| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - New Country for Old Men | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Colbert Report - the Word: New Country for Old Men
GOP Tactic: Intramural Class Warfare
Posted on Mar 1, 2011
By Richard Reeves
Mitch Daniels, the new governor of Indiana, is probably the smartest of the new crop of Republican governors determined to bring public employee unions to heel. This is the way he puts it:
“Public jobs grew while private jobs were lost. Public salaries went up while private sectors are shrinking. It’s time to interrupt that loop, in the public interest.”
You can read that a couple of ways. Perhaps the reason private-sector jobs are shrinking—in numbers and compensation—is precisely because corporations have broken most of the unions in the country. Only 7 percent of Americans working in the private sector have the protections unions generally provide. Forty percent of public employees, on the other hand, are union members.
Without doubt, there will be political gains for Daniels’ party if they can bring organized labor to its knees. Just as obviously, unions are an important part of the Democratic Party’s financial and political base.
Republicans are of course against class warfare, the poor against the rich, the middle class against the rich. And so they should be; the corporate elite of the country and what George H.W. Bush called “the investing classes” have already won that war, at least in the private sector, as those union membership numbers attest.
But, seizing the circumstances of hard times, the Republicans are promoting and provoking intramural class warfare. They are pitting what is left of the private-sector middle class against the public-sector middle class. It is a brilliant tactic, backed up by what Republicans themselves define as “fuzzy math.” But actually it is not about math; it is about mobilizing resentment and envy. And the rich are totally out of this intramural class war.
I happen to have spent most of my life working for myself, but I have been a member of three unions: the Newspaper Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Screen Actors Guild. I have not been impressed with the leadership and policies of any of them, but they were the price of admission for the work I wanted to do.
Still, I am pro-union for the most basic of reasons. Individual workers would not have and many do not have common-sense protections, beginning with wage stability and good working conditions and employee benefits. My own work experience probably explains my feelings. Out of college, I went to work as an engineer for Ingersoll Rand, an important supplier of heavy equipment for construction and production. It was not long before I realized that most of my fellow workers were unhappy people, terrified of the whims of management, much less the ownership.
One day, at lunch, while my friends grouched about the usual, the word union slipped from my lips. A regular Norma Rae. Some people never spoke to me again. I ended up working at the Newark Evening News, the best newspaper in New Jersey, but virulently anti-union. I was paid $60 a week plus $25 in expenses (we had to provide our own cars to cover hundreds of square miles of northern New Jersey). I got lucky with a couple of stories and was hired by the New York Herald Tribune. The Trib was a guild paper and my pay went to $163.60, a fortune to me. I was even able to buy a house.
It was a time, by the way, when there was a clear line between private and public work. Generally, public workers were paid less but got better benefits and more job security. It was a conscious choice to work for the military, for bureaucracies, in schools. The system was formal enough that teachers were trained in separate colleges, state teachers colleges.
So, the breaking of the unions is knocking middle-class workers, private and public, back toward the Gilded Age, as the rich continue to get richer and the middle class gets poorer. If the financier Jay Gould, a great buyer of politicians, was a spokesman for that time, this is what he said as he hired strikebreakers in an 1886 railroad strike: “I can hire half the working class to kill the other half.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/gop_tactic_intramural_class_warfare_20110228/
By Richard Reeves
Mitch Daniels, the new governor of Indiana, is probably the smartest of the new crop of Republican governors determined to bring public employee unions to heel. This is the way he puts it:
“Public jobs grew while private jobs were lost. Public salaries went up while private sectors are shrinking. It’s time to interrupt that loop, in the public interest.”
You can read that a couple of ways. Perhaps the reason private-sector jobs are shrinking—in numbers and compensation—is precisely because corporations have broken most of the unions in the country. Only 7 percent of Americans working in the private sector have the protections unions generally provide. Forty percent of public employees, on the other hand, are union members.
Without doubt, there will be political gains for Daniels’ party if they can bring organized labor to its knees. Just as obviously, unions are an important part of the Democratic Party’s financial and political base.
Republicans are of course against class warfare, the poor against the rich, the middle class against the rich. And so they should be; the corporate elite of the country and what George H.W. Bush called “the investing classes” have already won that war, at least in the private sector, as those union membership numbers attest.
But, seizing the circumstances of hard times, the Republicans are promoting and provoking intramural class warfare. They are pitting what is left of the private-sector middle class against the public-sector middle class. It is a brilliant tactic, backed up by what Republicans themselves define as “fuzzy math.” But actually it is not about math; it is about mobilizing resentment and envy. And the rich are totally out of this intramural class war.
I happen to have spent most of my life working for myself, but I have been a member of three unions: the Newspaper Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Screen Actors Guild. I have not been impressed with the leadership and policies of any of them, but they were the price of admission for the work I wanted to do.
Still, I am pro-union for the most basic of reasons. Individual workers would not have and many do not have common-sense protections, beginning with wage stability and good working conditions and employee benefits. My own work experience probably explains my feelings. Out of college, I went to work as an engineer for Ingersoll Rand, an important supplier of heavy equipment for construction and production. It was not long before I realized that most of my fellow workers were unhappy people, terrified of the whims of management, much less the ownership.
One day, at lunch, while my friends grouched about the usual, the word union slipped from my lips. A regular Norma Rae. Some people never spoke to me again. I ended up working at the Newark Evening News, the best newspaper in New Jersey, but virulently anti-union. I was paid $60 a week plus $25 in expenses (we had to provide our own cars to cover hundreds of square miles of northern New Jersey). I got lucky with a couple of stories and was hired by the New York Herald Tribune. The Trib was a guild paper and my pay went to $163.60, a fortune to me. I was even able to buy a house.
It was a time, by the way, when there was a clear line between private and public work. Generally, public workers were paid less but got better benefits and more job security. It was a conscious choice to work for the military, for bureaucracies, in schools. The system was formal enough that teachers were trained in separate colleges, state teachers colleges.
So, the breaking of the unions is knocking middle-class workers, private and public, back toward the Gilded Age, as the rich continue to get richer and the middle class gets poorer. If the financier Jay Gould, a great buyer of politicians, was a spokesman for that time, this is what he said as he hired strikebreakers in an 1886 railroad strike: “I can hire half the working class to kill the other half.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/gop_tactic_intramural_class_warfare_20110228/
NBC/WSJ poll: 62% against stripping public employees' bargaining rights
Mark Murray writes:Strong majorities of Americans say they are comfortable with states requiring their employees to pay more for their retirement and health care to balance state budget deficits, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
But the public is adamantly against eliminating public employees' collective-bargaining rights -- as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is pursuing.
In the poll, a whopping 68 percent find it acceptable requiring public employees to contribute more of their pay for retirement benefits; 63 percent are fine with requiring these employees to pay more for their health-care benefits; and 58 percent are OK with freezing public employees' salaries for one year.
