Wisconsin recall effort

Will the Wisconsin recall effort work?

I'm a registered independent from Ohio -- What happens only effects me when the same crap is pulled in Ohio, probably in the near future.

But I do want to applaud and support the Republicans (and any elected official) that realizes we're broke and need a small "r" republican government.

But I heard about this: Frontline Wisconsin - American Taxpayers Can Prevail which is looking for donations to help the Senators fight the recall effort. I threw a few bucks that way.

Just wanted to put this out so those who want to help -- or not.

So the obligatory question: What was your opinion on the Wisconsin debacle?
LVL 38
Jim P.Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

_TAD_Commented:
As someone who lives in WI, but not directly impacted by Scott Walker I have a wide and varied set of opinions on the whole escapade.  Also, it is important to note that while I am a tree-hugging dirt-whorshiper, these activities have no direct impact on me or my family.  Ultimately I think I've been able to stay as impartial as anyone could be on such a hot subject here in WI.

1) First and foremost what Scott Walker did had *nothing* to do with the budget - it was all political manuevering.  Anyone who believes differently is being mislead.  Any deep analysis of Walker's plan shows an exceptionally meager net gain - and that is if you assume an optimistic view.  If one is pessimistic you find that this bill will actually cost the state revenue.

2) I believe the bill itself should have been killed.  Not for it's content, like so many others contend, but rather because of the way that Walker was ram-rodding this through the legislature.  Any bill that cannot stand up to scrutiny and debate should be killed immediately - regardless of who introduces it.

3) No legislation should be appended to a "budget repair" bill.  If it doesn't have a direct impact on budgetary numbers, it simply doesn't belong there.   The collective bargaining pieces have no impact on 2011 fiscal year and should not have been part of that bill.  Kudos to the Republicans for finally removing it and passing it on it's own merits.  Although, once again I am not happy with the ram-rodding it through without debate (eh, politics today... what can you do?).

4) Finally, there are 16 recall efforts underway because of all this (8 Dem, 8 Rep).  I have heard nothing about the progress of the Democrat recalls, but the 8 Republicans are in trouble.  It appears that at least 5 or 6 Republican senators will have to fight through recall elections and 3 or 4 of those are predicted to lose.   If this happens the Republicans would still have a simple majority, but would be unable to pass any regulatory or financial bills without reaching a consensus on both sides of the aisle.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
shadow77Commented:
"Debacle" is certainly a good way to describe what occurred in Wisconsin.  Good analysis, TAD.

Walker and the Republicans clearly exceeded their mandate (as indicated by the polls), and they will pay for their error.  This is apparently not what the citizens of Wisconsin thought they were voting for.

The Wisconsin Democrats did what they could to prevent a bad bill.  What they did was much like what Republicans have done in the US Senate to block the will of the majority, although they have done it too often and without constructive intent.

Your premise that we need smaller government is incorrect.  We had too little oversight of Wall Street and look what that produced.  Our problem is not too much spending.  It is too little income caused by bad trade policies that have led to the export of too many American jobs.  Even Alan Keyes recognized that.

Cutting spending and crushing workers is exactly the wrong thing to be doing.  The Republicans and the Tea Party will send us into a death spiral if they have their way.  When Americans lose their jobs and remain unemployed or are forced to take jobs at much lower wages, or when union bashing and importing cheap labor keeps wages down, many others will eventually suffer from the declining economy.  Those who are unemployed or under-employed will buy fewer products (such as cars) and fewer services; they will defer whatever expenses they can.  The entire economy suffers when too many people lose their jobs.

It is true that we should cut back on unnecessary expenses, such as foreign wars and tax cuts for the over-compensated, but we should not be eliminating teachers, border patrol officers, air traffic controllers, Wall Street and banking regulators, food inspectors, and the like.  We need to put America back to work and stop exporting our prosperity while importing poverty.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
1) First and foremost what Scott Walker did had *nothing* to do with the budget - it was all political maneuvering.
Agreed, but it had to be done.

