Ronald Reagan Won the Wisconsin Recall

[Flanders]

Everyone with a pulse knows the result of the recall vote in Wisconsin. They also know the spin:

In interviews, union leaders rejected the idea that the outcome reflected any growing antipathy toward labor, or a diminished presence of unions.

The WaPo piece along with a bunch of others articles I read before and after the election all do the same thing; they blur the line between private sector and public sector unions. Even the WaPo title says “. . . Scott Walker’s victory deals blow to unions” when it should say “. . . deals blow to public sector unions.” The MSM only makes the distinction when it is unavoidable:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in a recall election Tuesday amounted to a significant defeat for the nation’s labor unions, which had mounted one of their most aggressive grass-roots campaigns ever to defeat the Republican.

As one of his first acts after taking office two years ago, Walker targeted the unions representing government workers, moving to curb their collective-bargaining rights. The failed effort to oust him sent reverberations across the labor movement and the Democratic Party, signaling that one of President Obama’s most powerful constituencies is politically vulnerable and may not be able to help him as much as expected in this year’s election.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory deals blow to unions
By Peter Whoriskey and Dan Balz, The Washington Post

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory deals blow to unions - The Washington Post

Notice how the WaPo went from the ‘nation’s labor unions,” to “unions representing government workers,” and back to “the labor movement.” If you check I think you will find that same kind of linguistic footwork throughout the MSM. Conservative commentators do it, too, but in their case it is not deliberate.

The MSM does it deliberately

The MSM relies upon a substantial number of Americans not understanding the important distinction, while most politicians look like they are sucking on a lemon when they say “public sector unions.” That’s understandable because no politician wants to alienate a major constituency. Governors Christy and Walker are notable exceptions. Happily, recognizing the distinction, and acting on it, appears to be spreading to politicians in cities and towns.

Parenthetically, this election cycle is the first time I can remember Republican politicians distinguishing between private sector jobs and government jobs whenever they talk about creating jobs. Democrats never distinguish between the two. NEVER! Not once did the media call them on it.

Clearly, the distaste private sector Americans have for government unions includes a distaste for welfare state government jobs.

NOTE: Nancy Pelosi was well-aware of the public’s antipathy when she said the Healthcare Bill would create 4,000,000 new jobs. Picture her saying the Healthcare Bill would create 4,000,000 new GOVERNMENT jobs.

Distrust of government unions was never limited to average Americans. Ann Coulter reminds us:

There’s a reason both FDR and labor leader George Meany said it would be insane to ever allow government employees to unionize.

The recall heard round the world
by Ann Coulter
06/06/2012

Ann Coulter: The recall heard round the world

If the recall in Wisconsin was heard around the world it was heard by private sector union members. I like to think it means they will no longer be suckered by their leaders.

Ever since I began posting messages, 12 years ago, I pointed out that no private sector union member has any business supporting government unions, or thinking the two institutions unite all union “brothers” under one banner. They are two diametrically opposed entities with all of the power, and ultimately the money, in the hands of government unions.

Finally, the thundering applause the American people gave Ronald Reagan when he fired all of those air traffic controllers should have told government unions in Wisconsin something. Obviously, it did not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's just like the "immigration issue", they don't use the term "Illegal Immigration"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everyone with a pulse knows the result of the recall vote in Wisconsin. They also know the spin:

In interviews, union leaders rejected the idea that the outcome reflected any growing antipathy toward labor, or a diminished presence of unions.

The WaPo piece along with a bunch of others articles I read before and after the election all do the same thing; they blur the line between private sector and public sector unions. Even the WaPo title says “. . . Scott Walker’s victory deals blow to unions” when it should say “. . . deals blow to public sector unions.” The MSM only makes the distinction when it is unavoidable:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in a recall election Tuesday amounted to a significant defeat for the nation’s labor unions, which had mounted one of their most aggressive grass-roots campaigns ever to defeat the Republican.