But just 33 percent say it's acceptable -- and 62 percent say it's unacceptable -- to eliminate these employees' collective-bargaining rights as way to deal with state budget deficits.
In addition, 77 percent believe that public employees have the same collective-bargaining rights (when it comes to health care, pensions, and other benefits) that union employees who work for private companies have.
The entire poll -- which was conducted Feb. 24-28, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- will be released at 6:30 pm ET.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/02/6171265-nbcwsj-poll-62-against-stripping-public-employees-bargaining-rights
But the public is adamantly against eliminating public employees' collective-bargaining rights -- as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is pursuing.
In the poll, a whopping 68 percent find it acceptable requiring public employees to contribute more of their pay for retirement benefits; 63 percent are fine with requiring these employees to pay more for their health-care benefits; and 58 percent are OK with freezing public employees' salaries for one year.
But just 33 percent say it's acceptable -- and 62 percent say it's unacceptable -- to eliminate these employees' collective-bargaining rights as way to deal with state budget deficits.
In addition, 77 percent believe that public employees have the same collective-bargaining rights (when it comes to health care, pensions, and other benefits) that union employees who work for private companies have.
The entire poll -- which was conducted Feb. 24-28, and which has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- will be released at 6:30 pm ET.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/02/6171265-nbcwsj-poll-62-against-stripping-public-employees-bargaining-rights
Wisconsin GOP tries to ban prank calls
Wednesday, Mar 2, 2011 12:22 ET
By Justin Elliott
In the wake of the prank-calling of Gov. Scott Walker by a journalist posing as conservative billionaire David Koch, a pair of Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature have proposed a bill that would actually make prank calls illegal.
http://www.salon.com/news/wisconsin/index.html?story=%2Fpolitics%2Fwar_room%2F2011%2F03%2F02%2Fban_prank_calls_law
By Justin Elliott
In the wake of the prank-calling of Gov. Scott Walker by a journalist posing as conservative billionaire David Koch, a pair of Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature have proposed a bill that would actually make prank calls illegal.
That was the call in which Walker joked about "stereotypical blue-caller workers," revealed that he had considered planting troublemakers among the pro-labor protesters in Wisconsin, and generally buddied up to the eccentric (and fake) version of Koch that was on the line.
The Badger Herald reports on the details of the bill (note the strange nod in the first line to "legitimate uses" of spoofing):
“While use of spoofing is said to have some legitimate uses, it can also be used to frighten, harass and potentially defraud,” Lazich and Honadel said in an e-mail to legislators.
The bill language forbids a caller from intentionally providing a false phone number and convincing the person receiving the call that it comes from someone other than the actual caller.
The bill would make it illegal to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain any information of value from using a caller identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information.
The fine for violating the law would be between $1,000 and $10,000 for each prank call made.
I reached out to Ian Murphy, the Buffalo Beast editor behind the Walker prank call, for a reaction to all this. Said Murphy:
"This bill is a cowardly response to my prank on Walker, and that they deny this demonstrates, once again, the level of dishonesty to which Wisconsin's Republicans will stoop."
http://www.salon.com/news/wisconsin/index.html?story=%2Fpolitics%2Fwar_room%2F2011%2F03%2F02%2Fban_prank_calls_law
Why did governor consider disrupting rallies?
Posted: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:00 am
Embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has now acknowledged in a press conference and in a nationally televised interview -- with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren -- that he engaged in discussions with political allies about hiring “troublemakers” to disrupt peaceful demonstrations against his budget repair bill.
“You said you thought about it?” asked Van Susteren.
“We did,” replied Walker. “We had people contacting (us). I even had lawmakers and others suggesting riling things up.”
Madison attorney Lester Pines, one of the state’s most respected trial lawyers, referred to that comment as “a scandal.”
“If, in fact, they took any steps toward implementing that (plan to disrupt rallies), that’s a crime,” explained Pines. “If they took steps to implement that, they engaged in a conspiracy to deny people their civil rights.”
After learning of the governor’s comments in the Thursday interview, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray, a lawman with 27 years of experience, said: “I spent a good deal of time overnight thinking about Governor Walker’s response, during his news conference yesterday, to the suggestion that his administration ‘thought about’ planting troublemakers among those who are peacefully protesting his bill. I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his Cabinet members.
“I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers.
“Our department works hard dialoguing with those who are exercising their First Amendment right, those from both sides of the issue, to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure they can demonstrate safely. I am concerned that anyone would try to undermine these relationships.
“I have a responsibility to the community, and to the men and women of this department -- who are working long hours protecting and serving this community -- to find out more about what was being considered by state leaders.”
On Friday, Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz went further, releasing a letter to Walker in which he referenced the governor’s comment and then wrote, “I believe I join most Wisconsinites who find those comments deeply troubling. The protests in Madison have received national recognition for their civility. They have been loud and passionate, but also peaceful. Police and protesters have complimented one another on their behavior. The police have been patient and professional while the protesters have been orderly and respectful of their surroundings. For their governor to seriously entertain for even a moment the idea of disrupting the peaceful expression of civic engagement is a very serious concern.”
“Like most Wisconsinites,” the mayor continued, “I want to believe that our governor would not engage in this kind of behavior. Yet your response so far has been less than reassuring. I hope that you can address these concerns by answering the following questions:
“• Who made the suggestion to disrupt the protests?
“• What was the exact nature of the suggestion?
“• What was your immediate response?
“• What steps, if any, did you or others take to carry out the plan to disrupt protests?
“• Why didn’t you reject it along legal and moral grounds instead of political considerations?”
Cieslewicz’s questions are appropriate and they need to be answered. But, so far, Walker has provided spin rather than a credible response.
Public interest and media groups have been forced to file Freedom of Information Act requests for details of Walker’s conversations regarding stirring up violence.
Legislators are also demanding answers.
“As the father of two young children who have been at these demonstrations, along with thousands of other children who came from across Wisconsin with their parents to participate in these marches and rallies, I want to know exactly what transpired in those conversations,” said state Rep. Cory Mason, a Racine Democrat. “How seriously did the governor take these proposals to disrupt demonstrations? Did he explore this option? Who brought it up with him? And did he turn the names of the people who made these suggestions over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies?”
Attorney Pines notes that in all of his descriptions of internal discussions about disrupting demonstrations -- and perhaps causing violence -- the governor has seemed to suggest that he entertained those discussions as part of a broader discourse about how to respond to peaceful protests that have brought hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites into the streets of cities and towns across the state.
“If someone suggests something like this to a governor, the response should be: ‘I would never talk about such a thing. I took an oath to a constitution that requires me to protect people’s freedom to assemble and speak freely.’ And that governor should tell anyone who suggests such a thing that he will not have any further dealings with them,” said Pines. “What troubles me is that Governor Walker seems to have joined in these discussions without sending a strong signal that it is wrong to propose disruptions. That’s outrageous.”