2) I believe the bill itself should have been killed. Not for it's content, like so many others contend, but rather because of the way that Walker was ram-rodding this through the legislature.
The precedent was set with the Healthcare bill.

3) No legislation should be appended to a "budget repair" bill.
Please, our legislature is full of stuff like this on every level

4) Finally, there are 16 recall efforts underway because of all this (8 Dem, 8 Rep).  
Its all part of our system. Politicians choose to use these means to advance the agenda, and the voters will either support them or make them pay by getting them out of office.

It is true that we should cut back on unnecessary expenses
Its only unnecessary if you disagree with it.
0
Introducing Cloud Class® training courses

Tech changes fast. You can learn faster. That’s why we’re bringing professional training courses to Experts Exchange. With a subscription, you can access all the Cloud Class® courses to expand your education, prep for certifications, and get top-notch instructions.

knightEknightCommented:
It was very childish of the senate Dems to take their ball and run to the next state, rather than play by the rules, when they lost the election.  I hope this doesn't set a precedent for other legislators (of both parties) the next time they find themselves on the losing end of an election... but it probably will.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
the next time they find themselves

This is not the first time. I believe the same thing happened in Texas the last time then they were doing the redistricting.
0
_TAD_Commented:
>>The precedent was set with the Health Care bill.

Eh... not quite.  The health care bill was debated for weeks (months?)  because Obama *insisted* that it be a bipartisan.   It was Olympia Snow (R) from Maine who voted to have it go to the floor for a final vote.   When it did go to the Senate everyone voted on party lines and the measure was passed.  So no - the Health Care reform (laughable) was *not* ram-rodded through congress.    

The WI bill was introduced late in the day on Friday and was suppose to be voted on on Monday morning.   The Dems stalled for a day and then left the state on Tuesday to avoid a vote on a measure that had not been debated.  




As for leaving the state, that does have precedence here in WI.   Back in 2005 the Republican party did the same thing.   They did it for 3 days, but then the Governor acquiesced.

Keep in mind I fully support leaving the state - for a couple days - to draw attention to the issue.  I absolutely abhor laws and regulations being passed quietly in the night.   After 3 or 4 days the senators should have returned.  The reubplicans should have allowed a debate.  This all could have been civilized and above board and the Republicans would have still passed the measure easily.   It is Walker's callous attitude toward proper congressional etiquette that I find so offensive.  
0
leonstrykerCommented:
Eh... not quite.  The health care bill was debated for weeks (months?)  because Obama *insisted* that it be a bipartisan.   It was Olympia Snow (R) from Maine who voted to have it go to the floor for a final vote.   When it did go to the Senate everyone voted on party lines and the measure was passed.  So no - the Health Care reform (laughable) was *not* ram-rodded through congress.

Sorry, but that is revisionist. How big was the actual Bill? How long did everyone have to examine it? Who said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"? How many procedural maneuvers were made to circumvent a Republican veto? Or should we start discussing the accounting tricks used to get to target numbers?

Health Care reform is the definition of ram-rodding through congress.
0
Jim P.Author Commented:
The Wisconsin Democrats did what they could to prevent a bad bill.  What they did was much like what Republicans have done in the US Senate to block the will of the majority, although they have done it too often and without constructive intent.

Please cite the opinion polls that had Obamacare over 50% (let alone a super majority) at anytime?

Your premise that we need smaller government is incorrect.  We had too little oversight of Wall Street and look what that produced.  Our problem is not too much spending.

Please let me know how the U.S. government can spend more money than income for 10+ years and not be broke. If you spent more than your income (via credit cards and home equity loans) and expect to be solvent, please let me know.

Wall Street did/does have oversight. But part of the issue is that Wall Street was buying AAA securities backed by loans FNMA/FHFA, as government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), issued. Between the CRA and the rest of the social issues, people were buying homes they didn't qualify for.

 It is too little income caused by bad trade policies that have led to the export of too many American jobs.  Even Alan Keyes recognized that.

It is great that Alan Keyes exporting jobs has a negative effect on our economy; but that is not the only issue.