As one of his first acts after taking office two years ago, Walker targeted the unions representing government workers, moving to curb their collective-bargaining rights. The failed effort to oust him sent reverberations across the labor movement and the Democratic Party, signaling that one of President Obama’s most powerful constituencies is politically vulnerable and may not be able to help him as much as expected in this year’s election.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory deals blow to unions
By Peter Whoriskey and Dan Balz, The Washington Post

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory deals blow to unions - The Washington Post

Notice how the WaPo went from the ‘nation’s labor unions,” to “unions representing government workers,” and back to “the labor movement.” If you check I think you will find that same kind of linguistic footwork throughout the MSM. Conservative commentators do it, too, but in their case it is not deliberate.

The MSM does it deliberately

The MSM relies upon a substantial number of Americans not understanding the important distinction, while most politicians look like they are sucking on a lemon when they say “public sector unions.” That’s understandable because no politician wants to alienate a major constituency. Governors Christy and Walker are notable exceptions. Happily, recognizing the distinction, and acting on it, appears to be spreading to politicians in cities and towns.

Parenthetically, this election cycle is the first time I can remember Republican politicians distinguishing between private sector jobs and government jobs whenever they talk about creating jobs. Democrats never distinguish between the two. NEVER! Not once did the media call them on it.

Clearly, the distaste private sector Americans have for government unions includes a distaste for welfare state government jobs.

NOTE: Nancy Pelosi was well-aware of the public’s antipathy when she said the Healthcare Bill would create 4,000,000 new jobs. Picture her saying the Healthcare Bill would create 4,000,000 new GOVERNMENT jobs.

Distrust of government unions was never limited to average Americans. Ann Coulter reminds us:

There’s a reason both FDR and labor leader George Meany said it would be insane to ever allow government employees to unionize.

The recall heard round the world
by Ann Coulter
06/06/2012

Ann Coulter: The recall heard round the world

If the recall in Wisconsin was heard around the world it was heard by private sector union members. I like to think it means they will no longer be suckered by their leaders.

Ever since I began posting messages, 12 years ago, I pointed out that no private sector union member has any business supporting government unions, or thinking the two institutions unite all union “brothers” under one banner. They are two diametrically opposed entities with all of the power, and ultimately the money, in the hands of government unions.

Finally, the thundering applause the American people gave Ronald Reagan when he fired all of those air traffic controllers should have told government unions in Wisconsin something. Obviously, it did not.

I'd like to present my view, admittedly a minority one, on the subject of public employee unions.

1. The Constitution endorses freedom of assembly. These unions are such assemblies.

2. They may petition the government for whatsoever they wish....also covered by the Constitution.

3. But...what about excessive demands? You pointed out the solution, above: "...the thundering applause the American people gave Ronald Reagan when he fired all of those air traffic controllers..."

a. This is why we empower elected officials, to make the calls that benefit the nation, the electorate.

The blame for excesses belongs with the officials who rubber stamp union demands, not citizens who are free to ask for perks and boons.

 

[Flanders]

PoliticalChic;5410809

1. The Constitution endorses freedom of assembly. These unions are such assemblies.

To PoliticalChic: Nice reach, but assembly does not mean organizations. They do call labor unions “organized labor.”

2. They may petition the government for whatsoever they wish....also covered by the Constitution.

To PoliticalChic: You’d have a case except for one thing: Labor unions do not petition —— they demand. Note that governments can deny a petition.

petition (noun)

1. A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.

2. A formal written document requesting a right or benefit from a person or group in authority.

3. Law. a. A formal written application requesting a court for a specific judicial action: a petition for appeal. b. The judicial action asked for in any such request.

4. Something requested or entreated.

verb
petitioned, petitioning, petitions verb, transitive

1. To address a petition to.

2. To ask for by petition; request formally.

verb, intransitive

To make a request, especially formally: petitioned for retrial.

3. But...what about excessive demands?

To PoliticalChic: What happened to “excessive petitions”? Just kidding.

Excessive demands are compounded by an issue no one will touch: An excessive number of government employees making the demands. There are so many unnecessary government employees in federal, state and local governments it is impossible to separate them from the impact they make on demands. The number of government employees could be cut in half across the board and the remaining half would still be underused.

The problem is that state and local governments are dumping grounds for political hacks. Every politician adds to every bloated, and unnecessary, bureaucracy —— then leaves the parasites behind when he leaves. The larger cities have so many parasites paid off with a government job incoming officials will not deal with them.