Outrageous, to be sure. And potentially lawless.
The governor’s words and deeds need to be aggressively and fully investigated.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_f108c0cb-a7e8-5249-ba3e-0c1255c09a99.html
Embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has now acknowledged in a press conference and in a nationally televised interview -- with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren -- that he engaged in discussions with political allies about hiring “troublemakers” to disrupt peaceful demonstrations against his budget repair bill.
“You said you thought about it?” asked Van Susteren.
“We did,” replied Walker. “We had people contacting (us). I even had lawmakers and others suggesting riling things up.”
Madison attorney Lester Pines, one of the state’s most respected trial lawyers, referred to that comment as “a scandal.”
“If, in fact, they took any steps toward implementing that (plan to disrupt rallies), that’s a crime,” explained Pines. “If they took steps to implement that, they engaged in a conspiracy to deny people their civil rights.”
After learning of the governor’s comments in the Thursday interview, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray, a lawman with 27 years of experience, said: “I spent a good deal of time overnight thinking about Governor Walker’s response, during his news conference yesterday, to the suggestion that his administration ‘thought about’ planting troublemakers among those who are peacefully protesting his bill. I would like to hear more of an explanation from Governor Walker as to what exactly was being considered, and to what degree it was discussed by his Cabinet members.
“I find it very unsettling and troubling that anyone would consider creating safety risks for our citizens and law enforcement officers.
“Our department works hard dialoguing with those who are exercising their First Amendment right, those from both sides of the issue, to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure they can demonstrate safely. I am concerned that anyone would try to undermine these relationships.
“I have a responsibility to the community, and to the men and women of this department -- who are working long hours protecting and serving this community -- to find out more about what was being considered by state leaders.”
On Friday, Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz went further, releasing a letter to Walker in which he referenced the governor’s comment and then wrote, “I believe I join most Wisconsinites who find those comments deeply troubling. The protests in Madison have received national recognition for their civility. They have been loud and passionate, but also peaceful. Police and protesters have complimented one another on their behavior. The police have been patient and professional while the protesters have been orderly and respectful of their surroundings. For their governor to seriously entertain for even a moment the idea of disrupting the peaceful expression of civic engagement is a very serious concern.”
“Like most Wisconsinites,” the mayor continued, “I want to believe that our governor would not engage in this kind of behavior. Yet your response so far has been less than reassuring. I hope that you can address these concerns by answering the following questions:
“• Who made the suggestion to disrupt the protests?
“• What was the exact nature of the suggestion?
“• What was your immediate response?
“• What steps, if any, did you or others take to carry out the plan to disrupt protests?
“• Why didn’t you reject it along legal and moral grounds instead of political considerations?”
Cieslewicz’s questions are appropriate and they need to be answered. But, so far, Walker has provided spin rather than a credible response.
Public interest and media groups have been forced to file Freedom of Information Act requests for details of Walker’s conversations regarding stirring up violence.
Legislators are also demanding answers.
“As the father of two young children who have been at these demonstrations, along with thousands of other children who came from across Wisconsin with their parents to participate in these marches and rallies, I want to know exactly what transpired in those conversations,” said state Rep. Cory Mason, a Racine Democrat. “How seriously did the governor take these proposals to disrupt demonstrations? Did he explore this option? Who brought it up with him? And did he turn the names of the people who made these suggestions over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies?”
Attorney Pines notes that in all of his descriptions of internal discussions about disrupting demonstrations -- and perhaps causing violence -- the governor has seemed to suggest that he entertained those discussions as part of a broader discourse about how to respond to peaceful protests that have brought hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites into the streets of cities and towns across the state.
“If someone suggests something like this to a governor, the response should be: ‘I would never talk about such a thing. I took an oath to a constitution that requires me to protect people’s freedom to assemble and speak freely.’ And that governor should tell anyone who suggests such a thing that he will not have any further dealings with them,” said Pines. “What troubles me is that Governor Walker seems to have joined in these discussions without sending a strong signal that it is wrong to propose disruptions. That’s outrageous.”
Outrageous, to be sure. And potentially lawless.
The governor’s words and deeds need to be aggressively and fully investigated.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_f108c0cb-a7e8-5249-ba3e-0c1255c09a99.html
Senate approves penalty for those missing, two appointments
By Andy Szal
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
After the Senate approved Stephanie Klett as Tourism secretary, Republicans pulled to the floor Cathy Stepp's appointment to head the DNR and dinged Dems for not being there for the debate.
Both appointments were approved unanimously, as was the new Senate resolution allowing penalties for those absent without leave for two or more days.
http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/senate-approves-penalty-for-those.html
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
After the Senate approved Stephanie Klett as Tourism secretary, Republicans pulled to the floor Cathy Stepp's appointment to head the DNR and dinged Dems for not being there for the debate.
Both appointments were approved unanimously, as was the new Senate resolution allowing penalties for those absent without leave for two or more days.
http://budget.wispolitics.com/2011/03/senate-approves-penalty-for-those.html
Fox News reporter appears to have lied about being ‘punched’ by protester
By Stephen C. Webster
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 -- 1:51 pm
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 -- 1:51 pm
Fox News has been making a lot of hay about one of their reporters allegedly being "punched" by a protester in Madison, Wisconsin.
Turns out, that didn't happen.
Mike Tobin, reporting from amid the massive demonstration on Friday, claimed that one of the protesters "punched" him in the arm. In another broadcast, he claimed a man threatened to break his neck.
In both cases, supporting evidence for these claims was not broadcast -- yet still, Tobin's reports have been widely cited across conservative blogs that seem eager to depict union workers as hateful and violent.
What's worse, Tobin's allegation that he was assaulted might have slipped past without rebuttal were it not for a camera-equipped bystander, who captured the scene.
Turns out, someone merely touched his shoulder, as evidenced in the video below. The incident he claimed was a "punch" could instead be described as a pat, at most.
That was apparently enough for him to later declare that even after being "punched, he was just too nice of a guy to press charges.
Fox News reporters have been repeatedly shouted down by union protesters, many of whom simply chant "Fox News lies!" every time the network's cameras set up for a live shot.
That repeated reaction led Tobin to complain how there was "hate in their eyes" during the confrontations, leading him to assume that protesters must simply hate reporters and the media in general, or that they're intolerant of alternative viewpoints.
He didn't seem to consider their actual allegation: that Fox News "lies."
The channel's woeful track record for distorting the news aside, if Tobin was seriously asking why protesters object to Fox News, then he must not watch Fox & Friends. Last week the hosts of the network's morning show literally flipped the results of a Gallup poll showing strong support for unions, relaying it to their viewers as the opposite.
As far as we can tell, protesters have not engaged in shouting down reporters for any other networks.
This video is from LiveLeak, published March 1, 2011.