Liar loans, low interest rates, the simple fact that the fed is spending at least $1,000,000,000,000 (1 Trillion) more more than income has absolutely no effect on the economy.

Cutting spending and crushing workers is exactly the wrong thing to be doing.  The Republicans and the Tea Party will send us into a death spiral if they have their way.  When Americans lose their jobs and remain unemployed or are forced to take jobs at much lower wages, or when union bashing and importing cheap labor keeps wages down, many others will eventually suffer from the declining economy.  Those who are unemployed or under-employed will buy fewer products (such as cars) and fewer services; they will defer whatever expenses they can.  The entire economy suffers when too many people lose their jobs.

Where in the Constitution does it say the government has to give us equal outcomes?

It is true that we should cut back on unnecessary expenses, such as foreign wars and tax cuts for the over-compensated, but we should not be eliminating teachers, border patrol officers, air traffic controllers, Wall Street and banking regulators, food inspectors, and the like.  

The teachers are a state -- not federal responsibility.
border patrol officers -- If they actually did their job I could agree. When you have Arizona attacked for actually asking for if you have a driver's license -- you have lost credibility.

air traffic controllers the FAA is a fed issue. But I wonder why the FAA couldn't be privatized.

Wall Street and banking regulators AQnd what did they prevent?

food inspectors: The FDA and USDA are post 1950.  If they weren't in place then, why aren't we all dead?

Post some more and we can debate the issues.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
""What was your opinion on the Wisconsin debacle? ""

My opinion is that no matter what type of anti-union legislation they pass... the right to collectively bargain will always exist so long as the option to strike is on the table.  Employees are not "slaves"...when all else fails... strike.

The only difference is ....that instead of the government negotiation with a representative of an angry mob...they have to negotiate with the angry mob itself.

On the recall effort itself... it's completely absurd.  In democracy you get what you vote for and what you don't vote against.... so Wis. is going to get the results of what the majority voted for and it will be a lesson learned for better or worse.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
My opinion is that no matter what type of anti-union legislation they pass... the right to collectively bargain will always exist so long as the option to strike is on the table.  Employees are not "slaves"...when all else fails... strike.

Jimmy Carter and Congress ended collective bargaining rights for federal workers.  What is good for the Fed should be good for the States.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
""Jimmy Carter and Congress ended collective bargaining rights for federal workers.  What is good for the Fed should be good for the States. ""

No, actually Jimmy Carter limited bargaining rights for federal employees...he didn't end them

It still makes little difference for what I just said.

When all else fails... the option to strike still exists.  They can't force people to work, obviously.
So if every teacher decided to ...not go to work...the state can either A) fire them all, or B) choose to negotiate with the angry mob.  Chances are firing them all is not a viable option, since teaching jobs can't be filled by unqualified people.   You have to have a degree in teaching, to be able to take a newly opened teaching job...

The right to "collective bargaining"... is inherent in our right to peaceful assembly, with or without legislation stating as much.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
actually Jimmy Carter limited bargaining rights for federal employees...he didn't end them

Civil Service Reform Act did following:

1.Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.

2.The right of federal employees to picket is limited to informational picketing only. It is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to picket a federal agency in a labor-management dispute if such picketing interferes with an agency's operations.

3.The scope of mandatory collective bargaining for federal employees is limited to personnel employment practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of work, and employee benefits are instead subject to statutory provisions.

4.Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of compulsory union support are prohibited in the federal civil service.

5.Recognition of labor organizations as exclusive employee representatives occurs only by a majority vote of employees through a secret-ballot election.

Pretty BIG limits, the option to strike does not exist!

They can't force people to work, obviously.
Ask the air controllers about that one.

teaching jobs can't be filled by unqualified people.
Plenty of children get home schooling, and I am sure there will be plenty of people willing to take those teaching jobs. Cetification requirements can be waved temporarily to allow these people time to achieve them

You have to have a degree in teaching, to be able to take a newly opened teaching job...
That is wrong anyway, being qualifies in the field should be good enough.


0
sbdt8631Commented:
xuserx2000:
>>On the recall effort itself... it's completely absurd.  In democracy you get what you vote for and what you don't vote against....

