The Real Lesson from Wisconsin

Public unions have no one but themselves to blame for believing government promises

There is an abiding delusion that frustrates efforts to limit the size and scope of government: The government, unlike the private sector, shields people from economic risk. Government jobs are regarded as safer and government bonds securer. But the battle that public unions are fighting in Wisconsin shows that the government can no more offer guarantees in life than the tooth fairy. On the contrary, it shows that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you’ve got.

The fundamental reason why ObamaCare passed and Social Security privatization stalled is the fear that individuals need government programs to protect them from the cruel vagaries of the market. Market critics played up these fears in the wake of the financial meltdown. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd blamed “extreme capitalism and unrestrained greed for perverting the global financial system” and called on governments to take aggressive steps to protect victims facing job losses and melting retirement accounts.

But Wisconsin demonstrates that people who put their economic fate in the government’s hands don’t get safety; they get screwed. They simply trade the cruel vagaries of the market for the cruel vagaries of politics whose risks they have even less control over. Why? Because the government does not play by the same rules that apply to mere mortals in the private sector.

Wisconsin is just the first act in an unfolding tragedy in which states and municipalities across the country have promised $3.5 trillion—about a quarter of the national GDP—in pensions that they don’t have the funds for. Unfunded health retirement costs are even greater. But how did we get to this point?

The reason, explained Orin Kramer, the chairman of the New Jersey Investment Council, in The New York Times, is that the government can use accounting methods and make assumptions about investment returns that private companies are simply not permitted. This diminishes its reserve requirements, freeing it to make lavish promises now and postpone the budgetary consequences into the future. Public unions go along with this subterfuge—something that private unions wouldn’t do—because they count on the government’s taxation powers to keep refilling the trough.

And, for a while, the government does just that. Reason Foundation, my employer, found that in 2009, state and local government employees earned 44 percent more total compensation than private industry workers. What’s more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that private workers have a 20 percent chance of losing their job in a given year compared to 6 percent for government workers.

But the problem is that the government eventually either runs out of other people’s money or it becomes politically untenable to keep raiding their pockets or both. And, at that point, the massive powers it had deployed against taxpayers get redirected towards thwarting those with claims against the government.

This is what is happening in Wisconsin right now. For years, its public unions have been living large. But now, facing a two-year $3.6 billion shortfall, Governor Scott Walker is asking the legislature to effectively rewrite the union contract, imposing compensation cuts on public employees—while paring back their collective bargaining rights. All of this might be totally justified and necessary. Still, it testifies to the awesome power of the state government to impose its will, regardless of any standing arrangement.

In many states, to be sure, public union contracts and government bonds are constitutionally protected. States can’t declare bankruptcy and restructure these obligations when they are facing fiscal insolvency. But that just raises a worse specter: their default, especially right now when the federal government can’t bail states out given its own massive debt and unfunded liabilities—not to mention public bailout fatigue.

Government defaults are hardly unprecedented, notes University of Pennsylvania bankruptcy professor David Skeel. About 2,020 government entities defaulted during the Great Depression because they were barred from going into bankruptcy. (Congress subsequently passed a law allowing municipal bankruptcies.) When that happens, no one with any claim against the state has any legal protection. Everyone—bondholders and employees alike—loses their shirt. Public employees might not even get back the pension money they have put into the system.

This is in sharp contrast to the private sector where a court can step in and force companies to liquidate their assets to at least pay off their secured debtors. But it can’t force a state government to, say, sell public parks or golf courses or roads, to make good on its obligations. That’s because the doctrine of sovereign immunity insulates government from lawsuits unless it has consented to be sued.

Competition and the rule of law check individual greed in the market. These mechanisms are not perfect, but at least they exist. Government, on the other hand, is an unregulated monopoly that sets its own rules and enforces them as and when it sees fit. Wisconsin’s public unions can hardly complain if it changes the rules mid-game. After all, they are the ones who decided to play with it in the first place.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a columnist for The Daily, America's first iPad newspaper. This column originally appeared at The Daily.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    On the contrary, it shows that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you’ve got.

    Yup.

  • ||

    "Wisconsin shows that the government can no more offer guarantees in life than the tooth fairy."

    True.

  • rather||

    The fundamental reason why ObamaCare passed is that uninsured public needed HC.

  • ||

    You have no idea how much libertarians would want to say they want the sick and penniless to genuinely die in the streets. But they can't, which means they have to accept that *something* must be needed, because someone needs to foot the bill for the people who need money to get saved but do not have enough.

    That basic admission makes it very difficult for them to convince people "ObamaCare" is some sort of eldritch abomination and crime against baby Reagan. After all, they have already conceded that some redistribution is necessary to keep people from dying in the streets. That makes their outrage seem very much like a pose.

  • tarran||

    Murray Rothbard said to Walter Block:

    "Another problem we libertarians have is in opposing rape; having conceded that some sort of sexual intercourse is needed to create the new generation, we have a difficult time convincing people that rape is an abomination"

    At that point Walter Block became enlightened.

  • ||

    Bullshit.

  • ||

    Apples and oranges.

  • botoxporcupine||

    Funny, in The Ethics of Liberty he advocates that rapists be raped if their victims so choose.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    Funny thing about prison...

  • ||

    If you want to see real people dying on the streets and dying from hunger, then check out the history of the Soviet Union or the Chinese great leap forward. Real events in history as opposed to non-existent hypotheticals that have never occurred in free markets.

    And no redistribution is not necessary, its only you wanting others to live by your moral standards.

  • ||

    "Real events in history as opposed to non-existent hypotheticals that have never occurred in free markets."

    Who is going to pay for healthcare the impoverished can't afford in the kind of free market you say has existed? the charitable? I thought "hypotheticals" were banned!

    Fucking retard.

    "And no redistribution is not necessary"

    Who is going to pay for the healthcare some people will need to live but won't be able to afford?

  • ||

    As I said check out real facts idiot, check out the imploding welfare states in Europe, nobody is going to pay for Greece to continue with their free health, free education etc. etc.

    You can make all the laws you want, if there is no money to pay for, then you cannot get it. Zimbabwe has all those wonderful laws that you want, yet surprisingly it cannot deliver on those promises.

  • Tony||

    Sweden and a few dozen others I can name can. You're not answering the question.

