Labor

Indiana Democrats Run for the Border

|

Indiana House Democrats are on the lam today, following the example of Wisconsin senators and escaping to Illinois hotels instead of losing a vote harmful to union interests. The legislation in question would make Indiana a right-to-work state, eliminating union shops. The Capitol building has filled with protesters since Monday, since the relevant committee voted to issue the bill to the full House.

Someone please explain why unions hand out printed signs that make them look homeless

Gov. Mitch Daniels, who decertified public sector unions by executive order in 2005, isn't enthused about the bill, fearing it could derail his education reform agenda. Yet rhetoric from House Democrats suggests that they would have made off for Danville or Urbana whether the fight was over right-to-work or the teacher unions' privileged positions.

Sen. Tim Skinner (D-Terre Haute) has called Daniels "Dr. Kevorkian" for his school reform proposals, claiming that merit pay and vouchers portend "the assisted suicide of public education." Rep. Terri Austin (D-Anderson), one of the three House Democrats to show up at the Capitol yesterday morning, had this to say of lawmakers abandoning their posts:  

"I cannot predict how long it will take the members of the Democratic caucus to do their work and do it thoroughly," Austin said…

Austin said Democrats object to more than the controversial right-to-work legislation.

"This is not just about right-to-work. This is about a radical education agenda that's going to let for-profit schools come in and take over our state," she said.

The teachers unions have a history of blowing up any changes in contract into an out and out crisis. Daniels' plan would not eliminate collective bargaining completely, but narrow it to wages and benefits.

More from Reason on the unions here.

(Correction: "Closed shops" in the original post should have read "union shops." Apologies for forgetting Taft-Hartley.)

Advertisement

NEXT: 'Never in My Wildest Dreams Did I Consider That Money to Be a Kickback'

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.

  1. I thought I saw yesterday that Mitch had rolled on the union issues. So, he’s selling out the taxpayers for “education reform”. Good to know.

    1. I think Daniels is a shit bag. Not a Mitt Romney Haley Barbour level shit bag. But a shit bag none the less. He is an establishment bastard who whenever in a position of authority will sell out so he is well liked and considered “statesman like”. I really have no use for him.

    2. Heard him on the radio yesterday. He is pissed because the Right to Work issue was brough up now. He’s been busy pushing the school choice and other bills, which were moving along until now. So I think he’s just choosing his battles, and the problem is mostly the timing.

      1. Well, he’s got a fight now, whether or not he wanted it. Now we’ll all be able to see what kind of chops he’s got.

        1. And if he has delusions of the Presidency, crises in that office don’t wait until you’re ready for them.

          Disappointing cave-in by Daniels; I thought better of him than that.

          1. Cave in? For not wanting to pass an antilibertarian bill yet?

            1. “Cave-in” referred to: Daniels’s comments like, “I thought there was a better time and place to have this very important and legitimate issue raised.”
              http://www.indystar.com/articl…..der-kinder

              Coupled with comments from the IN State Senate President Long that the right-to-work bill is dead, Daniels agreed to kill it, and that “…the matter instead should be studied by a legislative committee later this year.” Which I’m interpreting as politician-speak for “Let us get rid of this and never speak of it again.”
              http://www.indystar.com/articl…..bill-dead? If the bill comes up later, when times are calmer, I’ll reconsider my opinion of him.

              Perhaps it’s a tactical withdrawal, but this doesn’t give me confidence that he will be the kind of pugnacious guy—like a Christie—in 2012 to try and roll back some of the Fed’s shit.

              1. My point is, if that is true, he just killed an anti-libertarian bill, so why would anyone here think badly of him for it? He should be praised.

                1. the hatred of free assembly runs deep w these enlightened libertarians.

      2. Fine, but union issues like right-to-work have clearly achieved new national prominence, whether Daniels’ likes it or not. The battle has chosen him.

  2. Re. handwritten signs
    The homeless look is in style-ask Matt Welch

  3. This is Democrat’s answer to losing at the polls? Break the workings of the legislative process? Yet they are always taken seriously when they complain about lack of civility in politics?

    1. It’s incredible the lengths that these scumbags will go to, isn’t it? They’re now basically threatening the very legitimacy of democracy itself by refusing to accept the results of duly held elections.

      If they keep escalating this crap, it could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis. The way that many existing state constitutions are arranged, state and local governments won’t be able to function if the minority losing party decides that they’re going to go on strike, bug out, and seek political asylum in friendly neighboring jurisdictions in perpetuity.

      1. Wait, I thought we all wanted to supermajorities to pass laws, and minorities to repeal them? And that gridlock was a good thing, and the best we could hope for out of government, and that a government shutdown would at least keep the assholes out of our business?

        We get what we want, and all I hear is bitching. What happened?

        Oh, right, the government was going to do something we support for once.

        1. I’m not 100% sure what you mean by “we”, but it sounds to me as though you’re intentionally conflating the federal government (Congress) with state and local government.

          Let me educate you as to how our system works: legislative bodies set their own rules of procedure. In other words, the parliamentary rules of the U.S. Senate aren’t necessarily the same as the parliamentary rules of your local governing body.

          1. “We” means the commentariat in general. And I’m not sure what the importance of the distinction between federal and state government is if one assumes that they’re all out to screw one and should be bogged down to the greatest extent legally possible.

            Their actions might obstructionist, but I doubt they’re illegal, or else they’d already be dealing with some official sanction (then again, if they haven’t yet fired the bullshit sick leave users, maybe Team Red is playing this conservatively).

            1. Sure, I suppose that if one is an anarchist and believes there should be no functional government at any level, then one can justify any and all means of obstructing it. That might describe you, but I don’t presume to know if that describes our “commentariat in general”. Anarchism is a wing of libertarianism, but only one of several.

              I’m not an anarchist, I’m a constitutionalist who generally believes in the system of federalism set up by our Founders. And in that system, legislative bodies set their own rules, and states and localities were intended to have far greater (though not unlimited) latitude in making law than the federal government, whose powers were supposed to be highly limited and specifically enumerated.

              I’m no expert in Wisconsin state law, so I have no idea if legislators there who abdicate their responsibilities and flee the state are in fact breaking any laws. But it is perfectly clear that they fled the state so as to be beyond the reach of any duly authorized state law enforcement. The state apparently has no remedy for this (other than perhaps to not pay them), but if it is impossible for the state to pass a budget, it should be rather obvious they have a potential crisis on their hands.

        2. This is not gridlock. This is not a group of legislators gumming up the works by normal parliamentary procedure, but rather deliberately breaking the rules in order to get their way. Keep in mind, this group will whine like stuck pigs when normal parliamentary rules are used to block their causes.

          1. If there’s no punishment for breaking it, there’s no rule, just a guideline.

            1. Assuming its the same as the Texas case there is a punishment for it. Hence why they’ve left the state’s jurisdiction.