Wisconsin Governor Defies Court Order to Open Capitol
Submitted by Mary Bottari on March 1, 2011 - 8:02pm
LOCAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REFUSES TO BE PART OF THE "PALACE GUARD"
LOCAL SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REFUSES TO BE PART OF THE "PALACE GUARD"
Madison – In a dramatic turn of events at the Wisconsin State Capitol today, Governor Scott Walker defied a court order to open the Capitol for normal business operations. State legislator, Representative Marc Pocan, called the move "not only unprecedented, but contempt of court as well."
On Monday at 8:00 a.m., the Wisconsin Capitol building, which was the site of dozens of major protests in the last two weeks -- including one of over 100,00 on Sunday -- was virtually locked down as the Governor moved to limit protester access in advance of his scheduled budget address on Tuesday.
After untold numbers were turned away at the door Monday and told they could not speak to their legislators, Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney pulled his deputies from the Capitol saying it was not their job to act as "palace guard." Wisconsin has some of the strongest open meetings and open government laws in the nation, and the local sheriff's department had played a key role in allowing protesters to exercise their legal rights in a public space, while keeping the protests inside and outside the Capitol safe and incident-free.
On Tuesday morning, it became clear that nothing had changed. Former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager petitioned the Dane County Court to open the Capitol. That petition was heard early on Tuesday and a temporary restraining order granting the request was issued promptly at 9:30 a.m.
The order said that the respondent, Walker's Department of Administration, "shall open the Wisconsin Capitol to members of the public during business hours and at times when governmental matters, such as hearings, listening sessions and court arguments are being conducted." The Capitol had dozens of hearings scheduled Monday and Tuesday. It has long been state law to allow unfettered access to the Capitol building when legislative business was underway. Now citizens are faced with a barrage of new rules. They could see their legislator, in some instances, if they called ahead and were escorted by an aide. (Some Republican legislators could not be bothered to ferry their constituents into the Capitol building.) They could attend a committee hearing if they called the Sergeant at Arms to register in advance. All people entering the Capitol are wanded. "Even after 9-11 we never did any of this stuff," one protester in the crowd said.
By 10:30 a.m., a crowd of about 500 had gathered outside the Capitol seeking to be let in, but were blocked by a coalition of police from around the state. The diverse crowd of protesters included a contingent from the Jackson Correctional Center in Black River Falls, a group of Janesville firefighters and representatives of the Menominee Indian tribe from Northern Wisconsin.
Someone grabbed a megaphone and read the court order, prompting emphatic cries of "Let Us In!" and "Whose house? Our house!" But as the day wore on and no additional access was granted, tensions were high and many were left dumbfounded and disbelieving. The state Department of Administration issued a statement late in the day, stating that the limited access measures they had in place were compliant with the court order.
The whole matter ended up back in court at 2:15 p.m. Hoping for a quick resolution that would allow the Capitol to open for the Governor's budget address, the burgeoning crowds were disappointed when the court hearing wore on and on and was eventually extended into the next day. In the mean time, well-dressed supporters of the Governor were granted tickets and escorted inside. Various lobbyists were seen entering and exiting the Capitol including the lobbyist for alcohol and tobacco interests in the state.
"You expect this kind of thing in Alabama not Wisconsin," said one person at the barred door, referring to the Governor George Wallace's attempted to deny black students their civil right to an education in 1963.
When the Governor's budget was unveiled at 4:00 p.m., it became quite clear why the Governor feared his constituents. No Wisconsinite will be unaffected by the bill. He cuts funding for schools and local governments by $1 billion, Medicaid and Badger Care by $500 million, ends state aid for recycling, expands school choice, gets rid of phosphorus rules that keep lakes and rivers clean, and cuts programs for poor college-bound students. He hands out $82 million in corporate tax breaks -- on top of the $100 million already approved -- while at the same time he takes away $42 million in tax credits for the poorest Wisconsinites. A crowd now registering many thousands made a ruckus outside that could be heard faintly inside the Assembly Chamber. The few protesters who managed to make it into the chamber were escorted out after one let loose a single "boo."
All this on top of his "budget repair bill" which guts collective bargaining for state workers -- a 50-year tradition in Wisconsin. "What we're seeing is a hostile corporate takeover of Wisconsin," State Senator John Erpenbach, one of the Wisconsin 14 currently visiting the great state of Illinois. Plus, the budget will result in the "absolute annihilation" of public education, according to state Rep. Tamara Grigsby.
Tomorrow a new day will dawn on Walker's Wisconsin. Already voters are expressing buyer's remorse. A new poll says if the election were held again today, Wisconsinites would elect Walker's opponent 52-45. If Walker keeps this up, Badger State voters may have a chance to do so in a recall election next year.
GOP Senator: Oil Companies ‘Doing Just Fine on Their Own’
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Contact: Matthew Cain, 202-222-0751, mcain@foe.org; Kelly Trout, 202-222-0722, ktrout@foe.org
Sen. Mark Kirk endorses nixing Big Oil giveaways as House Republicans vote unanimously to protect them
http://foe.org/gop-senator-oil-companies-%E2%80%98doing-just-fine-their-own%E2%80%99
Contact: Matthew Cain, 202-222-0751, mcain@foe.org; Kelly Trout, 202-222-0722, ktrout@foe.org
Sen. Mark Kirk endorses nixing Big Oil giveaways as House Republicans vote unanimously to protect them
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) yesterday endorsed slashing subsidies to oil companies during an interview with C-SPAN, noting they are “doing just fine on their own” and calling many corporate welfare programs “misplaced.”
Senator Kirk’s message of support for cutting Big Oil giveaways contrasted sharply with the message sent yesterday by House Republicans, who voted unanimously to protect Big Oil subsidies even as they continued to push extreme cuts to job-creating programs, child nutrition, environmental protections, and education.
Michelle Chan, Economic Policy Director at Friends of the Earth, applauded Senator Kirk’s leadership:
“Senator Kirk got it right and showed bipartisan leadership: Big Oil is doing just fine; it doesn’t need tens of billions in taxpayer giveaways. Ending giveaways to Big Oil is a win for taxpayers, and it’s a win for the environment. It’s the sort of common-sense approach members of both parties should embrace.
“We hope other Republicans will follow Senator Kirk’s lead and support ending these giveaways. This is a real opportunity for bipartisanship. There’s absolutely no excuse for cutting investments in jobs, children, and the environment while our tax dollars continue to pad the profits of these mature polluting corporations.”
http://foe.org/gop-senator-oil-companies-%E2%80%98doing-just-fine-their-own%E2%80%99
Wisconsin Finance Director: Gov. Walker ‘Completely Wrong’ That Budget Bill Needed To Avert Layoffs
By Pat Garofalo at 10:55 am
Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) has been claiming that his budget repair bill — which strips Wisconsin’s public employees of their collective bargaining rights, sparking weeks of protests — must be passed soon because it includes a debt restructuring provision that will save the state $165 million. Walker claims that the debt restructuring is necessary to avoid layoffs of state employees.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/02/walker-wrong/
Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) has been claiming that his budget repair bill — which strips Wisconsin’s public employees of their collective bargaining rights, sparking weeks of protests — must be passed soon because it includes a debt restructuring provision that will save the state $165 million. Walker claims that the debt restructuring is necessary to avoid layoffs of state employees.
