- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,443
- Reaction score
- 733
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The whole world is watching.
Excerpted from “Wisconsin governor gives Democrats ultimatum” By David Bailey, MADISON, Wisc., Reuters, Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:54pm EST
[SIZE="+2"]R[/SIZE]epublican Governor Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or have the state would miss out on a huge debt restructuring. …
Excerpted from “In Wisconsin, the real struggle is over power” By Ezra Klein, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, Monday, February 21, 2011; 8:08 PM
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he deal Wisconsin made with its state employees was simple: Accept lower wages than you could get in the private sector now in return for better pensions and health-care benefits when you retire. Now Walker wants to renege on that deal.
Rather than stiff the banks, in other words, he wants to stiff the teachers - but the crucial twist he's added, the one that's sent tens of thousands of workers into the streets, is that he wants to make sure they can't fight back once he does it.
This is as good an explanation of what is happening in Wisconsin as any I've seen.
The deal Wisconsin made with its state employees was simple: Accept lower wages than you could get in the private sector now in return for better pensions and health-care benefits when you retire. Now Walker wants to renege on that deal.
Rather than stiff the banks, in other words, he wants to stiff the teachers - but the crucial twist he's added, the one that's sent tens of thousands of workers into the streets, is that he wants to make sure they can't fight back once he does it.
The teachers could always quit and go find another job.
This is as good an explanation of what is happening in Wisconsin as any I've seen.
This is as good an explanation of what is happening in Wisconsin as any I've seen.
The Wisconsin Constitution assigns the state legislature the responsibility of crafting rules and definitions governing how voting is to be conducted, i.e., the mechanics of voting. Article IV, Section 7 empowers 51% of the elected legislators in each house of the Wisconsin legislature to do the following:
1) Define a quorum to include those legislators who have the ability -- if they choose -- to vote absently, either by electronic means or proxy. This would ensure that no citizens are ever deprived of representation in the state legislature even if their representative is in the hospital or out of town; and/or
2) Pass a statute (or legislative rules) that any legislator who refuses or fails to represent his constituents by participating in the deliberations of that body for more than 30 days is to be regarded as having resigned his office. Once again, this would ensure that no citizens are ever deprived of representation in the state legislature even if their representative is in the hospital or out of town or just refuses to show up for work.
Every state permits absentee voting, and more and more are permitting electronic voting from locales other than town halls and school gymnasiums. Extended times for voting (between Day X and Day Y) are also being enacted in a number of states.
Such a statute or rule for Wisconsin's legislature would state that so long as a member can reach a telephone and is able to record a vote, that member should be counted as part of a quorum. The act of not voting, that is abstaining, has never been counted against a quorum. It's the ability to cast a vote that is all that has mattered.
American Thinker: Two Solutions to the Wisconsin Stalemate
why should they need to?
their union has entered into a contract, one with which the state agreed, to pay them a defined compensation for their efforts
it is this contractural arrangement that the governor is trying to eliminate while insisting he is not
he is a liar and a republican ... but then i repeat myself
The whole world is watching.
why should they need to?
Their union has entered into a contract, one with which the state agreed, to pay them a defined compensation for their efforts.
it is this contractural arrangement that the governor is trying to eliminate while insisting he is not. He is a liar and a republican ... but then i repeat myself
the state participated in the previous contract negotiations and signed the agreement to pay as provided by that agreement. rather than demonize the employees, those that are responsible for an inappropriate outcome are those who negotiated on behalf of the state/taxpayers. but i do not see that in this discussionThe state doesn't have the money to pay that contract.
nope. there is a third option. one which the law says should occur. the state management could enter into negotiations and negotiate new terms based on the new economic realities facing the stateThere are only two other options: layoffs, or bankruptcy. Walkers oath to the people of Wisconsin takes precedence over the union's contract. The people of Wisconsin are tired of having their tax money laundered and funneled into Democrat political campaigns. Based on that, alone, public employee unions should be illegal.