  • ||

    Sweden and Germany (thats where I am from) are facing the same impossible fiscal numbers that Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy etc. are facing now, not tomorrow but right now. You name a few countries and somehow think that the majority if failed socialist states are somehow not relevant. What makes you think America is a Sweden and not a Spain or Argentina ?

    To sustain the current status would mean that by 2050 workers would have to pay above 75% tax rates. In your world view that is no problem, but in the real world that is a system that cannot work.

  • ||

    "HURDEBURGEHRGE ALL DEMOCRATS WANT US TO BECOME LIKE GREECE UGREGEREG"

    Answer my question instead fuckface: Who is going to pay for the healthcare that some people will need to live but won't be able to afford in a free market system?

  • ||

    Let those people who want to pay for others pay it, like you. As I said stop imposing your morals on other dumb cunt.

    And yes you want America to become a welfare state like Greece, I personally challenge you to find a single thing in the Greek constitution that you do not support. Trust me the average American is not like a Swede, you are a good example of it.

  • ||

    "Let those people who want to pay for others pay it, like you."

    So without charity, people will die in the streets. Yeah, I'm not letting society take that bet.

    "Trust me the average American is not like a Swede, you are a good example of it."

    I've been to Sweden plenty and I love it there precisely because they are more Germanic than Anglo-Saxon and quite different from the average American.

  • tarran||

    Definitely a greedy taker. :-)

  • Peenchy||

    Uhh... Anglo-Saxons are German, moron.

  • tarran||

    I will. The church will. The Masons will. The Shriners will. My neighbors will. Anonymous will.

    I'm not sure if you will. You strike me more as a greedy taker than a charitable giver.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Catholic Charities will. The Knights of Columbus will. Lutheran Social Services will.

  • ||

    Well good for you, if you want to give money to poor Americans thats great. If I want to give my money to poor Africans, that is my choice, I do not believe that you should be forced to make the same choice though. A person who is generous with other peoples money is not charitable, as much as you would like to convince yourself.

    If the socialists had to rewrite the ending to the Christmas Carol, they would have the government visit Scrooge, take his money and they all lived happily ever after. The End.

  • tarran||

    Not sure, my comment about greedy takers was aimed at Mr Rapist, not you. Sorry :-)

  • ||

    Sorry, I also misread the comment.

  • Dat_Truth_Hurts||

    You are asking the wrong question: you should ask "Why are medical procedures and doctor's visits so expensive?"

    If we provide "health care" for all, costs will skyrocket like college tuition. So, no - no one will be able to pay for everyone becuase there will be shortages, rationing and we'll still have poor people with bad health habits waiting for care.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Why not look into how health care worked before the Great Society? As it turns out, doctors DID provide services to the poor. Also, without the government distortions of the health care market, the astronomical prices we pay for even basic care now would not exist.

  • nanda||

    when clinton signed welfare reform, it was predicted that people would die in the streets. Did not happen. Such things don't happen except in places like North Korea or stalinist Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia. where the regime says we are for the people, the people are sure to die in the streets from gunshot or starvation.

    some of us deal with the "poor." the "poor" have all manner of fancy electronic gadgets, big screen TVs, they go on vacation, they spend alot of money on cosmetics, including hair styles, they are in no danger of starvation and in fact tend to be overweight. Like the Indian man said, I want to go to America where the poor are fat. The poor so called are fat because of the work done by tens of millions who don't rely on taxes to live, who generate revenue.

  • Brian D||

    And they're getting it whether they want it or not at an increasing cost than before.

  • JohnD||

    I'm calling BullShit on this one!
    ObamaCare passed because the freaking Dems controlled Congress and they and the Lier in Chief has an agenda to turn America into a Socialist state. If you believe anything else, you are a fool.

  • ||

    So Congress passes something that in all likelihood will destroy what's left of the economy for roughly 9% of the population? All just for the sake of saying we did something. I am sorry, but there has to be a better way. No I don't know what it is, but then I am not being paid to solve that problem.

  • rather||

    But Wisconsin demonstrates that people who put their economic fate in the government’s hands don’t get safety; they get screwed. They simply trade the cruel vagaries of the market for the cruel vagaries of politics whose risks they have even less control over. Why?

    Does the public have the ability to vote out the former?

  • Matrix||

    Sure... by not exchanging goods, services, money, or labor ever. People could get rid of the market. We can just go the strongest taking everything from the weaker and leaving them to die. The market will always exist so long as people are willing to trade something for something else.

  • JohnD||

    Another bullshit claim. The people in WI are not getting screwed. They have been riding the gravy train for years and now they are asked to be reasonable. They are a bunch of selfish pigs sucking the taxpayers dry. Public Sector unions are an abomination and should be illegal.

  • ||

    This...

  • DLM||

    The people in WI are not getting screwed.

    I think she meant 'screwed' in the sense of not getting what they bargained for.

  • ||

    Well, it's a good thing those union members have recognized that they actually have to work and make an effort to actually make sure the government makes good on those promises.

    Unions complain about losing benefits, does nothing: "Hahahaha you lazy syndicalists shouldn't have trusted the government and just sat on your fat asses waiting for boons!"

    Unions complain about losing benefits, man the fuck up and fight back against the Kochsuckers: "WTF what do you think you are doing you evil thugs! Class warfare class warfare! WAAAAAAH"

    God DAMN do I hope your taxes go up plenty sooner or later.

  • X||

    how will they raise taxes in WI? even if the Dems win the leg and governorship, the repubs can just leave the state and prevent tax increases.

  • ||

    Sure they can, provided there are enough of them to block a quorum by leaving.

    Not to mention there is a marketing dimension to all this - the people of WI have recognized that Walker could end this stand-off by accepting all the offered concessions from unions (the ones he campaigned on) and giving up the crippling of unions (something he did not campaign on).

    What does the Wisconsinites want? Less benefits for unions, continued collective bargaining.

    What does Walker want? To help his party above all else.

    What do glibertarians want? To keep unions out of politics, even if it means allying with politicians that are in cahoots with corporate interests.

    The dem state senators recognized they would not come out as villains by fleeing to Illinois to stop a controversial union-busting bill. Republican state senators doing the same to stop non-controversial tax increases would not go over very well.

  • ||

    I hope there's a hell for John Cole to burn in.

  • ||

    In this libertarian specimen, people, we can perhaps see the marks left by his Judeo-Christian ancestry.