    2. When the left complains about lack of civility in politics, they’re telling you to STFU. That’s all.

  4. Nazis, Nazis! Flee!

  5. Wonder if Republican education reform will be like all their other ideas for reforming public institutions: make them more expensive, less accountable, less good in general, but more profitable for their buddies.

    1. Probably.

      Too bad there are Republicans here to take offense at your statement.

    2. A superb description of the relationship between Democrats and unions and the resultant qualities of the industries in which the latter “labor”.

      1. Once Republicans succeed in their long-running plan to destroy unions altogether, you guys won’t get to make these facile false equivalences.

        1. Well, since both parties seem to be interested in destroying the economy, I don’t think unions will matter much when they’re done.

        2. Unions are destroying themselves; they don’t need the Republicans’ help.

          1. Let me be clear.

            The state of the Unions is strong.

        3. Explain what is false about it. I give you the American auto industry.

          1. It’s false but it’s not even really an equivalence. This is the Koch brothers’ mouthpiece after all, and its H&R minions seem to be doing the masters’ bidding spectacularly.

            1. Again, what is false about it? A reasonable explanation of that might actually end the discussion in your favor – unlike the decerebrate prattling of the dread phrase, “Koch brothers”.

              1. Because alleged union control of Democrats is simply much less destructive to the country than corporate control of Republicans.

                1. You’re right I’ve never seen Democrats give billions of dollars of taxpayer money to corporate interests…oh wait.

                2. But the union control of Democrats is partisan (and therefore solvable by voting against Democrats) whereas corporate interests seem to control both parties (therefore, voting cannot solve the problem, except perhaps at the primary level).

                3. >>Tony: “Because alleged union control of Democrats is simply much less destructive to the country than corporate control of Republicans.”

                  If that is merely an allegation how can you possibly know that it is “simply much less destructive” – or FTM anything else about it? You’re talking out of your ass, son.

                  1. Because corporations who own Republicans want to pollute the environment, poison people, get taxpayer money funneled to them, and in many other ways loot the country to which they have no real loyalty to. Unions want workers to have a healthy retirement plan and job security.

                    1. Is this “owning” of Republicans by corporations also “alleged” – or does that only work for your crew?

                4. Citation needed.

              2. decerebrate prattling

                Ok, I LOLed at that one. I need to add that to my armory. Well done old boy.

    3. not reforming public schools tony. the gobp luvs to extort local property owners by transferring property taxes to for-profit charters WITHOUT local voter approval.

      1. You’re like the worst troll ever.

    4. Charter schools are pretty successful, actually. They certainly do a better job here in Houston than HISD does.

      1. and ive got no prob w that…as long as local voters approve the transfer of local property tax monies outta district.

    5. That sounds just like what happens when the Democrats reform things, too.

      Weird, huh?

    6. Re: Tony,

      Wonder if Republican education reform will be like all their other ideas for reforming public institutions: make them more expensive, less accountable, less good in general, but more profitable for their buddies.

      For instance?

      1. Contracting out military services to mercenaries like Blackwater. Medicare Part D. Privatization of utilities.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Contracting out military services to mercenaries like Blackwater.

          More expensive compared to what?

          Medicare Part D.

          But that’s a brand new program, yet you said:

          “like all their other ideas for reforming public institutions”

          You can’t reform something that does not yet exist.

          Privatization of utilities.

          FOR INSTANCE? And don’t you dare compare subsidized utility prices with market prices on a one-to-one basis, as people pay MORE through their taxes to prop up those subsidies than if paying straight. I am paying “more” in electricity in Texas compared to California, but I am not paying a state income tax to then “subsidize” myself.

        2. “Privatization of utilities.”

          WTF???

  6. “I cannot predict how long it will take the members of the Democratic caucus to do their work and do it thoroughly,” Austin said.

    I can: Forever.

  7. Run, Fleebaggers!

    1. Brave Democrats ran away.
      Bravely ran away, away!
      When the GOP reared its ugly head,
      They bravely turned tail and fled

      1. They were not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
        Or to have their eyes gouged out, and their elbows broken;
        To have their kneecaps split, and their body burned away;
        And their limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Democrats!

        Their head smashed in and their heart cut out
        And their liver removed and their bowels unplugged
        And their nostrils raped and their bottom burned off ….

        1. You were reading Fangoria while the other children were reading Judy Blume, weren’t you?

  8. “This is about a radical education agenda that’s going to let for-profit schools come in and take over our state”

    This also seems to be about the Democrat’s delightfully paranoiac disosition toward the private sector. God forbid a mechanism for getting results efficiently be put on education rather than the incentiveless ssytem currently in place.

    1. If private schools come in, we might end up with the world’s most expensive school system that produces the worst results in the industrialized world.

      Oh wait we already have that. You never notice how liberals are always talking about how much we spend on health care and how the rest of the world gets so much more their buck but they never apply that logic to education?

      1. Education is already socialized, so why would they want to question that?

      2. I want Walmart running a school, and Target to have a competing school 1/2 mile down the road. Sears can get into the act so long as they get the a busines straightened out first.

        But I won’t be satisfied until Hooters is running the local high school.

        1. kinnath for President!

          1. Of the world!

        2. “Say, is lunch lady Dora looking particularly stacked today?”

          1. I think it more likely that Hooters will provide lunchroom services to certain private schools.

            1. Private lunchroom services!

            2. Thanks, I’ll have to update the joke next time I use it.

        3. But I won’t be satisfied until Hooters is running the lunch room at the local high school.

          Much nicer cadence now 😉

          1. And the bar.

  9. “This is not just about right-to-work. This is about a radical education agenda that’s going to let for-profit schools come in and take over our state”

    How dare parents have options when it comes to educating their children. People need to understand that children should be indoctrinated at early ages in public schools to rely on the government for all their needs.

    1. That was the phrase I picked up on as well. I like the “let” part – in his hyperbolic nightmare scenario they don’t force anything about for-profit schools, they just “let them come in”. Ooooh, shudder! The horror!

  10. So all the Republicans should have run to Mexico during the ObamaCare voting, huh?

    1. uh huh, it’s the patriotic thing to do

    2. They’d probably prefer somewhere with more lax attitudes towards marital fidelity and rentboys.

    3. Have there been any instances where Republicans have pulled the tactic of running out of the jurisidiction to prevent a vote on something?

      If there are I haven’t heard of it.

      It seems to be a Democratic party thing.

      So far.

      1. This is 3 for the Dems in recent memory, right? The 1st being TX Dems running to OK to prevent a redistricting vote.

        1. So, what are they running from? Representative, majoritarian democracy, right? Just to get this all straight.

          1. They have only taken these measures when Republicans have tried to use legislation to attack the ability of Democrats to get elected, which is what all of this is really about.

            1. Good. It’s simply grand that doing this serves a political interest, because it means that maybe the GOP won’t back down this time.

