Where's the outrage?

So where the fuck is the mainstream media coverage of the Jeff Cox story (Indiana deputy AG advocates using live ammunition against protesters in Wisconsin).  Now the Indiana AG's office seems to have done the right thing and fired this guy.  But where is the outrage?  A public official advocated murdering lawful protesters.  This guy belongs in Tripoli with Qaddafi, not in the United States.

Can you imagine if a Democratic official had advocated murdering Tea Partiers?  We'd hardly hear of anything else.  Christ, just look at the Shirley Sherrod business.  Even if the allegations against her had been true, they wouldn't have been 1% as bad as what Cox has said.  So come on, right-wingers: let's hear your denunciations of this kind of thinking.

The situation in Wisconsin

Feb. 21., 2011

I wanted to set out my thoughts on the current situation in Wisconsin, in a form that doesn’t fit within a sound bite, tweet, or facebook post, because I think those forms of communication are unsuited to a rational discussion of the issues at hand.

As I see it, there are at least seven interrelated issues:

1. Increased pension and health care contributions by state employees.
2. Scott Walker’s refusal to negotiate with state employee unions.
3. Scott Walker’s proposals to effectively end collective bargaining for all state employees (except for a few favored groups).
4. Unequal treatment of the majority of state employees, relative to police, firefighters, and state troopers.
5. Imposing rules on the compensation of public employees at the county and municipal levels.
6. Rushing these changes through the legislature without adequate time for discussion and debate.
7. Proposals to significantly weaken private-sector unions.

As I write, #1 is no longer an issue.  State employee unions have agreed to Walker’s proposals for pay cuts (http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions).  So for those of you who think that state employees should pay for their pensions just like private employees do, okay, you’ve won.  We’re not happy about this, but, by and large, this is not what people have protested about, even though this represents an 8% pay cut for the average state worker. Even though, before these cuts, state employees in Wisconsin were not compensated as well as private sector employees in comparable jobs (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d4093848-3c92-11e0-ac18-001cc4c03286.html, http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf).

But the pay cuts were never really the main issue.  A number of the unions agreed to pay cuts before Scott Walker even took office (http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/12/07/walker_asks_workers_.php).  And Walker has already added $117 million to the deficit since taking office (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_2a16d87a-3d34-11e0-b572-001cc4c002e0.html), so you have to wonder how serious he is about fiscal responsibility.

One complaint I’ve heard a number of times is, “state employees should be reasonable”.  Now, as I’ve addressed in point #1, I think state employees have, indeed, been reasonable in accepting significant pay cuts to help balance the state budget in this time of economic stress.  But if you want people to be reasonable, it’s not wise to start out the process by insulting them.  By refusing to even negotiate with state employee unions, Scott Walker poisoned the atmosphere without gaining anything.  If he had tried to negotiate, and negotiations had failed, he could still have imposed the pay cuts he wanted.  I think the only possible conclusion is that Gov. Walker wanted to go out of his way to avoid even the appearance of treating state workers with respect.

Furthermore, where is the reasonableness from others?  What other groups have indicated a willingness to sacrifice for the public good?  I haven’t been exactly overwhelmed by the parade of Wisconsin’s wealthiest citizens coming forward to explain what sacrifices they’re willing to make to help balance the budget.

Item number 3 gets to the heart of the matter.  Governor Walker’s proposals would strip all but token collective bargaining rights from most state employees, a right in Wisconsin for fifty years.  All we are asking is that Governor Walker work with us to solve Wisconsin’s problems, give us a seat at the table, rather than treating us as the enemy.

Labor unions and collective bargaining have been one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the American middle class.  Labor unions brought Americans, among other things:

• An end to child labor 
• The 8-hour work day, the 40-hour work week, and paid overtime
• Workers' compensation benefits for workers injured on the job
• Unemployment insurance for workers who lose their jobs

Things that most Americans take for granted; but they were not won without years of struggle.

But without even attempting to negotiate, Scott Walker has decided that, somehow, collective bargaining is suddenly a terrible idea.

But, for some reason, collective bargaining is not a terrible idea for police officers, firefighters, or state troopers (item #4, http://host.madison.com/news/state_and_regional/article_e94066bf-9488-51ad-83b6-261ac7a85cf6.html).  Why not?  The Governor has given no clear explanation of why some state employees should have collective bargaining rights while others don’t.  Are state troopers more vital than nurses?  And why should only "vital" employees have collective bargaining rights? Short of a clear, pressing reason, it makes no sense for Gov. Walker to give certain employees preferential treatment relative to others.  (One note about this: I am not criticizing the police, firefighters, or state troopers.  I am criticizing Governor Walker for his unequal treatment of state workers.)

Item 5 is actually one of the most interesting features of Gov. Walker’s proposal, because it seems to be in direct contradiction to the usual right-wing mantra of “local control”.  Is it really the state’s job to set the pay for every public employee?  What if a certain city wants improve compensation to attract better teachers?  Should the state really prohibit that?

Now, for me personally, item number 6 is one of the most important issues.  Scott Walker is proposing dramatic changes in a system that has been in place for 50 years.  Surely it is worth spending more than three days addressing the many questions that his proposals raise, such as:

•  Will eliminating collective bargaining for state employees really help the state in the long run?
• Should some state employees be treated differently than others, and if so, why, and what criteria should be used in decided which employees are favored?
• What other measures should also be used to address the budget situation?
• Does the state have the right to impose pay scales on county and municipal employees, and, if it does, is this actually a good idea?
• What effect will these changes have on education in Wisconsin, both at the K-12 and the university level?
• What effect will these changes have on other state services?

None of these questions have been adequately addressed.

There are undoubtedly many more question I haven’t thought of at the moment, but, my point remains the same: why try to ram through these changes without discussion or analysis?  Without consultation with the groups affected by the changes?  The only reason I can see is that Governor Walker is afraid that such discussion and analysis would expose weaknesses in his proposals that he is unwilling to address.

Item 7 is not part of the so-called “budget repair bill”, but it is another item on Walker’s list. I haven’t heard any justification of this beyond the simplistic slogan, “Wisconsin is open for business”.  But what does “Wisconsin is open for business” really mean?  Does it mean putting measures in place to maintain a strong, well-educated work force?  Does it mean facilitating innovative public-private ventures to leverage the excellence of the state’s university system?  Or does it simply mean a race to the bottom, competing with China for low-wage jobs?  Doesn’t such a major change in Wisconsin’s workplace environment deserve serious debate and analysis?

In short, of the seven items I have discussed, only #1 can be justified in terms of short-term positive impact on the state budget.  So I think it is only fair to ask: what are the motivations for Governor Walker’s actions?  He is clearly not motivated by a simple desire to balance the state’s budget – his radical proposals are meant to largely eliminate unions in Wisconsin.   Is this really what Wisconsinites voted for in November?  Or is this merely the payoff for Walker’s support from Charles and David Koch (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/)?  And if you think Scott Walker really has the public interest at heart, check out this nice little gift to people like the Kochs: no-bid sales of state energy assets: http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-less-discussed-part-of-walkers-wisconsin-plan-no-bid-energy-assets-firesales/ -- and I thought people like Walker believed in the free market!

What’s at stake here is really a bigger question than just the future of unions in Wisconsin.  The question really is, who does the Governor represent?  All Wisconsinites?  Or a few radical right-wing billionaires who want to further enrich themselves at the expense of the workers of Wisconsin?