  • Brian D||

    Since when are tax increases 'non-controversial'?

  • ||

    When a majority wants them. If a majority in Wisconsin would be for tax increases, then the republican state senators would think twice before moving to Illinois. The democratic state senators in this case thought that fleeing was the best option. So far, they have not been proven wrong.

    Among proper human beings, "Taxation is theft" is looked down upon as consistently as "Property is theft". Apart from that sex-starved Russian flapper that thought Mary Sues and strawmen were acceptable narrative devices, libertarian scripture is about as spread as Marx.

  • ||

    More idiotic logic, the majority would want to pay more tax so that a minority of union workers live better lives than them. So unlike all other revolutions in history, the people will revolt because they are not being taxed enough.

  • ||

    "More idiotic logic, the majority would want to pay more tax so that a minority of union workers live better lives than them."

    That's not how I saw that hypothetical future scenario.

  • ||

    Thats exactly what you are endorsing, people to pay more taxes to people who earn more than them. There are not enough people/businesses who earn more than the unions to be able to cover their pensions. And even if they did, the businesses would leave, and rightly so, meaning that the poorer people would have to pay higher tax to people earning more for them.

  • ||

    "Thats exactly what you are endorsing, people to pay more taxes to people who earn more than them."

    I didn't know all public employees made more money than the median or the mean. Adjusted for the fact that many of them worked hard in college, of course.

    Anyway, there are other reasons people would support tax increases. When I considered that example, I didn't assume it would only concern a tax increase solely designed to give union members benefits. I wouldn't support that tax increase.

  • Alistair Young||

    That the majority happen to be theft-worshipping fuckheads doesn't make theft-worshipping fuckheadry the correct position.

  • ||

    Taxation isn't theft - if you stay and work in a country you know will tax you, then you can only blame yourself.

    I think it's funny how libertarians provide bootstraps for every problem, but when it comes to getting taxed they never blame themselves.

    Whiny scum the whole lot. There is more pothos and willpower in a retired "parasite" union worker than there is in 20 can-hoarding, gun-toting sun-kissed libertarian boy-men.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Sure they can, provided there are enough of them to block a quorum by leaving.
    ...
    The dem state senators recognized they would not come out as villains by fleeing to Illinois to stop a controversial union-busting bill. Republican state senators doing the same to stop non-controversial tax increases would not go over very well.

    You're an idiot. GO TEAM BLUE!

  • Zeb||

    Wow. So are you really unable to see that there is a good argument against public sector unions which has nothing to do with being against unions in general? People absolutely have the right to form unions, and those unions absolutely have a right to participate in politics. Whether or not a government decides to deal with unions is a completely separate issue.

  • ||

    "Whether or not a government decides to deal with unions is a completely separate issue."

    Yes, but only a retard would think a republican government would actually bother to negotiate with unions if it didn't have to. Hence, protests. Jeez you are naive.

    A temporary fiscal crisis is not a mandate for a temporary crippling of unions. Especially not if corporations would still be allowed to get involved in politics. The fleeing democrats are using the checks and balances of the WI system to prevent a destabilization of that very system of checks and balances.

  • Dat_Truth_Hurts||

    Huh? This isn't about private unions.

  • Dat_Truth_Hurts||

    And I'm preatty certain (like 94.6%) that running to another state means you are just a pussy.

  • ||

    Pussies can still whip.

  • rather||

    Is raising taxes necessarily part of a budget bill? A quorum is not required for non-budget matters.

  • ||

    Wisconsin demands a quorum for any bill with "fiscal impact", I think.

    Which is a bit broad.

  • rather||

    Is raising taxes necessarily part of a budget bill? A quorum is not required for non-budget matters.

  • Peenchy||

    Lol!

    I can't tell if this guy is serious or not?

    You seriously want to tax the populace more, to support the state workers who already make more money than they do?

    How about we just increase the tax rate to 90%, pay government workers each 1million a year, and then have weekly public bend-overs in front of the capital?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Unions complain about losing benefits, man the fuck up and fight back against the Kochsuckers: "WTF what do you think you are doing you evil thugs! Class warfare class warfare! WAAAAAAH"

    God DAMN do I hope your taxes go up plenty sooner or later.

    LOL at this--it doesn't matter how much taxes get jacked up or not. the reality is that the union model is no longer sustainable. When corporations decided they couldn't afford the workforce anymore, they packed up and left, or simply shut down. What were the private sector unions able to do about it? NOTHING.

    When private sector taxpayers (who these entitled pigeons are entirely dependant upon to sustain their lifestyle) decide that living in certain areas is no longer fiscally sustainable for their own wallets, they will move where such burdens do not exist or, at least, exist on a much smaller scale that is sustainable to their household budget. What can public sector unions do about this? NOTHING. And most hilariously, many of them KNOW that they've created fiscal situations that are unsustainable for their communities--hence, why you see so many retirees move to lower-cost areas of the country, instead of staying in the very communities that provided them a living for decades.

    So bumble and sputter to your heart's content--the math says that maintaining our current spending habits is no longer realistic, and the math doesn't give a shit about "social justice" or "fairness" or "living wages" or any of that other Marxist PC crap.

    Just try jacking up income taxes to the sky with unemployment the way it is now--you'll see a level of tax avoidance that will make your head spin. The ultra-rich don't care how high you spin it up, because they know all the tricks to hide their wealth. But you'll do a damn good job of nuking what's left of the private sector middle class just to satiate your covetousness.

    A little pain now, or a lot later on--those are the choices for our privileged classes in the public sector who have taken the private sector for granted for 7 decades now.

  • ||

    "A little pain now, or a lot later on"

    The unions have already agreed to the concessions Walker campaigned on.

    They are just not interested in permanent loss of political power, especially not with Koch industries paying Walker for no-bid contracts and removed workplace safety regulations.

  • sevo||

    Proud rapist of tax-payers|3.8.11 @ 10:16AM|#
    "The unions have already agreed to the concessions Walker campaigned on."

    Tough stuff; now their going to lose more. Great to hear it!

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    What about the concession of getting the fuck back to work?

  • Dat_Truth_Hurts||

    You mean politicians lie? Egads! Next thing you'll tell me Obama won't close Guantonimo!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The unions have already agreed to the concessions Walker campaigned on.