Except that Wisconsin has statutes that allow the voters an oppurtunity for a second chance to vote against.  I don't think it is absurd.  I like the idea.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
I'm aware of what the Civil Service Reform Act did, which is why I said....""actually Jimmy Carter limited bargaining rights for federal employees...he didn't end them""

""Pretty BIG limits, the option to strike does not exist!""
Yes they were big limits.  You are however confusing "option", with "right".   The option always exists.  The right to strike means you won't be fired for striking, and you won't be paid either.  The option to strike means you can still strike but could be fired.


""Ask the air controllers about that one.""
...nobody forced them back on the job.  They had the option to be fired and many of them did in fact quit.


""Plenty of children get home schooling"""
...yes, those kids are called stupid, and you'll find 20 years later flipping your hamburgers.


0
leonstrykerCommented:
The option always exists.  The right to strike means you won't be fired for striking, and you won't be paid either.  The option to strike means you can still strike but could be fired.

1.Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike.

Yes, you are right you always have the option to be kicked out on your ass if you refuse to work.

...nobody forced them back on the job.  They had the option to be fired and many of them did in fact quit.

No, they did not quit, they were fired. Many beggeed to be hired back, but .......

...yes, those kids are called stupid, and you'll find 20 years later flipping your hamburgers.

I do not know where you live, but in study after study, the home schooled kids score better on tests than those in conventional state-run schools.
0
_TAD_Commented:

So.... WI voted yesterday.

The Milwaukee County Executive position (Scott Walker's job before he become Gov.) was between a guy named Stone (R) and a guy name Abele (D).   Stone is a WI assemblyman who voted for Walker's bill.  Abele is a wealthy entrepreneur, a drunkard, womanizer and has paid over $15,000 in parking tickets in the past 3 years.   Abele, barely a mediocre excuse for a human, trounced Stone easily because Stone was linked to Walker.


The big election was for the State Supreme court between Prosser and Klopenburg.  Prosser has held the job of supreme court justice for over 20 years.  In the last election he won 99.55% of the vote.  That is not a mistype -- Prosser took *nearly* 100% of the vote in his last election.   In yesterday's election Prosser barely managed 50% of the vote.  Kloppenburg has declared victory, but by a margin of a mere 200 votes out of 1.5 million.


The Dems are claiming this is a referendum against Walker.  Walker dismisses this as fickle voters making decisions that are unrelated to him/his politics.  Regardless of whether this is a referendum or not this is going to be a huge momentum gain for the Dems in their quest to unseat 8 Repub senators.  

Further, of the 16 senators threatened with recall, 2 have received enough signatures to actually trigger a recall.  *IF* one more senator has a recall triggered *AND* they are successfully recalled then the senate will have democratic majority AND (if Kloppenburg wins the eventual recount) the supreme court will be decidedly more liberal than it's been in 20 years.    

Bottom line: Walker legislation will not survive long in this environment if all this comes to fruition.  
0
leonstrykerCommented:
Kloppenburg has declared victory, but by a margin of a mere 200 votes out of 1.5 million.

"Liberals declared victory earlier in the week when initial vote tallies showed Kloppenburg with a razor-thin lead. But in a surprising turn of events, Prosser surged ahead with a 7,500-vote lead on Thursday after a clerk from a predominantly GOP county announced she had incorrectly entered vote totals." ( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20052226-503544.html )

Stay tunned for further developments.

0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
""'Yes, you are right you always have the option to be kicked out on your ass if you refuse to work."""


....and that's all i'm saying.  You cannot end collective bargaining, because we have the right to assembly, we always have the "option" to strike or to boycott, and protest.. etc etc.

Regardless of what they put on paper, a strike can still occur, a walkout can still occur.
It is unrealistic to believe that Wis. could simply ...fire all of their teachers, police, fire departments,... simultaneously.  That would be political suicide for whoever is perceived to be the "guy in charge" at the time.

