s head.
Just remember: when you read “Koch”, think “Milton Armitage”.
What “fig leaf” of a budget crisis? That $3.6 billion in the next two years isn’t imaginary, and it *does* kind of have something to do with the unions, you know. The cost of union benefits is a major part of it.
The 3.6B is imaginary- it is a sum of the budget requests of all of the agencies, which the state usually does not meet in total anyway, let alone during a fiscal crisis. There will almost certainly be a shortfall- which Walker exacerbated by cutting taxes…
It is a fig leaf insofar as Walker isn’t motivated by the 2-3 year window; the unions have offered basically all of the givebacks that he’s asked for over that period. Ergo, Walker cares more about union-busting than he does about the 2-3 year budget shortfall. Im not sure there’s a way around that logic.
Now, maybe he thinks this is about the long-term fiscal health of the state. But he’s not saying it that way, it’s usually not reported that way, and despite your protestations to the contrary, it appears that that way would be a much harder sell than using the fig leaf of the budget crisis.
(same thing to McTex: my problem isn’t that Walker wants to union-bust or that he talks tough or whatever. It’s that he presents his position as addressing a short-term fiscal matter when it isn’t, and the media allows him to get away with this. For example, in the call he speaks about using layoffs to pressure union members. In public he speaks about using layoffs to ease the current fiscal problems.)
What “fig leaf” of a budget crisis? That $3.6 billion in the next two years isn’t imaginary, and it *does* kind of have something to do with the unions, you know. The cost of union benefits is a major part of it.
The 3.6B is imaginary- it is a sum of the budget requests of all of the agencies, which the state usually does not meet in total anyway, let alone during a fiscal crisis. There will almost certainly be a shortfall- which Walker exacerbated by cutting taxes…
It is a fig leaf insofar as Walker isn’t motivated by the 2-3 year window; the unions have offered basically all of the givebacks that he’s asked for over that period. Ergo, Walker cares more about union-busting than he does about the 2-3 year budget shortfall. Im not sure there’s a way around that logic.
Now, maybe he thinks this is about the long-term fiscal health of the state. But he’s not saying it that way, it’s usually not reported that way, and despite your protestations to the contrary, it appears that that way would be a much harder sell than using the fig leaf of the budget crisis.
(same thing to McTex: my problem isn’t that Walker wants to union-bust or that he talks tough or whatever. It’s that he presents his position as addressing a short-term fiscal matter when it isn’t, and the media allows him to get away with this. For example, in the call he speaks about using layoffs to pressure union members. In public he speaks about using layoffs to ease the current fiscal problems.)
So, again: what are you referring to as “the current deficit” that Walker is taking issue with, and what portion of it is Walker responsible for?
Well, it’s not again, since I don’t think I even saw the earlier request on another thread…
Im talking about the current (ie not the projected) budget shortfall, projected by the gov’s office at 137M. There’s also the sum of the budget requests for the next 2-year budget, which if they were all fully funded (which they never are) would lead to a 3.6B deficit.
Anyway, on to the meat of the matter:
In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.
To the extent that there is an imbalance — Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit — it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes — or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues — the “crisis” would not exist.
The Fiscal Bureau memo — which readers can access at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf — makes it clear that Walker did not inherit a budget that required a repair bill.
source
Insofar as that’s correct, Walker is responsible for the entire current shortfall. Im not sure how his new measures affect revenues over the coming 2 year budget window, but iirc they were within a factor of two of the savings expected from the union givebacks.
So, again: what are you referring to as “the current deficit” that Walker is taking issue with, and what portion of it is Walker responsible for?
Well, it’s not again, since I don’t think I even saw the earlier request on another thread…
Im talking about the current (ie not the projected) budget shortfall, projected by the gov’s office at 137M. There’s also the sum of the budget requests for the next 2-year budget, which if they were all fully funded (which they never are) would lead to a 3.6B deficit.
Anyway, on to the meat of the matter:
In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.
To the extent that there is an imbalance — Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit — it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes — or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues — the “crisis” would not exist.
The Fiscal Bureau memo — which readers can access at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf — makes it clear that Walker did not inherit a budget that required a repair bill.
source
Insofar as that’s correct, Walker is responsible for the entire current shortfall. Im not sure how his new measures affect revenues over the coming 2 year budget window, but iirc they were within a factor of two of the savings expected from the union givebacks.
Dobie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCjeh3oukC4
Dobie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCjeh3oukC4
Thanks for answering, Carleton.
It looks as if Walker is, among other things, engaging in jobs-creation programs that create no jobs. I hate it when that happens.
I’m not sure how a health savings account can result in a budget loss, since those things are generally financed out of deposits made by the accountholders, as far as I am aware.
This link seems to disagree with yours as to where the blame lies, though. According to it, too:
Which is a decent point to consider, if true.
Thanks for answering, Carleton.
It looks as if Walker is, among other things, engaging in jobs-creation programs that create no jobs. I hate it when that happens.
I’m not sure how a health savings account can result in a budget loss, since those things are generally financed out of deposits made by the accountholders, as far as I am aware.
This link seems to disagree with yours as to where the blame lies, though. According to it, too:
Which is a decent point to consider, if true.
I am now an official CCDG candidate for the 2012 presidential race. We will be making all of our signs in purple.
Appropriate attire will be Levis, White short sleeve dress shirts and blue blazers until you get South of the Mason/ Dixon line at which point the blazers become optional. (No cardigan sweaters allowed, white tennis shoes are ok until Labor day).
We will be anti union and anti union busting, but pro workers rights. We will stand with the corporations until they get too big and then we will stand with the small corporations and the workers.
(Unless we need money, then we will cut a deal with big something, then only talk bad about them to get votes. So if everyone will just send us enough money we won’t have to cut any of htose deals)
We will balance the budget by raising taxes without ever mentioning it so no one will have to get upset, but we will save SS and Medicare, while reducing the benefits of each so that we can set a minimum income level for all Americans therefore reducing the need for both of them.
We won’t be prochoice or prolife because that law is already on the books and we will just uphold it as it needs be.
We will be promarriage of all types, yet work hard to get all mention of marriage out of every benefit in the federal laws and replace it with something that allows each person to name their heir, significant other, medical proxy, financial partner without having that be “ordained” by the state.
What we won’t do is call the other side 4,5 and 6 letter words, rant about how they are going to destroy America and how the flyover states and the coastal elites will eventually take up arms to destroy each other at the cost of both of their ways of life.
Mojitos will also become the national drink and the blues will be required to have equal representation on the peoples licensed airwaves in each market. Although a Blues/reggae station will be granted an exemption.
We will not go to war barring a direct attack on us or a country we have a specific mutual defense treaty with. Our energy policy will include drilling, exploration, and extraction of whatever resources are necessary to facilitate the production of enough electricity to support an all electric economy. All alternative energy sorces will be designed to contribute electricity to the upgraded grid.
The defense budget will be enough for defense.
Health care will be provided for anyone who doesn’t have it through their employer or is unable to get it privately through a baseline set of benefits administered by Medicare on needs based pricing. Every American is covered.
Did I mention Mojitos? and Purple?
The budget gets balanced every year, after the first year the budget is however much we took in this year is the most you can estimate for next year, so we are always one year behind in growth times.
ran out time
I am now an official CCDG candidate for the 2012 presidential race. We will be making all of our signs in purple.
Appropriate attire will be Levis, White short sleeve dress shirts and blue blazers until you get South of the Mason/ Dixon line at which point the blazers become optional. (No cardigan sweaters allowed, white tennis shoes are ok until Labor day).
We will be anti union and anti union busting, but pro workers rights. We will stand with the corporations until they get too big and then we will stand with the small corporations and the workers.