    Which is irrelevant to whether their salary, healthcare, and pensions structures can be maintained or not.

    They are just not interested in permanent loss of political power

    Oh, so this is political? It doesn't have anything to do with acknowledging economic realities?

    Party's over, bitch.

  • ||

    "Oh, so this is political?"

    Why exactly - Walker is going for the end of collective bargaining even though he did not campaign on it in order to improve the political position of his party.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Like I said, party's over, bitch. Even if Walker doesn't get this pushed through, it won't matter a lick whether these deadbeats can maintain their "rights" or not. Sooner or later, the edifice is going to come down whether you like it or not. That's what happens when social entitlements start taking up 1/3 of the nation's over-inflated income.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....d-salaries

    The comment from SWRichmond at 19:47 is particularly LOL, and I'd sincerely love to see you try and refute the math. Once the parasite begins draining more than the host has to give, it's game over.

    Your silly little invective damning us all to higher taxes gives the whole game away. Spare me the mewling that these leeches are "willing to compromise." Bullshit--if Walker was cutting their salaries and making them contribute more to their pensions, you'd see the same screaming and fist-shaking. Because you see this every single time cuts to government spending are proposed and/or made; the only difference is now Obama's got his campaign workers agitating the unions and the idiot college students in Madi-shit to poz out like a bunch of baboons.

    The math says you're fucked ten ways from Sunday (and since you advocate blowing up what's left of the private sector just to feed your sociopathic envy, you belong with these turds just as much as any SEIU leech). You can't refute it, and you can't scold it away. And what's truly tragic is that you'll wonder how on earth our leaders weren't able to solve the very problems you helped cause.

  • ||

    I wonder how they are going to outsource teaching to the third world. Public workers will be needed as long as there is a public. You might just leave in a huff (oh please hurry up) but India and Bangladesh are already full.

    "and since you advocate blowing up what's left of the private sector just to feed your sociopathic envy"

    Telling corporations they have to keep poison away from public water and workers safe makes them explode?

    In that case, they're not worth it. When a girl is too high maintenance, she can go fuck herself.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I wonder how they are going to outsource teaching to the third world

    Parents can always homeschool. Every child that gets pulled out of the public schools reduces the power of the teacher's unions that much more. Or, teachers will end up having to get paid like they used to--by working out deals directly with the parents whose children they teach. Just because the unions exist now doesn't mean they always will. Just ask the mill towns in the north-central US.

    Public workers will be needed as long as there is a public. You might just leave in a huff (oh please hurry up) but India and Bangladesh are already full.

    LOL if you think the levels of "public service" are going to be maintained forever. They can't, because the math says they can't. The country will still survive if a bunch of third-tier paper-pushers have to find a new line of work.

    Telling corporations they have to keep poison away from public water and workers safe makes them explode?

    Your unbalanced sociopathy seems to have made you confused. We're discussing public sector unions here and whether or not they can be sustained, which I've noticed that you've demonstrably avoided confronting on a mathematical basis.

    When a girl is too high maintenance, she can go fuck herself.

    Amazingly enough, corporations have said the same thing about private sector unions the last 40 years. The public sector unions aren't far behind. Unfortunately for you, no country can survive for long with a overscaled government complex nannying people's lives and demanding protection from the world's realities.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And by the way, Axel, if you think the remaining private sector middle class is solely composed of "water-poisoning corporations," you really need to dial down your time on Reddit, Balloon Juice, and Gawker, and get outside more often.

  • Rape Victim||

    "God DAMN do I hope your taxes go up plenty sooner or later."

    I'm sure you do, that's how you get a raise.

  • ||

    I'm not a public employee, chucklenuts.

  • Dat_Truth_Hurts||

    Fuck your taxe rate, I want a pension bitches!

  • [Johnny] Longtorso||

    They simply trade the cruel vagaries of the market for the [cruel] vagaries of politics whose risks they have even less control over. Why?

    That's the whole [point] of the "we signed a contract so you can't [vote]" argument. If they're [guaranteed] political control and your [vote] is meaningless, this isn't a [problem].

  • mind-reader anarch||

    The signster in the picture omitted the word "trade" before "unionists" from Niemöller's famous formula because she's too class-conscious to want to be viewed as a laborer.

  • Zeb||

    I really want to ask her who it is who is coming for the unions. These people really need to get some perspective. "Coming for you", I think, is meant to mean you disappear in the night,never to be seen again, not that your employer slightly modified your conditions of employment.

  • ||

    ^^^ THIS ^^^

    Still waiting for the railroad boxcars coming for the public employees.

  • sevo||

    "I really want to ask her who it is who is coming for the unions."

    Exactly. The governments have been in the unions' pockets ever since some brain-dead made it a requirement for the government to 'negotiate' with unions.
    In CA's case, it's that shitbag Moonbeam.

  • ||

    Because she isn't a trade unionist. Once upon a time unions were for tradesmen. But now the most powerful unions are for prison guards, educators, script writers and baseball players.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Either I'm getting "early edition" copies of Reason* or else you've already run this piece. Is Shikha so important you've got to run everything she writes twice?

    *And I totally do not have an iPad.

  • rather||

    Shikha so important you've got to run everything she writes twice?

    Most of the audience is male, and she has to say everything twice to be heard because the first time they read it their recall was limited to the fact that she has tits.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    "...the fact that she has tits."

    SWEET. FUCKING. CHRIST. Stop the presses everyone, Shikha Dalmia, a woman, HAS TITS. It's too bad there is not a internet infused with hardcore pornography, because, in this unforntuante hell-world, all I have to get me through the long cold nights are thoughts of what Shikha's tits might possibly look like. Now I can finally stop reading her articles and just think about sweet boobs every time I see her name. rather, you have saved me more time than you can imagine. And to think, I was going to type "whores" into a search engine to see what would happen.

  • TRTB||

    Meh, I assumed it was a glib little joke, not an Attack on the Patriarchy. On that level, I rate it slightly higher than the Friday Funnies.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    ...slightly higher than the Friday Funnies.

    WOAH WOAH WOAH. Let's not get carried away here.

    Man, my 'script for sarcastorol is doing wonders.

  • rather||

    lol, I'm thinking of doing my own Friday Funnies

  • sevo||

    "lol, I'm thinking of doing my own Friday Funnies"

    You ought to try to find a brain-cell, twit.