Like I said...without Unions, or "collective bargaining".. the only difference is that instead of negotiating with a representative of an angry mob the state will be negotiating with the mob itself.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
It is unrealistic to believe that Wis. could simply ...fire all of their teachers, police, fire departments,... simultaneously.  That would be political suicide for whoever is perceived to be the "guy in charge" at the time.

I believe that police and fire departments are not covered by the new law and are still able to use collective bargaining. In the case of the teachers, I could easially see them firing all of them (the ones who go on an illegal strike). Even in the case of police, I could see it happening, and having Wisconsin National Guard take over during the time it takes to replace the fired officers.

As to the political suicide, well .... maybe, but braking the unions did not hurt Margeret Thatcher's career.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
"""I believe that police and fire departments are not covered by the new law """"


....lol.. guess which unions contributed to Walker's campaign.


"""In the case of the teachers, I could easially see them firing all of them """

...and replace them with ...what ?
0
leonstrykerCommented:
and replace them with ...what ?

None union teachers.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
Good luck finding enough non-union teachers to fill those positions.  You can't just create teachers out of thin air.  You can't fill those positions with just anyone,... teaching requires a college degree for a reason.

Fact is..if all the teachers walked out, the school year is over unless their demands are met, and that would jeapordize the education path of every student in Wis.

It would be political suicide.  Even the majority of conservatives still think public schools are a necessity, along with most people in general.
0
Jim P.Author Commented:
Fact is..if all the teachers walked out, the school year is over unless their demands are met, and that would jeopardize the education path of every student in Wis.

Considering the brouhaha over even just trying to pass the law, I think the teachers striking to get collective bargaining back would finally push the population over the edge about how the unions are manipulating the system.

Even the majority of conservatives still think public schools are a necessity, along with most people in general.

It might be in some state constitutions -- but education (and a bunch of other things) isn't in the U.S. Constitution.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
Lot's of things aren't in the constitution...  let's not get into that one.

"""I think the teachers striking to get collective bargaining back would finally push the population over the edge """

Teachers are also part of that population, and their families and friends who support them are as well.  This is not a "popular" initiative, it's not on any ballot to be voted on.  This is a clear case of some politicians being elected, then going forward with a very controversial agenda pretending they have some sort of mandate on an issue that was hardly even part of their campaign.

Scott Walker campaigned on cutting taxes and creating jobs, and never spoke in any public forum about "union busting" during the course of his campaign.

Of all the people out there protesting in Wis.  ...you have to realize that many of them actually voted for Walker.  Do you think only Democrats and liberals become teachers, or work for the state ?
0
sbdt8631Commented:
>>xuserx2000:
Good luck finding enough non-union teachers to fill those positions.  You can't just create teachers out of thin air.  You can't fill those positions with just anyone,... teaching requires a college degree for a reason.

I remember when Reagan Fired the air traffic controllers.  No one, including the air traffic contollers, thought he could or he would.  He did.  It can happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

"On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order,[6][7] and banned them from federal service for life. (This ban was later rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993.)[8] In the wake of the strike and mass firings the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as at the time it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller"
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
The most important part of that paragraph...

""""In the wake of the strike and mass firings the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as at the time it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller"""


3 years in normal condition to train a controller...
Teaching degree is minimum 4 years in most places.  6 if you are teaching developmentally challenged kids.

Either way you slice it, the situations are not the same.

So all the kids in Wis. will get a 3-4 year extended summer vacation while we wait for new teachers to graduate college so they can work for less money and less benefits ?

Unlikely....

A more likely scenario...
I'm going to college in Wis.  I just graduated.   I'm moving to another state that treats their teachers like the professionals they are.

People do not go to college so they can make the same amount of money as a waitress...that makes no sense.  You won't have people jumping at the opportunity to make 35k per year in a thankless job with crap benefits, when a degree is required to do the job.

I have telemarketers outside my office door right now that make more money than that, and half of them didn't even graduate high school.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
Teaching degree is minimum 4 years in most places.

That's a 4 year college degree (BS or BA) and passing a teaching certification. States also extend temporary and emergency licenses that bypass state licensing requirements if they need to. In addition states also have reciprocity agreements that make it easier for teachers licensed in one state to become licensed in another.