“If we want to avoid the layoffs that will eventually come at the state and local level, the only way to achieve that” is to pass the bill, Walker said last week. “This is not a threat, this is not a strategy, and this is not a negotiation. The bottom line is that if [the bill is not passed], there are dire consequences,” he added yesterday. He has even gone so far as to issue layoff warnings to some state employees.
However, according to both finance experts and Wisconsin’s own finance director, failure to refinance the state’s debt by Walker’s deadline “doesn’t mean the state is in any kind of immediate fiscal peril”:
The notion that the state needs to refinance the debt because it’s broke and can’t make its debt payments is “completely wrong,” said Mr. Hoadley, the state finance director. “This is about providing relief to the budget situation by rearranging the payments,” over a longer period, he said.
However, there are other ways to address Wisconsin’s current fiscal year budget deficit of $137 million other than refinancing the debt, said Joshua Zeitz, municipal finance analyst for MF Global.
This is one more piece of evidence showing that Walker’s assault on public sector unions has little to do with balancing the budget; instead, it’s an attempt to kneecap an ideological opponent. “There’s a good amount of political theater in what you’re seeing,” said municipal credit analyst Tom Kozlik. “With any state, I’d really question whether they are going to fall off a cliff over one budget cycle.”
Of course, if Walker were truly serious about balancing the budget, he would not be proposing a $36 million cut in the state’s capital gains tax or a $46 million corporate tax cut, on top of the millions of dollars in tax cuts he and the Republican legislature have already approved. As my colleague Zaid Jilani found, Walker could balance his current budget by ending a variety of special interest tax dodging that is occurring in his state.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/02/walker-wrong/
You Might Be a Republican If...
By Bruce Lindner
You Might be a Republican If……….
1) You believe George W. Bush’s redistribution of middle-class tax cuts to the top 1% of tax-payers was good for America, but Obama’s plan to return it to the middle class is ‘socialism.’
2) You believe stem cells are living human beings, but thousands of Iraqi children are ‘expendable collateral damage.’
3) You believe tax cuts for billionaires is a great idea, yet you wonder why the economy has stalled, your job just got outsourced to India, and oil company executives receive $400,000,000.00 retirement packages.
4) You believe the surge worked because the violence in Iraq is back to 2006 levels, which is only horrible, compared to what it was in 2007; intolerable. Besides, Brit Hume said so.
5) You think trial lawyers are harmful to America, yet you support prosecuting some guy in Muncie Indiana who burned his 99¢ American flag that was made in China by forced child labor.
6) You’re all for the ‘rule of law’ when it’s applied to Bill Clinton for lying about his infidelity, but not for prosecuting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for committing treason.
7) You think George W. Bush is actually a really smart guy, but his folksy manner just makes him seem dumber than he really is.
8) You believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own, and that those who are born to poverty and never have opportunities for advancement, got what they deserved.
9) You believe Ronald Reagan was a great president who had complete control of all aspects of government, but the Iran-Contra Affair was an insignificant scandal that went on without his knowledge.
10) You believe Democrats tax and spend, but George W. Bush was a fiscal conservative.
11) You believe Oliver North, who was CONVICTED of perjury, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence and accepting bribes, is a patriot. But John Kerry, who saved a man’s life while under enemy fire in Vietnam is a coward.
12) You believe George W. Bush kept us safe from terror, and the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks were Clinton’s fault.
13) You actually believe Fox News is fair & balanced.
14) You still believe Saddam had truckloads of WMDs, and that he somehow managed to sneak them into Syria, right under our noses.
15) You believe Terri Schiavo was sentient all along, and Bill Frist had the ability to diagnose her condition by watching a 5 second video of her sleeping.
16) You’re in favor of stronger prison sentences for drug users, yet your favorite radio personality is Rush Limbaugh.
17) You complain about having to press 1 for English, yet you hire undocumented workers to mow your lawn because they’re cheaper than hiring the kid next door.
18) Homosexuality is abhorrent to you, except when a Republican senator, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a planted White House journalist get caught having sexual affairs with gay men. Then you suddenly feel sorry for them.
19) The war in Iraq makes perfect sense to you, but any suggestion by Barack Obama that we target al Qaeda specifically is ‘dangerous and reckless.’
20) You don’t mind that president Bush tortured men who were never charged with a crime, yet you’re horrified by the wrath of al Qaeda when they capture one of our guys.
21) You believe the 1/10 of 1% of scientists who claim global warming is a hoax, and reject the 99.9% who say it’s real, because Sean Hannity and his friends in the oil industry have convinced you that science is a part of a greater liberal conspiracy.
22) You believe patriotism means you should support your government right or wrong … unless a Democrat’s in power, then it’s your patriotic duty to call him a closet Muslim, challenge his birth certificate, expose his sex life and impeach him.
23) You’re proud of your party’s ‘culture of life.’ Yet you support the death penalty for minors, you believe 600,000 dead Iraqis is justified because one of them was Saddam Hussein, and you oppose confronting the genocide in Darfur because they don’t have oil.
24) You support prayer in school, as long as your kids aren’t subjected to Muslim prayers.
25) You think Darwin’s theory of evolution is a loony fairy tale, and mankind actually began with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.
26) You think $35 billion spent on health care for children is a waste of taxpayer’s money, but $1.7 trillion spent on a catastrophic war that has isolated us from our allies, decimated our economy and made us less safe was money well spent.
27) You believe embargoing communist Cuba is sound foreign policy, but trading with China is just good business.
28) You believe Bill Clinton was an immoral cad, but Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were faithful husbands (and Larry Craig just has a wide stance).
29) You fervently defend the Constitution, but when president Bush got caught monitoring 300 million phones without a warrant, politicizing our justice system, hyping evidence for going to war and pardoning a convicted perjurer who just happened to be on his staff, then it’s okay, because he was ‘protecting America.’
30) You were outraged when a gallon of gasoline went from $1.29 to $1.40 during the two terms of the Clinton presidency, but you didn’t seem to mind when prices tripled under George W. Bush, the “oil man.”
31) You were furious when Bill Clinton pardoned international commodities trader Marc Rich, who was convicted of tax evasion, but applauded when George W. Bush exonerated Scooter Libby for obstructing justice to protect Dick Cheney from a treason indictment.
32) With no evidence whatsoever, you complained of ‘voter fraud,’ and demanded that thousands of blacks be scrubbed from voting lists during the 2004 election in Ohio, yet when Rush Limbaugh asked his audience to illegally claim to be Democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton during the Ohio Primary in February to “stir up trouble,” a FELONY, you were okay with that.