  • ||

    We need to get better trolls on this site.

  • rather||

    We need to get better trolls on this site

    bitches, another example of free market failure

  • ||

    First they came for the public service unions, but I wasn't in a union so I said nothing.

  • [Johnny] Longtorso||

    First they came for the [taxpayers]. I said nothing because I didn't want to be [assraped] by the IRS.

  • ||

    Next they came for Vanneman. But he was a douche and everyone hated him. So I said nothing.

  • Anonypussy™||

    You're thinking of Episiarch.

  • ||

    They came for him, but he was armed. So they left him alone.

  • rather||

    Epi, do you have pictures of Anonypussy™ all over your wall? Be careful with the candles-worshipping can be a fire hazard

  • God||

    What about me? They used to come to me for everything. Now it's, oh, we don't have time to go to church. Oh, we worship in our own way. Well, I've got news for you, busters. There are no unfunded pensions in Hell. All accounts are paid in full. Your reservation is irrevocable! Bwaa-ha-ha!

  • ||

    We kicked your ass the last time you came down here. You want some more?

    Start praying to a new God, Bitch.

  • ||

    We are all marxists now?

  • Government||

    You have been replaced.

    I am the higher power.

    I am the Authority.

    I determine right and wrong.

    I giveth and taketh away.

    I am God.

    And since We are Government, that means that We are God.

  • ||

    Market?
    Crony capitalism? Rule of law? Where has Reason been on the Wall Street shenanigans? Fact is the entire current economic system needs reformed .

  • rhofulster||

    How long have you been reading this publication?

  • Nipplemancer||

    read? lolwut

  • ||

    Obviously not very long, he is another team X supporter, who has all his viewpoints neatly packaged for him. One of them being the brain dead: "If you are against unions then you are automatically pro wall street bailouts".

  • ||

    The current system does need to be reformed, but the reform it needs is the free market, not more taxpayer bailouts to the fattest of the fatcats.

  • plisade||

    Public Unions contribute to politicians' campaigns > Those politicians, once in office, support higher Public Union wages, benefits; & more Public Sector jobs > Union dues pot increases > Unions making money from dues that come from their members' wages that come from tax revenue that comes from taxpayers private sector salaries > Public Unions contribute to politicians' campaigns... and the circle is complete. Politicians use unions as money launderers, to clean what they've stolen from the private sector...all so they can stay in power.

  • ||

    I had a 3 year subscription last decade.
    And it seems the few articles that deal with Wall Streets rampant illegality find some way to blame government for it and want "captured" regulatory agencies to regulate even less or not at all, thus giving big crooks in the private sector a pass. But there's plenty of articles like this to piss on the little people.

    I don't think Reason (from what I've seen) has shown it can be trusted to report on crony capitalism. I don't know if its the funding for the magazine or the fact that I suspect many of the writers have huge 401K's on Wall Street, but seeing this publication miss the point that you can't expect workers and governments to follow rules but not large corporations and banks, gets tiring.

    It would also be nice if everyone was to grow up when discussing these things. We aren't living in a Constitutional Republic anymore and haven't been for at least the past 75 years since Roosevelt. Thus, one might as well discuss what government should do in policy terms whether than constitutional ones. More freedom in some areas, alas, is often merely more freedom to steal.

  • sarcasmic||

    We aren't living in a Constitutional Republic anymore and haven't been for at least the past 75 years since Roosevelt.

    I'd say we haven't been a Republic since the passage of the 17th Amendment.

  • ||

    I'd go further, since Lincoln and the reconstruction congress. After all if the agent authorized by the instrument can change the instrument at will, then the instrument (US constitution) in effect no longer is.

  • sarcasmic||

    Be careful with the subject of Lincoln.

    Criticize him and you often find yourself found guilty of supporting slavery, with the only way of proving your innocence being to retract your criticism.

  • ||

    Many here who identify themselves as libertarian piss on the non agression principle because their love of Lincoln and the leviathan's narrative trumps their love of liberty.

  • paloma||

    But..but..the Pledge of the Allegiance says...

  • ||

    Atleast corporations (without government support) can only steal from the willing.

  • ||

    "Without government support", name one instance.

  • sevo||

    Clarence|3.8.11 @ 10:40AM|#
    "I had a 3 year subscription last decade."

    Shame you didn't read any of the issues.

  • ||

    Bullshit! Reason wants wall street and banks to follow exactly the same rules as everyone else. If they blame recessions on "the government" well, that is because it is usually true. Every boom and bust period since 1913 has been created by the federal reserve or with its implicit support. That is impossible to ignore.

    If it wasn't for the federal reserve, anti fraud law would be enough.

  • ||

    And fuck you for completely ignoring the monetary manipulation by governments all over the world. Idiot.

  • ||

    Ha ha. Wall Street loots state pension funds to the tune of trillions two years ago, and this writer can't even put the words "Wall Street" into this piece concerning state fiscal catastrophe.

    Ha ha. The alleged pals of liberty at Reason who provided cover for Scott Walker by denying he gave a 20-minute status report to his boss David Koch by phone are once again slurping away at the tumescent members of business - this time, suggesting that collective bargaining is some kind of guarantee provided by the benevolent hand of Big Gubmint. Never mind the labor history of the country and its decades-long record of hard-won rights for workers pried out of the hands of employers. No, never mind all that, you've got a corporate cock to suck. Slurp slurp slurp.

    Ha ha.

  • ||

    Are you some kind of collectivism?

    Labor history? Unions? You mean all of the thuggery, the blue collar anti-intellectualism, the featherbedding, the mediocrity, the declining productivity, the MOB, the billions in pension money embezzled by union leaders in cahoots with La Cosa Nostra and the utter contempt for the individual laborer?

  • ||

    I listened to that recording. That sounded more like a phone call to one's son at summer camp. Hardly a war room status report...

  • ||

    Wall Street is the tip of the iceberg. The federal reserve is the enabler. Only cock waffles like you allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that this is purely a problem of wall street greed.

    Recessions have been occurring cyclically for centuries and people like you always rush out to blame wall street or greed, when there is clearly something bigger going on.

    Even corruption is driven by the economic cycle. When the economy does well, corruption blooms, as it is easier to hide. When the economy crashes, it suddenly exposes all of the corruption, and then people become shocked. Missing the forest for the trees, people start to believe that the corruption is directly responsible for the crash, even though it was the sudden influx that created the ideal environment for corruption. The FR boom bust cycle is the greatest enabling mechanism for the corrupt.