(Unless we need money, then we will cut a deal with big something, then only talk bad about them to get votes. So if everyone will just send us enough money we won’t have to cut any of htose deals)
We will balance the budget by raising taxes without ever mentioning it so no one will have to get upset, but we will save SS and Medicare, while reducing the benefits of each so that we can set a minimum income level for all Americans therefore reducing the need for both of them.
We won’t be prochoice or prolife because that law is already on the books and we will just uphold it as it needs be.
We will be promarriage of all types, yet work hard to get all mention of marriage out of every benefit in the federal laws and replace it with something that allows each person to name their heir, significant other, medical proxy, financial partner without having that be “ordained” by the state.
What we won’t do is call the other side 4,5 and 6 letter words, rant about how they are going to destroy America and how the flyover states and the coastal elites will eventually take up arms to destroy each other at the cost of both of their ways of life.
Mojitos will also become the national drink and the blues will be required to have equal representation on the peoples licensed airwaves in each market. Although a Blues/reggae station will be granted an exemption.
We will not go to war barring a direct attack on us or a country we have a specific mutual defense treaty with. Our energy policy will include drilling, exploration, and extraction of whatever resources are necessary to facilitate the production of enough electricity to support an all electric economy. All alternative energy sorces will be designed to contribute electricity to the upgraded grid.
The defense budget will be enough for defense.
Health care will be provided for anyone who doesn’t have it through their employer or is unable to get it privately through a baseline set of benefits administered by Medicare on needs based pricing. Every American is covered.
Did I mention Mojitos? and Purple?
The budget gets balanced every year, after the first year the budget is however much we took in this year is the most you can estimate for next year, so we are always one year behind in growth times.
ran out time
I’m not sure how a health savings account can result in a budget loss, since those things are generally financed out of deposits made by the accountholders, as far as I am aware.
I believe that it’s a tax break for those accounts, ergo a budget loss.
And, not that you said this, but I should say: maybe these programs are great. I hope that they are. But they are revenue-negative, and implementing them at the time of a self-proclaimed crisis- well, that makes the crisis seem like less of a crisis. If “fiscal crisis” means implementing all of the programs you wanted to implement anyway and cutting the ones you don’t like, then I don’t see how that differs from business as usual. When the changes to the latter don’t even affect the short-term budget window, then portraying them as responses to the crisis are particularly disingenuous IMO.
I’m not sure how a health savings account can result in a budget loss, since those things are generally financed out of deposits made by the accountholders, as far as I am aware.
I believe that it’s a tax break for those accounts, ergo a budget loss.
And, not that you said this, but I should say: maybe these programs are great. I hope that they are. But they are revenue-negative, and implementing them at the time of a self-proclaimed crisis- well, that makes the crisis seem like less of a crisis. If “fiscal crisis” means implementing all of the programs you wanted to implement anyway and cutting the ones you don’t like, then I don’t see how that differs from business as usual. When the changes to the latter don’t even affect the short-term budget window, then portraying them as responses to the crisis are particularly disingenuous IMO.
Looks like we might have another Tea Party candidate for elective office in 2012:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters
Looks like we might have another Tea Party candidate for elective office in 2012:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/indiana-official-jeff-cox-live-ammunition-against-wisconsin-protesters
Carleton:
But they are revenue-negative, and implementing them at the time of a self-proclaimed crisis- well, that makes the crisis seem like less of a crisis.
so you agree that employer-provided health care should be taxed as regular income, right? Because I think that’s what the HSA provision did: it exempted HSA contributions from tax, just like employer-provided health care.
Insofar as that’s correct, Walker is responsible for the entire current shortfall.
His measures won’t come into effect, as I understand it, until the next biennium. I don’t think he has anything to do with the current shortfall.
Also, according to the Wisconsin Budget Blog , the state would only have a surplus if it allowed programs like medical assistance and corrections to run out of money in the spring.
There’s also the sum of the budget requests for the next 2-year budget, which if they were all fully funded (which they never are) would lead to a 3.6B deficit.
But, as I understand it, that’s not the whole picture. Certainly there is that element. A UW professor thinks the deficit is around $3.1B . The foregoing is probably the best discussion on this issue and is fairly short. More here , but it isn’t as clear as the UW report. Short version: it’s much, much more than agency budget requests. The UW professor in fact factors those out. Still a huge deficit.
There is also the issue that the fiscal bureau assumed the prior governor’s planned cuts (furloughs and such). Without those assumptions, even the fb would have found a deficit.
It is a fig leaf insofar as Walker isn’t motivated by the 2-3 year window;
How about being motivated by the 10-15 year window? The problem with allowing collective bargaining over pensions is that it is a good way for a union to get an increase in pay that doesn’t affect the current budget (like my comments that have drawn no attention about the true present value of these future obligations). It’s much harder to bargain over current pay because it has to fit the CURRENT budget instead of some far-away budget when the politicians negotiating them are no longer in office. So pension stay fixed. Could someone explain to me why this is bad? Usually pensions are based on factors of pay, length of service and retirement age. Is the formula so bad in Wisconsin?
Wait, I’ll answer my own question. You can retire at age 55 in Wisconsin, 50 in the “protective” category. The formula takes into account There is no reduction at age 54 for protectives, 62 for elected officials (fancy that) and 65 for teachers. Max retirement is 70% for regulars; 65% or 85% for protectives depending on whether they are covered by social security. Not quite California’s gold standard of 90% for prison guards, but there you go.
What I’m curious about is how much of the total government budget goes to state and local pay and benefits. Here in California, changes in pay would have a huge impact. I’m not sure how much it would in Wisconsin.
Carleton:
But they are revenue-negative, and implementing them at the time of a self-proclaimed crisis- well, that makes the crisis seem like less of a crisis.
so you agree that employer-provided health care should be taxed as regular income, right? Because I think that’s what the HSA provision did: it exempted HSA contributions from tax, just like employer-provided health care.
Insofar as that’s correct, Walker is responsible for the entire current shortfall.
His measures won’t come into effect, as I understand it, until the next biennium. I don’t think he has anything to do with the current shortfall.
Also, according to the Wisconsin Budget Blog , the state would only have a surplus if it allowed programs like medical assistance and corrections to run out of money in the spring.
There’s also the sum of the budget requests for the next 2-year budget, which if they were all fully funded (which they never are) would lead to a 3.6B deficit.
But, as I understand it, that’s not the whole picture. Certainly there is that element. A UW professor thinks the deficit is around $3.1B . The foregoing is probably the best discussion on this issue and is fairly short. More here , but it isn’t as clear as the UW report. Short version: it’s much, much more than agency budget requests. The UW professor in fact factors those out. Still a huge deficit.
There is also the issue that the fiscal bureau assumed the prior governor’s planned cuts (furloughs and such). Without those assumptions, even the fb would have found a deficit.
It is a fig leaf insofar as Walker isn’t motivated by the 2-3 year window;
How about being motivated by the 10-15 year window? The problem with allowing collective bargaining over pensions is that it is a good way for a union to get an increase in pay that doesn’t affect the current budget (like my comments that have drawn no attention about the true present value of these future obligations). It’s much harder to bargain over current pay because it has to fit the CURRENT budget instead of some far-away budget when the politicians negotiating them are no longer in office. So pension stay fixed. Could someone explain to me why this is bad? Usually pensions are based on factors of pay, length of service and retirement age. Is the formula so bad in Wisconsin?
Wait, I’ll answer my own question. You can retire at age 55 in Wisconsin, 50 in the “protective” category. The formula takes into account There is no reduction at age 54 for protectives, 62 for elected officials (fancy that) and 65 for teachers. Max retirement is 70% for regulars; 65% or 85% for protectives depending on whether they are covered by social security. Not quite California’s gold standard of 90% for prison guards, but there you go.