That the union has already agreed to make needed concessions and the governor is still pressing forward to deprive the employees of the right to collectively bargain, clearly indicates that the republican objective is to break the unions. Large business would love that ... as they do most bones tossed to them by that party of the rich
There was nothing noteworthy about Friday (the date previously floated regarding the debt restructuring) and there's nothing notable about Tuesday. Debt restructuring involves issuing new debt at a lower interest rate and using the proceeds to pay off a portion of the previously issued debt with a higher interest rate. An interest rate hike or notable increase in rates from the current levels is not imminent. Hence, if the debt were restructured even next month, odds are that Wisconsin would not be materially adversely affected.
Wisconsin Democrats meanwhile drew fresh support from President Barack Obama and a big union filed a legal complaint against the governor, as a poll suggested he would lose to his Democratic opponent if the 2010 election were held now.
...
Walker's budget proposal brought out an estimated 70,000 protesters on Saturday, the biggest protest crowd in the capital since the Vietnam War, and a poll released on Monday suggested that if the 2010 election could be replayed the Wisconsin governor might lose.
the state participated in the previous contract negotiations and signed the agreement to pay as provided by that agreement. rather than demonize the employees, those that are responsible for an inappropriate outcome are those who negotiated on behalf of the state/taxpayers. but i do not see that in this discussion
the union has already agreed to make concessions to the structure of the compensation in recognition that the state experienced revenue shortfalls causing it to now be unable to honor the contract it signed
nope. there is a third option. one which the law says should occur. the state management could enter into negotiations and negotiate new terms based on the new economic realities facing the state
if the parties reached impasse in those negotiations during that negotiation, an impasse would be declared and an objective impasse panel would split the baby, deciding what the appropriate compensation would be
that the union has already agreed to make needed concessions and the governor is still pressing forward to deprive the employees of the right to collectively bargain, clearly indicates that the republican objective is to break the unions
large business would love that ... as they do most bones tossed to them by that party of the rich
I have heard both WI democrats and republicans agree that this is the drop dead date. This is not an artificial deadline set by Walker. I believe it is due to the time necessary to refinance the debt and passing the bill too late will not generate the savings necessary.
The political rhetoric is wrong. The so-called drop dead date was first touted as last Friday. Now it is today. No one has shown covenants or other terms that preclude restructuring at a later date. Indeed, even the political rhetoric is very inconsistent on the expected benefits of refinancing. Some have argued that refinancing would actually cost the state $42 million. The governor has argued that it would save the state $165 million. Neither side has actually provided the underlying assumptions for their estimates. Barring provisions that would preclude refinancing at a later date--provisions that would be extremely rare for public debt--the risks associated with later date would be interest rate and credit risks. The former being that rates could rise from current levels. The latter being that the state's financial outlook could deteriorate further leading to a greater risk premium.
Given the current benign interest rate picture, interest rates are not likely to be much higher than they are at present a month down the road. Moreover, if the governor offers a credible budget, the state's fiscal outlook could be somewhat better than it presently is. The budget's underlying assumptions and projections and its likelihood of being adopted will tell the story as to its credibility. The bottom line is that there is no drop dead date, though waiting until the summer might begin to see interest rates drifting higher as inflation and inflation expectations become somewhat larger factors than they are at present. Indeed, the shifting of that date already shattered the political narrative that had been advanced.
IMO, perhaps the best strategy to lock in the largest possible savings from a debt refinancing would involve adopting a credible budget within the next month or two, one that addresses the state's fiscal imbalances beyond two years e.g., the restructuring of health/pensions is started and assumptions/projections are realistic, and puts the state on a path toward sustained budget surpluses (to contribute partially to addressing long-term imbalances). To achieve that, there will need to be political tradeoffs. Without such accommodation, one would see layoffs, but the budget picture would not be appreciably improved. Markets would also price in the possibility of a significant political backlash/future electoral changes and the "victory" would likely prove pyrrhic with the elevated credit risk premia reducing or, in a worst case, wiping out possible refinancing savings.
So IOW, just reshuffle the deck? Kick the can down the road AGAIN? people are tired of this. Tell me why Public Sectors get to unionize in the first place?
j-mac
Because it is their right under the law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?