Scott Walker Recall Splintering?

[davefoc]

Well, Walkers people have spent $60 Million or so I recall. That would be a start. Sorry, but for that kind of scratch you can fund three or four house campaigns.

I think $60 million is about the total for both sides, but a lot more of that has been spent on Walker's campaign than his opponents.

How much will the people of Wisconsin save in public employee compensation if Walker wins? Will it be that much? It sounds like Barrett isn't exactly the guy the labor unions wanted either.

Still, I suppose the election of Walker will be seen as some great disaster for the group that thinks that public employees are always underpaid and always deserve more. Even at a time of high unemployment where keeping wages and benefits substantially above market is particularly damaging to an economy and the well being of the non public employee union workers.

 

[Brainster]

Scott Walker love child story sizzles:

Bernadette Gillick was a college freshman in 1988 when she first met Scott Walker. It was spring semester, and she had just transferred to Marquette University. She was assigned a room in O’Donnell Hall (then a women’s dormitory), which she shared with her new roommate, Ruth (not her real name). Ruth was dating Scott Walker, who was 20 at the time, and, according to Bernadette, Ruth was deeply in love with him.

Midway through that spring semester, Bernadette alleges, Ruth found out she was pregnant. She informed her boyfriend, Scott, and initially he was supportive. That support changed to callous indifference for his girlfriend’s predicament after Scott informed his parents of the pregnancy.

Then fizzles:

I am getting a lot of emails because of this post. Two things: (1) I tracked down and talked to Dr. Gillick’s freshman-year roommate at MU yesterday, and she adamantly denies that Walker is the father of her child. Yes, she got pregnant as a first-year student, but she believes Dr. Gillick is mixing up stories; and (2) I Can Read CCAP has taken a family court suit involving Scott Alan Walker and mixed it up with the governor, Scott Kevin Walker.

 

[dc1971]

...group that thinks that public employees are always underpaid and always deserve more.

And what group thinks that?

 

[BenBurch]

And what group thinks that?

Well, I know the GOP thinks that about public servants at the top end, like Presidents, cabinet members, and congresscritters. Not so much those who actually need the money.

 

[Brainster]

Good news for Democrats, it's all a psy-op to make them think they can't beat Walker:

This was the paradigm used for the 2010 phony “tea party” psy-ops campaign: constant conditioning about a “landslide,” then proven true by events, but NOT AT ALL TRUE before the election.

I love it when the CTists use the word "paradigm". You see, the Democrats were going to cruise to a victory in 2010, but they got beat down by a paradigm.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Scott Walker's chances of surviving the recall are now estimated at 93% at InTrade.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Eh. It's a sound tactical decision to get them to burn money on this. That said...

 

[Travis]

You know it was already a tough and thankless job to be a teacher before conservatives decided they were the greatest enemy this republic has ever faced and must be destroyed.

I know this might sound like a strawman but.....well it sort of is. But I still believe in it.

Leave me alone. It's cold out here, skype screwed up my evening with my girl and the May Stundies Finals are only like a 1/3 done.

 

[davefoc]

And what group [people who always believe that public employees deserve greater benefits] thinks that?

There is probably some limit at which public employee advocates would say enough is enough and that the pension plans, the health plans, and the salaries are so far above market rates and are producing such an onerous burden on the economy and the debt load for the next generation that they shouldn't go any higher. As a practical matter I don't think that limit has ever been reached for many in the field of maximizing public employee benefits.

Even in this thread there are partisan comments about the Republicans not caring about anybody except the government ruling class. The point I suppose is that the only reason that somebody could think that public employee compensation is too high is that all they care about are rich people.

Paying public employees well above market rates does not come for free. There is widespread unemployment and when money is removed from the economy to pay high public employee there is less money available for people to buy things which creates unemployment. The US has the highest infrastructure costs in the world. A time of high unemployment should lead to a reduction in the cost of infrastructure maintenance and construction because cheaper labor is available. That doesn't happen for the most part because of all the politics associated with infrastructure construction so lots of people sit around unemployed because it is so politically difficult to lower wages to the point that the projects can be funded.

 

[WildCat]

Paying public employees well above market rates does not come for free. There is widespread unemployment and when money is removed from the economy to pay high public employee there is less money available for people to buy things which creates unemployment.

Here in Illinois we're literally throwing sick people out of nursing homes and closing mental health facilities in order to keep making pension payments to retired state government workers. Some of whom actually make more in pension than they ever earned on the job thanks to our idiotic pension rules here.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It used to be that the unwritten pact between the government and its workers was that the government would pay less than a comparable private entity and have a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) pension and benefits plan. In return for that generally lower wage the workers got greater job security and the personal economic stability that came with it.