  • ||

    The only people who are shocked by the corruption of deregulated industry are the shills who take their livelihood money from industry to promote a flimsy, childish ideology of self-absorption that abuses words like freedom and liberty, distorting them into a smokescreen for society-wide corporate pillage.

    By "shills who take money", I of course refer to places such as the Reason Foundation. By "industry" I mean inheritors of great wealth such as David Koch and by "flimsy ideology" I mean "economic libertarianism".

    I'm no fan of the Fed. The flaw of the Fed is that it is privately held and thereby unaccountable to the people whose nation it serves as central bank. Gee, who would stand for that?

    Why, glibertarians, of course. Around here, the ideological line is that privatization somehow increases transparency. No, really, people actually think that up and say it. It's incredible.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 4:47PM|#
    "The only people who are shocked by the corruption of deregulated industry are the shills who take their livelihood money from industry to promote a flimsy, childish ideology of self-absorption that abuses words like freedom and liberty, distorting them into a smokescreen for society-wide corporate pillage"

    What a sack of propaganda, dipshit.

  • ||

    Why lookee here, the Teaparty fanatic in PA is destroying environmental legislation, even though he did not campaign on it.

    This is at the behest of his corporate backers who did not want to be kept from letting their industrial externalities poison public water.

    That's not free market values. That's corporatism. The ditzy glibertarians are looking the wrong way. Again.

  • ||

    First they came for the public service unions, but I wasn't in a union so I said nothing cheered and threw flowers at their feet.

    Seriously. There is no justification of pubsec unions negotiating salary or benefits, and plenty of demonstrated abuses from allowing them to do so.

  • ||

    First they came for the public service unions, but I wasn't in a union so I said nothing cheered and threw flowers at their feet.

    Ha ha. Look what side the glibertarian takes in his appropriation of the famous quote by the pastor who explained his lame inaction in the face of Nazi fascism.

    Ha ha. He's a "good German"; morally neutered in the face of corporate/state symbiosis, derisive of the worker and fellow citizen.

    Nice bit of accidental self-awareness.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 4:56PM|#
    "First they came for the public service unions, but I wasn't in a union so I said nothing cheered and threw flowers at their feet"

    Go suck goats' asses, dipshit.

  • ||

    Ha ha. Look at the class warrior chump sucking so eagerly under the boardroom table.

    Look at him poke at the anti-intellectualism of others when his own history education is in such a shitty state. Ha ha.

    Look at him pretend kids never worked in coal mines in the 20th century. Look at him ignore sweatshop fires and discrimination in the workplace. Look at him pretend a living wage just somehow showed up - thanks no doubt to the beneficence of the almighty Market. So funny!

    Watch him totally ignore that the peak of US labor organization just happened to be the peak of US middle class prosperity. Then, watch him complain about union crime in a thread about state fiscal disaster where the article doesn't even mention the single largest theft in the history of kleptomania. Ha ha.

    (At least I think that's what he's saying. It's hard to tell with that thing in his mouth.)

  • ||

    Look at the ignorant dumb ass who doesn't get that the reason Wall Street is not mentioned is because......IT"S NOT A FUCKING ARTICLE ABOUT WALL STREET!!!!

    So what you're arguing is that because there are rapists, murderers and child molesters, we shouldn't bother with the burglars, muggers and con artists??

  • ||

    Any article about state pension funds in trouble in the wake of 2008 is an article about Wall Street, you glibertarian boob.

    State pension funds are who bought the Street's fraudulent MBS paper to the tune of billions. Billions are now missing and the funds are dying. Yet this piece of shit article is about public school teachers, and I quote, "living large".

    Living large. Teachers. Who pay for shit for their students out of their own pockets.

    Disgusting. Every last one of you who swallows this garbage should be deeply, deeply ashamed. You pathetic assholes would blame the depositors if a bank got robbed.

  • ||

    I would blame the depositor if they saw some dudes entering the bank wearing nun masks and carrying guns and decided to still go inside to open a new savings account. But you never know, maybe the costumed characters work for the state so they aren't really a threat to your livelihood.

    I believe the article was about the solvency of public employee pensions, not specifically about teachers (one segment of public employees for a given state).

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I had read the WI congressional legislation revolving around this issue has language to the effect that public employees will not be able to collectively bargain for fringe benefits (i.e., vacation/sick leave allowances, health insurance reimbursement) but will retain the ability to collectively bargain for wages (i.e., box #1 on your W-2 form).

  • ||

    Sane Person: "You pathetic assholes would blame the depositors if a bank got robbed."

    Crazy Person: "I would blame the depositor [if some loony, completely imaginary shit happened that has never, ever once taken place upon the Earth we both occupy]."

    Sane Person: "Well, thanks for checking in."

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 3:05PM|#
    "Sane Person: "You pathetic assholes would blame the depositors if a bank got robbed."
    Crazy Person: "I would blame the depositor [if some loony, completely imaginary shit happened that has never, ever once taken place upon the Earth we both occupy]."
    Sane Person: "Well, thanks for checking in.""

    Oh, oh! Look! Ignorant asshole can make up first-grade stories!

  • ||

    "State pension funds are who bought the Street's fraudulent MBS paper to the tune of billions. Billions are now missing and the funds are dying. Yet this piece of shit article is about public school teachers, and I quote, "living large"."

    Yeah, those state pension funds willingly bought those MBS's while guaranteeing benefits regardless of how the market performed. Notice how nobody in the private sector has a defined benefit plan. Guaranteeing investment returns is pure fantasy. Private sector workers got screwed in exactly the same way, except they can't bilk taxpayers for their losses.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 1:11PM|#
    "Any article about state pension funds in trouble in the wake of 2008 is an article about Wall Street, you glibertarian..."

    Any post by the ignorant asshole known as OH is worthless.
    Got suck goat's asses, dipshit.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Look at him poke at the anti-intellectualism of others when his own history education is in such a shitty state.

    You're right, we should get better teachers. Let's start by firing all the ones we have now.

  • nekoxgirl||

    "Look at him pretend kids never worked in coal mines in the 20th century."

    To paraphrase Thomas Woods:

    Yes, because before the industrial revolution, children spent their days running through meadows and picking flowers.

