TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? I think that may be what happened here.
If the Dem's regain control in 2012 or 2014 and are able to restore collective bargaining then it will be a pyrrhic victory. If they regain control but are unable to restore collective bargaining, many Republicans would consider it a sacrifice worth making.
I for one do not think that teachers, police, fireman, and other government employees make too much money. I do believe that allowing them to strike (especially teachers, police & fireman) is a bad idea. I also question the wisdom of them being able to collectively bargain under rules established by people who they helped (with $ and with volunteer support) get elected. It's an inherent conflict of interest just as there are conflicts of interest between Wall St. and D.C. Just because it is happening somewhere else doesn't make either situation right.
A key element of the fight over union benefits is the type of pension. Many unions have defined benefit plans which many would argue are economically unfeasible especially in a public context. Most people with pensions have defined contribution plans where the employer agrees to contribute so much and upon retirement, the employee gets the dollars contributed plus investment returns. In a defined benefit plan, the employer promises the employee a set amount upon retirement. This type of plan is considered economically unfeasible for a number of reasons including if the market takes a dive the employer is on the hook for the lost returns which undermines their profitability (or in the government's case requires them to find money elsewhere). If the market does well, the plan's trustees have a tendency to improve benefits which puts the plan at greater risk if the market tanks in the future. The other issue with these plans from a public perspective is that governments have had a tendency to underfund them and use the money elsewhere (frequently on union friendly projects and thus with the blessings of union leaders) with the "intention" of making them whole in the future. Well, the piper has come to collect but the government can't afford to make these plans whole without serious cuts elsewhere. Federal regulations require that these plans be funded at 80%. They should be funded at 120% to prevent politicians (Donk & Conk) from raiding the piggy bank to pay for pet projects.
D1B wrote:Baldy, first, I agree with Walker on this issue, but you are **** crazy if you think Wisconsin is going to go red "for many elections to come".
Listen, you **** caught the democrats sleeping in the midterms and even then you had to buy most of the victories with billions from coal producers and other fat cats.
What Walker (the Koch's) did was wake up a sleeping lion, at least here in Wisconsin. I would agree with your statement above if Walker would have gone about it in a better way. People here want to kill him and trust me, there aint no silent majority who are backing him.
Correct, Wisconsin is a blue state (many consider Madison to be the Berkeley of the Midwest) and was going to return to blue in the future regardless of Walker's actions.