33) You believe Barack Obama should be held accountable for every sermon that Jeremiah Wright ever gave, but John McCain, who sought the endorsement of anti-Semitic, xenophobic, openly racist and homophobic pastors should be given a pass.
34) You believe Barack Obama is either a secret Muslim, was actually born in Kenya, and his parents forged a fake birth certificate when he was born – just in case he should ever run for president, or that his father’s nationality disqualifies his son from being president, all because you read that on the Internet.
35) You believe the 8 consecutive years of prosperity and strong economic growth from 1993 – 2001 was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, but today’s recession is all Clinton’s and Obama’s fault.
36) You laugh at how much better Barack Obama speaks with a TelePrompTer than without one, yet you never mention the fact that even with a TelePrompTer, every time George Bush opened his mouth, gibberish tumbled out.
37) You still believe Barack Obama has somehow succeeded in fooling every government and independent examination with his “obviously Photoshopped” documents. Instead, you rely on Internet gossip, WorldNetDaily and Jerome Corsi as your sources for “truth.”
38) Your conservative media spent more air time discussing Michelle Obama touching the queen of England’s arm than on the economy, the environment, terrorism and health care combined.
39) You believe that we should get out of Afghanistan because Obama is “nation building,” yet for eight straight years of Bush’s bumbling incompetence there, you kept mum. Therefore, attacking Iraq makes sense, even though they never threatened us, but finishing off the job of finding Osama bin Laden; the terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans — Bush’s original task — is a dumb idea.
40) You were furious that Barack Obama admitted in France that Americans have occasionally been “arrogant, dismissive and derisive,” but you cheered them on when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arrogant, dismissive and derisive.
41) You believe that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget is an outrage, but never once complained that George Bush turned Bill Clinton’s $300 billion surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And it never once occurred to you that Bush deliberately omitted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from those statistics, which means Bush’s TRUE deficit was $3.1 trillion.
42) You supported Gov. Sarah Palin, partly because you believed she kept a good Christian home. This, despite the fact that her seventeen year old unmarried daughter was knocked up, her son was accused of vandalizing 44 school buses (cutting the brake lines of school buses – HELLO!!?) and was given the choice of going to jail or join the military, and Palin herself was found guilty of abusing the power of her office. But Barack Obama can’t possibly be a true Christian, because his father was a Muslim, and his middle name is Hussein. (Besides, he’s black, and everybody knows that Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed white man.)
43) You believe the only solution to gun violence is to make sure everybody is armed to the teeth. That way, when some crazy person goes on a killing spree, right-thinking people will take out the killer, and tranquility will prevail throughout the land.
44) You believe the mainstream news anchors are crazy, biased and filled with hate, but Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are rational, accurate and informative.
45) You defend Rush Limbaugh’s right to wish for Obama to fail, and therefore, the failure of our republic, yet you call Democrats the “blame America first crowd.”
46) You claim that the economic crisis is the fault of the Democrats, but never mention that it was the Reagan administration that massively deregulated the banking industry in 1982, and it was Phil Gramm – McCain’s choice for economic advisor – who completed the task for his pals in the banking industry in 1999.
47) You believe the failure of the US automobile industry is primarily the fault of the unions, and not because management of the three corporations insisted on producing vehicles that nobody wanted. And you’re angry with the $28.00 per hour average wage of the work force, but you believe that the multimillion dollar salaries of the men who bankrupted the industry are perfectly reasonable.
48) You believe Barack Obama is a “narcissistic megalomaniac,” because you heard Glenn Beck call him that once, but Beck himself is a humble man, concerned only for your welfare (brought to you by Goldline!).
49) You believe anybody who doesn’t subscribe to Orly Taitz’ birther movement is a RINO, and those who do, are carrying the torch of Reaganism.
50) You think this list is mean-spirited and biased, and even though you privately acknowledge to yourself that it’s all true, you believe the Democrats are just as bad. Here’s a bulletin: Nobody has ever been this bad.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/?page_id=259
You Might be a Republican If……….
1) You believe George W. Bush’s redistribution of middle-class tax cuts to the top 1% of tax-payers was good for America, but Obama’s plan to return it to the middle class is ‘socialism.’
2) You believe stem cells are living human beings, but thousands of Iraqi children are ‘expendable collateral damage.’
3) You believe tax cuts for billionaires is a great idea, yet you wonder why the economy has stalled, your job just got outsourced to India, and oil company executives receive $400,000,000.00 retirement packages.
4) You believe the surge worked because the violence in Iraq is back to 2006 levels, which is only horrible, compared to what it was in 2007; intolerable. Besides, Brit Hume said so.
5) You think trial lawyers are harmful to America, yet you support prosecuting some guy in Muncie Indiana who burned his 99¢ American flag that was made in China by forced child labor.
6) You’re all for the ‘rule of law’ when it’s applied to Bill Clinton for lying about his infidelity, but not for prosecuting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for committing treason.
7) You think George W. Bush is actually a really smart guy, but his folksy manner just makes him seem dumber than he really is.
8) You believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own, and that those who are born to poverty and never have opportunities for advancement, got what they deserved.
9) You believe Ronald Reagan was a great president who had complete control of all aspects of government, but the Iran-Contra Affair was an insignificant scandal that went on without his knowledge.
10) You believe Democrats tax and spend, but George W. Bush was a fiscal conservative.
11) You believe Oliver North, who was CONVICTED of perjury, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence and accepting bribes, is a patriot. But John Kerry, who saved a man’s life while under enemy fire in Vietnam is a coward.
12) You believe George W. Bush kept us safe from terror, and the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks were Clinton’s fault.
13) You actually believe Fox News is fair & balanced.
14) You still believe Saddam had truckloads of WMDs, and that he somehow managed to sneak them into Syria, right under our noses.
15) You believe Terri Schiavo was sentient all along, and Bill Frist had the ability to diagnose her condition by watching a 5 second video of her sleeping.
16) You’re in favor of stronger prison sentences for drug users, yet your favorite radio personality is Rush Limbaugh.
17) You complain about having to press 1 for English, yet you hire undocumented workers to mow your lawn because they’re cheaper than hiring the kid next door.
18) Homosexuality is abhorrent to you, except when a Republican senator, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a planted White House journalist get caught having sexual affairs with gay men. Then you suddenly feel sorry for them.
19) The war in Iraq makes perfect sense to you, but any suggestion by Barack Obama that we target al Qaeda specifically is ‘dangerous and reckless.’
20) You don’t mind that president Bush tortured men who were never charged with a crime, yet you’re horrified by the wrath of al Qaeda when they capture one of our guys.