With the current unemployment rates, and a number of college educated unemployed, filling those positions should be a breeze.

Sorry, but teaching kids is not Rocket Science. And, yes these teachers will not be as good as the ones who will now be unemployed (and who btw, will not be eligible for unemployment), but that will be corrected quickly.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
""filling those positions should be a breeze. """

...If you say so. lol.

You make a lot of assumptions Leon.
Your opinion is in the minority...not the majority.  You've told me already how you feel about public schools anyway, so i'm not surprised by your comments the least bit.

I guess that would be your idea on pushing people to home school their children ?
Simply gut the public school fire all the real teachers, and hire a bunch of fake teachers without background checks, career training,  internships, or anything eh...?  Just fast track a bunch of unemployed people and stick em' in the classroom...?

Yea that would do it for me...
I would either homeschool, or leave the state of Wis.

""Sorry, but teaching kids is not Rocket Science.""

Lot's of things aren't "rocket science", but still pay a fair wage and require a college education + certification, to do the job properly.  Teachers are professionals and deserve to be treated as such.

Let me ask you guys...

What private school did you all go to ?
Clearly you are an intellectual bunch (not sarcasm), so which private school do you owe your intelligence to?

I find it ironic that the majority of people who rail against teachers and public schools on the internet are only able to do so because they learned how to read and write ....in a public school.

Were all of your teachers ***holes or something ?
0
Jim P.Author Commented:
Sorry, but teaching kids is not Rocket Science. And, yes these teachers will not be as good as the ones who will now be unemployed (and who btw, will not be eligible for unemployment), but that will be corrected quickly.

Maybe, maybe not. Some of the best teachers I've had came from other industries. Teaching was their second career.
0
_TAD_Commented:
Wow....   how myopic and one-dimensional.

According to Walker (and his unrealistic/untrustworthy political spin) cutting collective bargaining will save 137 Million dollars.  

But at the same time the laws he passed in January giving businesses a tax break (lowering taxes for corporations) will cost the state over 150 Million in the next two years.  

The 137 million is highly optimistic, full of rhetoric and at best - a guess.   The 150 million is simple mathematics  


This debate in Wi has little to do with Unions, teachers or even the WI budget.  This is all about breaking the back of your opponents financial backers.   The Democratic party only has a handful of deep-pocket organizations that fund their elections - they are all unions.    Demonize the unions, get some loyal followers to dismantle a few key strategic groups and then your opponent has virtually no financial backers.    
0
sbdt8631Commented:
xuserx2000
I think you missed my point above about Reagan and the air traffic controllers.  It makes no difference how difficult it would be to replace the teachers or how ill advised it would be to fire them, if they go on strike.  The precedent has been set and there is a definite possibility that Walker would fire the whole lot of them.
And for the record, I oppose what Walker and the republicans are doing in Wisconsin and I look forward to watching the results of the recall efforts.
0
_TAD_Commented:


New development:


Walker admits that ending collective bargaining has no fiscal gain for this year (so why was it in a special budget repair bill?).

Further, Walker is now going to introduce a bill similar to what's going on in MI.  He wants to seize control of any city/town that he feels is in "financial crisis".    Details on the bill are still forthcoming, so we don't know what the criteria will be for what is and is not a financial crisis.  
0
Scott PletcherSenior DBACommented:
What Walker is doing is necessary, certainly for the long-term financial health of the state.

Even uber-lefty moonbean gov of calif may even bow to reality and start reducing the ridiculously excessive pensions of govt workers.

Of course we should start with congress itself.  The Dems insist that Soc Sec is so great, why don't they live with it?  We should get rid of ALL pensions for ALL govt workers except military personnel.  They can fund IRAS, 401Ks, etc., just like the rest of us.
0
_TAD_Commented:
>>ALL govt workers except military personnel.


*except* ??  typical right-wing thinking.    Claim to have a solution to a critical problem impacting *everyone*, but then have a list of exceptions (who are your primary constituents.


