Why ask for a pre-mature end to the primaries by having Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich drop out? Or any candidate?

Doesn’t the half of the country that has yet to hold its primary have a say in the candidate process?  If they don’t, then the primary process should be radically changed.  If they truly do then end the calls for candidates to drop out.

Who does a long process benefit?  I argue that it benefits the American people and this year the Republican party.  Although agreeing to multiple debates in front of hostile narrative directing media was unwise, the lengthy process has allowed the Republicans to dominant news coverage and created uncertainty for the Democrats over who their target will be.  Each of the flawed Republican candidates did bring their own ideas to the front for debate and consideration and that is healthy for a country.  Frankly I find the calls for candidates to drop out to be akin to the totalitarian mindset of Democrats.  The convention is to select the candidate and the primaries and caucus events are part of the process.   Let it work.  Rest assured in the fall, your favorite candidate may not be elected, but President Obama will be fired.  If you don’t liek the process then work to change it, but don’t try to game it by in effect saying that millions of Republican primary voters do not deserve a opportunity to have their say.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bogeyman

With apologies to James Whitcomb Riley:

INSCRIBED WITH ALL FAITH AND AFFECTION

To all the little Democrats: — The happy ones; and sad ones;

The sober and the silent ones; the boisterous and glad ones;

The good ones — Yes, the good ones, too; and all the lovely bad ones.

The Koch Brothers’s come to GOP house to stay,

An’ buy up WI power plants, an’ give some crumbs away,

An’ shoo the chickens off the porch, an’ dust the hearth, an’ sweep,

An’ make WI Capitol fire, an’ bake the numbers, an’ pay da Gov’s board-an’-keep;

An’ all us other childern, when the bribin’-things is done,

We set around the assembly fire an’ has the mostest fun

A-list’nin’ to the witch-tales ‘at Bloomie tells about,

An’ the Koch Bros ‘at gits you

Ef you

Don’t

Watch

Out!

Wunst they wuz a little union guy wouldn’t chant his prayers,–

An’ when he went to bed at night, away up-stairs,

His boss heerd him holler, an’ his steward heerd him bawl,

An’ when they turn’t the kontract down, he wuzn’t there at all!

An’ they seeked him in the cider-room, an’ Madison, an’ da press,

An’ seeked him up on Wall Street, an’ ever’-wheres, I guess;

But all they ever found wuz some Bush signs on a roundabout:–

An’ the Koch Bros ‘ll git you

Ef you

Don’t

Watch

Out!

An’ one time a little soc’list ‘ud allus laugh an’ grin,

An’ make fun of ever’ one, an’ all her blood-an’-kin;

An’ wunst, when they was “lunch time,” an’ McD folks wuz there,

Ché shirt gal mocked ‘em an’ shocked ‘em, an’ said she didn’t care!

An’ thist as she kicked her heels, an’ turn’t to run an’ hide,

They wuz two great big Purple Things a-standin’ by her side,

An’ they snatched her through the ceilin’ ‘fore she knowed what she’s about!

An’ the Koch Bros ‘ll git you

Ef you

Don’t

Watch

Out!

An’ little TP, Bloomie an da like says, when ya don’ pay the union due,

An’ the cell phone sputters, an’ the cow bells ring, an bagpipes goes woo-oo!

An’ you hear WI Senate Dems quit the state, an’ Obama’s tunnin’ gray,

An’ the Dane County pros’cuter  in inclined ta sue, while da Dems are far away,–

You better mind yer union, an’ yer teachurs fond an’ dear,

An’ churish them ‘at loves you, an’ dry the orphant’s tear,

An’ he’p the pore an’ needy ones ‘at clusters all about,

Er the Koch Bros ‘ll git you

Ef you

Don’t

Watch

Out!

That is how many voted against the budget bill without the promised 3 day wait to uncover the sleaze.

That is how many voted against fakery and political theater over substance.

That is how many who deserve support in the next election.  Some of the new people who ran with tea party support like Ribble and Duffy in Wisconsin and Benishek in Michigan have shown that they can’t be relied upon to stand against a bamboozling Boehner who can’t even pitch and sell a spending freeze when our nation debt is closing in on the market capitalization of ALL U.S. publicly traded companies.  Wisconsin’s Ryan has voted for cuts in covering the “moon with yoghurt”.  Shameless, weak-willed, snookered, mis-guided, call it what you will, but each of my kids should be saddled with $46,000 in federal government debt because we can only elect 66 grownups as our representatives.

Watch the Senate and watch the old pols and “reasonable” people who get appointed to the “Commission”.  It might include a token from the 66, but it won’t include all.  Someone without a spine will sell out the taxpayers, their children and our country’s future by kidding themselves along rather than making the patient take the cod liver oil.