            2. Well judging by that criteria, Republicans should have walked out on every peice of legislation ever proposed by any Democrat at any level of government for the last 70 years.

              Because every peice of legislation they’ve ever proposed is about trying to get themselves elected instead of Republicans.

              1. Perhaps Republicans are equally stupid and believe this and that’s why they feel justified in such nakedly partisan and anti-democratic actions. Which is more charitable than just calling them fascists like they are acting.

                1. Wait, voting on bills is now anti-democratic.

                  War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery

                  1. Bills whose sole purpose is to shift the balance of power in the ability to get elected, arguably are.

            3. So elections shouldn’t have consequences when ObamaCare is not on the table?

              1. Elections have consequences. Hopefully mass demonstrations also have consequences.

                1. PFFFtttt. you owe me a knew coffe!

                2. Mass demonstrations do have consequences, see Tea Party demonstrations leading to GOP control of majority of state houses and now present situation. The system works.

                  1. Mass demonstrations do have consequences, see Tea Party demonstrations leading to GOP control of majority of state houses and now present situation. The system works.

                    Creating an entire class of useful idiots to demagogue to and hence frighten enough to vote against their own interests is not the enlightened democracy the founders had in mind, either.

            4. So you are saying getting elected is the most important thing to Democrats?

              You lose troll XP’s for that, even if it was unintentional.

              1. To Team Red/Team Blue, getting/retaining power is the ONLY goal. Any “progress” made is incidental.

      2. The best I could quickly find was Sen. Packwood,OR,(R), hiding in his office to dodge a quorum call. He got dragged into the Senate chamber by the Sgt-At-Arms’s men. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy…

        http://www.time.com/time/magaz…..38,00.html

        After Texas had this happen to them twice, there really isn’t any excuse for another state to not have set up parliamentary rules by now to stop this kind of shit.

  11. Funny all these legislators come here to Illinois.

    1. They better go to Nevada while they still can. 😉

      1. I’d like if Nevada can send its businesses to IN and WI in exchange for its legislators like IL has apparently done.

        1. I’m on it like cheap perfume on an old whore.

          1. cheap perfume on an old whore

            My specially imported Eau de Hag Varnish is NOT “cheap!”

  12. It amazes me how the Dems can ever, ever say with a straight face that they aren’t 100% owned by the unions. Because them running shows that they are, without a sliver of doubt or confusion.

    I dare one of you TEAM BLUE fucks to try and contradict this. Go for it, you mendacious pussies. Then we can laugh at you all day long.

    1. The funny or pathetic thing is that unions are going to destroy real liberalism. Liberals have stopped even trying to pretend they are out to help the less fortunate. Their entire political movement depends on money from unions.

      1. So obviously the solution is to take the last members of the protected middle class, and make them less fortunate.

        It’s rather absurd to focus on the union mote in the eye of Democrats over the corporate log in the head of Republicans (and increasingly Democrats).

        But this is conservative/libertarian land, where the most powerful and wealthiest are the oppressed victims of the poor and middle class.

        1. Re: Tony,

          So obviously the solution is to take the last members of the protected middle class, and make them less fortunate.

          You know, your marxian cliches are becoming more and more tiresome, Tony.

          The “middle class” is as fuzzy a term as “the pretty girls”, and equally meaningless… (well, maybe the second one has MORE meaning, at lesat for us guys.)

          It’s rather absurd to focus on the union mote in the eye of Democrats over the corporate log in the head of Republicans (and increasingly Democrats).

          Maybe because ALL public worker unions drink from the taxpayer teat more than the eeeevil corporations.

          But this is conservative/libertarian land, where the most powerful and wealthiest are the oppressed victims of the poor and middle class

          The most oppressed in a libertarian world would be the 36D twins inside a 34B.

          1. Maybe because ALL public worker unions drink from the taxpayer teat more than the eeeevil corporations.

            Prove it or shut up. You could probably even exclude hidden subsidies, though you have no good reason to.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Prove it or shut up. You could probably even exclude hidden subsidies, though you have no good reason to.

              http://online.wsj.com/article/…..90288.html

              http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..-democrats

              The taxpayer pays for unions to pay for politicians who will in turn fleece the taxpayers.

              You’re nothing more than a mere punk. “Hidden subsidies” is nothing more than a red herring.

              1. Neither of those articles provide evidence for your claim, that unions receive more taxpayer subsidies than corporations. Not that dues paid by public employees are exactly a taxpayer subsidy.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  Neither of those articles provide evidence for your claim, that unions receive more taxpayer subsidies than corporations.

                  Tony, for crying out loud, are you playing dumb or are you THAT dumb? WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK PAYS THE PUBLIC WORKERS UNION DUES? Santa Claus?

                  Public Worker Unions are 100% subsidized by the taxpayer – ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. They produce NOTHING, they exchange NOTHING of value, they only TAKE from the public DOLE.

                  Not that dues paid by public employees are exactly a taxpayer subsidy.

                  You are dumb. You can’t be this good at playing one.

        2. So obviously the solution is to take the last members of the protected middle class, and make them less fortunate.

          It’s rather absurd to focus on the union mote in the eye of Democrats over the corporate log in the head of Republicans (and increasingly Democrats).

          But this is conservative/libertarian land, where the most powerful and wealthiest are the oppressed victims of the poor and middle class.

          “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.”

          – NEA General Counsel (now retired) Bob Chanin in 2009

      2. Let’s be clear. Rich people don’t need all the money they have and don’t deserve to keep it all. Government, with the assistance of the unions, has a vital role to play in the process of redistributing wealth in a more equitable manner.

        1. Is this a spoof? Or is it the most honest and revealing statement of Tony’s time here?

          I wish I cold run incif on my Ipod.

          1. Does chrome/Reasonable work on apples? Whoever coded that app, it’s fantastic.

        2. Please stop spoofing. It makes it difficult for some of us to tell when the real Tony is posting.

          1. dodo dodo dodo; then I went to the market after the doctor said he wouldn’t refill my prescription. So the Rx pad I had was fake, what of it! I turned to the girl at the pharmacy counter and she said no I cannot help you sir. SIR? who sirs me, No one!

            But that was the last straw, when I grabbed her by the neck and screamed PILL ME UP, BITCH! everyone turned and looked. I’m not allowed to shop at the Shop N Save anymore but at least she’ll nevar forget.

    2. After these reactionary flights and demonstrations can we stop pretending that they are “progressive”, “radical”, or “liberal”, too?

    3. Even if they were, it’s better to be funded by collectives of middle class workers than wealthy plutocrats. The policies the former advocate at least have a chance to benefit the rest of us.

      1. You’re the most boring, insipid sockpuppet ever. Just give it up already. You really are truly boring.

        1. What’s really boring are people who think they’re superior and above it all because they refuse to pick a side, instead sniping at everything, implying everything is equivalently bad, thus being generally useless, not to mention wrong about everything.