Here's the latest:    WI is in a fiscal crisis.  We have to make cutback *everywhere* because we are in such dire straights.   Oh, but we need to implement voter ID requirements which will cost the state an estimated 10 to 15 million dollars the first year and another 6 million every year there after.  

Our "crisis" can't be that severe if the governor is suggesting we spend money on this frivolity.
0
leonstrykerCommented:
typical right-wing thinking.    Claim to have a solution to a critical problem impacting *everyone*, but then have a list of exceptions (who are your primary constituents.

Lets take a look at the exemption list for the insurance health plans shall we. NIMBY cuts across political and social spectrums.
0
Jim P.Author Commented:
>>ALL govt workers except military personnel.

*except* ??  typical right-wing thinking.

Couple of points on that:

The Military (i.e. defense) is an enumerated power in the U.S. Constitution.
The ability to contribute to I.R.A. or similar is not really there on military pay.
Do not confuse the actual military troops with the GS and WG employees. The pension systems are two different animals.
The military has been working at raising the years and modifying the amount of pensions since the late 80's.
I don't know the actual numbers, but I'm guessing that the number of military veterans to military retirees is approximately 15 vets for 1 retiree.
The U.S. population is over 300 million, The number of veterans in the U.S. population is about 25M. The U.S. active duty is about 1.5M. That is less than 1% of the population.

There are exceptions to every rule.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
...still no answer to which private schools you guys attended ??

So I guess I can assume you are all products of PUBLIC education ?

Irony is everywhere if you know where to look......
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
..wait..is it irony or hypocrisy...hmmm.... {ponders*}
0
Scott PletcherSenior DBACommented:
jimpen:

I said ONLY the military SHOULD have pensions.  ALL *OTHER* govt workers should have NO pensions, but should have to have 401Ks, IRAs, etc., *most especially congress*.

Virtually every senator is a millionaire -- if not before office, then definitely after *one* term of senate perks -- so why shouldn't they pay for their own retirement?

The idea that you have to pay huge pensions just to get "good" govt workers is ridiculous.  The job security is so ridiculously high that will bring in people anyway.


Btw,  military personnel are not "my primary constituents".  I just think that with the truly *low* pay they get for the type of work they do, a pension *is* warranted.  But not for sleeping half the day at the post office, whose quasi-govt workers get absurdly large pensions.


All govts must reduce spending.  We are truly approaching bankrupcty as we Dems try to keep their klepotcracy in full force.  The govt unions back the Dems, who give bloated benefits to govt unions, who vote back in the Dems, who give more to the govt unions, etc..  A never-ending self-enrichment circle of greed.  But we can't afford that scam any more -- actually we never could but it was ignored by the press before now.  Now it's gotten so big it simply can't be ignored any longer.

0
Scott PletcherSenior DBACommented:
TYPO:

obv not "bankruptcy as we Dems" but "bankruptcy as *the* Dems"
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
Why should only military get pensions ?
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
Unions are just people...who want a liveable wage.

Attempts to make unions seem "evil", are truly laughable.



""But we can't afford that scam any more"""

...SCAM ?? ...hahah...lol... it's not a scam just because you've deemed it so.
A union negotiates with the government, or a private company.  I repeat...they NEGOTIATE terms of labor contracts.

When two parties NEGOTIATE, that means the two parties agree on terms.  That's not a scam, that's an amicable settlement to a dispute.

Conservatives like to make it seem as if uions have all the power and they get whatever they want, which couldn't be further from the truth.  As you saw in Wis., irrespective of Walker's legislation...the unions had already agreed to a significant paycut.

It was already part of the NEGOTIATION...before Walkers' bill was introduced to take away the unions power to negotiate anything.
0
_TAD_Commented:

Why should military be the *only* ones who get pensions?   I submit that the average Firefighter or Policeman has a far more dangerous job then the average military personnel (active combat not withstanding).