21) You believe the 1/10 of 1% of scientists who claim global warming is a hoax, and reject the 99.9% who say it’s real, because Sean Hannity and his friends in the oil industry have convinced you that science is a part of a greater liberal conspiracy.
22) You believe patriotism means you should support your government right or wrong … unless a Democrat’s in power, then it’s your patriotic duty to call him a closet Muslim, challenge his birth certificate, expose his sex life and impeach him.
23) You’re proud of your party’s ‘culture of life.’ Yet you support the death penalty for minors, you believe 600,000 dead Iraqis is justified because one of them was Saddam Hussein, and you oppose confronting the genocide in Darfur because they don’t have oil.
24) You support prayer in school, as long as your kids aren’t subjected to Muslim prayers.
25) You think Darwin’s theory of evolution is a loony fairy tale, and mankind actually began with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.
26) You think $35 billion spent on health care for children is a waste of taxpayer’s money, but $1.7 trillion spent on a catastrophic war that has isolated us from our allies, decimated our economy and made us less safe was money well spent.
27) You believe embargoing communist Cuba is sound foreign policy, but trading with China is just good business.
28) You believe Bill Clinton was an immoral cad, but Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were faithful husbands (and Larry Craig just has a wide stance).
29) You fervently defend the Constitution, but when president Bush got caught monitoring 300 million phones without a warrant, politicizing our justice system, hyping evidence for going to war and pardoning a convicted perjurer who just happened to be on his staff, then it’s okay, because he was ‘protecting America.’
30) You were outraged when a gallon of gasoline went from $1.29 to $1.40 during the two terms of the Clinton presidency, but you didn’t seem to mind when prices tripled under George W. Bush, the “oil man.”
31) You were furious when Bill Clinton pardoned international commodities trader Marc Rich, who was convicted of tax evasion, but applauded when George W. Bush exonerated Scooter Libby for obstructing justice to protect Dick Cheney from a treason indictment.
32) With no evidence whatsoever, you complained of ‘voter fraud,’ and demanded that thousands of blacks be scrubbed from voting lists during the 2004 election in Ohio, yet when Rush Limbaugh asked his audience to illegally claim to be Democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton during the Ohio Primary in February to “stir up trouble,” a FELONY, you were okay with that.
33) You believe Barack Obama should be held accountable for every sermon that Jeremiah Wright ever gave, but John McCain, who sought the endorsement of anti-Semitic, xenophobic, openly racist and homophobic pastors should be given a pass.
34) You believe Barack Obama is either a secret Muslim, was actually born in Kenya, and his parents forged a fake birth certificate when he was born – just in case he should ever run for president, or that his father’s nationality disqualifies his son from being president, all because you read that on the Internet.
35) You believe the 8 consecutive years of prosperity and strong economic growth from 1993 – 2001 was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, but today’s recession is all Clinton’s and Obama’s fault.
36) You laugh at how much better Barack Obama speaks with a TelePrompTer than without one, yet you never mention the fact that even with a TelePrompTer, every time George Bush opened his mouth, gibberish tumbled out.
37) You still believe Barack Obama has somehow succeeded in fooling every government and independent examination with his “obviously Photoshopped” documents. Instead, you rely on Internet gossip, WorldNetDaily and Jerome Corsi as your sources for “truth.”
38) Your conservative media spent more air time discussing Michelle Obama touching the queen of England’s arm than on the economy, the environment, terrorism and health care combined.
39) You believe that we should get out of Afghanistan because Obama is “nation building,” yet for eight straight years of Bush’s bumbling incompetence there, you kept mum. Therefore, attacking Iraq makes sense, even though they never threatened us, but finishing off the job of finding Osama bin Laden; the terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans — Bush’s original task — is a dumb idea.
40) You were furious that Barack Obama admitted in France that Americans have occasionally been “arrogant, dismissive and derisive,” but you cheered them on when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arrogant, dismissive and derisive.
41) You believe that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget is an outrage, but never once complained that George Bush turned Bill Clinton’s $300 billion surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And it never once occurred to you that Bush deliberately omitted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from those statistics, which means Bush’s TRUE deficit was $3.1 trillion.
42) You supported Gov. Sarah Palin, partly because you believed she kept a good Christian home. This, despite the fact that her seventeen year old unmarried daughter was knocked up, her son was accused of vandalizing 44 school buses (cutting the brake lines of school buses – HELLO!!?) and was given the choice of going to jail or join the military, and Palin herself was found guilty of abusing the power of her office. But Barack Obama can’t possibly be a true Christian, because his father was a Muslim, and his middle name is Hussein. (Besides, he’s black, and everybody knows that Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed white man.)
43) You believe the only solution to gun violence is to make sure everybody is armed to the teeth. That way, when some crazy person goes on a killing spree, right-thinking people will take out the killer, and tranquility will prevail throughout the land.
44) You believe the mainstream news anchors are crazy, biased and filled with hate, but Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are rational, accurate and informative.
45) You defend Rush Limbaugh’s right to wish for Obama to fail, and therefore, the failure of our republic, yet you call Democrats the “blame America first crowd.”
46) You claim that the economic crisis is the fault of the Democrats, but never mention that it was the Reagan administration that massively deregulated the banking industry in 1982, and it was Phil Gramm – McCain’s choice for economic advisor – who completed the task for his pals in the banking industry in 1999.
47) You believe the failure of the US automobile industry is primarily the fault of the unions, and not because management of the three corporations insisted on producing vehicles that nobody wanted. And you’re angry with the $28.00 per hour average wage of the work force, but you believe that the multimillion dollar salaries of the men who bankrupted the industry are perfectly reasonable.
48) You believe Barack Obama is a “narcissistic megalomaniac,” because you heard Glenn Beck call him that once, but Beck himself is a humble man, concerned only for your welfare (brought to you by Goldline!).
49) You believe anybody who doesn’t subscribe to Orly Taitz’ birther movement is a RINO, and those who do, are carrying the torch of Reaganism.
50) You think this list is mean-spirited and biased, and even though you privately acknowledge to yourself that it’s all true, you believe the Democrats are just as bad. Here’s a bulletin: Nobody has ever been this bad.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/?page_id=259
The Astonishing Stupidity of Not Raising Taxes on the Rich When Budgets Are Tight
By Larry Beinhart
March 1, 2011
History show that when spending is cut -- in the name of balancing the budget -- recessions immediately follow.
http://www.alternet.org/story/150099/the_astonishing_stupidity_of_not_raising_taxes_on_the_rich_when_budgets_are_tight
March 1, 2011
History show that when spending is cut -- in the name of balancing the budget -- recessions immediately follow.
The current economy is routinely and universally referred to as the worst recession since the Great Depression.
It makes sense, therefore, to look back at government tax and spending policies during the Depression and what the results were.
1932 -- Hoover raises the top tax rate from to 25 to 63 percent.
1933 -- Roosevelt comes into office. He begins spending at the same time that new tax hike comes into effect. The Depression bottoms out.