What I’m curious about is how much of the total government budget goes to state and local pay and benefits. Here in California, changes in pay would have a huge impact. I’m not sure how much it would in Wisconsin.
so you agree that employer-provided health care should be taxed as regular income, right? Because I think that’s what the HSA provision did: it exempted HSA contributions from tax, just like employer-provided health care.
Did you read the part of my comment to Slarti where I explained that I’m not trying to comment on the worthiness of the governor’s changes?
Im avoiding that because then this just becomes a debate about whether Democratic or Republican spending/cutting priorities are better, and I don’t see that going anywhere. The discussion that I wanted to have is whether it makes sense to 1)use a short-term budget crisis to justify actions that don’t have a significant effect on the short-term budget and 2)commit to policies that do hurt the short-term budget outlook at the same time. And 3)whether the media should be presenting this as he-said she-said, or allow themselves the simplest of analyses pointing out these inconsistencies.
But, as I understand it, that’s not the whole picture…. Still a huge deficit.
Things I said: 3.6B is probably an overcount.
Things I didn’t say: the state isn’t facing a budget shortfall for the upcoming budget.
I said that because it’s just another example of the MSM taking the governor’s word rather than doing the elementary footwork of googling that both you and I have done. 3.6B is easy because one of the principals said it, Googling actual projections is just slightly harder. So we get “3.6B” repeated over and over. It’s shoddy journalism that values a false statement by a principal over googling something- my sense is that the media prefer to report the ‘fact’ that the governor said “X” rather than the better-informed 3rd parties that it’s really “Y” or “Z” and open themselves up to debates about what the right number ought to be. But I dont have a cite for that.
How about being motivated by the 10-15 year window?
Sure. Maybe he’s motivated by that. Maybe he’s motivated to hurt the Dems politically by hurting their grassroots. I dunno how much of either of those are factors. But I am pretty sure that the upcoming 2-year budget isn’t a big factor, since the unions have already agreed to those givebacks.
Yet both Walker and the media are presenting this as if this was the biggest factor in the decision. Im all for an open debate about benefits etc. Im pretty firmly against the idea that getting rid of collective bargaining or the other built-in attacks on unions is either good or fair though.
But the thing Im most against is not having the debate at all, cloaking the actual motives with claims of concern about the short-term budget shortfall. The media ought not allow our politicians to get away with that sort of thing. Let’s talk about the 10- to 20-year budget projections, and how various tax cuts or benefit programs fit into them.
so you agree that employer-provided health care should be taxed as regular income, right? Because I think that’s what the HSA provision did: it exempted HSA contributions from tax, just like employer-provided health care.
Did you read the part of my comment to Slarti where I explained that I’m not trying to comment on the worthiness of the governor’s changes?
Im avoiding that because then this just becomes a debate about whether Democratic or Republican spending/cutting priorities are better, and I don’t see that going anywhere. The discussion that I wanted to have is whether it makes sense to 1)use a short-term budget crisis to justify actions that don’t have a significant effect on the short-term budget and 2)commit to policies that do hurt the short-term budget outlook at the same time. And 3)whether the media should be presenting this as he-said she-said, or allow themselves the simplest of analyses pointing out these inconsistencies.
But, as I understand it, that’s not the whole picture…. Still a huge deficit.
Things I said: 3.6B is probably an overcount.
Things I didn’t say: the state isn’t facing a budget shortfall for the upcoming budget.
I said that because it’s just another example of the MSM taking the governor’s word rather than doing the elementary footwork of googling that both you and I have done. 3.6B is easy because one of the principals said it, Googling actual projections is just slightly harder. So we get “3.6B” repeated over and over. It’s shoddy journalism that values a false statement by a principal over googling something- my sense is that the media prefer to report the ‘fact’ that the governor said “X” rather than the better-informed 3rd parties that it’s really “Y” or “Z” and open themselves up to debates about what the right number ought to be. But I dont have a cite for that.
How about being motivated by the 10-15 year window?
Sure. Maybe he’s motivated by that. Maybe he’s motivated to hurt the Dems politically by hurting their grassroots. I dunno how much of either of those are factors. But I am pretty sure that the upcoming 2-year budget isn’t a big factor, since the unions have already agreed to those givebacks.
Yet both Walker and the media are presenting this as if this was the biggest factor in the decision. Im all for an open debate about benefits etc. Im pretty firmly against the idea that getting rid of collective bargaining or the other built-in attacks on unions is either good or fair though.
But the thing Im most against is not having the debate at all, cloaking the actual motives with claims of concern about the short-term budget shortfall. The media ought not allow our politicians to get away with that sort of thing. Let’s talk about the 10- to 20-year budget projections, and how various tax cuts or benefit programs fit into them.
my comments that have drawn no attention about the true present value of these future obligations
OK, so I’m trying to understand the scale of WI’s unfunded pension liability.
Depending on who you ask, it’s either $252 million (Pew) or $62 billion (AEI).
!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Gnash your teeth in despair.
From here.
my comments that have drawn no attention about the true present value of these future obligations
OK, so I’m trying to understand the scale of WI’s unfunded pension liability.
Depending on who you ask, it’s either $252 million (Pew) or $62 billion (AEI).
!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Gnash your teeth in despair.
From here.
Well, wouldn’t it be? I mean, seriously, set aside the fact that they’re your guys, wouldn’t you think it a serious ethics violation, possibly a felony, if anybody you didn’t like paid legislators to stay away from work?
Yes, Brett, you’re quite right. Just like having a supporter give you, oh say, a luxury vacation in Cali[fornia] in return for your actions in office.
Well, wouldn’t it be? I mean, seriously, set aside the fact that they’re your guys, wouldn’t you think it a serious ethics violation, possibly a felony, if anybody you didn’t like paid legislators to stay away from work?
Yes, Brett, you’re quite right. Just like having a supporter give you, oh say, a luxury vacation in Cali[fornia] in return for your actions in office.
Marty, I was with you all the way until you got to the Mojitos. But I guess no candidate is perfect. sigh.
P.S. Just curious, how much of this was a conscious crib from Teddy Rooseveldt? ‘Cause an awfull lot of it sounds like him.
Marty, I was with you all the way until you got to the Mojitos. But I guess no candidate is perfect. sigh.
P.S. Just curious, how much of this was a conscious crib from Teddy Rooseveldt? ‘Cause an awfull lot of it sounds like him.
All was free form CCDG rant wj. My political influences, like my musical ones, are varied.
All was free form CCDG rant wj. My political influences, like my musical ones, are varied.
I’d do it for the mojitos, but only in the dead of summer.
And only if you put a chunk of perfectly ripe (and not overripe because they sour when that happens) sugar cane in it as a swizzle stick/chew toy.
Winters, I’m back to beer.
I’d do it for the mojitos, but only in the dead of summer.
And only if you put a chunk of perfectly ripe (and not overripe because they sour when that happens) sugar cane in it as a swizzle stick/chew toy.
Winters, I’m back to beer.
russell:
The link you cited does show a small (252M) pension liability, but also a 1.7 B health care unfunded liability.
Also, if you look at the AEI report on explicit debt and pension debt combined as a percentage of GDP, Wisconsin and California are almost the same. So THAT’s why I’ve been using California . . .:)
Looks like there is considerable difference of opinion on the necessary reserves due to rate of return smoothing (or not) and whether the unfunded liabilities truly reflect the current market. In my fairly uninformed opinion, given the current status of the economy, I’d tend to think the unfunded liabilities are on the larger side until things get better. In other words, I’m not very smooth.
That debate would make it a lot harder to do what I was thinking. The Total number of WRS participants is expected to double in the next 10-15 years, hence the deficit I think. 32B plus the unfunded health care means something should be done now. Like don’t let the pension benefits get any larger for now. It also means that using what Wisconsin currently PAYS for retirement is not a fair measure of public employee’s total comp. Need to factor in the $32B somehow.