He should be on the Committee if it passes.  Only people who vote against its passage should be on that committee.  His press release:

Here is an excellent Wisconsin political music video that was promoted by WTMJ’s Charlie Sykes.  Note the “fist” symbolism:

Teachers’ unions and union supported Wisconsin school boards are rushing to enter new contracts before the new law comes into effect.  Many questions about these teacher contract votes have been raised.  The media focus is often on open meeting laws for Board consideration of the contracts and on the School Board votes.  However, local media e.g. in Oshkosh are incurious about the teacher side of the equation.  The teacher’s union seemingly agreed to almost anything, as long as (1) the government continued to collect union dues, and (2) there was no vote on union recertification.  One wonders what the teacher view is on being forced to pay $700 – $1,000 in yearly dues for what?

Obvious questions are:

How soon after negotiators reached a tentative deal was the contract placed before the teachers for a vote and when exactly did the teacher’s vote on the contract proposal?

Were all individual teachers provided with a copy of the contract to read ahead of time? If so, how long ahead of their vote?

Was the vote by secret ballot?

What was the final vote breakdown? How many teachers were in favor? How many opposed? How many abstained or did not vote?

(Also, are retired teachers eligible to vote?  If so, do they pay regular dues; how many voted?)

Contrary to widespread public perception, the public union educational system in Wisconsin on average does no better job of educating students than that of 5 states that do not permit teacher collective bargaining, viz, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, or Virginia. See http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html

Actually, Wisconsin students categorized as “black, hispanic, or asian” generally perform poorly when compared to black, hispanic, or asian categorized students from these southern states. Indeed, Texas scores are almost uniformly better than Wisconsin test scores when one compares similar ethnic categories including those categorized as “white”.

The evidence, examined, raises a question as to why?  The differences cannot be explained by per pupil spending.  Looking at 2007-2008 school year data: WI spends $10,680 per pupil on average whereas the non-union states spend ($10,659 VA; $9,788 GA; $9,170 SC; $8,320 TX; and $7,996 NC.  So although Wisconsin spends over 25% more per pupil on average than Texas it yields lower scoring students.

It may be that State test scores have a significant correlation to cultural factors relating to education. In any case, the data does not suggest that the unionized Wisconsin public school system is intrinsically superior e.g. with regard to 4th or 8th grade reading or mathematics.

Sometimes ACT scores are pointed to as indicating a supposed better education system in Wisconsin, but again when one compares ethnic groups, including a comparison of students categorized as “white” to “white” a different picture emerges.  See: http://www.act.org/news/data/10/states.html?utm_campaign=cccr10&utm_source=data&utm_medium=web

The ACT test scores when comparing ethnic categories show lower composite scores for Wisconsin when compared to North Carolina, Texas or Virginia regardless of whether the category is white, black, hispanic or asian. Wisconsin ACT composites were higher only compared to students categorized as “white”in South Carolina and Georgia (23.0 WI vs 22.1 SC & 22.9 GA).
Arguably, there may be differences due to % students taking the ACT test. WI has 69% taking the ACT versus 16% NC, 22% VA, 33% TX, 44% GA, and 52% SC. However, 100% of Illinois students take the ACT and even there Wisconsin student composite ACT scores are lower for students categorized as “black”, “hispanic” or “asian” and the “white” scores are: WI 23.0 versus IL 22.4.  It would appear that the Milwaukee school system with its heavy population of “black” categorized students is much worse than those found in states as diverse as Illinois or Texas, but is it?

An alternative view is that there is something different about the culture of those students categorized as “black” or “asian” or “hispanic” in Wisconsin when compared to other states. Some say that Wisconsin’s relatively high welfare benefits created a migration of sorts from nearby Chicago to Milwaukee.  Isn’t this the kind of question that  a daring sociologist should study?  Perhaps it isn’t culture at all, or alone, or there may be other reasons e.g. the “soft bigotry of low expectations”, but in any case there is a definite difference in test scores that merit a serious study.  However, one thing stands out, if there is a case to be made for collective bargaining or higher per capita expenditures producing better educated students, then one cannot find support with Wisconsin’s national test scores.