You pointed out the solution, above: "...the thundering applause the American people gave Ronald Reagan when he fired all of those air traffic controllers..."

a. This is why we empower elected officials, to make the calls that benefit the nation, the electorate.

To PoliticalChic: In the article I linked to in the OP Ann Coulter went on to say:

People who work for the government don’t have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay.

No one is worried about the profit margin because there is no profit — it’s government! Rather, the only people on the other side of the table are the unions’ co-conspirators: Democratic politicians willing to spend the public treasury on union members, who will repay the politicians by mobilizing voters.

One in ten thousand elected officials tries. Most come to office with the support of government unions in order to benefit themselves. Mayor Giuliani was an exception. His battles against the parasites in NYC’s entrenched school system were legendary, but in the end he couldn’t fire them. In fact, Ronald Reagan wanted to shutdown the federal Department of Education but underestimated the political clout the parasite class wields.

And let’s not forget that Bush the Younger let the late Ted Kennedy write an education bill. That was like giving the biggest glutton in the room the only key to the public larder.

The blame for excesses belongs with the officials who rubber stamp union demands, not citizens who are free to ask for perks and boons.

To PoliticalChic: In the end they are both to blame because they both get something they are not entitled to. The politician buys votes with tax dollars, while the parasites sate themselves at the public trough. None of that could take place if the media did not condone it.

Once again you play fast and loose with the definition of union demands. “Free to ask” is only slightly different than petition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic;5410809

1. The Constitution endorses freedom of assembly. These unions are such assemblies.

To PoliticalChic: Nice reach, but assembly does not mean organizations. They do call labor unions “organized labor.”

2. They may petition the government for whatsoever they wish....also covered by the Constitution.

To PoliticalChic: You’d have a case except for one thing: Labor unions do not petition —— they demand. Note that governments can deny a petition.

petition (noun)

1. A solemn supplication or request to a superior authority; an entreaty.

2. A formal written document requesting a right or benefit from a person or group in authority.

3. Law. a. A formal written application requesting a court for a specific judicial action: a petition for appeal. b. The judicial action asked for in any such request.

4. Something requested or entreated.

verb
petitioned, petitioning, petitions verb, transitive

1. To address a petition to.

2. To ask for by petition; request formally.

verb, intransitive

To make a request, especially formally: petitioned for retrial.



To PoliticalChic: What happened to “excessive petitions”? Just kidding.

Excessive demands are compounded by an issue no one will touch: An excessive number of government employees making the demands. There are so many unnecessary government employees in federal, state and local governments it is impossible to separate them from the impact they make on demands. The number of government employees could be cut in half across the board and the remaining half would still be underused.

The problem is that state and local governments are dumping grounds for political hacks. Every politician adds to every bloated, and unnecessary, bureaucracy —— then leaves the parasites behind when he leaves. The larger cities have so many parasites paid off with a government job incoming officials will not deal with them.



To PoliticalChic: In the article I linked to in the OP Ann Coulter went on to say:

People who work for the government don’t have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay.

No one is worried about the profit margin because there is no profit — it’s government! Rather, the only people on the other side of the table are the unions’ co-conspirators: Democratic politicians willing to spend the public treasury on union members, who will repay the politicians by mobilizing voters.

One in ten thousand elected officials tries. Most come to office with the support of government unions in order to benefit themselves. Mayor Giuliani was an exception. His battles against the parasites in NYC’s entrenched school system were legendary, but in the end he couldn’t fire them. In fact, Ronald Reagan wanted to shutdown the federal Department of Education but underestimated the political clout the parasite class wields.

And let’s not forget that Bush the Younger let the late Ted Kennedy write an education bill. That was like giving the biggest glutton in the room the only key to the public larder.

The blame for excesses belongs with the officials who rubber stamp union demands, not citizens who are free to ask for perks and boons.

To PoliticalChic: In the end they are both to blame because they both get something they are not entitled to. The politician buys votes with tax dollars, while the parasites sate themselves at the public trough. None of that could take place if the media did not condone it.

Once again you play fast and loose with the definition of union demands. “Free to ask” is only slightly different than petition.