          1. Re: Tony,

            What’s really boring are people who think they’re superior and above it all because they refuse to pick a side

            I already took a side, you nincompoop, and that is: not yours.

            implying everything is equivalently bad

            Really?

            You forgot to take your medication, the voices are flaring up.

          2. You fail, because there are more than two sides. Including the one that represents economic, not political, reality. We can’t afford the nonsense anymore.

          3. Your confusion is in assuming that there are only two possible political views. Just because we neither shout “RAH RAH Demosocialists” nor “RAH RAH Republisocialists” does not mean that we have not picked a side. We have picked a side : liberty.

            1. Which is exactly like saying you’ve chosen the side of angels.

              Are you interested in figuring out how to affect policy change in the real world, or just patting yourself on the back for being right and pure?

              1. Re: Tony,

                Which is exactly like saying you’ve chosen the side of angels.

                World, meet the nitwit that believes people should be slaves because they’re not perfect.

              2. “Are you interested in figuring out how to affect policy change in the real world, or just patting yourself on the back for being right and pure?”

                Einstein said the definition of insainity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Our society has tried the “policy change” game almost since day one of the first government being created. What has it gotten us? As Merle Travis would say, “Another day older and deeped in debt”. Given the history there I would like to try something different.

                1. The only possible alternative to “policy change” is keeping the status quo, which of course is still advocating for a huge amount of policy.

                  1. “The only possible alternative to “policy change” is keeping the status quo, which of course is still advocating for a huge amount of policy.”

                    Wrong. There is another alternative: Scrapping government altogether and allowing people to be truly free.

                    1. Those things don’t go together in the slightest way. And it’s not going to ever happen. So you answered my question, you’re more interested in patting yourself on the back for being right by holding onto an untested pie-in-the-sky dogma that tells you you’re right.

                      I think there are poodles on Neptune. People who believe in poodles on Neptune are correct. I am correct. QED.

                    2. Re: Tony,

                      Those things don’t go together in the slightest way [allowing people to be free and no government]. And it’s not going to ever happen.

                      Why argue about it, right? Let’s simply surrender to the inevitable and put up with being chained. That’s your prescription.

                      Intellectually lazy, economics illiterate, cliche-minded – yup, you fill the resume perfectly, Tony: you’re a Marxist.

                    3. thats a good argument about the poobles on nebtune. I’m going to think about it for awhile and get back to you.

                    4. Tony,

                      For someone who is so sure about his position you sure have not done much in the way of defending it. You have simply assumed your posstion as an unquestioed premise in your questions. You have not questioned the premise of government itself.

                    5. You have not questioned the premise of government itself.

                      That’s cuz there’s always gonna be a government. I just got done having a discussion about mental masturbation vs. real policy debate. Furthermore, I don’t see an alternative to government. So on both of these grounds, I think it makes sense to figure out how to have a good government instead of just trashing the idea altogether, which, as I’ve demonstrated, is dumb.

      2. Even if they were, it’s better to be funded by collectives of middle class workers elves than wealthy plutocrats powerful wizards. The policies the former advocate at least have a chance to benefit the rest of us in the Middle Earth.

        Sounds equally fantastic.

      3. “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.”

        – NEA General Counsel (now retired) Bob Chanin in 2009

  13. I expect an Ezra Klein editorial castigating this attempt by the minority to thwart the majority’s will.

  14. Illinois is a dipshit magnet.

    1. A black hole with a huge gravity wheel.

  15. Why do they run out of state?

    Can the governor have them forcefully brought to the capital if they are in state? How?

    1. I imagine there’s a sergeant at arms that is capable of compelling them to do their fuckin’ job.

  16. I got an email and a letter sent home from our district’s superintendent, asking us to oppose this bill and voice our opinion to Indy. Pissed me off royally. In the letter he claims that just a few hundred kids using vouchers will cost a district $1M. Using his numbers I calculated $66,000 per student. Utter BS.

    I think the main opposition to the problem goes something like this: If a student uses a voucher, he takes with him anywhere from 25% – 90% of his funding (according to the bill). Which does mean less $$$ for the school. HOWEVER, the school now has one less student who needs a teacher, transportation, lunch, books, supplies, etc. Which means the school shouldn’t be hurt – until enough kids opt out and they need to fire a teacher. So a union teacher would lose their job, and be replaced at a private school by a non-union teacher.

    1. “I got an email and a letter sent home from our district’s superintendent, asking us to oppose this bill and voice our opinion to Indy.”

      Lobbying on a school computer? Isn’t that illegal?

  17. Eventually, one of these assholes will have to come back to see a kid’s soccer game or something. It would benice if they just stayed away forever, and no more bills get passed. No budgets, etc. Stop giving out paychecks.

    My view is that all government workers should be fired. See what happens.

    1. No income tax collection this year?

    2. WI passed a bill saying any congresscritter that misses X days in a row cannot have direct deposit and must pick up their paycheck in person.

      1. Sweet!

  18. And where are all the main stream media commentators who were constantly harping about how “angry” all the Tea Party demonstrations were, eh?

    They were constantly trying to insinuate that tea party folks were formenting violence.

    I don’t hear a peep out of them about all the angry union protestors.

    1. They peep about violent rhetoric only when it’s convenient to their Democrat masters in the gummint.

  19. Indiana House Democrats are on the lam today, following the example of Wisconsin senators and escaping to Illinois hotels instead of losing a vote harmful to union interests.

    A long time ago my dad was playing chess with some guy, and the guy was losing. Suddenly, he rised up and said “No move, no lose!” and walked away.

    Same with these guys.

    1. I was going to post this same thing to Tony, but he wouldn’t get it anyway.

  20. What’s next? Are they gonna hold their breath till they turn blue? What would happen if everyone fled the state everytime their employer made changes they didn’t like? Grow up and get back to work!

    1. What would happen if everyone fled the state everytime their employer made changes they didn’t like?

      The national economy would boom like nobody’s business!

  21. That’s because Democrats are pussies and cowards. Get back to work, you tax-sucking parasites!

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/o…..3_ST_N.htm

  22. Ooops, wrong link.

    Iraqi Immigrant Convicted of Honor Killing.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..honor.html

    1. In fact, why would you even want to come to America if not to embrace our superior western way of life?

      Let me take a stab.

    2. Ooops, wrong link.

      You can’t even blogwhore properly? You truly suck.

      1. What? You never make mistakes? Asshole.

  23. They were grilling Christie on one of the morning shows. They asked if pubsec union busting was a way to go after Democratic fundraisers. Christie mumbled something diplomatic, when he should have turned the question around.

    If that’s what unions are, Democratic fundraising organizations, why is that OK? You have Democratic politicians awarding lavish contracts to unions who then give them huge percentages of their campaign funds. Sounds like public services fraud to me.