The mob has validated the propriety of the two hours notice given by the Republicans for the vote. Since the police have escorted the Republicans from the Capitol due to security concerns in view of the mayhem and mob of Democrat protesters, it clearly would have been improvident, and impractical to have given greater notice.
Anarchy, mobs and mayhem rule in the Capitol building. The Capitol Police Chief should be questioned about inadequate security to: (1) ensure the physical safety of government legislators and workers, (2) prevent intimidation by mob in the Capitol, (3) provide fire safety and prevent endangerment due to locked exits and exceeding the building capacity, and (3) the possibility of structural damage to the building. If this were an airport and the TSA handled matters this way, they would be fired promptly. This was foreseeable. This was preventable. This is unsafe and very risky. There is damage to the rule of law. Wisconsin is projecting to the world an atmosphere of unlawfulness and anarchy. People will say that these people are peaceful; but would they remain peaceful in the face of a group of Republicans who enter the Capitol because it is no less their building? The are already complaining that the hated Fox news media are recording without advertising they are from Fox.  Why should that matter?  This is a potentially dangerous situation and the police chief should answer why security was not maintained.  If adequate answers are not forthcoming he should be replaced by someone who can maintain the rule of law in the State Capitol.  This is not a Democrat frat house.  The is shameful.

While a few teachers were calling in sick and getting fraudulent sick notes in the People’s Republic of Madison, many were going to work.  Some of these diligent professionals dread the bad publicity engendered by the bad apples.  Some teachers are concerned about union willingness to trade layoffs for keeping such union “rights” as (1) having the government collect $700 to $1,000 in yearly dues for the union, and (2) avoidance of  votes by its teacher members over the worth of union representation.

Can a volunteer perform a public service to hard working professional teachers, especially those young teachers being figuratively pushed off the sideboards & under the school bus with potential layoffs? Can someone publish a form and checklist suitable for use by a Wisconsin teacher who is compelled by employment to associate with the teacher’s union?  What would be helpful is the needed paperwork for achieving the goal that no dues be spent on political or ideological ads, lobbying, campaigns, etc.,  and that any portion of dues attributable thereto be refunded to the teacher.  Any capable good Samaritans know the ropes for lessening the mischief of compelled political speech, while at the same time compelling the union to allow teachers to retain more of their own money?

P.S. The same need likely exists for teachers in Tennessee, Ohio and other states.  Union money is spent on groups that offend particular teachers’ religious, moral and/or political views.   Governments collecting money from captive employees to be used for speech against their wishes and without prior approval is unconscionable.

NFL football players are members of a private sector union, the NFL Players Association, but what if they belonged to a government employee union in symbiosis with the Democrat Party?

Imagine if the 2011 Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football players were members of a public union similar to WEAC the Green Bay, Wisconsin public teachers union. It’s not so far fetched, after all, the community of Green Bay actually owns the football team.

The lowest paid Packer starter on the list was Josh Sitten at $390,980, which is in the ball park for several players having 2-3 years experience. The highest paid player was Greg Jennings who at $16+ million earned over 40 times the pay of Sitton. Contrast this with a Green Bay High School teacher where the lowest paid full time teacher earned about $51,000 in salary and benefits compared to about $110,000 for the highest paid teacher with a Masters degree and many years experience (i.e. about twice the pay). Green Bay teachers pay is assumed to be collectively bargained through WEAC and based upon years experience with increased pay for additional schooling (that is why about half of the GB teachers have Masters degrees, presumably in “Education”). [Note: the last Wisconsin PUD legislature and Democrat Governor passed a law to require teaching the history of labor and collective bargaining in WI public high schools.]

I assume that merit pay is a no no under WEAC contracts, that it is virtually impossible to get rid of a bad performer, that the pay scale would be flattened “Ben and Jerry” style so that a 40 to 1 multiple would be unacceptable (anyone with that high of pay must be in management!), no productivity enhancers, if you play regular offense or defense then you can’t play on special teams (violation of union rules); and starters are based upon seniority. After applying my assumptions here is what the Green Bay Packers football team would be like if collectively bargained like other Green Bay community government employees. I call this the Public Union Democrat (PUD)/ Charles Woodson agreement or PUD/Woodson for short.

The current starting Offensive & Defensive Green Bay Packer lineup, position, years in league and their 2009 salaries and PUD/Woodson adjusted salaries. (Note: all rookies have just received lay off notices needed to balance the Green Bay town budget.)