I don’t have enough info to calculate,like how many current retirees, the average age to retirement for the others, etc. But I think $34B spread over the years and over the current and future participants still would result in a significant total comp increase from what is being reported.
russell:
The link you cited does show a small (252M) pension liability, but also a 1.7 B health care unfunded liability.
Also, if you look at the AEI report on explicit debt and pension debt combined as a percentage of GDP, Wisconsin and California are almost the same. So THAT’s why I’ve been using California . . .:)
Looks like there is considerable difference of opinion on the necessary reserves due to rate of return smoothing (or not) and whether the unfunded liabilities truly reflect the current market. In my fairly uninformed opinion, given the current status of the economy, I’d tend to think the unfunded liabilities are on the larger side until things get better. In other words, I’m not very smooth.
That debate would make it a lot harder to do what I was thinking. The Total number of WRS participants is expected to double in the next 10-15 years, hence the deficit I think. 32B plus the unfunded health care means something should be done now. Like don’t let the pension benefits get any larger for now. It also means that using what Wisconsin currently PAYS for retirement is not a fair measure of public employee’s total comp. Need to factor in the $32B somehow.
I don’t have enough info to calculate,like how many current retirees, the average age to retirement for the others, etc. But I think $34B spread over the years and over the current and future participants still would result in a significant total comp increase from what is being reported.
can someone tell me why the Koch brothers are widely regarded to be evil?
I’ll take a swing at this.
First, “evil” is not the issue. None of us (as far as I can tell) know the Kochs. They might be evil, they might be lovely. I’m sure they’re a little of both, like everybody else.
What is at issue is the result of their participation in the political process, and in public life.
IMO, their participation in politics is harmful and destructive, because they bring very large resources to the table, and they advocate policies that will further increase the ever-widening gap in the distribution of income and wealth, and that lead to the increasing economic insecurity of millions of people.
They advocate policies that weaken the proper function of government to oversee commercial activity, which will lead to the further degradation of the natural environment, and will further the transfer of risk and accountability from private commercial concerns to the public sphere.
In short, Koch brothers are considered harmful. Not personally evil, but in terms of their engagement in public life, harmful.
They help make bad things happen.
HTH
can someone tell me why the Koch brothers are widely regarded to be evil?
I’ll take a swing at this.
First, “evil” is not the issue. None of us (as far as I can tell) know the Kochs. They might be evil, they might be lovely. I’m sure they’re a little of both, like everybody else.
What is at issue is the result of their participation in the political process, and in public life.
IMO, their participation in politics is harmful and destructive, because they bring very large resources to the table, and they advocate policies that will further increase the ever-widening gap in the distribution of income and wealth, and that lead to the increasing economic insecurity of millions of people.
They advocate policies that weaken the proper function of government to oversee commercial activity, which will lead to the further degradation of the natural environment, and will further the transfer of risk and accountability from private commercial concerns to the public sphere.
In short, Koch brothers are considered harmful. Not personally evil, but in terms of their engagement in public life, harmful.
They help make bad things happen.
HTH
russell, if you happened to trip and fall into several billion dollars, would you try and use some of those dollars to further the ends that you, personally, favored?
And…well, let’s return to George Soros. George uses his money worldwide to influence the direction he thinks things should be moving in. Is that a bad thing, and is it a bad thing independent of whether you agree or disagree with Soros’ worldview?
russell, if you happened to trip and fall into several billion dollars, would you try and use some of those dollars to further the ends that you, personally, favored?
And…well, let’s return to George Soros. George uses his money worldwide to influence the direction he thinks things should be moving in. Is that a bad thing, and is it a bad thing independent of whether you agree or disagree with Soros’ worldview?
Slart,
I’d suggest that it is the element of transparency that is the problem. Soros was pretty open about what he was doing and why he was doing it. The Koch brothers do not seem to be as open. This is from the New Yorker article that has been linked to by a few people
few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials “have a socialist vision for this country
This sort of gets back to my bete noire, which is trying to figure out if someone is acting in bad faith. I’m not assuming that all activities deserve the same level of transparency, but, to take a Godwin busting example, if I were a Holocaust denier and I donated large amounts of money to provide a more sympathetic reading of David Irving’s tracts, I think we’d agree that this is a problem.
I also think that as you have more influence, you need to be more transparent. I realize that sucks if you are a multi-billionaire, but I’d be happy to trade with them if that’s too tough.
Slart,
I’d suggest that it is the element of transparency that is the problem. Soros was pretty open about what he was doing and why he was doing it. The Koch brothers do not seem to be as open. This is from the New Yorker article that has been linked to by a few people
few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials “have a socialist vision for this country
This sort of gets back to my bete noire, which is trying to figure out if someone is acting in bad faith. I’m not assuming that all activities deserve the same level of transparency, but, to take a Godwin busting example, if I were a Holocaust denier and I donated large amounts of money to provide a more sympathetic reading of David Irving’s tracts, I think we’d agree that this is a problem.
I also think that as you have more influence, you need to be more transparent. I realize that sucks if you are a multi-billionaire, but I’d be happy to trade with them if that’s too tough.
Not sure what you’re getting at, here. You mentioned bad faith, and then left it hanging there.
Elaborate, please.
My response to your elaboration is going to occur after some stretch of sleep, though.
Not sure what you’re getting at, here. You mentioned bad faith, and then left it hanging there.
Elaborate, please.
My response to your elaboration is going to occur after some stretch of sleep, though.
No worries, one of the things that I’ve been trying to get at with Walker is how we satisfactorily prove that he is saying one thing and doing another thing and is aware that he is doing that. This transfers to the Kochs, in that how can I prove what russell suggests. I understand that it is a suggestion and anyone can disagree with that, so how do we move past the ‘he is’ ‘is not’ stage. If I go with your formulation, the Kochs can spend their money on whatever they like, as long as they are not doing something illegal. That seems a bit off to me, especially if the Kochs are funding groups that are problematic in their approaches. And I don’t think a law against something like astroturfing is the best way to deal with it.
This isn’t to say that I’m not saying that we can dictate what they spend their money on, but when it comes at an social and environmental cost, more knowledge of it and the reasons they are choosing to go about in the way that do should ideally create a bit of friction.
That isn’t a whole lot clearer, but I wait til you comment before having another go.
No worries, one of the things that I’ve been trying to get at with Walker is how we satisfactorily prove that he is saying one thing and doing another thing and is aware that he is doing that. This transfers to the Kochs, in that how can I prove what russell suggests. I understand that it is a suggestion and anyone can disagree with that, so how do we move past the ‘he is’ ‘is not’ stage. If I go with your formulation, the Kochs can spend their money on whatever they like, as long as they are not doing something illegal. That seems a bit off to me, especially if the Kochs are funding groups that are problematic in their approaches. And I don’t think a law against something like astroturfing is the best way to deal with it.
This isn’t to say that I’m not saying that we can dictate what they spend their money on, but when it comes at an social and environmental cost, more knowledge of it and the reasons they are choosing to go about in the way that do should ideally create a bit of friction.
That isn’t a whole lot clearer, but I wait til you comment before having another go.
The Koch family history likely has something to do with the perception of them being evil.
—
Sponsoring the arts says not that much about moral character given that some of the most evil characters in history paid some of the greatest artists. They suck(ed) their fellow humans’ blood to buy their way to heaven.
Today guys like that stick out since the rich and powerful these days tend to have an awful taste.
The Koch family history likely has something to do with the perception of them being evil.
—
Sponsoring the arts says not that much about moral character given that some of the most evil characters in history paid some of the greatest artists. They suck(ed) their fellow humans’ blood to buy their way to heaven.