    1. So it’s wrong for corporations to fund raise for Republicans?

      Go ahead, gloss over the influence corporations have on policy, including “lavish contracts” that make anything given to unions look like pocket change, with some lame appeal to voluntariness or some other bullshit.

      1. Of course, as records of donations have shown all along, the Democrats are just as amenable to corporate influence as the Republicans.

        Only the dimmer rank and file of the Democrats believe that the party is in any way “anti-corporation.” I exempt sockpuppets from this statement, of course.

        1. So let’s destroy the unions to ensure total corporate control of both parties!

          1. The opposite of corporate influence is not union influence, sockpuppet.

            1. Unions are pretty much the only politically influential organizations that represent the interests of workers, which are more often than not the opposite of the interests of managers and CEOs.

              1. Let’s think about that a moment, shall we? Since a huge majority of private sector workers aren’t unionized, that means the unions don’t represent them, right?

                1. Nope they’re pretty much up shit creek, as I’m sure they’re well aware.

                  I think it’s a mistake to see public sector workers with their higher quality benefits and better job security and assume they’re getting something unfairly. They have those things because they have unions. The private sector should become more like them, not the other way around.

                  1. That may be true of private sector unions, but Pub sector unions only have those things because they are the largest direct influencer of the parties in charge of bargaining their contract.

              2. So stockholders exert no control? Their interests are only bad and economic, not, um, world-save-y, so let’s ignore them.

              3. “…which are more often than not the opposite of the interests of managers and CEOs.”

                No, they are not. Unions are quite often on the side of corporations because they have a symbiotic relationship with corporations. The only time a private sector union interests are opposite managment are on issues defining how the corporation and the union resolve conflicts with each other.

                That is one reason the Democrats support corporate welfare, because it also indirectly supports union interests.

                You are trying to present unions and corporations as opposite sides in a Manichean struggle, but their relationship is a lot more complicated than that.

          2. Re: Tony,

            So let’s destroy the unions to ensure total corporate control of both parties!

            Let’s destroy the parties to ensure NOBODY has total control.

      2. Fuck off, shitbag. I’m not even reading your inanities any longer.

      3. Gosh, if only someone around here would rise up and draw attention to the evil that is corporatism. Someone, anyone!

        I’d go on, but I remember you’re a Turing test for insufferably boring griefbots.

        1. Ah yes the understood anti-corporatist stance of libertarians. It’s so obvious it never needs to be stated, except when someone calls you out on your apparent hypocrisy and lack of perspective.

          1. Trite. Tiresome. Yawn.

      4. Re: Tony,

        So it’s wrong for corporations to fund raise for Republicans?

        If it’s their own money, that’s ok. Unions rely on stolen money – which you may call with a very sick sense of humor “dues”.

        Go ahead, gloss over the influence corporations have on policy

        That’s an indictment on government, not corporations – or unions, for that matter. The enabler is the State.

    2. If that’s what unions are, Democratic fundraising organizations, why is that OK?

      OK’s got nothing to do with it. Unions are more than fundraising operations, they are GOTV operations as well. The Dems have to support the unions cause they’ve got nowhere else to go. Especially when the polls are against them, and so inevitably the fair-weather corporate dollars will be going the other way.

      And I think guys like Christie know this, and aren’t going to try something unless they’ve got the numbers.

    3. Reminds me of a David Brooks column where that point went completely over his head. He started it off by stating Walker made a strategic error by only going after the budgetary interest of the other party. As if THAT doesn’t underline the most salient point of this matter? Brooksie don’t you think that is a little more than majorly fucked up that the political interest (separate from its alleged function) of the public sector (er, government) with its monopoly on the use of force is represented by a political party?

      Then Brooksie ends it with the claim that what is needed is every one share equally in the sacrifice. How are you going to structure that outcome Brooksie if net beneficiaries and net contributors sacrifice equally without keeping the current advantage to the later? In other words, you support the status quo. If that is the case Brooks just say so, and stop with the duplicitous bullshit where you affect the pose of a principled reformer when you clearly are not one.

      Of course, Brooksie didn’t think this through. It is implied in the column that if Walker followed Brooks advice then he would not be getting the political pounding the MSM and Democrats are laying into him right now. What is your proof, Brooksie? Polite society in DC and New York still give you the time of day after one of your vapid ‘on one hand, on the other hand’ equivocation articles? That is not a very sound basis for judging the merits of a policy, but seems to be the only one that matters to you and to your ilk.

      1. Could you rephrase that?

        1. If anything is a bit sloppy, my apologies. I was in a rush to get to the post office before posting that.

          1. “I was in a rush to get to the post office before posting that.”

            Government teat sucker!
            /joke

      2. “Then Brooksie ends it with the claim that what is needed is every one share equally in the sacrifice. How are you going to structure that outcome Brooksie if net beneficiaries and net contributors sacrifice equally without keeping the current advantage to the later?”

        If Brooks said that, then he is merely parroting Howard Dean. I hear Dean say essentially the same thing.

        Of coure what that means in the fun house mirror version of economic reality that liberals operate under is that a person who is getting a handout of someone else’s money – none of which rightfully belonged to him in the first place – winds up being given somewhat less than he was previously, that is considered a “sacrifice” equivalent to another person having more of his OWN MOMEY consficated via higher taxation.

        If Brooks is accepting such basic and nonensical premises of the left, that makes him a leftist. He should quit trying to pretend he’s anything other than that.

  24. We need Dog the Bounty Hunter.

  25. They have only taken these measures when Republicans have tried to use legislation to attack the ability of Democrats to get elected, which is what all of this is really about.

    So you concede that the complaint here isn’t about collective bargaining rights, compensation, etc., but is purely about the ability of the unions to force membership and extract dues to be diverted into the Democratic Party?

    Thanks. Glad we got that cleared up.

    1. Aren’t you people always saying that if someone doesn’t like their workplace arrangement–no matter how awful–they are free to work somewhere else, so they shouldn’t complain?

      Go find work in the 90% of the private sector that isn’t unionized if you don’t like how unions operate.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Go find work in the 90% of the private sector that isn’t unionized if you don’t like how unions operate.

        In case you haven’t noticed, punk, we taxpayers ALL pay for the public worker unions, that’s inescapable.

        In the PRIVATE SECTOR people are already fleeing towards the non-unionized jobs, because that’s where they don’t have to put up with union bosses and union dues.

        1. we taxpayers ALL pay for the public worker unions, that’s inescapable.

          And we taxpayers pay for all the subsidies and tax breaks for corporations.

          In the PRIVATE SECTOR people are already fleeing towards the non-unionized jobs, because that’s where they don’t have to put up with union bosses and union dues.

          The decimation of private sector unions did not occur because of corrupt union bosses and exorbitant dues, but because of deliberate policies meant to decimate them.

          1. Re: Tony,

            And we taxpayers pay for all the subsidies and tax breaks for corporations.

            Granted – END subsidies, and END the unions.

            The decimation of private sector unions did not occur because of corrupt union bosses and exorbitant dues, but because of deliberate policies meant to decimate them.

            You mean like policies that stopped protecting thuggery? Those policies?

            Because I DO agree with you – once government stops allowing unions to hijack a company or business, its power dwindles very quickly.

      2. I’m pretty sure not one person here who views himself as a libertarian wants to prevent people from voluntarily organizing as a union.

        1. They just can’t enact mandatory membership policies. Because… I don’t know why. I’m pretty sure you’re OK with employers making all sorts of thinks mandatory.

          1. If union members in skilled professions are willing to go to the mats to fight their employer, they can win much without government interference.

            Obviously, they don’t usually create or own the business, so naturally they don’t make the decisions about how it operates. Though, of course, any business is made up of people, who do make decisions.

            There’s also a marketplace for employees. The more marketable the employee’s skills, the more a business has to compete for his employment. Granted, that means people without marketable skills will have less influence and security, but why should they receive special protection for their failings?

            1. I don’t think unions have a necessarily hostile relationship with employers. The tools unions have had to raise funds and actually have some amount of power on behalf of workers have been steadily taken away, and in my opinion there’ve been nothing but bad results. Employers don’t have absolute power, nor should they.

              1. Re: Tony,

                I don’t think unions have a necessarily hostile relationship with employers.

                You think that because you lack experience with them. They ARE pretty hostile.

                The tools unions have had to raise funds and actually have some amount of power on behalf of workers have been steadily taken away, and in my opinion there’ve been nothing but bad results.

                You mean the fact they can steal from the worker is a bad thing?

                Employers don’t have absolute power, nor should they.

                Another red herring. Employers don’t have any more power than their employees, as both are bound by people’s acts and decisions we all call “the market”, just like we’re bound to this universe.

                1. You mean the fact they can steal from the worker is a bad thing?

                  So is it theft if an employer asks for a pay cut for his workers? Nobody forced the workers to work at a union business. If they don’t like the set-up they can go somewhere else, right? You are not being consistent, you are carrying rhetorical water for partisans.

                  Employers don’t have any more power than their employees, as both are bound by people’s acts and decisions we all call “the market”, just like we’re bound to this universe.

                  Seems to me that left unchecked the wonderful magical market just creates lots of little pockets of autocracy. It’s always been the case that workers only have meaningful rights if they are able to organize and demand them. That may not be naked market action, but it’s something like democracy, which is supposed to be a better alternative to autocracy, which you seem to be just fine with people spending 8 hours a day under. Who am I kidding. 8-hour days only exist because of unions, so scrap that.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    So is it theft if an employer asks for a pay cut for his workers?

                    World – meet the halfwit that thinks asking for a better price is akin to “stealing.”

                    Nobody forced the workers to work at a union business.

                    Sure. “Hey, youse haves to sign up heres, if youse wants to woik in this town! Capisce?”

                    If they don’t like the set-up they can go somewhere else, right? You are not being consistent

                    You haven’t read anything: I said workers are already abandoning union work for non-union work.

                    Seems to me that left unchecked the wonderful magical market just creates lots of little pockets of autocracy.

                    Another red herring. “Autocracy”?

                    It’s always been the case that workers only have meaningful rights if they are able to organize and demand them.

                    “Meanignful” as in “badgering with impunity”?

                    That may not be naked market action, but it’s something like democracy, which is supposed to be a better alternative to autocracy

                    “Supposed” is the word.

                    8-hour days only exist because of unions, so scrap that.

                    Maybe they were. Not that 8 hour shifts are that clever nor did they appear out of solidarity, but to increase the number of people employed and thus grow the union roster.

                    12 hour shifts with more off days could have been better:

                    http://www.powergenworldwide.c…..-hour.html

                  2. “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.”

                    – NEA General Counsel (now retired) Bob Chanin in 2009

                    1. I see nothing wrong with that comment. It’s ALL about power. Right now, corporations have most of it. There needs to be something standing in their way, and it might as well be organized workers. That’s what he means by “effective advocates.”

          2. “…not one person here who views himself as a libertarian wants to prevent people from voluntarily organizing as a union.”-Pro Liberate

            “They just can’t enact mandatory membership policies. Because… I don’t know why.”-Tony

            I can how Tony gets confused here, since “voluntarily” and “mandatory” clearly cannot mean opposite things.

            1. I can only take 3 weeks vacation. It’s mandatory that I attend all the rest of the time. Is that wrong?

              No, because it comes from the benevolent gesture of an autocrat rather than the democratic consensus of a workforce. Except that I’d probably not have any vacation if it were up to the autocrat alone.

      3. “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.”

        – NEA General Counsel (now retired) Bob Chanin in 2009

  26. “Democracy when it grows government size and scope through wealth redistribution, YAY!”

    “Democracy when it attempts to restrict government size and scope and people keep more of what they earn, BOO!

    1. Shorter libertarian wanks: money in the pockets of billionaires, no matter how it got there, was earned. Money in the pockets of anyone in the middle class, most likely stolen.

      1. Since middle class doesn’t even remotely equate to “union”, that’s another nonsensical remark.

        1. There wouldn’t have been a middle class without unions.

          There is barely a middle class left. It’s been shrinking as unionization has disappeared. Coincidence?

          1. Yeah, yeah.

            Whichever one of us is doing this, it’s annoying.

          2. Just ignore Tony, people. He is a hopeless hyrbrid of true believer and troll and will never be convinced to think rationally. He also confuses credentials with intelligence and knowledge and therefore considers himself to be smarter than just about everyone, when the reality is that he seems to be just barely above average upstairs. Now downstairs, on the other hand…I’m sure he’s the best credentialed communist bottom that a bottle of prosecco can buy.

            1. You think he is above average?

          3. Is it possible there’s a shrinking middle class because until recently economic progress has created so many new members for the upper class?

            Welfare programs keep people in the lower classes, and for the most part, that hasn’t expanded. The only reason the arbitrary group known as “middle class” is shrinking is because so many people are innovating, creating and investing in new business ventures that make them rich.

            1. Is it possible there’s a shrinking middle class because until recently economic progress has created so many new members for the upper class?

              No, because that’s not reality. There has been a lot of wealth generated in this country. It’s mostly all gone to the top couple percent. You guys want to pretend this was all earned. I say it’s just been engineered that way.

              1. Re: Tony,

                No, because that’s not reality. There has been a lot of wealth generated in this country. It’s mostly all gone to the top couple percent.

                World – meet the halfwit that believes MONEY is WEALTH.

              2. “You guys want to pretend this was all earned. I say it’s just been engineered that way.”

                Don’t be ridiculous, Tony. We think quite a bit of it was engineered. We also think that your team was and is doing a lot of the engineering, and as a result have no reason to trust your motives in decrying it.

                1. If they have, I’m against it. That’s why to the extent that I participate in politics, I try to influence Democrats not to go the way of the plutocrats (Republicans). Throwing up your hands and saying they’re both equally bad is a good way to give the real bad guys everything they want.

          4. “There wouldn’t have been a middle class without unions.”

            And there’s another one that you aren’ the least bit capable of proving.

          5. >There wouldn’t have been a middle class without unions.

            ..and the rising productivity of labor due to capital investment had nothing to do with it, right?

            Really Tony: you’re a walking self-caricature of left-wing propagandist.

            -jcr

      2. “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.”

        – NEA General Counsel (now retired) Bob Chanin in 2009

  27. I campaigned for twelve winters for the Armies
    of Man. I never saw one of you Hobbits out there in the freezing cold…I’ve slain Elves, aye, and Powerful Wizards too.

  28. Damn, that last one was supposed to be from

    Middle Earth Donderooooooo

    fail.

  29. Sen. Tim Skinner (D-Terre Haute) has called Daniels “Dr. Kevorkian” for his school reform proposals, claiming that merit pay and vouchers portend “the assisted suicide of public education.”

    What a crappy analogy. Assisted suicide require a patient who wants to die. The public school monopoly is going to have to be executed.

    1. Revealed preference.

  30. They have only taken these measures when Republicans have tried to use legislation to attack the ability of Democrats to get elected, which is what all of this is really about.

    I thought this was a flagrant spoof.

    Humpf.

  31. I think “Tony” is a sockpuppet operated by some sort of troll consortium. That, or he has *a lot* of voices in his head clamoring to be heard.

  32. P Brooks, you need no further proof:

    Re: Tony,

    Neither of those articles provide evidence for your claim, that unions receive more taxpayer subsidies than corporations.

    Tony, for crying out loud, are you playing dumb or are you THAT dumb? WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK PAYS THE PUBLIC WORKERS UNION DUES? Santa Claus?

    Public Worker Unions are 100% subsidized by the taxpayer – ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. They produce NOTHING, they exchange NOTHING of value, they only TAKE from the public DOLE.

    Not that dues paid by public employees are exactly a taxpayer subsidy.

    You are dumb. You can’t be this good at playing one.

    1. Public workers pay public union dues. Their wages aren’t their money because of where they happen to originate from?

      Public unions produce plenty of value. That is, if you value workers having a decent standard of living. I bet you don’t.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Public workers pay public union dues. Their wages aren’t their money because of where they happen to originate from?

        They originate from the TAXPAYER, dolt! Public workers are paid by the TAXPAYER, 100%, ergo all the dues are paid by the TAXPAYER, 100%.

        Public unions produce plenty of value.

        Right – that explains why they ask the employer to deduct the dues from the paychecks. Surely the workers would be MORE than willing to pay those dues voiluntarily IF, as you say, Unions “add value.”

        That is, if you value workers having a decent standard of living.

        You’re begging the question, Tony.

        1. They originate from the TAXPAYER, dolt! Public workers are paid by the TAXPAYER, 100%, ergo all the dues are paid by the TAXPAYER, 100%.

          So? Lemme guess, some ideological bullshit about how taxes = theft.

          1. Re: Tony,

            So? Lemme guess, some ideological bullshit about how taxes = theft.

            Another red herring, Tony?

            I haven’t said “theft”, I simply pointed out THE FLAW IN YOUR LOGIC that, somehow, companies get MORE taxpayer money through subsidies than unions. I already indicated that BY DEFINITION that can’t happen, as public workers obtain their money, 100%, from the taxpayer and thus their unions obtain 100% of their dues from the taxpayers, and that is a LOT of dough.

            Ergo, you failed. Don’t try to shift the focus; man up.

          2. Hey, Tony. Give me all your money. I’ll wear a uniform so you’ll feel good about complying.

            -jcr

      2. “Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year.”

        – NEA General Counsel (now retired) Bob Chanin in 2009

        1. You clearly don’t understand the point of that statement.

  33. Re: Tony,

    Those things don’t go together in the slightest way [allowing people to be free and no government]. And it’s not going to ever happen.

    Why argue about it, right? Let’s simply surrender to the inevitable and put up with being chained. That’s your prescription.

    Intellectually lazy, economics illiterate, cliche-minded – yup, you fill the resume perfectly, Tony: you’re a Marxist.

    1. It is pointless to speculate about things that will never happen. It’s an exercise in vanity, not a policy discussion.

      And it’s easy to call yourself economically literate when you unilaterally dismiss most of economics as nonexistent.

      1. Re: Tony,

        It is pointless to speculate about things that will never happen. It’s an exercise in vanity, not a policy discussion.

        But I can use the very same argument aganst YOU, Tony: It is pointless to talk about an egalitarian society with no rich and poor, as such a thing will never happen.

        The fact is, it is easier for government to go away than for an egalitarian society to appear.

        And it’s easy to call yourself economically literate when you unilaterally dismiss most of economics as nonexistent.

        No, I dismiss quackery and fraud BECAUSE I know economics. It is NOT the same thing.

        1. But I can use the very same argument aganst YOU, Tony: It is pointless to talk about an egalitarian society with no rich and poor, as such a thing will never happen.

          But that would be a strawman, King of all Logic. I don’t want that type of society. I want a more egalitarian society than the one we have, and am in favor of realistic policy changes to achieve that goal.

          No, I dismiss quackery and fraud BECAUSE I know economics. It is NOT the same thing.

          No, you dismiss macroeconomics because it makes your head hurt.

          1. Re: Tony,

            But that would be a strawman, King of all Logic. I don’t want that type of society. I want a more egalitarian society than the one we have

            And I want a freer society than the one we have, so why is it a strawman when I use the argument against yours but not the other way around?

            No, you dismiss macroeconomics because it makes your head hurt.

            You have no idea of what you talk about. “Macroeconomics” is akin to “Macroevolution”, an obfuscation to deny economic laws in one case, evolution in the other.

            1. And I want a freer society than the one we have, so why is it a strawman when I use the argument against yours but not the other way around?

              It is a strawman to say I want a totally egalitarian society, because I don’t. It would be hard to straw man you since you consider your ideology successful by virtue of its absolutism. You actually do argue for the extremes.

              You have no idea of what you talk about. “Macroeconomics” is akin to “Macroevolution”, an obfuscation to deny economic laws in one case, evolution in the other.

              But macroeconomics and macroevolution have specific definitions. Macroevolution refers to evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroeconomics deals with how an entire economy works. Just because evolution and economics exist on continua doesn’t mean there is no point in talking about them on different scales.

              Economics is a much less thoroughly understood science than evolution, so I wouldn’t be so quick to assume your bare-bones list of capital-L Laws are adequate to explain everything.

              1. Re: Tony,

                It is a strawman to say I want a totally egalitarian society, because I don’t.

                That’s not the point, Tony. The point is that your argument that “it will never happen” only serves to lazily end the discussion. Again – I can turn it back and use it against you: It will never happen.