  • ||

    Yes, because before the industrial revolution, children spent their days running through meadows and picking flowers.

    Ha ha. Look at the apologist for institutionalized child abuse set up a straw man.

    Imagine being so dumb as to believe that organized labor and progressive activism didn't improve the lives of kids over the very loud, very violent objections of business owners.

    Ha ha. A history of union and progressive victories gives us the living, breathing proof that the market is full of shit. Shit, and coal dust measured by the juvenile lungful.

  • ||

    "Imagine being so dumb as to believe that organized labor and progressive activism didn't improve the lives of kids over the very loud, very violent objections of business owners."

    First of all, it was the increase in productivity up to that point that first allowed the children the ability to work in a factor to avoid starvation. The increased productivity from there then allowed some people to demand better working conditions. The increased productivity from there made child labor laws economically feasible.

    All of this progress comes on the backs of increases in productivity that have to occur first. If the children want to work in the factory, I have no problem with that, as long as their parents think that it is okay.

    Children voluntarily worked in the factories numb nuts. Had child labor laws been introduced in an earlier period, children would have starved.

  • ||

    "allowed the children the ability to work in a factory to avoid starvation. "

    Ha ha. Yeah, so many children starved in the 10,000 years preceding the industrial revolution that humanity just up and died out.

    Oh, wait, no it didn't. Actually, it thrived. Which means children did a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without factories. Which means either the industrial revolution (e.g. production for owners) itself produced additional false scarcity / starvation, or that starvation was no worse than before.

    So either you're advocating a false history or you're championing those who kept food from kids.

    Ha ha. Either way, you're completely full of shit.

  • ||

    Unionism? Its aims are to enrich its leaders at the expense of both its members and the businesses it extorts while depicting itself as the hero of the working class.

    I once worked as a security guard at a municipal waste-water facility in Cranston, Rhode Island. There was a crude, inarticulate thug who belonged to a local union who was paid to do nothing but sit in a trailer. Sometimes, he never showed.

    He just happened to be the nephew of one Raymond Patriarca. I still remember this hoodlum telling me how good and necessary unions were. Yeah, they were damn good for the mafia and its dependents.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 5:10PM|#
    "Ha ha. Yeah, so many children starved in the 10,000 years preceding the industrial revolution that humanity just up and died out.
    Oh, wait, no it didn't. Actually, it thrived. Which means children did a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without factories."
    ......................

    You idiot!
    Where did you read history, asshole?

    "During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
    You're so stupid, it's amazing you can find the letters on a keyboard, asshole.

  • paloma||

    As a matter of fact, so many children DID starve in the 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. Until very recently in history, very very few children went to school. They either helped in the subsistance farming with their parents, or were apprenticed to tradesmen. Sometimes they were slaves.Sometimes they were ragpickers or beggars. And 40% died before their fifth birthday.

  • ||

    Ha ha. As if any of this means the choice was between factories or starvation.

    Look at the sweatshop apologist dummies twist and turn to justify the eternal employment of children in factories and coal mines. Watch them point to eras before a middle class existed in order to justify the eradication of the middle class now. I haven't heard this much fucking nonsense since the last time someone pointed out slaves were healthier in Charleston, SC than in western Africa.

    Ha ha.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 8:44PM|#
    "Ha ha. As if any of this means the choice was between factories or starvation."

    Here's your claim, shithead:
    "Actually, it thrived [before the industrial revolution]. Which means children did a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without factories."

    So stupid little shithead lies and gets busted *again* and tries one more misdirection.
    Way to go, stupid little shithead.

  • ||

    "Actually, it thrived [before the industrial revolution]. Which means children did a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without factories."

    Ha ha.

    I think you need to actually disprove the claim, Cletus. Children did do a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without ever working in factories. In fact, they did about 10,000 years of it without once trading their surplus labor value for capital.

    As soon as you can show how lengthened life expectancies around the time of the industrial revolution disproves the claim of what obviously happened in the preceding 100 centuries, you let me know.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 9:50PM|#
    "Actually, it thrived [before the industrial revolution]. Which means children did a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without factories."
    Ha ha.
    I think you need to actually disprove the claim, Cletus."

    Stupid little shithead, I don't need to 'disprove' any stupid little shithead claim, but I did so anyhow. Can't you read?:
    "The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829."
    -------------------------------
    "Children did do a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without ever working in factories. In fact, they did about 10,000 years of it without once trading their surplus labor value for capital."

    Stupid little shithead, they died like flies. Can't you read?:
    "The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829."
    ----------------------------
    "As soon as you can show how lengthened life expectancies around the time of the industrial revolution disproves the claim of what obviously happened in the preceding 100 centuries, you let me know."

    Stupid little shithead now makes the miraculous and unsupported claim: "what obviously happened", in spite of the evidence to the contrary ("During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829.")
    And asks that I somehow disprove a blatant lie.
    Exactly how stupid are you, stupid little shithead? You're lowering the bar with every post.

  • ||

    If you call being poor in the preindustrial era "thriving," well there is a special place in hell just for you...

  • ||

    Ha ha. Libertarians are probably funniest when they commence to cipherin'.

    To begin with, nobody has disproven the claim that human population grew before industry. It absolutely did.

    200 years of heightened global population growth does follow 10,000 years of uninterrupted population growth trend. From this, they conclude that the 200 year period's existence somehow causes the 10,000 year period to not constitute growth. Wrong.

    The bothersome fact that the pre-industrial history of humanity's growth is fifty times longer than the industrial period appears, like so many things, to be lost on the silly glibertarians.

    Ha ha.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 10:44PM|#
    "To begin with, nobody has disproven the claim that human population grew before industry. It absolutely did."

    And the stupid little shit never made that claim before being busted on stupid little shit's actual claim. Here's your claim, stupid little shit:
    "Actually, it thrived [before the industrial revolution]. Which means children did a shitload of eating, surviving and thriving without factories."

    -------------------------
    "The bothersome fact that the pre-industrial history of humanity's growth is fifty times longer..."

    Look there! Stupid little shit points out that people lived (in poverty) for fifty times longer, since there was fifty times the amount of time before the industrial revolution!
    What next, stupid little shit? You'll claim that there are more daylight hours in Summer?
    Why, imagine my surprise, stupid little shit. Are you familiar with the term "tautology"? You should look it up before you embarrass yourself further, stupid little shit.

