Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[Arrian]

Excellent example. Only gay politicians can look after gay interests, otherwise they shouldn't bother (not their constituency). Good plan? I think you might have a problem with that.

Bad analogy, Wez. Gay *activists* would be the people roughly similar to public employee unions, not gay politicians. The union members aren't running for office, but they are a special interest group seeking to influence politics.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

The point being the elected politician only responds to his own group.

I also disagree with the "special interest group seeking to influence politics" part. From what I have seen they are well past the influence stage. Democrats are bought and paid for.

[Arrian]

As are the GOP, dude. But we've discussed this before.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

Which again leads back to the question - Who looks after the taxpayer interest? I think I can see why things are a mess.

[Arrian]

You mean the taxpayers who aren't members of a successful interest group (after all, both the state employees and the Koch Brothers* pay taxes and are, therefore, taxpayers).

Focused interest groups can have a powerful impact, especially if the rest of the population isn't really paying attention - which is the case. Then, when they start paying attention, they appear to flail about angrily but ineffectually. Thus, blaming teachers for budget problems, blaming unions for having better benifits than they (non-union) have, etc.

Yeah, it's messed up. Welcome to American politics. I'm not sure CanPol is really any better, but I'm inclined to think so. Probably only a little better.

-Arrian

* stand-in for mega rich dudes who fund interest groups, of whichever political ideology.

[Wezil]

I think there's more accountability.

Your system is good in many respects (relatively speaking) but one drawback I see is that it makes it difficult to assign responsibility when something goes wrong.

[MrFun]

[Wezil]

Can we have a War on Wars please.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, I'm sure the GOP leadership sits in its secret underground command center rubbing their hands together scheming of how to screw over the poor. They couldn't possibly be disputing methods as opposed to goals.

[Jon Miller]

I don't know if it is the Republicans.

In interesting article I read.

http://www.economist.com/node/18443402?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/marxmervynmario

JM

[MrFun]

Yes, I'm sure the GOP leadership sits in its secret underground command center rubbing their hands together scheming of how to screw over the poor. They couldn't possibly be disputing methods as opposed to goals.

I try to think of good reasons or consequences that come out of taking away workers' rights and reversing progressive changes made in our history. I just can't think of any.

[notyoueither]

I try to think of good reasons or consequences that come out of taking away workers' rights and reversing progressive changes made in our history. I just can't think of any.

We can't afford to pay the level of compensation that gets hidden in the benefits for public employees, and we don't have the political will to say 'no' when they go on strike taking their monopoly on a needed service with them?

I thought Wezil (and some others) had some good thoughts on this earlier in the thread.

[DinoDoc]

Can we have a War on Wars please.

No. If it were as successful as the war on poverty we'd end up with more war and then what would it be good for?

[Wezil]

No. If it were as successful as the war on poverty we'd end up with more war and then what would it be good for?

Whenever some activist comes out with their newest "War on ----" my eyes just glaze over.

[molly bloom]

Molly - The union reps aren't running for office.

If you mean public office, I wasn't aware of suggesting they were. As an ex-union rep. and ex-student union rep., I am aware that I had to be elected to both of those offices.

Elected politicians are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just the ones that vote for them.

So which politicians are you claiming do not represent their constituents ? Could we possibly see some proof to go along with your claims ?

So ask again, In view of the fact the Democratic party will simply doing the bidding of the unions...

This is an opinion being presented as fact. I don't mind hyperbole, but again, unless you have evidence that the Democratic Party in Wisconsin simply does the bidding of the public sector unions (you haven't mentioned other unions, but perhaps you'd like to lump thenm in as well ?) unfounded opinion is all this is.

who is looking out for the taxpayers?

I believe I have already raised the issue of your false dichotomy- union members and Democratic Party members and Democrat voters all presumably pay taxes- at least those who can't afford the kind of creative tax avoidance measures that might enable them not to pay as much as they might otherwise do.

While most if not all union members are taxpayers, only a small minority of taxpayers work for public sector unions

Uh huh. So ?