Today guys like that stick out since the rich and powerful these days tend to have an awful taste.
if you happened to trip and fall into several billion dollars, would you try and use some of those dollars to further the ends that you, personally, favored?
I’m sure I would. I have yet to trip and fall into several billion dollars, but I already do this with the somewhat more meager resources I already have in hand.
My point is that the policies the advocate are harmful to a lot of people. In general, I find that conservative policies end up being harmful to a lot of people, which is why I am not a conservative.
I suppose I should preface that with an “IMO”, but I don’t really think it’s a matter of my opinion.
And I also have no wish to make it a personal issue. The Koch’s might be total jerks, or they might be wonderful generous thoughtful people. I have no idea. It’s not about whether they’re crappy people, it’s about the consequences of the policies they advocate.
The basic policies of American economic conservatism have led to the economic stagnation and, in many cases, impoverishment of folks who are not wealthy. They have not delivered what they claimed they would deliver, and in fact have materially harmed millions of people. That’s a bad thing. It’s a bad thing for those millions of people, and it’s a bad thing for the nation as a whole.
So I’m agin ’em.
As far as the involvement of folks with money in the political process per se, whether from the right or the left, my personal preference would be to restrict contributions of money or kind to political campaigns or organizations to only natural persons, and specifically natural persons who are citizens of the US. No corporations, no unions, nothing.
And I’d put a per-year limit on the value of the contribution. I don’t care if it’s a big limit or a small limit. Make it $100K. But there should be a limit, for all of the plainly obvious practical reasons.
That’s my take on the whole thing.
I have nothing against the Kochs personally. I find the policies they advocate harmful, and I find the influence they can exert by virtue of their wealth to be inherently unfair and distorting to the political process. And yes, I’d say the same about Soros.
if you happened to trip and fall into several billion dollars, would you try and use some of those dollars to further the ends that you, personally, favored?
I’m sure I would. I have yet to trip and fall into several billion dollars, but I already do this with the somewhat more meager resources I already have in hand.
My point is that the policies the advocate are harmful to a lot of people. In general, I find that conservative policies end up being harmful to a lot of people, which is why I am not a conservative.
I suppose I should preface that with an “IMO”, but I don’t really think it’s a matter of my opinion.
And I also have no wish to make it a personal issue. The Koch’s might be total jerks, or they might be wonderful generous thoughtful people. I have no idea. It’s not about whether they’re crappy people, it’s about the consequences of the policies they advocate.
The basic policies of American economic conservatism have led to the economic stagnation and, in many cases, impoverishment of folks who are not wealthy. They have not delivered what they claimed they would deliver, and in fact have materially harmed millions of people. That’s a bad thing. It’s a bad thing for those millions of people, and it’s a bad thing for the nation as a whole.
So I’m agin ’em.
As far as the involvement of folks with money in the political process per se, whether from the right or the left, my personal preference would be to restrict contributions of money or kind to political campaigns or organizations to only natural persons, and specifically natural persons who are citizens of the US. No corporations, no unions, nothing.
And I’d put a per-year limit on the value of the contribution. I don’t care if it’s a big limit or a small limit. Make it $100K. But there should be a limit, for all of the plainly obvious practical reasons.
That’s my take on the whole thing.
I have nothing against the Kochs personally. I find the policies they advocate harmful, and I find the influence they can exert by virtue of their wealth to be inherently unfair and distorting to the political process. And yes, I’d say the same about Soros.
‘My point is that the policies the advocate are harmful to a lot of people. In general, I find that conservative policies end up being harmful to a lot of people, which is why I am not a conservative.
I suppose I should preface that with an “IMO”, but I don’t really think it’s a matter of my opinion.’
Russell:
I formerly considered myself a ‘conservative’ but have relinquished the use of that term to describe my political views. A number of conditions affected this need for change. One has been the influence of organized religions’ social preferences on ‘conservative’ politics. Another has been the obvious connection between ‘big’ business and ‘big’ government and this influence on ‘conservative’ politics.
I think this ‘bigness’ moves policy decisions in ways that favor the ‘big’ players, and the results are harmful to many people of varying political persuasions. The ability of ‘big’ organizations (read corporations, unions, and political advocacy) to move unlimited sums of money into political campaigns is not helpful to insure the average voter’s political influence is maintained at the level warranted.
Since I see ‘liberal’, ‘left’, or ‘democrat’ policies as favoring ‘big’ government and ‘conservative’, ‘right’, or ‘republican’ policies as favoring ‘big’ business, its difficult for me to see your focus on ‘conservative’ policies as harmful to many people as sufficient.
‘My point is that the policies the advocate are harmful to a lot of people. In general, I find that conservative policies end up being harmful to a lot of people, which is why I am not a conservative.
I suppose I should preface that with an “IMO”, but I don’t really think it’s a matter of my opinion.’
Russell:
I formerly considered myself a ‘conservative’ but have relinquished the use of that term to describe my political views. A number of conditions affected this need for change. One has been the influence of organized religions’ social preferences on ‘conservative’ politics. Another has been the obvious connection between ‘big’ business and ‘big’ government and this influence on ‘conservative’ politics.
I think this ‘bigness’ moves policy decisions in ways that favor the ‘big’ players, and the results are harmful to many people of varying political persuasions. The ability of ‘big’ organizations (read corporations, unions, and political advocacy) to move unlimited sums of money into political campaigns is not helpful to insure the average voter’s political influence is maintained at the level warranted.
Since I see ‘liberal’, ‘left’, or ‘democrat’ policies as favoring ‘big’ government and ‘conservative’, ‘right’, or ‘republican’ policies as favoring ‘big’ business, its difficult for me to see your focus on ‘conservative’ policies as harmful to many people as sufficient.
GOB –
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I fully agree that what passes for conservatism at the moment is, in many ways, not particularly conservative. It is, and this is IMO, more about enhancing and preserving the privileges of wealth.
Nothing wrong with being wealthy, but it’s not the only good thing that deserves consideration in public policy.
When I say I self-identify as a lefty, that is less about the size of government and more about scope. Specifically, I am completely comfortable with government intervening economically and socially where and when that advances some broad public good. I’m not using “public good” in the economic-term-of-art sense, but in the plain, workaday usage of something useful, helpful, or necessary for common public life.
It’s a commonwealth model of the purpose and function of government. I’m a commonwealth kind of guy.
You don’t necessarily have to have a huge government apparatus to do those things, nor do they have to always be done at the federal level. Government should be of a scale commensurate with the responsibilities we ask it to fulfill, no larger or smaller.
That’s my perspective.
Thanks again for your thoughts here.
GOB –
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I fully agree that what passes for conservatism at the moment is, in many ways, not particularly conservative. It is, and this is IMO, more about enhancing and preserving the privileges of wealth.
Nothing wrong with being wealthy, but it’s not the only good thing that deserves consideration in public policy.
When I say I self-identify as a lefty, that is less about the size of government and more about scope. Specifically, I am completely comfortable with government intervening economically and socially where and when that advances some broad public good. I’m not using “public good” in the economic-term-of-art sense, but in the plain, workaday usage of something useful, helpful, or necessary for common public life.
It’s a commonwealth model of the purpose and function of government. I’m a commonwealth kind of guy.
You don’t necessarily have to have a huge government apparatus to do those things, nor do they have to always be done at the federal level. Government should be of a scale commensurate with the responsibilities we ask it to fulfill, no larger or smaller.
That’s my perspective.
Thanks again for your thoughts here.
What Russell and LJ said.
Slart:
Yes. Almost tautologically, almost everyone would, unless they chose just to distribute it absolutely randomly, since even walking away and leaving it in the hands of existing banks, or in piles of Scrooge McDuck bills, or whatever form one fell on it, would redistribute the money to those best able to get at it.