  • ||

    I don't blame you for failing to disprove my claim, Cletus, because you can't. Children did a shitload -- 10,000 years -- of eating, surviving and thriving without factories. All over the world. Thats what having 300 million people alive at 1 AD means, genius.

    http://www.globalchange.umich......n_pop.html

    Also: way to ignore the billions living in poverty right now, with factories everywhere.

    Ha ha.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 11:20PM|#
    "I don't blame you for failing to disprove my claim, Cletus, because you can't."

    Stupid little shit doesn't read his own link:
    "The human population growth of the last century has been truly phenomenal. It required only 40 years after 1950 for the population to double from 2.5 billion to 5 billion. This doubling time is less than the average human lifetime."
    ------------------------
    "Also: way to ignore the billions living in poverty right now, with factories everywhere."

    Stupid little shit make *another* stupid shit claim, and the "stupid" of the claim is only a click away:
    "The proportion of people in extreme poverty fell from 59 to 19 percent during the 20th century and is now the lowest in history."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty
    What is the lowest level of "stupid" that stupid little shit can display? Hard telling; stupid little shit is on a roll; more "stupid" is sure to follow.
    BTW, you're welcome for the research, stupid little shit.

  • ||

    "The human population growth of the last century has been truly phenomenal. It required only 40 years after 1950 for the population to double from 2.5 billion to 5 billion. This doubling time is less than the average human lifetime."

    That statement does not disprove my claim, Cletus. Let me put it in terms you are likely to understand.

    A NASCAR driver is making time trials. He runs four laps. The first three laps he runs at 150 MPH. The last lap, he runs at 230 MPH.

    This does not mean that his first three laps were at 0 MPH, or 5 MPH. It does not mean he ran only his last lap. It only means he went a lot faster on his last lap.

    Do you understand now? Take a sip of Mountain Dew and think it over if not.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Ha ha. A history of union and progressive victories gives us the living, breathing proof that the market is full of shit. Shit, and coal dust measured by the juvenile lungful.

    Haha. Unions priced their way out of a job and there wasn't shit they could do about it when their employers picked up and left. Haha.

  • sevo||

    Orel Hazard|3.8.11 @ 12:39PM|#
    "Ha ha."

    I love it when brain-dead ignoramuses whine.
    Got suck goats' asses, dipshit.

  • Realist||

    The real lesson from Wisconsin is polls show that the majority of people are on the union side. One more proof we're fucked!

  • nekoxgirl||

    Yeah yeah yeah. They say that now. I wonder how they'll feel if their taxes went up to support the union's benefits? People always say they don't mind paying taxes for teachers and kittens and rainbows and unicorns but funny how hard it is to actually pass a tax increase.

  • ||

    " I wonder how they'll feel if their taxes went up to support the union's benefits?"

    Unions have agreed to reduce all benefits, of course.

    Taxes for the average people may have to go up in the future anyway as Walker is extending tax cuts mainly to the people who backed him.

    The Teepers are not about free-market values, but about the same corporatism we saw under Bush. The glibertarians are being duped again.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Unions have agreed to reduce all benefits, of course.

    They're lying, like they always do, of course.

    First thing that will happen is the lower-tenured teachers will lose their jobs, like it always does. So much for that "union protection."

  • IceTrey||

    Shikha you need to check out the Wisocnsin 2010 CAFR. It shows that the state pension fund is 90% funded. That's the 4th best funding in the country. It currently has 67 billion of the 77 billion it needs for the next 30 years. Wisconsin has 123 billion dollars in liquid assets. It ain't close to being broke.

  • IceTrey||

  • sevo||

    From your cite:
    "‘THE TRILLION DOLLAR LIE –THE HOLOCAUST’ – PHOENIX JOURNAL #39 - CHAPTER 13 - Protocols of Zion #-10-24"

    I have a hint; any source that reprints the PoZ as true is NWS.
    So let's try a non-whacko cite:
    "State budget deficit swells to $2.5 billion", July 9, 2010:
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/s.....16689.html

  • IceTrey||

    That's the BUDGET deficit. The CAFR is an audit of ASSETS. If you spend more money one month that you take in does that make you broke if you still have money in the bank? No.

  • sevo||

    IceTrey|3.8.11 @ 2:30PM|#
    "Shikha you need to check out the Wisocnsin 2010 CAFR. ...It ain't close to being broke."

    Claims by brain-deads don't mean squat. Prove it.

  • IceTrey||

    Download the CAFR and check it yourself.

  • ||

    Notice how all the trolls are simply parroting each other today....

  • ||

    Ever since they purged Lindsey and Wilkinson the writers have become a little samey, yes.

  • Matt||

    There is a point that I believe this article missed -- who else are teachers going to negotiate with BUT the government, since it is so involved with education?

    I think the justification for "blaiming" unions for their negotiations in this article is lacking. It's not like there are many other viable players in the education business.

  • Matt||

    You might argument that "that's why there should be privatization of education," and while some unions may or may not oppose this, it's not something they have direct control over. Most members of teachers unions are dealt the hand they've got -- an industry dominated by government. People often teach because they want to teach, not necessarily because they want to work for the government.

  • oft||

    There are many private schools, and their kids perform better than public school kids.

  • David||

    These politicians need to hear the voice of the people to get this solution right. We all need to chime in together and come up with real solutions that are favorable for us all. If we go to this site we can leave notes in the politicians public inbox and discuss the ideas: http://www.fastnote.com/wipolitics

  • ||

    Wisconsin is just the first act in an unfolding tragedy in which states and municipalities across the country have promised $3.5 trillion—about a quarter of the national GDP—in pensions that they don’t have the funds for. Unfunded health retirement costs are even greater. But how did we get to this point?
    http://tomjoson.bligoo.com/

  • Jeff||

    I thought this is supposed to be REASON.com? The ranting and irrationality of some of the arguments here are disturbing. I feel like I am at a tea bagger meeting? Many of the claims the author makes (and the comments) are factually incorrect or distorted. I would suggest everyone go to Factcheck.org or Politifact.com You will get a more honest and factually accurate picture of political/economic issues.

  • nike running shoes||

    so helpful

  • قبلة الوداع||

    THANK U

  • beiduibei||

    thank u

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some lebron 9 for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it lebron 9 china for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement