Scott Walker Defends Union Reform Efforts in CPAC Address
Washington, D.C. – Embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker defended his efforts to reform government employee unions while addressing the Reagan Banquet at CPAC as the keynote speaker tonight. Walker's move to bring about reform in Wisconsin has resulted in him facing a major recall effort that could see him removed from office before the fall, making him a cause célèbre for conservatives and right-to-work activists.
Walker noted that since he started challenging the entrenched government employee unions, he has received all kinds of threats involving him and his family, but that his support is still strong in the Badger State.
"Every week when I am out visiting the factories and farms of my state and there are people that come up to me and tell me 'Governor, we are praying for you and your family,'" he said.
When Walker took office he was staring down a major state budget deficit of approximately $3.6 billion. When this came up as an issue on the campaign trail Walker said that one of the ways he would plug the hole was by asking government employees to pay more toward their pensions. To those paying attention it was not a secret that Walker was going to change the way budget problems were addressed in Madsion. Walker felt that long term changes needed to be made instead of using short term stopgaps.
"Some states have also chosen budget gimmicks to balance the budget. We did not do this in Wisconsin because that is part of what caused the budget deficit in the first place," he said.
Sounding like a presidential candidate, Walker explained how the collective bargaining reforms helped local communities.
"We chose long-term structural reforms that helped us balance both our state and our local governments budgets for years to come. We thought more about the next generation than we did about the next election," he said
Walker mentioned how he has made Wisconsin more hospitable for private businesses, but the heart of his speech was about his budget reform efforts.
"Collective bargaining is not a right. In the public sector collective bargaining is an expensive entitlement," he said.
Walker's reform efforts severely limited the ability of unionized government employees to collectively bargain, increased the amount they pay toward benefits, and altered the way union dues were collected.
Before closing Walker made a pitch to those present to help him beat back his recall effort, saying, "This election is about making courageous and bold decisions now and in the future."
Walker's complete prepared remarks are here. Be beware: He deviated from them frequently.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First!
Alt-Alt-Text:
Jobs created or saved in the writing instrument industry.
"Governor, we are praying for you and your family."
I like how Walker appeals to faith, superstition and "family" instead of ethics. In this regard, he is a conservative hero.
I don't particularly care, so long as he is cutting the balls off the public employee unions.
So it's more about revenge than morality?
Gotcha.
what exactly is immoral about suggesting that public employees pay toward their own retirement and health care? If you want morality, ask public sector unions why they oppose it.
Revenge? Or letting them know that the taxpayers are in charge, not union crapweasels.
No, it's about ending the positive feedback loop that is plundering citizens' paychecks for the benefit of bureaucrats and their elected catspaws.
"I don't particularly care"
You wrote that you didn't care (about ethics), so long as your enemy had his balls cut off. That makes you a pragmatist, the lowest of the low. Ideas don't matter, just results. That is what you wrote. Are you modifying your position now?
Why do you care, Gag?
He means he cares a lot more about the fact that Walker is challenging the public employee unions than Walker's Christian appeals.
Your interpretation of my post is mendacious and specious. I'm comfortable with Walker's ethics being grounded in faith, and I'm delighted that they are correct. I am further elated that he has been successful in defanging most public unions in Wisconsin.
gag,
why is it 'ethical' for the private sector to underwrite pensions for the public while the public pays a minute portion of that bill? Walker's ethics simply have to be grounded in economics, which they are.
Sorry, I gag because I've got Obama's balls in my moufff.
Ha ha ha!
Which Gag post, out of the two above, is actually a "gag" post?
Something tells me you were scouring the article for some reason to hate on Walker in a way that sounds good to the largely atheist population here.
That's only part of it. Conservatives are their own worst enemies, because they attempt to derive inalienable rights from a god instead of from man's nature as a rational, volitional animal. Individual, human rights are no more a gift from god than they are a favor from government.
human rights, the inalienable ones, exist simply because you do. Govt cannot grant rights; if it could, it could just as easily take them away. Liberals believe all rights rest with the god of govt, that only through its benevolence can we poor slobs survive.
human rights, the inalienable ones, exist simply because you do.
and any such purported existence did precisely no good for the first 5,000 years of human civilization because no one enforced them.
The question of "where rights come from" is like the question of angels dancing on pinheads. What matters is who or what enforces those rights.
The question of "where rights come from" is like the question of angels dancing on pinheads
Are you really saying that you don't understand the very concept of "rights" as they apply to humanity? That the term is unknowable and arbitrary? That any discussion of "rights" is pointless? You're saying this in a libertarian chat room where you argue your own ideas on a daily basis? And you expect people to take your arguments seriously?
Wow, that's an admission that you'll never be able to walk back. Care to withdraw it?
It's clear you don't like it here, Gag. Why torture yourself, and others?
Note that Tulpa did not respond. How could he?
Particularly given that I have a life and it's a beautiful Saturday.
I understand the concept of dancing angels too; the point is that they have no influence whatsoever on reality. Neither do natural rights, even assuming they do exist.
What I'm concerned with are rights in the sense of contractual rights, not natural rights. ie, rights that have been agreed to between parties.
natural rights. ie, rights that have been agreed to between parties
Wow. You really have no clue at all.
The concept of "natural" rights excludes the opinions ("rights that have been agreed to") of sundry chatters. Human rights exist because humans are humans, not because "parties" have agreed to an arbitrary definition.
Maybe you should quit while you are behind.
The ie applies to contractual rights.
I'm agnostic as to the existence of natural rights.
I'm agnostic as to the existence of natural rights
A fence-sitter, then.
How...soft-shelled.
Tell me. If you are "agnostic" on the most fundamental of "libertarian" concerns--that of individual rights--why are you haunting a "libertarian" chat room? Do you believe that Reason's tagline--Free Minds...is arbitrary and subjective? That the concept of "free minds" is open to interpretation? That "free" could mean the same thing to both Stalinists and Jeffersonians? When you state that you are an agnostic, aren't you really declaring, "Who am I to think?"
Gag,
Tulpa often annoys the shit out of me, but you're just being a dick here. I recognize the Ayn Rand Institute party line you're peddling. Given that orientation, why would you come to a libertarian forum to hector people, when you are fundamentally hostile to libertarianism? I believe in natural rights. I also believe in making alliances with others who value liberty. I'm also fine with stabbing them in the back when our interests diverge.
The reason I stopped participating in objectivist forums is that, overwhelmingly, they seem to attract people who think that bellicosity is an appropriate way to interact with people you don't agree with. The point being: if you act like an asshole, you're never going to convince anyone of anything. Most people don't care if you're technically right when you're being a dick.
I'm also fine with stabbing them in the back when our interests diverge.
Now I see your true colors, Phil 2.
Indeed. Conservatives cling to certain words in the Declaration of Independence (specifically "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights") as if Jefferson literally meant to imply that God himself (whose existence Jefferson at least doubted if not wholly denied) was the sole granter of rights. Any honest person who has studied the Enlightenment writers and philosophers (with whose writings the Founders were intimately acquainted) understands that a just and proper government, derived from the consent of the governed, must act as a protector of rights, not a dispenser.
Jefferson said those rights are endowed on people naturally. That govts frequently usurped them does not make those rights less salient. Please. Liberals think govt is the bestower of rights; it is not. Govt's job is to safeguard our rights and do the few things the Constitution says it should do. Making the private sector bankroll public worker benefits is NOT one of those functions.
I agree. I just wish that the alleged allies of freedom like Walker would appeal to reason and leave religion to the professional pinheads.
Walker HAS appealed to reason, to economic reason. He has found the obvious - a system that requires Peter to subsidize Paul, while Paul does next to nothing for himself, is unsustainable in the long run.
Concern troll is concerned.
Concern troll is concerned.
Classic evasion.
You are just concern trolling Gag. Liberals appeal to God all of the time. Obama said the other day God says to raise taxes and spend more.
The country is predominantly a religious country, so politicians of all stripes speak in terms of religion. You only seem to care about it here because you are a liberal trying to shit in the small government punch bowl.
You are fooling no one.
You amuse me, John. I'm neither a "liberal" nor a "libertarian." I eschew labels. Labels are for collectivists, the tribe of which you are apparently a member in good standing.
Concern troll has been reading H&R threads and learning the lingo. He can now effectively use terms like "collectivist" and "tribes" effectively in a sentence.
"I eschew labels" is nearly always pig Latin for "I am a liberal but won't admit it."
"I am a liberal but won't admit it."
Poor John. He wears his "liberal" hate on his sleeve and lives in the childish, combative, cartoon-world of Liberals vs. Conservatives.
It is what it is Gag. Everyone else sees "wow a Governor took on the Unions and won". You come on here with "but he mentioned God", like that makes taking on the unions not okay. Whatever. You are just here to concern troll. What exactly have you added to the conversation?
Everyone else sees...
You're speaking for everyone now, John?
that makes taking on the unions not okay?
Nope, the strategy is much less effectual by its entreaty to an imaginary God's intervention in human affairs. It makes the actors look like superstitious boobs.
You are just here to concern troll.
You said that already, as if bucking against the collective were a bad thing. Tell me, John, what does "Free minds" mean to you? Acquiescence? Conformity? Your comments identify you as a gatekeeper. Can't you handle a bit of thinking outside the box? And if principles of individualism are outside the box of libertarianism (not that you are a libertarian), what does that say about the state of libertarianism?
Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question.
Nope, the strategy is much less effectual by its entreaty to an imaginary God's intervention in human affairs.
Huh? No one has ever suggested that Walker took on public employee unions for religious reasons. He did so because they were bankrupting the state of Wisconsin. That someone said he was praying for him in his fight to retain his governorship is a well-wish that not even Christopher Hitchens was ever graceless enough to refuse.
John is right, you're a griefer troll.
That someone said he was praying for him in his fight to retain his governorship is a well-wish that not even Christopher Hitchens was ever graceless enough to refuse.
Actually, I took it as religious people are praying for the safety of Walker and his family from the pro union goons that have repeatedly threatened him.
John (earlier today) "I have never seen you engage in an argument in which you didn't immediately question the motives of the other side."
John (later today) ""I eschew labels" is nearly always pig Latin for "I am a liberal but won't admit it."..."You are just here to concern troll. What exactly have you added to the conversation?"
The great debate continues...
"the tribe of which"
I smell Godesky.
You amuse me, John. I'm neither a "liberal" nor a "libertarian." I eschew labels. Labels are for collectivists, the tribe of which you are apparently a member in good standing.
Yeah, you're a real maverick. Apparently, you didn't think that anyone here would recognize the nearly-verbatim repetition of things you learned from ARI? Find some videos of interviews that Ayn Rand gave. You'll see that she was friendly and engaging, despite how confrontational she could be in writing. You may comfort yourself with the belief that you are right, but no one cares how right you are when you are behaving like a spoiled child. Actions have consequences. You are acting like an ass.
I agree. I just wish that the alleged allies of freedom like Walker would appeal to reason and leave religion to the professional pinheads.
Talk about lack of self-awareness.
Your belief in natural rights is just as unfalsifiable and nonrational as any religious belief. Substitute Jesus for Jefferson and you sound just like a fundie bible thumper.
And liberals bastardize "the common welfare" to mean "whatever the hell WE determine to be welfare".
Got anything else, Gag?
Seems to me Gag wants to be a gatekeeper.
But who wants to be the keymaster?
Ewww. Ewwwwwww.
An infiltrator has penetrated the hive!
Swarm!
An infiltrator has penetrated the hive!
Swarm!
I'm a victim!! Waaaaa!!
An infiltrator has penetrated the hive!
Swarm!
I'm a victim!!! Waaaa!!!!
How can you derive rights from a system that is just a series of chemical reactions?
I would answer your idiotic jest, but I have a basketball game to watch.
Go Orange.
Feel free to not return.
Are you the new Thread Cop?
I am disappointed.
PS
As a handle choice, I prefer "Tulpa" over "The Pointer-Outer." Not that you are "The Pointer-Outer." Probably a coincidence.
I despise authority, therefore I would not take on such a power as "thread cop".
But, if you were to volunteer to go away, we wouldn't miss you.
I smell a Handle Choice Cop.
Indeed. You do smell.
Be beware:
I am disappoint in your grammar.
Evidently the Kochs cannot afford to fund copy editors.
Democracy is a wonderful thing....idiots rule!
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. ? Alexander Tyler (in his 1770 book, Cycle of Democracy)
That is why the founders didn't create a democracy. Sadly, over 225 years we have screwed with it to make it so.
It was okay for the states to be democracies, because the states can't print their own money. At some point, they can't borrow or tax anymore and have to face reality. But you never want a government that can print its own money to be a direct democracy instead of a constitutional republic.
We can argue about states all we want, even among ourselves, but anybody who claims the United States to have been founded as a democracy is a retard.
"The merit of our Constitution is not that it promotes democracy, but checks it." ?HORATIO SEYMOUR
The Founders were only a hundred years removed from Cromwell. Cromwell was to them what the Civil War is to us. They knew very well the dangers of direct democracy. And they created a system to check it.
Cromwell is hardly an example of direct democracy.
Just ask the Levellers.
Cromwell crushed them almost as vigorously as he did the Irish.
But he was an example of the mob gone wild. The founders were the product of The Glorious Revolution. The idea being you have a King who checks the mob and protects the rights of the nation. The didn't create a king, they created a republican system. But it is the same idea.
They also understood that you had to keep the government out of people's daily lives. People killed each other by the millions over words in a damn liturgy. People today think the lesson of that is religion is bad. The religion is incidental. The lesson is that once the government becomes the arbiter of things that people hold sacred in personal, be that family life or religion or whatever, politics immediately becomes a life and death matter. You want a small government so people don't kill each other over control of it.
Well said.
^ this. More relevant than ever with the contraception brouhaha and general increase in culture war bullshit.
You want a small government so people don't kill each other over control of it.
Good summary of how a rule utilitarian can come to libertarianism without the natural rights goofiness.
It was okay for the states to be democracies, because the states can't print their own money.
Like hell they cant.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Ah Article I Rob. The states don't have that power, the Congress does.
What John said, plus the clause about how states are prohibited from making anything but gold or silver coin into legal tender. You know, the line that RP constantly misapplies to the federal government.
Pinkos angry at not being able to butt-fuck the citizenry while doing useless, unnecessary, often harmful shit in some superfluous governmental entity?
What else is new?
You know, considering my background and my politics, I'm sure it won't surprise anybody how furious this makes me. These are the exact sort of people that turned a wealthy, improving (albeit definitively backwards) super-nation, the Russian Empire, into a living hell. It could have gone much more easily than most think towards American-style republicanism, but it didn't -- it became a "workers' paradise". It's a good thing I have Whites in my list of ancestors, or the depression might have killed me.
And now we've spent a great chunk of our own country's existence watching these people ravage the United States. Why the fuck can't they all just drop dead?
The recall effort is going to fail. Walker is doing exactly what the majority of the people in his state elected him to do. And when it does fail, the worthless left wing scum-sucking leeches to which you refer will be chastened like they rarely have before.
If only. The snarling kollektivists will redouble their efforts, and may even riot.
Let the vermin do what they do best and riot and destroy shit. All they'll get for their efforts is a jail cell and a fine.
It won't placate them to just spend a little time cooling their heels amongst real criminals, though they might learn a few lessons after being slapped around by guys who commit armed robbery, for instance.
Dig the irony.
But the REAL goal, eventually, is for massive, nation-wide unrest. To get to that scale, Team Blue needs to do some serious ratcheting-up of the "rich people suck" rhetoric - without making rich Team Blue members the target, somehow.
Sounds difficult, but these bastards are wily.
That is what they want. They just can't wait for it to happen. Of course, I wish them luck winning an election whose major issue is who is going to control the rampaging hippies. Seriously, they think the country will go left in the face of that? They will elect a Republican law and order type is what they will do.
See also: 1968
Team Blue would clamp down on an insurrection in this country, but only if it were a Tea Party-led one.
They wouldn't dare drop the martial-law shithammer if the Occutards started burning McMansions on a wholesale scale.
Fuckin' squirrels. How do they work?
They pay us to say good things the Koch's approve of.
Nobody pays me jack shit to say anything. Speak for yourself.
So to speak.
See Waco, Branch Dividians. Yes Mr. FIFY they would mow down the other team if they tried that.
Team Blue would clamp down on an insurrection in this country, but only if it were a Tea Party-led one.
They wouldn't dare drop the martial-law shithammer if the Occutards started burning McMansions on a wholesale scale.
John (earlier today) "Maybe everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have bad motives? Maybe there are reasonable people who just disagree with you? Maybe life isn't a moral crusade against he evil others?"
John (later today) "That is what they want. They just can't wait for it to happen. [referring to Mr. FIFY's "But the REAL goal, eventually, is for massive, nation-wide unrest."]
The great debate continues.
MNG, I'm not saying the entirety of the left would do so, but there are fractions thereof who would love to tear the system down and replace it with some egalitarian paradise.
Just as there is a faction of the right who would dearly love to cleanse the country of undesirables.
Only a fool would be un-skeptical of those scenarios.
MNG,
Just because people who disagree with you don't have to be malicious, doesn't mean they can't be.
And what MR. FIFY said. As far as any innocent leftist who are tarred by this, maybe they should think about kicking people like Cloward and Piven, who hope for just that, out of the movement.
If prominent conservatives openly pined for a race war and other conservatives didn't disassociate themselves from them, they would have no complaint when they got tarred with the charge of wanting a race war.
So when you immediately question the motives of those you disagree with, it's OK.
Got it.
Well it's good that you guys finally settled this.
Now I want to see the two of you shake hands. And then make out.
Obviously you weren't the George Washington guy outside of CPAC...
come on, mike. The left is NEVER chastened; it simply retrenches and tries again. How long did it take them for health care to be passed; even FDR thought public unions a bad thing, and yet....; and then there is public education.
Liberals are on a par with rats and roaches in terms of things that can survive damn near anything.
The fall of Communism didn't slow them down Wareagle. The whole thing is based on envy and hatred. So no amount of failure is going to cause them to reconsider.
John (earlier today) "I have never seen you engage in an argument in which you didn't immediately question the motives of the other side."
John (later today) "The whole thing is based on envy and hatred. So no amount of failure is going to cause them to reconsider."
The great debate continues...
If you don't believe SOME people are motivated by envy and hatred, you're deluding yourself.
Shit, how long as Bernie Sanders been in office? How else COULD he be re-elected so man;y times?
The only thing I'm unclear about is which one's Tom and which one's Jerry.
I said on the other thread Tulpa. MNG is me. It is a big trolling operation. Best way to troll others is to troll yourself first.
Funny how the people who had it worst in Imperial Russia, the former serfs, were not the ones who revolted. It was the educated middle class who revolted and embraced Bolshevism.
And Imperial Russia in the late 19th Century wasn't that bad by the standards of the day. It was a hell of a lot better than places like Turkey or China. If only the Tsar hadn't gone to war for the Serbs. And if only the rat bastard Germans hadn't decided it was a great idea to turn Lenin lose on Russia. Churchill described Imperial Germany's decision to ship Lenin to Russia as the equivalent of turning a deadly virus lose on the populace.
Careful there, John. When he gets up cyto will start whining about how you hate the west... 😉
This does not surprise me. The middle classes had spare time, energy, and money for mischief.
The serfs were struggling to live, and couldn't divert time and resources to much else.
This phenomenon popped up in 9/11: the brains were all very well educated but underemployed.
Interestingly, it's only in a welfare state that the poor start becoming the locus of trouble. Guys sitting on their butts getting a check from the government tend to have staggeringly large amounts of time to devote to nutty things.
Like France in 1789?
Or Haiti in 1804?
Or Cuba in 1959?
Or......
areful there, John. When he gets up cyto will start whining about how you hate the west... 😉
You are one obsessed mofo.
That's not true at all:
First, why can't you be middle class and educated and still be young? Second, 38% of a party that was even once in power small, tells you the former serfs never revolted. Third, 62% of them were industrial workers. That combined with them being young, looks like educated middle class to me.
Factory workers = "Educated middle class"? In 1907? In Russia?
Either you slept through every History class you've ever taken in your life or you are drunk/high. Possibly both.
Who were the middle class then? They weren't peasants. And many factory workers were highly skilled artisans. Do you think every "factory worker" was unskilled an poor? Hardly. There were artisans and solidly middle class people who were "factory workers".
http://books.google.com/books?.....age&q=life of a factory worker in 1907 russia&f=false
You're confusing "skilled worker" with "educated". In the early 20th Century, the definition of "Middle Class" was "property owner." As stated in my original post, only 22 percent of the Bolsheviks were Gentry.
We are arguing about semantics HM. Call it what you will. I consider artisans and skilled industrial workers to be middle class. It is the same group that made up the Paris mob during the French Revolution. That is who I meant when I said "educated middle class". If you prefer "artisan class" fine.
I do and I think it's more accurate.
It probably is Mulatto.
I'd like to amend my previous comment to:
Upper Middle Class = non-noble property owner
Middle Class = income from business, not from selling one's labor.
Are you only applying that definition to early 20th century Russia, because it doesnt apply to early 21st century USA?
Actually he's right. In 1907, the poor were the peasant farmers and the "middle-class" were the blue-collar factory workers.
What we consider middle-class today is not what was middle class in an economy that was still mostly agrarian.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.....-lead.html
Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.
He is also within four points of Obama.
I'm not at all a Santorum guy, but one thing that I have to respect is that he rarely offers pre-digested pablum in response to a challenge.
Does fecal matter count as "pre-digested"?
Not necessarily. Fecal matter has a taste, something pablum studiously avoids.
He sucks. But it wouldn't shock me if he won. I look at him as kind of a more religious clean living Republican Bill Clinton. The reason why he is doing so well is he has the whole "I feel your pain" schtick down to an art form. And he is the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who does that. In a year with a horrible economy, that might go a long ways.
But Clinton's "feel your pain" rhetoric was paired with extremely slick judgement of what to say and when to say it. Remember any Clinton gaffes during his presidency? Me either.
Santorum doesn't come close to that level of control. Just yesterday he was talking about how he wouldn't allow women to serve in combat because they're inherently weaker. Much like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, the guy does not know when to shut up.
BBBBBBBBAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFF
My sister is a die-hard Democrat, and she was planning to vote for the worst possible Republican in IL's open primary to help BO win in the general. Yesterday she called and asked me, apparently one of the few Republican-ish people she knows, for advice on which one was worst (wtf?). Of course I told her Ron Paul.
Sweet. Just curious: Has your sister opined on the worst possible Democrat?
That guy has their nomination sown up 😉
The people who vote for Santorum deserve every bit of misery his rule would create.
The guy is an economic ignoramus. He'd cave into the civil service on economic stuff so that he could expend his political capital on socon issues.
So we'd have Obamacare, and it wouldn't pay for contraceptives. And he would be congratulating himself on holding the line on what mattered.
The only comfort I get is that he apparently had his fingerprints all over the nasty parts of the K street project, and the Dems will reveal it in all its yucky glory in the general election.
Then again I predicted Al Gore winning the presidency in 2008 as late as Feb of 2008, so my predictions have error bars that are almost as big as ones that should be on an IPCC general assessment.
he represents the right wing version of big govt - the Police State with bits of the Nanny State mixed in. Santorum's wealth, such as it is, is solely due to his prior service in the Senate. At least Paul and Mitt made money in the private world before turning to politics. The whole so-con thing is statism in a different wrapper.
Do royalties for racist political newsletters count as "the private world"?
a medical practice counts. You have heard Paul is a doctor by trade, right?
There aren't many millionaire obstetricians out there, friend.
You're such a disingenuous asshole sometimes, Tulpa, seriously.
You'll wake up Max with that kind of talk, Tulpa. And he'll shit on the carpet again.
You deny that RP made serious money off those newsletters? I hope not.
I'm pro-Paul in general but he needs to be needled about those newsletters until he tells the truth.
I doubt they are racist.
How much did Paul charge for the newsletters, is one question.
How much did he NET from the newsletters, after printing and mailing expenses?
That's the answer to "RP made serious money".
$24.95 for 8 pages stapled together is a lot of profit.
RP himself has denounced them as racist.
All of them? When you see "the newsletters", that refers to the entire body of work. I think he denounced a few articles.
If your armpits smell like shit, it doesn't matter how good your belly button smells. You still smell like shit.
You deny that RP made serious money off those newsletters? I hope not.
That meme is utter bullshit.
He made more than a million dollars off the newsletters media propagandists scream, without noting that it was over a twenty year period of time, or noting whether that figure is gross income or net profit. Knowing the way the media distorts everything, I'm betting that it was gross income - which means that Paul most likely didn't make shit off of them.
Exactly, M Triple X... and good to see that the Pointer picked up a theme I've brought up in the past - did Ron Paul, over the course of the newsletters' lifetime - actually NET profit?
If he even made one dollar over cost, he made a profit.
And profit is the devil's jizzim.
According to Paul's current version of events, he had nothing to do with the day to day operations of the newsletter. The people actually handling it just cut him a check for the use of his name and occasionally a piece he actually wrote.
So yeah, the money he got his hands on was pure profit. Unless he was actually involved in editing and printing the newsletters (which was his story back in 1996) but then he owns the racist shit contained in them.
And $1M over 20 years ain't shabby. I don't think the newsletters even ran that long though, did they? That would mean they started in the early 70s, which isn't plausible.
If so many voters hadn't failed the literacy test that the Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections cleverly built into the ballot she designed he would have. 🙂
2008 not 2000.
The people who vote for Santorum deserve every bit of misery his rule would create.
The rest of us don't deserve it. 🙁
That's very true. The bad part is that I don't.
This is exactly what will happen. The GOP just goes shittier and shittier.
There is a mention of a recall "that could see him removed from office ..." but no mention of the legislators who fled the state to avoid their elected responsibilities to vote.
Democracy is still about "Majority Rules" that is to say even if I don't agree with the outcome of the vote, I go along with what the Majority has voted upon. As a elected official, he was required to make cuts.
They might not be popular, they might even be unfair, and they might not be to anyone's liking. But the majority cast their vote for this Governor. The majority were responsible for putting him in office.
We are still the envy of the world, our worst years, folks live better than 90 percent of the inhabitants of the earth. Stop complaining, and start enjoying what we have. Show some gratitude for our way of life, and enjoy the benefits of Democracy. We might not all get along, but we still have a lot to be grateful for.
Lonny Dunn Tweets at @ProNetworkBuild
Maybe that's because this is a post about CPAC and the state legislators weren't speaking at CPAC?
I don't know why, but I am still amazed how many people come by here and comment on articles while ignoring the context in which they were written.
Obama pulls out of birth control debate
If only his drunk driving daddy had pulled out of Stanley.
Frannk Marshal Davis?
....because plants crave electrolytes....
OT: This news sucks, but you may want to take a little time to check out some nice sketches.
http://www.awesome-robo.com/20.....-mind.html
onetime my Dad got mad at me because I hit a goat but I wasn't sad because it pooped on my hand.
When Walker farts in a jar, does the energy go to the Koch brothers?
Obama to release budget Monday. He pledged to halve the deficit by the end of his first term.
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....19124.html
If he doesn't I will be pissed off.
wait.
this is happy shrike?
Fake Shrike.
Watch this and chill the fuck out
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Videos.....onsVideos/
http://www.viddler.com/v/d5d5af89
Could you take that cock out of your mouth for just a few seconds? I mean holy hell, enough with it already, we get your point you stupid asshole.
It's a collection of Grier's movie appearances. I don't get it, sandy cunt.
What was the link? I am blocked. What on earth brought the troll out for that?
An entertaining video of Pam Grier's movie appearances. I honestly don't get it.
Of course you don't "get it", because you're a stupid piece of shit.
You really need to fart in a jar instead of doing the mouth organ action.
Here's the first post I made about the Walker dustup waaay back, I don't see any reason to amend it in any way today.
MNG|2.18.11 @ 8:41AM|#
My take on the WI public union dust-up
* canceling school to send protestors is wrong and stupid
* I tend not to be a fan of disruptive protests-politically stupid and often wrong
* the proposals to have public workers pay more into benefits and take pay cuts sounds reasonable given the financial situaiton in the state
* the public unions should not be singled out to lose their right to collective bargaining (especially egregious, but typical of the GOP, to give the police a pass on this)
"the public unions should not be singled out to lose their right to collective bargaining"
Agree. So long as their employer has every right to say "we will not bargain with you".
Er, are you really going to give me a libertarian argument for why the government should be able to exempt itself from labor laws that it forces on the private sector (WI is not a right to work state)?
"their employer", in this case, is the taxpayer.
Why should taxpayers have to support public unions? Or private-sector unions, for that matter?
Why should the government exempt itself from laws it forces on others?
It's neat that when we talk about government in other areas and someone says "hey, we the people are the government" people laugh at them, but when its in this context they agree...
MNG|2.11.12 @ 8:05PM|#
"Why should the government exempt itself from laws it forces on others?"
It shouldn't. It does, because it can.
Why should the government coerce private employers to 'negotiate' with rent-seeking unions?
It shouldn't. It does, because it can.
Er, are you really going to claim that since the state screws private employers it should also screw taxpayers?
If emergency services workers pulled the stunt the teachers did, you've got a disaster on your hands. We'll get to the police unions in due time, don't worry.
Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. (though in your mind, the perfect is even worse)
note that it is illegal for police officers to strike.
so, it would be kind of whack to say we could collectively bargain IF they could fire us for it, GIVEN that we cannot strike.
since we cannot strike (it's illegal), collective bargaining is our only option
in a state like hawaii, with a monopoly (essentially) --- only 4 PD's and one police union for all 4's, that is why there is so much ridiculous structural inequity. no competition.
here on the mainland, different PD's and PD unions essentially compete with each other for the best officers. agencies with the best benefits tend, ceteris paribus, to get the best cops.
it's no surprise that a place like new orleans , with HORRENDOUS pay/benefits is so obscenely corrupt in their PD (and everything else).
my agency has very good benefits,and we get way more applicants per position than many other agencies, and we also tend to be more slective in hiring AND in firing during probationary period. we are kind of famous for that.
iow, we give our officers benefits AND more responsibility, but that goes hand in hand with greater expectations of professionalism, conduct, etc.
many officers who fail out of our program do FINE in a less demanding agency, where they have more micromanagement, less autonomy, and lower expectations
i strongly doubt you wil "get " the police unions, at least in my state.
and again, i have never complained about our pay , benefits, etc.
we are very fairly compensated and treated well, with occasional exceptions (and thanks to arbitration and attorneys, those of us who get fucked over, usually get redress)
It's illegal for WI teachers to strike too. They just called in sick en masse.
But police officers would never do that.
It was an act of cowardice, not principle, to exempt the police and firefighters. If collective bargaining by teachers was costing too much...But conservatives like cops, so...
There's nothing cowardly about picking your battles.
i gotta agree with tulpa.
incrementalism WORKS
god knows it is working with medical MJ, despite all the ideologues being up in arms because it is imperfect
John, why so down on Santorum?
You started here on H&R trying to convince us the war on Iraq and the WOT was a good thing. You described yourself as a "national security conservative." So Santorum should be your guy, right? On that which you think so important as to define yourself he's there with you fighting Islamofascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....._proposals
Scroll down to "foriegn policy"
Sounds like John to me...
Now you're just goading John. Is this how you get your jollies?
Sorry, I just find his Santorum hate disengenous. If someone calls themselves a "national security conservative" and trumpets their devotion to things like the WOT and War on Iraq, then why would they pour such hate on a guy whose been with them on all that every step of the way?
What's to like about Santorum?
He is the social lubricant of the dream world.
So you're saying that because someone agrees with Santorum on a small subset of issues, he must like Santorum overall.
Your syllogisms are weird.
When that "small subset" is how you define yourself, then they're not such a small subset...It's more like "because someone agrees with Santorum on the issues they think are most important..."
There's no evidence on how John defies himself.
John knows I have him on record as a "national security conservative."
MNG|2.11.12 @ 7:59PM|#
"John knows I have him on record as a "national security conservative.""
No comment about John, but can you type 30 personalities per minute?
You have him on record as...? WIH does this mean?
He has no idea. It is just a slur he uses. My views are pretty consistent and well known. And have changed over the years as I have thought about things.
I agree with Obama on most of those things you half wit. Am I obligated to like Obamacare because of it?
John (earlier today) "I don't think I have ever had an argument with you where you didn't almost immediately resort to some personal attack as if that had any relevance to the subject of the conversation."
John (later today) "I agree with Obama on most of those things you half wit."
The great debate continues...
Don't act like a half wit and you won't be called as such. You just whine because you can't respond to my point.
You of all people MNG shouldn't talk about 'disingenuous'.
I would hope libertarians would be appalled by someone saying that collective bargaining is not a right. Collective bargaining, after all, is just people agreeing that they will pool their labor value and negotiate terms for employment in unison. It's a matter of free association. The traditional arguments against it are anti-trust in nature, but those don't mesh well with the typical libertarian viewpoint on economic freedom. Walker wasn't just talking about public unions when he said that. You should be disturbed by that, not happy. The fact that unions usually oppose your political preferences should have nothing to do with it.
I'll give you that collective bargaining is a right, provided you give me that firing people who attempt to collectively bargain is a right.
This
Why do you hate working people??
Sure. Such should be delicate balance labor negotiation.
Then you're in favor of repealing the National Labor Relations Act?
Unfortunately, labor law is a mish-mash of compromises and tension, precisely because labor unions have been stripped of their ability to exercise their full power through use of general striking. I'd heavily modify the NLRA, yes. In the meantime, it is a matter of economic freedom that people be allowed to say to their employer, "I won't work for you unless you agree to A,B, and C and neither will my coworkers either."
Unfortunately, labor law is a mish-mash of compromises and tension, precisely because labor unions have been stripped of their ability to exercise their full power through use of general striking. I'd heavily modify the NLRA, yes. In the meantime, it is a matter of economic freedom that people be allowed to say to their employer, "I won't work for you unless you agree to A,B, and C and neither will my coworkers either."
Jason S. |2.11.12 @ 5:08PM|#
"I would hope libertarians would be appalled by someone saying that collective bargaining is not a right."
You're right, anything not causing harm to others is a 'right' (or 'freedom' if you will).
Equally, those with whom they wish to bargain have the freedom to not bargain with that group.
What Tulpa said (shudder).
Also, while it is a right, public sector jobs should NEVER be collectively bargained.
George Meany was right(ish) about pubsec unions.
Im okay with this existing as long as the state ignored them.
power to the people!!!
norma jean!!!!
Not allowing pubsec unions is giving power to the people.
well, yes.
in the same way that restricting any subset-of-the-people's rights, gives more power to those not in that subset
you could restrict salaries for baseball players and profit margins for team owners, which would make baseball tickets cheaper. that would increase "power to the people" because more of them could afford ot go to ballgames more often
restricting people's rights often has that effect.
this is also the liberal argument for wealth redistribution.
If you're a good cop you have nothing to fear from not having a union.
If you can't make it without the union, perhaps you should find employment funded by voluntary exchange rather than coercion.
that's like saying if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear from going to trial without an attorney
c'mon, tulpa. you can do better than that.
Most people go to work every day without a union backing them up. Especially a union that can sicc hundreds of statutory coercers on anyone on the outside who criticizes them.
setting aside the histrionic part after "especially", so what?
my PD CHOOSES to collectively bargain and we have done so. we want, and have an advocate for OUR position, against management, and to help protect us from abuse of due process, unfounded complaints, etc.
that's a good thing.
our job is unique (not that i deny others the right to unionize) in that by its nature, we are expected to do things (take away people's liberty, and even their life) on occasion that many people naturally don't like.
i've given a metric assload of false complaints (many backed up as false by video/audio thank god), and we like having somebody help protect us from violation of our rights.
good for us.
lots of people work without a union. if i was in any # of private sector jobs, i wouldn't want a union EITHER.
due ot the particular hazards of my job, i DO want a union.
i pay a fair amount of dues for their protection, and if i never need them that's great.
i hope i never need my fire insurance too
or that i never have to shoot my gun at anybody (again) on or off duty.
i don't believe, as many liberals do, that unions are all light and good or that they are always on the correct side of a debate. that's not their job. their job is advocacy for a SIDE. unlike a defense attorney, our union will not, and has not, represented officers in many cases where they were clearly wrong and/or fairly punished.
i've given public examples of other unions that have done the same (not gotten behind obviously wrong officers)
the histrionic part after "especially"
I suppose all those instances of police unions posting on their websites the personal information (including drivers license number, license plates) of journalists doing unfriendly reporting are an illusion. Or the more common tactic of ticketing vehicles for obscure parking violations when they're parked near the location of a community meeting about police abuse.
right. similarly, we should eliminate the ability of defendants to present witnesses, since i can point to instances where they have suborned perjury
this isn't a compelling argument, tulpa. one can object to almost ANYTHING by pointing out examples where somebody has abused it.
here's a hint. i wouldn't work for a non unionized police dept.
why? because even if i was perfect (and god knows i am not), i could still be the victim of false/exaggerated complaints, or a political vendetta. we invest a lot in our careers. we give up a lot of personal freedoms, go through a VERY invasive background process, etc.
unions are there to protect us, both those who did something bad *(but maybe not bad enough to justify firing. if you want perfect cops, you aint gonna get them), and those who did nothing wrong, but are facign accusations and often a management that wants to (usually for political reasons, sometimes for personal ones) to get rid of a guy and doesn't care how unjust the reason
i've seen several guys on my dept. fired BLATANTLY without due process and thank god we have arbitration, some got their job back
if i could show you one of these arb reports, your mind would be boggled at how badly one of these guys got railroaded for something he pretty certainly did not do.
the case of the SPD cop who got in the shooting out of state at the biker convention is another example where they had to eat crow for bogus charges.
or my buddy who got charged with DV after a DV advocate saw his name in a report, and that he was a cop, and she CALLED up the guy's wife, convinced her to CHANGE her story, and they charged him. after that. ZERO credibility. he lost his job for a year. union fought it, he got his job back and a year of back pay
our job naturally places us in positions where we are vulnerable and i want somebody there watching my back.
it's just like insurance. even if i do nothing wrong, i still might need it, and even if i never need it, it's a good investment.
union misconduct should be dealt with - WHATEVER kind of union. but if you want GOOD cops, then you want unions, because i, as a good cop, would NEVER consider a career in a busy agency without a union. just like video, i WANT it to protect ME from false complaints or bogus accsations
when i worked a small PD, we didn't have one, and i didn't feel the need. the environment is very different here.
frankly, i'd WAY rather get shot than get falsely accused of something serious.
as another analogy, this would be like saying, if you are careful with fire, you have nothing to fear if you own a house w.o fire insurance.
+1 Dunphy
"If you're a good cop you have nothing to fear from not having a union."
That is terrible logic. Yeah, there could be no politics or bullshit in a police workforce.
We suspected Tulpa loved cops, but I don't think we knew it was confined to cop administrators.
It is impossible to bargain in good faith with a public union. No legislature has the authority to bind, nor even the power to enforce a bind on a future legislative body. Sorry Jack and Jill Dunphy Goat, you lose.
Who is "we"?
You don't speak for anyone here. You're even less a part of the community than I am.
"What Tulpa said (shudder).
Also, while it is a right, public sector jobs should NEVER be collectively bargained."
I wonder if robc realizes those two sentences don't quite jibe...
That's because coercive, mandatory collective bargaining, as it currently exists, is not a right. See explanation below at 8:08 pm.
Dude is making a whole lot of sense man. I mean like seriously.
http://www.anon-stuff.tk
It's just a matter of time until I drop the veneer of genial dissenter, and start dropping F-bombs.
Oh no! Whatever shall we do? If an anonymous griefer troll ever visited this board, it would surely be the end of us all.
It's christfag asshole.
I'll give you that collective bargaining is a right, provided you give me that firing people who attempt to collectively bargain is a right.
Collective bargaining is not a right. Forming a union is a right. The employer refusing to negotiate with the union, and/or firing those who join it, is a right. The union members going on strike if the employer does these things is a right. The employer firing striking workers or hiring temporary replacements is a right. Tossing anyone in jail who forcibly tries to harm anyone who exercises the above rights of association and the ability to earn a living is one solution to maintaining those rights.
except that in the case of cops, we can't strike, so we are denied one of those listed rights.
You seem to be missing my point, that the above is not anything remotely resembling the status quo, and does not necessarily include government-paid LEOs whose paycheck comes from theft via taxes.
If all the LEOs are from private security providers, then government regs preventing strikes are unlikely to exist.
If all the LEOs are from private security providers, then government regs preventing strikes are unlikely to exist.
So is all but the most rudimentary society.
change that ending word "society" to "government" and then we'd agree.
Did someone drag you into the police academy and force you to be a cop?
this is relevant why?
the point is that police employees do not have the full complement of rights (in many respects) that other employees have. voluntary employees in many other careers (most) have MORE rights than us in some respects.
among other things, it is legal to polygraph police applicants in my state.
but generally not for private employers to do so.
in brief, we are different. there are extra duties, responsibilities, we have in many respects, less privacy and fewer legal protections vis a vis many things than private (and many other public ) employees.
in some respects, we have greater protections.
it is not a 1:1 comparison
And sewer workers have to work waist deep in shit most of the day, while people with other jobs don't.
What happens if you decide to strike, anyway? Do you go to jail?
I would be totally OK with removing labor law "protections" from the private sector too. If you're a gas station owner and you want to put every applicant for a cashier job on the poly before hiring, go for it. You're probably not going to get good applicants.
that's an area of law i am unfamiliar with. i am not sure if it's a crime for officers to participate in a strike, or merely actionable by firing.
i would never do it.
tulpa, it's not a matter of what you'd be in favor of.
as usual, i am talking about how the world IS, not how i wished it was in my perfect world
in THIS world, we have in many respect less protections, privacy and otherwise, both as applicants and as employees, we have other hazards well beyond the physical dangers (the latter we can help mitigate by smart officer safety, but that often leaves us accused of excessive force, etc. even when the force is completely justified)
i love my job. i aint bitchin'. but i am saying i wouldn't do it in a metropolitan large type agency without union protection. they are watching my back, and most importantly - my family's back.
i do this job for the people in my community, and i put myself at risk for them, my brother officers, and even the criminals themselves.
but i won't do it without knowing that my back is covered financially, and legally
you want good cops, you offer good benefits and those protections
maybe that's why my PD DOES HAVE so many good cops. we get paid well, treated well, and are given respect, autonomy and not micromanaged
we have a very strong union, also
"Tossing anyone in jail"
So there is a role for government there!
Didn't say it was a government-run jail. Also note that I said it is "one solution", not "the best solution". I chose my words carefully. Something can be better than the status quo and still be subject to improvement.
Being taken against your will to a private prison? Isn't that kidnapping?
So, in your mind, if the government hauls your ass off to a public prison, that's not kidnapping -- but if a private enforcer of a NIOF code of law does that FOR THE EXACT SAME OFFENSE, it's kidnapping?
A private enforcer of a NIOF code of laws, BTW, would have a strong cost incentive to not lock up very many people, but instead insist that the perp work to compensate the victim. You wouldn't have people locked up for victimless crimes such as smoking some weed.
Shut the fuck up Minge, nobody gives a shit about your liberal crap.
MNG raises an interesting point about the liberal mindset, the notion that if the government doesn't provide certain services, then those services can't exist, no matter how much of a market demand there is for those services.
In his mind, it isn't possible, say, to have competing governmental service providers, none of which has a monopoly over a geographical area. Or a monopoly code of law, but private enforcement of that code of law. Or any other variant on a minarchy approaching anarcho-libertarianism.
But telling MNG to STFU is saying you want a pure echo chamber with no dissenting POVs, which seems boring.
protefeed|2.11.12 @ 8:22PM|#
"MNG raises an interesting point about the liberal mindset, the notion that if the government doesn't provide certain services, then those services can't exist, no matter how much of a market demand there is for those services."
I don't think it requires a "liberal" to agree.
"Classical liberals" tend to find a role for government in enforcing contracts and providing services that may be required but not practically delivered as a result of the free-rider problem, not the lack of demand.
The founders of the US attempted to do so through the establishment of the Constitution, severely limiting what a government may do. Hey, for a second try (let's call the Magna Carta the first), it's been fairly successful.
But what's obvious is that it now needs another try to block government power. The Constitution was only a good start, not an end.
"Congress shall pass no law infringing the choice of medical care", etc.
The Constitution was perfectly fine in that regard; it listed the powers available to the feds and they don't include health care provision.
Considering the plain text that's ignored by the courts (do recall that 4 justices in Heller thought the second amendment was a meaningless empty shell) I'm not sure that getting more specific would solve the problem. Deliberate misinterpretation is tough for a framer to overcome.
In his mind, it isn't possible, say, to have competing governmental service providers, none of which has a monopoly over a geographical area.
Depends on what "governmental services" you're talking about.
Garbage collection? Sure it's possible, but it would be way less efficient to have separate fleets of garbage trucks going down the same streets.
Road construction and maintenance? Again, there are possible ways for privatization to work, but even more inefficient. Is lack of government so important that you're willing to stop to pay a toll every block? And for intercity roads you're going to wind up with (uncontrolled) monopolies charging whatever tolls they please and letting their roads go to shit, because the barriers to entry are so high. Possible, but not really much advantage.
Law enforcement? No. Flerking. Way. If you're buying coercion in the market then it ain't a free market, and you're going to have a hell of a time firing them if you wish to do so in the future. (don't give me lip about existing security companies -- they are totally subservient to and dependent on the public authorities. They would take on a very different form in the absence of govt.)
Tulpa:
"Deliberate misinterpretation is tough for a framer to overcome."
No doubt, but absent "clarification", do you see any alternative?
---------------
"Garbage collection? Sure it's possible, but it would be way less efficient to have separate fleets of garbage trucks going down the same streets."
I happen to live where the four corners of the nearest intersection are occupied by restaurants. Every day trucks from competing suppliers deliver such goods as the restaurants need.
On a certain day of the week, I'm required to put containers on the street *after* I've sorted the offal for a single (monopoly) to pick it up. Care to define "efficient"?
Can't gripe about streets and roads; an impossible free-rider market problem outside of a particular community contract.
Ditto law-enforcement; granting a "monopoly" on coercion means only one.
There would be a plethora of reasons for choosing one supplier of goods over another.
Garbage collection, on the other hand...all that matters is that they take the stuff away. Choice of providers isn't nearly as crucial. Now, if you want to privatize garbage collection, fine. It better just be way down on the list of priorities.
Whereas privatizing roads would be kooky and privatizing LEOs a recipe for social disaster.
About twelve miles east of me, a good-size city has many different garbage companies roaming the streets. (Springfield, home of a roughly one-year-old fucked-up anti-smoking ban, btw)
Where I live, the city is considering one garbage company getting a contract for the entire city.
About twenty miles west of me, the city IS the garbage company.
All in SW Missouri, and generally Red in this quadrant (home of fuckheads like Roy Blunt, but also fuckhead Democrats).
Shit all fucked up, yo.
When cops went on strike in Newark, New Jersey in the 1970's, the crime rates went down.
causation and correlation how do those work?
To make that argument you have to point to a plausible common cause of the phenomena.
who are you talking to?
i assume not me, because i am not makign an argument, i am pointing out that correlation doesn't necessarily = causation.
the crime rate might have gone down after doyle brunson flopped the nuts straight on 1/16/72. doesn't mean that CAUSED the crime rate to go down
In his mind, it isn't possible, say, to have competing governmental service providers, none of which has a monopoly over a geographical area. Or a monopoly code of law, but private enforcement of that code of law. Or any other variant on a minarchy approaching anarcho-libertarianism.
Where does the monopoly code of law come from? How do you propose to have all of those private enforcers agree to enforce only the monopoly code of law?
Where does the monopoly code of law come from? How do you propose to have all of those private enforcers agree to enforce only the monopoly code of law?
Take the current system in whatever state and municipality you live in. Increase, over time, the proportion of the populace who believes in following a libertarian ethos, via the current form of government sucking hard and failing big time.
Have that more libertarian populace strip the various levels of government down to minarchies -- legislatures, police, national defense, maybe roads (maybe not), and most everything else privatized.
Get rid of taxes. Make everything government does get paid for via voluntary subscriptions in exchange for services.
Then watch the government police get driven out of business by more efficient private competitors providing protective services, or people opting out and arming themselves and defending themselves.
That's one of many paths that could be taken.
But it takes enough of the population that has given up on statism and is willing to defend their rights, said rights embedded in a NIOF code of laws.
"Some states have also chosen budget gimmicks to balance the budget."
Because Walker would never rely on budget gimmicks:
http://www.jsonline.com/busine.....70349.html
It's pretty clear the reform of the public sector in Wisconsin was necessary. Collective bargaining continually awards state and local employees a total compensation package that far outstrips those found in the private sector (http://bit.ly/pZofYR). Wisconsin was a system where state and local employees were contributing next to nothing into their pensions and health care plans, and the pension system with rife with exploits and loopholes (http://bit.ly/oVovMT). Once the entire state is able to put the legislation in place we should begin to see a lot more return.