Too general a question; not useful.
a) Too general.
b) Can you name three things Soros has done, specifically, with his money that are “are harmful to a lot of people” who aren’t themselves doing greater harm?
If we’re naming what billionaires have done, indeed, return to George Soros:
Who thinks this is, on balance, more harmful than good?
Anyone have specifics on the harm done?
I’ll put him up against the Kochs and compare donations any time. Let’s talk specifics. I won’t overwhelm. I’ll simply match any claim with the same numbers, and leave the observer to judge.
Happily.
What Russell and LJ said.
Slart:
Yes. Almost tautologically, almost everyone would, unless they chose just to distribute it absolutely randomly, since even walking away and leaving it in the hands of existing banks, or in piles of Scrooge McDuck bills, or whatever form one fell on it, would redistribute the money to those best able to get at it.
Too general a question; not useful.
a) Too general.
b) Can you name three things Soros has done, specifically, with his money that are “are harmful to a lot of people” who aren’t themselves doing greater harm?
If we’re naming what billionaires have done, indeed, return to George Soros:
Who thinks this is, on balance, more harmful than good?
Anyone have specifics on the harm done?
I’ll put him up against the Kochs and compare donations any time. Let’s talk specifics. I won’t overwhelm. I’ll simply match any claim with the same numbers, and leave the observer to judge.
Happily.
Great stuff, Gary.
You keep this up and you’re going to end up on Glen Beck’s blackboard with multiple intersecting lines heading off in every direction.
Great stuff, Gary.
You keep this up and you’re going to end up on Glen Beck’s blackboard with multiple intersecting lines heading off in every direction.
From the esteemed Radley Balko:
RTWT as inclined.
From the esteemed Radley Balko:
RTWT as inclined.
That’s a good donation, Slart. Thanks for that information.
I do note that Radley caveats:
I imagine the Kochs don’t kick their dogs, and do many good things. Certainly their donations to the arts, and standard philanthopies are good, though they also are almost mandatory for any social standing in their world, and it might be more impressive if they didn’t insist on having their names on the buildings, but we all have egos, and so do I, and there’s nothing horrible about having huge signs put up, mandated by contract, so everyone in the world you can possibly reach are notified of your generositity. George Soros doesn’t hide all his good contributions, either.
And maybe George Soros is mean to animals and waiters and employees in person. I have no idea, though I suppose I could google for info.
Everyone is a mixed bag. The question is where they come out in the larger scheme of things, on balance, in the end.
And people sometimes change over times.
Everyone thinks they’re doing what is right and best, and most people try hard. Rich or poor.
But being kind to the little people, in person, is good, and any good is good, and I’m all for good, because as Batman once said: “Remember, Robin: evil is a pretty bad thing.”
Radly also mentions, and I did not know this:
Uh, okay. And speaking of changing over time, obviously D. Koch did change his views on getting directly involved in politics, but that’s entirely reasonable, over decades, or even in five minutes.
And even I amn’t sure I want to completely abolish the FBI and CIA, though it depends upon what one means; some of their functions need to be retained, others not, and then one needs to get more granular.
But this is also the problem with “stripping away” this or that, and going short, rather than long. If you go long, you get tl;dr, and TMI, and MEGO.
If you go short, you strip out useful information, are accused of selection bias, and slanting facts.
There’s always fault to be found, and choices to be made, and it’s all balance and trade-off, and we do mostly all tend to present things so they emphasize our points, and that’s also a matter of approach, and how much time one has to write, and to research, and what your word-count limit is, and so forth.
That’s a good donation, Slart. Thanks for that information.
I do note that Radley caveats:
I imagine the Kochs don’t kick their dogs, and do many good things. Certainly their donations to the arts, and standard philanthopies are good, though they also are almost mandatory for any social standing in their world, and it might be more impressive if they didn’t insist on having their names on the buildings, but we all have egos, and so do I, and there’s nothing horrible about having huge signs put up, mandated by contract, so everyone in the world you can possibly reach are notified of your generositity. George Soros doesn’t hide all his good contributions, either.
And maybe George Soros is mean to animals and waiters and employees in person. I have no idea, though I suppose I could google for info.
Everyone is a mixed bag. The question is where they come out in the larger scheme of things, on balance, in the end.
And people sometimes change over times.
Everyone thinks they’re doing what is right and best, and most people try hard. Rich or poor.
But being kind to the little people, in person, is good, and any good is good, and I’m all for good, because as Batman once said: “Remember, Robin: evil is a pretty bad thing.”
Radly also mentions, and I did not know this:
Uh, okay. And speaking of changing over time, obviously D. Koch did change his views on getting directly involved in politics, but that’s entirely reasonable, over decades, or even in five minutes.
And even I amn’t sure I want to completely abolish the FBI and CIA, though it depends upon what one means; some of their functions need to be retained, others not, and then one needs to get more granular.
But this is also the problem with “stripping away” this or that, and going short, rather than long. If you go long, you get tl;dr, and TMI, and MEGO.
If you go short, you strip out useful information, are accused of selection bias, and slanting facts.
There’s always fault to be found, and choices to be made, and it’s all balance and trade-off, and we do mostly all tend to present things so they emphasize our points, and that’s also a matter of approach, and how much time one has to write, and to research, and what your word-count limit is, and so forth.
I love most of Radley’s work; it’s invaluable, and I praise him almost constantly.
But Radley is also himself presenting things in ways that he prefers — we all do — and he mentions:
Which is to say, unsurprisingly, Radley focuses on the libertarian suport, because that’s Radley’s primary orientation — and we overlap on many of our views, and that’s why I like h im — and Reason also pays his bills, some of them, but he works for them because that’s his political orientation, and it’s circular.
It’s also a small world online when one has been around. Nick Gillespie was sending me good Reason books to review when I was in Boulder. Matt and I go back to Class of 2002, and used to comment and email each other all the time; now the online world is bigger, he’s moved up, we haven’t communicated in a long time, not due to hostility, but simply we’re both more busy.
Maybe in five years “Stephen J. Smith
2011 Spring Intern” will be a well-known writer, and in ten, he’ll be editor-in-chief of Reason.
Or maybe he’ll go off to another career. It’s interesting to watch people progress or not, or have ups and downs, or sideways turns over years. 🙂
Maybe I should focus more on my libertarian side, and get a grant from the Kochs. Or maybe I can get a grant from George Soros.
I’d think more kindly of either, if either did, I suspect. 🙂
I love most of Radley’s work; it’s invaluable, and I praise him almost constantly.
But Radley is also himself presenting things in ways that he prefers — we all do — and he mentions:
Which is to say, unsurprisingly, Radley focuses on the libertarian suport, because that’s Radley’s primary orientation — and we overlap on many of our views, and that’s why I like h im — and Reason also pays his bills, some of them, but he works for them because that’s his political orientation, and it’s circular.
It’s also a small world online when one has been around. Nick Gillespie was sending me good Reason books to review when I was in Boulder. Matt and I go back to Class of 2002, and used to comment and email each other all the time; now the online world is bigger, he’s moved up, we haven’t communicated in a long time, not due to hostility, but simply we’re both more busy.
Maybe in five years “Stephen J. Smith
2011 Spring Intern” will be a well-known writer, and in ten, he’ll be editor-in-chief of Reason.
Or maybe he’ll go off to another career. It’s interesting to watch people progress or not, or have ups and downs, or sideways turns over years. 🙂
Maybe I should focus more on my libertarian side, and get a grant from the Kochs. Or maybe I can get a grant from George Soros.
I’d think more kindly of either, if either did, I suspect. 🙂
RTWT as inclined.
See, for me, this discussion is less complex than it is for many people, because I want *all* corporate money out of politics, and I want *all* personal private political contributions limited to some sane number.
Right, left, red, blue, conservative, liberal, libertarian, anarchist syndicalist. Whatever. I don’t care.
I don’t want the Koch’s money skewing political life, and I don’t want Soros’ money skewing political life. I don’t want Goldman-Sachs, Monsanto, or Archer Daniels Midland involved in politics, and I don’t want the AFL-CIO or SEIU involved in politics.
People. Individual natural human persons, who are citizens of the US. That is who is sovereign, and that is who should have the privilege of participation, at any level and in any form, in American political life.
And it’s lovely that the Koch’s are generous with their wealth, but I’d prefer a world where the wealth our economy produces is spread broadly enough that public institutions don’t have to rely on the largesse of billionaires to survive.
RTWT as inclined.
See, for me, this discussion is less complex than it is for many people, because I want *all* corporate money out of politics, and I want *all* personal private political contributions limited to some sane number.
Right, left, red, blue, conservative, liberal, libertarian, anarchist syndicalist. Whatever. I don’t care.
I don’t want the Koch’s money skewing political life, and I don’t want Soros’ money skewing political life. I don’t want Goldman-Sachs, Monsanto, or Archer Daniels Midland involved in politics, and I don’t want the AFL-CIO or SEIU involved in politics.
People. Individual natural human persons, who are citizens of the US. That is who is sovereign, and that is who should have the privilege of participation, at any level and in any form, in American political life.
And it’s lovely that the Koch’s are generous with their wealth, but I’d prefer a world where the wealth our economy produces is spread broadly enough that public institutions don’t have to rely on the largesse of billionaires to survive.
russell:
You are clearly a Stalinist.
😉
russell:
You are clearly a Stalinist.
😉
I think we’re of one mind on this matter, russell.
But this is where I suspect we begin to part ways. See, although I would prefer to split money from politics, I don’t see any good ways to do that that don’t also constrain personal liberty. Limiting individual campaign contributions is a decent start, but that just has like-minded people pooling their money. I read, and I don’t recall exactly where, that David Koch donated the maximum amount possible (I think that’s less than $50k) to Scott Walker’s campaign. How that translates to Koch pulling Walker’s strings, that being something like a couple of percent of Walker’s total fundraising, is a question for people who make that kind of assertion to answer.
To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, there’s too much money in politics.
I think we’re of one mind on this matter, russell.
But this is where I suspect we begin to part ways. See, although I would prefer to split money from politics, I don’t see any good ways to do that that don’t also constrain personal liberty. Limiting individual campaign contributions is a decent start, but that just has like-minded people pooling their money. I read, and I don’t recall exactly where, that David Koch donated the maximum amount possible (I think that’s less than $50k) to Scott Walker’s campaign. How that translates to Koch pulling Walker’s strings, that being something like a couple of percent of Walker’s total fundraising, is a question for people who make that kind of assertion to answer.
To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, there’s too much money in politics.
How it translates into pulling Walker’s strings: the Koch brothers have been openly advocating the pritazing of public power. Walker’s budget calls for the sale of public power through no bid contracts. The Koch brothers are on phone-the-gov whenever they wish terms with Walker. There is a responsiblity to connect such obvioulsy conected dots. Refusing to do so is like denying a rape attempt unless penetration is achieved.
Besides if the Koch brothers were investing in politicians out of an altruistc love of democracy they’d invest in Walker AND his opponent.
It isn’t up to people who recognize the connection to prove it. Its up tot he deniers to explain how these dots could possibly be not connected. What possible innocet explannation could there be?
How it translates into pulling Walker’s strings: the Koch brothers have been openly advocating the pritazing of public power. Walker’s budget calls for the sale of public power through no bid contracts. The Koch brothers are on phone-the-gov whenever they wish terms with Walker. There is a responsiblity to connect such obvioulsy conected dots. Refusing to do so is like denying a rape attempt unless penetration is achieved.
Besides if the Koch brothers were investing in politicians out of an altruistc love of democracy they’d invest in Walker AND his opponent.
It isn’t up to people who recognize the connection to prove it. Its up tot he deniers to explain how these dots could possibly be not connected. What possible innocet explannation could there be?
What are you talking about, here?
What are you talking about, here?
What are you talking about, here?
Maybe this?.
What are you talking about, here?
Maybe this?.
See, although I would prefer to split money from politics, I don’t see any good ways to do that that don’t also constrain personal liberty.
We “constrain personal liberty” all the time, when it makes plain good sense to do so, and we are correct to constrain it.
You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
You can’t set up your own radio station without an FCC license.
In many cases, if you want to “peaceably assemble” in a public place, you need a permit, so you don’t screw up traffic.
You give up the right to have your person and personal effects free from search without a demonstration of probable cause every time you fly in a plane.
Make the limit $100K. Any individual person can donate $100K of personal funds to national political officeholders, parties, campaign organizations, etc.
Hell, if you and a few of your buddies pool your money, you can probably come up with million between you. Depending on where you are, that’s got to be worth at least a House seat.
But a limit of that size also makes it possible for 1,000, or 10,000, of your fellow citizens to put their nickels together and match your war chest.
If $100K doesn’t do it for you, pick another number. But absolutely no per-person limit on money donated to officeholders or spent on political campaigns basically puts political office-holders up for public auction to the highest bidder.
Personal liberty needs to be balanced against the broader public interest.
See, although I would prefer to split money from politics, I don’t see any good ways to do that that don’t also constrain personal liberty.
We “constrain personal liberty” all the time, when it makes plain good sense to do so, and we are correct to constrain it.
You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
You can’t set up your own radio station without an FCC license.
In many cases, if you want to “peaceably assemble” in a public place, you need a permit, so you don’t screw up traffic.
You give up the right to have your person and personal effects free from search without a demonstration of probable cause every time you fly in a plane.
Make the limit $100K. Any individual person can donate $100K of personal funds to national political officeholders, parties, campaign organizations, etc.
Hell, if you and a few of your buddies pool your money, you can probably come up with million between you. Depending on where you are, that’s got to be worth at least a House seat.
But a limit of that size also makes it possible for 1,000, or 10,000, of your fellow citizens to put their nickels together and match your war chest.
If $100K doesn’t do it for you, pick another number. But absolutely no per-person limit on money donated to officeholders or spent on political campaigns basically puts political office-holders up for public auction to the highest bidder.
Personal liberty needs to be balanced against the broader public interest.
Yes. The bill Walker is promoting would make it possible for an appointee of the governor’s to oversee the sale by no bid contract of Wisconsins’s public utilities. There are lots and lots of references to this in the better coverage of the Wisconsin uprising. I think even some of theTV news talkinng heads have managed to notice it although I’m not sure abouut that since I don’t watfh TV news.
Yes. The bill Walker is promoting would make it possible for an appointee of the governor’s to oversee the sale by no bid contract of Wisconsins’s public utilities. There are lots and lots of references to this in the better coverage of the Wisconsin uprising. I think even some of theTV news talkinng heads have managed to notice it although I’m not sure abouut that since I don’t watfh TV news.
From JanieM’s cite:
“We’re going to have an open and accountable process so that everyone knows who’s interested in that, and what the process is,” Walker said. “This only gives us the option. We’re only going to move forward on this if it’s good for the taxpayers and good ultimately for the ratepayers in this state.”
“This only gives us the option.”
“Trust me. I’m not like the other guys.”
Maybe it makes sense to sell the plants, maybe it doesn’t.
No bids, and no review by the Public Service Commission to evaluate whether the public interest is being served? That should set anybody’s radar off, I don’t care what your political persuasion is.
From JanieM’s cite:
“We’re going to have an open and accountable process so that everyone knows who’s interested in that, and what the process is,” Walker said. “This only gives us the option. We’re only going to move forward on this if it’s good for the taxpayers and good ultimately for the ratepayers in this state.”