"People who work for the government don’t have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay."

There's your problem.

 

[Flanders]

"People who work for the government don’t have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay."

There's your problem.

To PoliticalChic: At my age it’s not my problem. The parasite class is the country’s problem. See this thread for a bit more on the topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/220225-parasitic-constitutions.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

"People who work for the government don’t have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay."

There's your problem.

To PoliticalChic: At my age it’s not my problem. The parasite class is the country’s problem. See this thread for a bit more on the topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/220225-parasitic-constitutions.html

If you are suggesting that our fellow citizens who work for federal, state and local government are parasites, you are not only short sighted, but don't understand the word 'parasite.'

Nor do you understand human nature.

Offer more money for less work, and many will accept the offer.

Place the blame where it belongs, on elected officials who have accepted our 'power of attorney,' yet have not the character to live up to the fiduciary responsibility.

Citizens who are aware, and informed will do the right thing: Wisconsin.

 

[Flanders]

PoliticalChic;5413144

If you are suggesting that our fellow citizens who work for federal, state and local government are parasites,

To PoliticalChic: I’m not suggesting, I am saying that an overwhelming number of government “employees”are parasites unnecessary to running limited government; i.e., limited to those duties enumerated in the Constitution and nothing more.

you are not only short sighted, but don't understand the word 'parasite.'

To PoliticalChic: Even if I was completely devoid of commonsense, I can read a dictionary:

parasite (noun)

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

2. a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.

3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Every one of the above definitions identifies welfare state government employees.

I’d go so far as to suggest getting rid of all of the parasites and doubling the salaries and benefits of legitimate civil servants. Do that, and no state or local government will ever again have a budget problem.

Nor do you understand human nature.

To PoliticalChic: I understand it well enough to know that encouraging parasites with tax dollars breeds more parasites. Since you told me what I don’t understand let me return the compliment. You apparently do not understand that feeding cockroaches breeds more cockroaches.

Offer more money for less work, and many will accept the offer.

To PoliticalChic: Of course they will. That is why the profit motive is the best device known for controlling the growth of the parasite class. Either a company fires parasites or the company goes out of business. America will go out business unless it fires the millions who live on tax dollars while serving no one except themselves.

Place the blame where it belongs, on elected officials who have accepted our 'power of attorney,' yet have not the character to live up to the fiduciary responsibility.

To PoliticalChic: Why should they? As you pointed outed out “. . . more money for less work.” In addition, tax dollars keep them in office. In addition to everything else fiduciary responsibility has come to mean an obligation to support the parasite class with tax dollars rather than hold the Constitution and our liberties in trust.

Citizens who are aware, and informed will do the right thing: Wisconsin.

To PoliticalChic: Not always, and never when the media is against it. I’ll let Ann Coulter to make my case for me. Note that the jaw-dropping $80 million were tax dollars paid to California’s sizeable parasite class in the form of exorbitant salaries and bloated pensions.

Unlike Wisconsin, however, it was Schwarzenegger’s idea to hold a special election on the advice of his political consultant, Mike Murphy, the Bob Shrum of the Republicans.

Let’s see, who would be likely to vote in an off-year election? We’re going to cut your exorbitant benefits, require you to work, and make it easier to fire you, public employees. Do you have any interest in voting on that?

Anyone with half a brain could see disaster coming from a mile away. Even with the language barrier, Arnold should have seen it coming.

Within weeks, Tony Quinn, a California Republican consultant, stated categorically: “The governor needs to cancel this special election, regardless of the political cost, because he’s headed for a huge political defeat.”

But Schwarzenegger’s adviser, Murphy, was brimming with confidence, dazzled by the governor’s celebrity status. He gloated, “He’s still Arnold Schwarzenegger.” (Murphy never saw “Twins.”)

Public sector unions spent a jaw-dropping $80 million to defeat Schwarzenegger’s initiatives, portraying the governor as the enemy of cops, teachers, firefighters and “people like us.”

Mike Murphy: “I am confident we will win.”

In the end, union members turned out in droves on Election Day, defeating every single initiative. Everyone else in California woke up the next day and said, “Hey, did you know there was an election yesterday?”