Then a while back the unions got involved and the pay got raised (to match their civilian counterparts) and the pensions and benefits got jacked way up (because a lot of the costs could be deferred so some other politician would have to deal with it later on but they needed the votes this term to stay in office).

Now here we are. The workers still expect the job security while having equal or better pay than their private sector counterparts and the bills are coming due for the deals that long out of office politicians made to buy union votes.

This is the basic problem with public unions when compared to private ones. The side of the negotiating table (politicians) that are supposed to be looking at the long term bottom line have no incentive to actually look at the bottom line beyond the next election.

 

[WildCat]

It used to be that the unwritten pact between the government and its workers was that the government would pay less than a comparable private entity and have a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) pension and benefits plan. In return for that generally lower wage the workers got greater job security and the personal economic stability that came with it.

Then a while back the unions got involved and the pay got raised (to match their civilian counterparts) and the pensions and benefits got jacked way up (because a lot of the costs could be deferred so some other politician would have to deal with it later on but they needed the votes this term to stay in office).

Now here we are. The workers still expect the job security while having equal or better pay than their private sector counterparts and the bills are coming due for the deals that long out of office politicians made to buy union votes.

This is the basic problem with public unions when compared to private ones. The side of the negotiating table (politicians) that are supposed to be looking at the long term bottom line have no incentive to actually look at the bottom line beyond the next election.

Try this on for size: except for Chicago, in Illinois local school boards/districts do not have to pay the pensions of teachers. Per state law the state pays teachers pensions (except for Chicago). So guess what happens every time suburban or downstate teachers go on strike? The local school board buys them off by promising bigger pensions, which they don't even have to pay for! They literally get to give away other people's money, people who cannot hold them accountable for the money they spend.

There was a proposal last week to get rid of this outrageous provision in state pension law, but curiously only Chicago pols (with few exceptions) supported it and it went nowhere. Perhaps you saw the viral video of the downstate GOP pol having a meltdown on the state House floor last week? That was in response to this proposal to actually make local school districts pay for the pensions they promise their own teachers.

It's ridiculous, there is no incentive at all to rein in pensions at the local level, and every incentive to increase them beyond all reason.

 

[davefoc]

It used to be that the unwritten pact between the government and its workers was that the government would pay less than a comparable private entity and have a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) pension and benefits plan. In return for that generally lower wage the workers got greater job security and the personal economic stability that came with it.

That seems like a reasonable overview of the situation to me.

Then a while back the unions got involved and the pay got raised (to match their civilian counterparts) and the pensions and benefits got jacked way up (because a lot of the costs could be deferred so some other politician would have to deal with it later on but they needed the votes this term to stay in office).

I think you touched on a problem with pensions in general. Pensions was a major factor in the collapse of the GM and Chrysler and the driving force was exactly the same. management bought temporary peace by deferring the expense of pensions which eventually put an unsustainable load on the companies.

The long term solution is to replace pensions with 401K type plans as has been done for the most part in the private sector. Even if management could be trusted not to underestimate pension costs and push them on the management team to follow so as to maximize their own current bonuses (which they can't), the future is inherently unpredictable and promising people something that is based on an unknowable view of the future produces a lot of problems.

Now here we are. The workers still expect the job security while having equal or better pay than their private sector counterparts and the bills are coming due for the deals that long out of office politicians made to buy union votes.

This is the basic problem with public unions when compared to private ones. The side of the negotiating table (politicians) that are supposed to be looking at the long term bottom line have no incentive to actually look at the bottom line beyond the next election.

There is another problem. Public employee unions can lock in benefits that become almost impossible to undo whereas private unions are restrained to a degree by the possibility of bankruptcy*. The city of Los Angeles is going to have about a third of its budget used up to pay pension benefits in a few years.

I wonder if the workers of today are going to accept indefinitely the debt load that is being foisted on them by the workers of the generation that is currently in the process of retiring. My guess is that they won't and there will be a reduction in various underfunded benefits, but it will be a tough fight. Retired people vote a lot and they vote for their own interest and I don't expect them to be happy when the people who are actually paying for their benefits decide that they are paying too much.

*The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies were an exception. The unions were very well connected politically and the federal government shipped boatloads of cash their way to save the union pension plans.

 

[Caper]

I work for a City. It's great. I moved from the private sector. It's great to have a good pension. I already know there is no why it will stay funded..... and I already know tax payers will have to bail it out.