“This only gives us the option.”
“Trust me. I’m not like the other guys.”
Maybe it makes sense to sell the plants, maybe it doesn’t.
No bids, and no review by the Public Service Commission to evaluate whether the public interest is being served? That should set anybody’s radar off, I don’t care what your political persuasion is.
I think we’ve at least partially disposed with that point, wonkie, here. Wisconsin doesn’t have much in the way of state-owned power generation facilities, as far as I can tell.
Here’s a list of power-generation facilities in Wisconsin. Obviously, it’s not exhaustive because it doesn’t list the 9MW plant at UW-Madison. Because it’s too small to mention, is my guess.
I think we’ve at least partially disposed with that point, wonkie, here. Wisconsin doesn’t have much in the way of state-owned power generation facilities, as far as I can tell.
Here’s a list of power-generation facilities in Wisconsin. Obviously, it’s not exhaustive because it doesn’t list the 9MW plant at UW-Madison. Because it’s too small to mention, is my guess.
As much as I agree with your larger point, russell, I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that swapping valuable stuff to the Kochs for…campaign contributions; whatever…is in the offing.
As much as I agree with your larger point, russell, I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that swapping valuable stuff to the Kochs for…campaign contributions; whatever…is in the offing.
Of course its a given! The issue isn’t the possible sales–it’s the no bid.
But bottom line: billionaires don’t invest in politicians as a public service like paying to fix a fountain. In this case the union busting ideologue who is opposed to the public ownership of public utilities has invested in a governor who is busting uions and wants to sell public utilities by no bid sales. Amazing coincidence? Honestly, what’s the point of denying the connection? Would you deny the tit for tat if the issue ws unions investing in a politician to protect pensions? I wouldn’t.
Of course its a given! The issue isn’t the possible sales–it’s the no bid.
But bottom line: billionaires don’t invest in politicians as a public service like paying to fix a fountain. In this case the union busting ideologue who is opposed to the public ownership of public utilities has invested in a governor who is busting uions and wants to sell public utilities by no bid sales. Amazing coincidence? Honestly, what’s the point of denying the connection? Would you deny the tit for tat if the issue ws unions investing in a politician to protect pensions? I wouldn’t.
I’m guessing that you have completely missed what I said above. What possible advantage do you think an enormous enterprise like Koch would gain by acquiring (for example) an aging 9 MW coal power plant?
I agree, though, no-bid contracts are bad.
I’m guessing that you have completely missed what I said above. What possible advantage do you think an enormous enterprise like Koch would gain by acquiring (for example) an aging 9 MW coal power plant?
I agree, though, no-bid contracts are bad.
Ok, so just to wrap this up:
According to TPM:
According to the Wisconsin Department of Administration (p 58), the total cost of all energy consumed by all government facilities, whether it’s generated by a state-owned power plant or not, is something less than $200M. Assuming all of that is generated onsite, and power-generation profit margins being what they are (WEC’s is about 9%), we’re talking less than $20M/yr that the Kochs could possibly expect to see from these facilities.
Sure, they could come in, buy the plants for a song, and sell them at a tidy profit. They could possibly make a one-time profit of hundreds of millions of dollars, if Walker were stupid enough to just give them away, and assuming that laws in place really, truly do give him the power to do that.
I think David Koch probably could rustle that up by cleaning out between his couch cushions. The guy owns 42% of a company whose revenues are $100B.
I want to caveat the above by saying that not all of the information is easily accessible, so I might be missing a thing or two. But from what I can tell, this is somewhat like Ernst Stavro Blofeld hatching an insane plot, involving the usual machinations, to get a discount on his auto insurance.
Ok, so just to wrap this up:
According to TPM:
According to the Wisconsin Department of Administration (p 58), the total cost of all energy consumed by all government facilities, whether it’s generated by a state-owned power plant or not, is something less than $200M. Assuming all of that is generated onsite, and power-generation profit margins being what they are (WEC’s is about 9%), we’re talking less than $20M/yr that the Kochs could possibly expect to see from these facilities.
Sure, they could come in, buy the plants for a song, and sell them at a tidy profit. They could possibly make a one-time profit of hundreds of millions of dollars, if Walker were stupid enough to just give them away, and assuming that laws in place really, truly do give him the power to do that.
I think David Koch probably could rustle that up by cleaning out between his couch cushions. The guy owns 42% of a company whose revenues are $100B.
I want to caveat the above by saying that not all of the information is easily accessible, so I might be missing a thing or two. But from what I can tell, this is somewhat like Ernst Stavro Blofeld hatching an insane plot, involving the usual machinations, to get a discount on his auto insurance.
wonkie:
I was right with you until you assert that it’s obligatatory for people to prove a negative, and I can’t go there. It’s not, of course, necessarily an argument from ignorance, but it’s still basically a logical fallacy, and unreasonable in principle, even if in specifics I tend to agree with you.
I’d suggest sticking to proving your own case, rather than insisting that, in principle, everyone in the world first has to accept your POV, and then prove to you it’s incorrect, because that’s a rhetorical tautology:
Perhaps more clearly, perhaps not, it’s begging the question, which is a fallacy.
So: can’t go there into fallacy land, no matter how much I agree with you in specific, sorry. Illogic is illogic, I am not programmed to respond in that area.
wonkie:
I was right with you until you assert that it’s obligatatory for people to prove a negative, and I can’t go there. It’s not, of course, necessarily an argument from ignorance, but it’s still basically a logical fallacy, and unreasonable in principle, even if in specifics I tend to agree with you.
I’d suggest sticking to proving your own case, rather than insisting that, in principle, everyone in the world first has to accept your POV, and then prove to you it’s incorrect, because that’s a rhetorical tautology:
Perhaps more clearly, perhaps not, it’s begging the question, which is a fallacy.
So: can’t go there into fallacy land, no matter how much I agree with you in specific, sorry. Illogic is illogic, I am not programmed to respond in that area.
Ezra 12:22 PM ET, 02/23/2011:
What young punk whippersnapper Ezra Klein said.
Ezra 12:22 PM ET, 02/23/2011:
What young punk whippersnapper Ezra Klein said.
As much as I agree with your larger point, russell, I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that swapping valuable stuff to the Kochs for…campaign contributions; whatever…is in the offing.
I have no idea what is in the offing, and I’m not speculating about what is in the offing.
My larger point is my only point.
As much as I agree with your larger point, russell, I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that swapping valuable stuff to the Kochs for…campaign contributions; whatever…is in the offing.
I have no idea what is in the offing, and I’m not speculating about what is in the offing.
My larger point is my only point.
Sorry, russell; I didn’t mean to conflate your point with wonkie’s. I suppose I was aiming at some linear combination of your comments and wonkie’s.
As a side note, I linked upthread just a tad to an article that discussed no-bid contract awards by both former governor Doyle and by then-county-executive Walker. There is a difference in kind between omnibus service contracts (which are (in federal government work) in general bid on, but permit the winner to work any and all jobs that fall under that contract without a separate bid), and no-bid transfer of property.
I think there’s greater opportunity for fiscal harm with the latter kind. The former kind still require work performed at rates arrived at (in general; I really can’t tell if this is the case here) by bid.
Sorry, russell; I didn’t mean to conflate your point with wonkie’s. I suppose I was aiming at some linear combination of your comments and wonkie’s.
As a side note, I linked upthread just a tad to an article that discussed no-bid contract awards by both former governor Doyle and by then-county-executive Walker. There is a difference in kind between omnibus service contracts (which are (in federal government work) in general bid on, but permit the winner to work any and all jobs that fall under that contract without a separate bid), and no-bid transfer of property.
I think there’s greater opportunity for fiscal harm with the latter kind. The former kind still require work performed at rates arrived at (in general; I really can’t tell if this is the case here) by bid.