1934 -- Recovery begins. The GNP rises 7.7 percent, unemployment falls to 21.7 percent.
1935 -- New government spending on public works and rural electrification. A push to strengthen labor and raise wages. New taxes through the creation of Social Security.
The GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and unemployment continues to fall.
1936 -- The top tax rate is raised again. This time to 79 percent.
GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls even further.
1937 -- Roosevelt is afraid of deficits! He cuts spending for 1937.
There's a new recession. It continues for a year.
1939 -- The U.S. borrows, resumes deficit spending, this time on a military build-up. The recession ends.
1941 -- America enters World War II.
In economic terms, it's the New Deal on steroids. The top tax rate goes up to 91 percent. Nonetheless, government spending is so high that by 1945 the deficit is 123 percent of GDP. Unemployment is ended by employing 16 million people directly in the armed forces and millions more are employed producing war material and supporting the military.
The Great Depression is finally over.
When taxes were raised the economy improved. Every time. Deficits had no negative effect on the economy. Indeed, when deficits were at their highest, the economy boomed.
After spending was cut -- to balance the budget -- a recession immediately followed. When taxes were raised and government spending resumed -- with deficits -- that recession ended.
When taxes were raised again, and government spending went sky high, the Great Depression finally ended.
So here we are. We refused to raise taxes. The recession continues. Now, we're going to cut spending.
http://www.alternet.org/story/150099/the_astonishing_stupidity_of_not_raising_taxes_on_the_rich_when_budgets_are_tight
Large majority of Americans back public employee union rights: poll
By Sahil Kapur
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 -- 10:00 am
WASHINGTON – Americans want to maintain the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions by a nearly two-to-one margin, according to a new New York Times/CBS poll.
Sixty percent said they oppose attempts in states like Wisconsin to curtail those rights, while only 33 percent said they support those efforts. Seven percent had no opinion.
The results may reflect a growing backlash against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who has for weeks been involved in a high-profile standoff with state Democrats and union supporters over his budget plan, which would curtail union bargaining rights.
Invoking the state's budget deficit, Walker extracted major concessions from public worker unions on pensions and benefits, but they insist the state not take away their right to collectively bargain in the future.
The collective bargaining provision would have "no immediate effect" on the budget and "wouldn't save any money this year," the National Journal reported.
The public appears divided on whether attempts to reduce the benefits of government workers are aimed at cutting the deficit or simply busting unions.
In the Times/CBS poll, 45 percent said it's usually about trimming deficits; 41 percent said it's about weakening unions. Fourteen percent weren't sure.
When asked about options to reduce the deficit, raising taxes decidedly won (40 percent) over decreasing benefits of public-sector workers (22 percent).
A plurality of the public, however, said that unions have "too much" influence in American life and politics (37 percent). Only 19 percent said they have "too little," and 29 percent believed that unions have the "right amount" of influence.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/large-majority-of-americans-back-public-employee-union-rights-poll/
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 -- 10:00 am
WASHINGTON – Americans want to maintain the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions by a nearly two-to-one margin, according to a new New York Times/CBS poll.
Sixty percent said they oppose attempts in states like Wisconsin to curtail those rights, while only 33 percent said they support those efforts. Seven percent had no opinion.
The results may reflect a growing backlash against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who has for weeks been involved in a high-profile standoff with state Democrats and union supporters over his budget plan, which would curtail union bargaining rights.
Invoking the state's budget deficit, Walker extracted major concessions from public worker unions on pensions and benefits, but they insist the state not take away their right to collectively bargain in the future.
The collective bargaining provision would have "no immediate effect" on the budget and "wouldn't save any money this year," the National Journal reported.
The public appears divided on whether attempts to reduce the benefits of government workers are aimed at cutting the deficit or simply busting unions.
In the Times/CBS poll, 45 percent said it's usually about trimming deficits; 41 percent said it's about weakening unions. Fourteen percent weren't sure.
When asked about options to reduce the deficit, raising taxes decidedly won (40 percent) over decreasing benefits of public-sector workers (22 percent).
A plurality of the public, however, said that unions have "too much" influence in American life and politics (37 percent). Only 19 percent said they have "too little," and 29 percent believed that unions have the "right amount" of influence.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/large-majority-of-americans-back-public-employee-union-rights-poll/
Wisconsin judge orders Capitol open to public
MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) - Wisconsin officials said Tuesday they would not ease entry restrictions at the Capitol Building in Madison after a judge ordered there be public access during business hours.
The Capitol building has been the focus of two weeks of protests by labor unions and their supporters opposed to Gov. Scott Walker's plan to curtail union power.
The state agency that operates the Capitol building said it was already in compliance with the judge's order.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Moeser ordered state officials on Tuesday to open access. Moeser's order was granted without a hearing and specified it would stand until the trial court is able to schedule a hearing on the matter.
A hearing on the restraining order sought by the Wisconsin State Employees Union is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.
Access to the building was tightened earlier this week and remained restricted at midday on Tuesday with law enforcement officers escorting people to hearing rooms and to other offices.
Representative Peter Barca, the minority leader of Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly, said authorities needed to open access to the building in an "orderly process."
"I do think they need to do this immediately," Barca said.
Joe Thoennes, 25, who has camped in the capitol building for 10 consecutive nights, said access still appeared restricted on Tuesday morning after the order was issued and he planned to stay put in the rotunda.
"I've been wanting to get out so I can have a shower," Thoennes said. "But I'm not planning on going anywhere for now."
(Reporting by David Bailey and Stefanie Carano in Madison and James Kelleher in Chicago; Editing by Greg McCune)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/wisconsin-judge-orders-capitol-open-to-public/
The Capitol building has been the focus of two weeks of protests by labor unions and their supporters opposed to Gov. Scott Walker's plan to curtail union power.
The state agency that operates the Capitol building said it was already in compliance with the judge's order.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Moeser ordered state officials on Tuesday to open access. Moeser's order was granted without a hearing and specified it would stand until the trial court is able to schedule a hearing on the matter.
A hearing on the restraining order sought by the Wisconsin State Employees Union is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.
Access to the building was tightened earlier this week and remained restricted at midday on Tuesday with law enforcement officers escorting people to hearing rooms and to other offices.
Representative Peter Barca, the minority leader of Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly, said authorities needed to open access to the building in an "orderly process."
"I do think they need to do this immediately," Barca said.
Joe Thoennes, 25, who has camped in the capitol building for 10 consecutive nights, said access still appeared restricted on Tuesday morning after the order was issued and he planned to stay put in the rotunda.
"I've been wanting to get out so I can have a shower," Thoennes said. "But I'm not planning on going anywhere for now."
(Reporting by David Bailey and Stefanie Carano in Madison and James Kelleher in Chicago; Editing by Greg McCune)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/wisconsin-judge-orders-capitol-open-to-public/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