If you want to give military personnel special "hazzard pay" while serving in active combat - that's one thing.  But what about the MP's standing around at Quantico?  Do you really think they are *more* deserving of a pension than a firefighter or policeman (or teacher, or garbage man).
0
behendersonCommented:
Firefighters and policemen have no where near as dangerous a job as military personnel.  About 1 in four Veterans of the Iraq war required some type of Medical or Mental health treatment upon their return home as a result of their combat experience.  Yes they are more deserving of a pension you soft, spoiled unappreciative, uninformed ....
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
""Firefighters and policemen have no where near as dangerous a job as military personnel"""

...uh...that depends on where you live buddy.
0
Jim P.Author Commented:
I submit that the average Firefighter or Policeman has a far more dangerous job then the average military personnel (active combat not withstanding).

That may or may not be true depending on location in the U.S.

Do you really think they are *more* deserving of a pension than a firefighter or policeman (or teacher, or garbage man).

And where in the U.S. are any of those professions actively the responsibility of the federal government and not local? (I know, D.C. -- but that is because it is a separate entity.) And where should it even be the responsibility of the local government to pick up the garbage?

So I guess I can assume you are all products of PUBLIC education?

Yes. And I have been succeeding despite everything my public education got wrong.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
...also depends on what your job in the military is.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
""Yes. And I have been succeeding despite everything my public education got wrong."""


haha..SERIOUSLY ???

..... yes you are self made i'm sure.  Despite the horrible public education system you managed to teach yourself how to read/write, mathematics, history, geography, science...etc etc.

I'm sure you have an extensive collection of books on tape.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
btw- What exactly did they "get wrong" ???

0
Scott PletcherSenior DBACommented:
When the two parties are corrupt, the "negotiation" itself is just a scam.  It's not a valid negotiation when the govt side is giving away other peoples' money.  It's a kickback scam, just like the mafia runs.

For example, locally they passed a "pension" plan that govt "workers" could retire after *12* years, with *no* age restrictions.  So you could start working at 18 and begin collecting a pension at age 30, for the rest of your life.  That kind of fraud would never be tolerated in a non-govt situation.

Btw, the average firefighter spends orders of magnitude more time sleeping *at "work"* than fighting fires.

The military deserves a pension because of the extremely low pay and difficult conditions.  But if you want to pull their pension too, no problem, just dramatically increase their pay correspondingly.


Excellent point jimpen.  The feds should have nothing to do with other pensions.  In particular, they should not dictate when people can start drawing retirement pay.  What is more core to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than deciding when *you* want to retire?  

Instead the govt attempts to dictate when you can retire -- deliberately trying to make sure a significant percentage of the men involved die before collecting a cent.
0
behendersonCommented:
>>...uh...that depends on where you live buddy.

No, it does not depend on where you live.  There is no where in the country where one in four policemen require Medical or mental treatment as the result of physical or mental trauma experienced on the job.  Firefighters and Policemen are great, they do not experience anything close to the level of danger that our military personnel in both Iraq and Afghanistan experience.  You do the military a disservice when you minimize the contribution that they make and the conditions they serve in.  

It is not the main topic of this discussion but you are clearly and unequivocally wrong on that point, and in so being you are dismissive and unappreciative of the commitment and sacrifice being made by our military in the current war zones.  The claim was careless and made with absolutely nothing to back it up other than because you and the original poster, with zero appreciation for the military men and women serving in war zones, just thought it up.  Retract it or back it up, or sign up and serve.

If you do none of the above I will just consider this distraction from the main post settled.
0
Ron MalmsteadInformation Services ManagerCommented:
Oh please....

First of all... less than 1% of all military personnel actually see any kind of combat.  There are lots of jobs in the military that are nowhere near the battlefield.

What I see here is an attempt to put military service above all other kinds of service to this country, in yet another attempt to justify taking away retirement and benefits for everyone else.

It's ridiculous.....

Stop tyring to pull a "guilt trip",... I have two immediate family members in the army, in Afghanistan, right now.   Their interest in the American dream ....which is a mediocre retirement.... is the same as any other American.

Sorry, but I don't think you should have to be shot at to qualify for a pension....that's idiotic.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Politics

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.