                But macroeconomics and macroevolution have specific definitions.

                So does “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, they both have very specific definitions. And?

                Macroeconomics deals with how an entire economy works.

                See? What did I tell you?

                You’re begging the question, Tony – “an entire economy”?

                That’s the problem with the definition: What’s an “entire economy”? The one inside the arbitrary lines we call “countries”? Who decides what is “an entire economy”? That’s exactly what places macroeconomics in the realm of chicanery.

                1. It also deals with the global economy. Is the boundary of space also arbitrary? The problem here is your lack of education. It can be remedied by a quick visit to Wikipedia.

              2. It is a strawman to say I want a totally egalitarian society, because I don’t.

                So? Something less than a totally egalitarian society is still antithetical to a free society if you’re achieving egalitarian results coercively.

  34. I just wish this was the Soviet Union, then I could murder you all and get paid for doing it (although to be honest, I’d do it for free, b/c any disagreement with the statement is simply not tolerated.)

    1. Stop spoofing the dumbass, please.

      1. There used to be great threads where there must have been a half-dozen people spoofing Tony at the same.

    2. Now you’re just being mean.

    3. That system collapsed when the soviet goons noticed that they were being paid in rubles.

      -jcr

  35. Here’s an NRO article on why there should be no public sector labor unions.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..h-goldberg

    Here’s an exerpt:

    “Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted, by executive order (so much for democracy), the federal ban on government unions. Civil-service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed good working conditions for generations.

    The argument for public unionization wasn’t moral, economic, or intellectual. It was rankly political.

    Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.”

    1. As pointed out on a previous thread, in the 50s the labor leaders opposed pubsec unions.

  36. Apparently the unions’ plan to persuade the country to their cause consists entirely of mimicking the French habit of shutting down everything in the face of any unapproved change. “Surely prolonged obstruction will make us appear reasonable.”

  37. This is interesting.
    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116751499.html

    Here’s an edited transcript of the Buffalo Beast prank conversation with Gov. Scott Walker Tuesday, as reported by the Beast. Ian Murphy of the Beast poses in the call as David Koch, a billionaire contributor of Walker’s.

    …Koch: We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

    Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that ?because we thought about that. The problem?the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this?[explains that planting troublemakers may not work.] My only fear would be if there’s a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems?[something about ’60s liberals.]?Let ’em protest all they want?Sooner or later the media stops finding it interesting….

    1. Note that the governor considered planting trouble makers.

      I guess he gets props for not doing it…because he thought it would look bad. I guess.

      1. Re: Neu Mejican,

        Note that the governor considered planting trouble makers.

        As if it would do any good: Who would know the difference?

    2. It wasn’t that damning, really. He was polite, he certainly didn’t treat “Koch” as someone who was inside and involved with what was happening, he had to explain everything. And he came across as a true believer — I mean, if a politician and a businessman are in a craven scheme to make money, they aren’t to gush about how even the opposition really gets it.

      Although I do wonder if he was just playing along or was at least suspicious. Some things suggest not (referring to “your man”). On the other hand, he seemed to brush aside all the gotchas with as little comment as possible (jokes about baseball bats, owning Breitbart, vested interests, etc.) The only really questionable thing was the “troublemaker” part, but even there, making an appeal to self-interest when talking to someone who comes across as a bastard seems like the diplomatic approach. Besides, repeatedly saying “and we’re doing things for the right reasons” and all sounds like the kind of shit you say when you’re pretty sure that you’re speaking for an audience and want that to be on the record so you can point to it.

      Perversely, I tend to support him more, having seen this (though, since he seemed to be aware of the possibility of deception, only a bit). I wonder how many idiots are going to see this and get confused and start bringing those quotes up as things David Koch actually said, though. “You idiot! He even said that Breitbart worked for him!”

      1. I have mainly found him to be courting of political theatre…and this seems to make it clear that has been a major factor in how he has handled this.

  38. Draco’s Solution to Teacher Pay and Benefits

    (a modest proposal appropriate for every state in the union)

    Permit teachers’ unions, but change the laws so that the government does not bargain with their representatives. Calculate the average salary and benefits package for private schools in the state each year. Make that the offered salary and benefits package for public school teachers next year, except subtract 5%. Since people overwhelmingly would want to send their kids to private schools if they could afford to, the private school teachers should be compensated at a rate which exceeds that of the public school teachers, which my proposal addresses. Fire any public school teacher who does not agree to these terms.

    Repeat each year until the public education system eventually collapses, through a combination of enough public school teachers using their cherished freedom of association (and possibly access to venture capital) to start new private schools, thereby arranging for themselves a 5% pay raise, or else just quitting their jobs and moving on to find another “body politic” to infest. Use vouchers in the interim to funnel money in the direction parents choose.

    Enjoy entirely private education markets, just as we enjoy private food, clothing, car, and gadget markets and all the excellence they provide.

    1. My solution: (mad props to Solomon for thinking of this first).

      Propose a bunch of cuts to teacher’s salaries, and then say that, whether for sick leave or bona fide striking, if any teacher bails on their class, all their students will be cut in half. Then, fire all the ones that strike anyway (don’t actually cut the students in half).

      But, I’d settle for firing the ones that revealed that they have poor enough character to lie about being sick, and little enough concern about their students that they would see them cheated out of education altogether if it cost themselves some income.

  39. Umm, nobody pointed out to them that, “Stop Right to Work” ain’t the most sympathy-inspiring thing to put on a protest sign?

    1. One thing Republicans are very good at are Orwellian slogans that make it sound bad to oppose.

      1. You’re right. What could be more beneficial to society than for a group of unelected private citizens to grab a little bit of a worker’s paycheck without the worker’s consent or providing anything the worker values?

        If unions didn’t operate like bandit gangs, there would be no need for right-to-work laws.

      2. It isn’t that hard of a skill to master. Democrats do pretty well at it, too. Someone really botched it here, though.

  40. Seems to me that when legislators fail to show up to do their jobs, they should be dismissed from the taxpayers’ payroll, and elections should be held to replace them.

    -jcr

  41. I did like Governor Daniels up until today. He is a coward and a fraud. What he & the idiotic Republican Legislators don’t understand is once you give in to the Unions, it is not the end of it.

    The Unions smell blood and will push back even further than this give in. Daniels precious education bill will not even be voted upon. The teachers’ union will make sure of that. It will be tabled just like the Right-to-Work Bill.

    This is the beginning of the massive Union pushback. Ohio and Wisconsin will be next to give in to the Unions completely.

    The fact of the matter is that Large Corporations & Unions have all the power in this country. They own a vast majority of our elected officials and our vote means absolutely nothing.

    Well time to go to work so that our masters can steal more of my labor to continue this corrupt bargain.

  42. “What’s really boring are people who think they’re superior and above it all”

    They’re called “elitists”, and they have Rs and Ds after their names.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.