Pos. Player _____ ___ NFL Yrs _____ 2009 Salary_____ PUD/Woodson adj. Salary

RB Brandon Jackson _____4_____ $465,590 __ replaced by John Kuhn/Senority

FB Korey Hall _________4_____ $466,110 _____$583,332

WR Donald Driver ____12_____ $6,107,280 _____$916,660

WR Greg Jennings _____5_____ $16,251,300 _____$624,998

TE Andrew Quarless __Rookie__ ———— __Laid Off / Donald Lee plays

LT Chad Clifton _____11_____ $6,373,610 _____$874,994

LG Daryn Colledge _____5_____ $540,980 _____$624,998

C Scott Wells ________7_____ $1,850,000 _____$798,330

RG Josh Sitton ________3_____ $390,980 _____$541,666

RT Bryan Bulaga _____Rookie__ ————- __Laid Off / T.J. Lang plays

QB Aaron Rogers _____6_____ $8,600,000 __benched / Favre still playing

===============================================================

CB Charles Woodson _____13_____ $6,507,280 _____$1,000,000

CB Tramon Williams _____4_____ $905,980 _____$583,332

FS Nick Collins _______6_____ $3,045,000 _____$666,664

SS Charlie Peprah _____5_____ $540,590 ___ splits time with Bigby

NT B. J. Raji ________2_____ $3,970,000 __Howard Green/seniority

DE Ryan Pickett _____10_____ $2,975,000 _____$833,328

DE Cullen Jenkins _____7_____ $3,100,000 _____$798,330

LB Clay Matthews _____2_____ $1,860.000 __splits time with Diyral Briggs

LB A.J. Hawk _________5_____ $3,530,980 ___ Matt Wilhelm/seniority

LB Desmond Bishop ______4_____ $465,460 _____$583,332

LB Erik Walden _______ 3_____ $391,240         _____$541,666

SInce the pay will be based upon seniority in the league and no merit pay is allowed there should be added health benefits.  No need to take unnecessary risks since there is no benefit.  In fact the best course is to ride the bench since your pay will be the same as a starter having the same years experience and you will be less likely to get injured.  The only problem is that most of your team mates will think the same thing so “bench” competition might increase.

I think Charles Woodson’s good to go on this scenario.  At least I think so based upon his public statements in support of PUDs.  It will only cost him $5 million or so, but all for the greater good.  Besides he will still be highest paid Packer so no problem there.  Super Bowl ring in the bag; the prospect of another won’t be enough to stop him from going wobbly.

So if the Packers were a union which one would they be?

Detroit would be the UAW, in more ways than one.

The Bears probably the Teamsters given their legendary elections.

Vikings – SEIU purple?

Public Union Democrats, and their chanting supporters do a disservice to Wisconsin people in hard economic times.

In November, 2010 a majority of Wisconsin citizens voted to empower Republican solutions. In the weeks leading up to the election, different approaches to addressing State and local economic challenges were debated; the electorate spoke decisively. Newly elected Governor Walker, with compassion, seriousness, patience and honor, has explained budgetary difficulties and options to address the coming deficits: (1) raise taxes; (2) fire, furlough or layoff workers; (3) reduce worker’s paid compensation; (4) gain authority to sell off certain State assets; and (5) rebalance the negotiating power between unions and governmental bodies to reduce the growth of governmental labor costs. The Governor has chosen to reject option 1, and to propose and support options 3, 4 & 5; he has sufficient apparent support to enact these changes through lawful legislation. Option 2 is retained, but viewed as a least desirable last resort.

The disservice by Public Union Democrat (PUD) legislators, public unions and the chanters arises from their shameless disregard for the rule of law and their failure to treat the Republican majority’s attempts to address these serious problems with respectful and constructive words and actions.

The State Senator PUDs have violated their oath of office by running away from the State and their obligations to faithfully carry out their legislative duties and uphold the law. The State Assembly PUDs have created a mob-like threatening atmosphere in the Capitol and exhibit childish and disingenuous outrage at the eventual speedy response to persistent PUD delaying tactics. Genuine debate has been reduced to glittering generalities and slogans that reduce the many specific components of the proposal to “busting the union” or “taking away worker’s union” or “ending collective bargaining”.

The public unions for their part are also disingenuous. The public union preference is to “raise taxes”. However, the taxing option has been rebuffed this year by a legislative majority who instead voted to reduce taxes. The majority believes tax reduction will provide private sector economic growth which benefits all citizens. Historically, the second choice of unions has been to favor unemployment of its members over any reduction in compensation rates or benefits. Union winners and losers are usually based on seniority, not merit. Unions sometimes sacrifice an entire group to layoffs in order to keep or raise compensation rates.

The chanters are ruled by emotion. There seem to be two types: happy chanters and angry chanters. There are a fair number of student happy chanters in Madison, Wisconsin whose energetic drum beating party atmosphere displays a woeful disregard of the seriousness of the personal impact of choosing or not choosing the various options to address very serious problems. Essentially their view is a child-like focus on the present moment oblivious to the gathering storm. On the other hand, the angry chanters, instead of seriously engaging the difficult choices, have an “us versus them” mentality.  Angry chanters have false and fearsome imaginings of their foes.  The angry chanters direct hostility towards their opponents with a bigotry equal to their imaginings and are sometimes violent. Both types of chanters withdraw from engagement in logical discourse. They denigrate the good will of those offering economic solutions which differ from their own precepts.  Chanters vigorously oppose even temporary burdens on their favored group, the unionists.  At the same time chanters support PUDs and public unions, who would further burden taxpayers. These are the same demagogues that decry their favorite whipping boy – the rich.  These are the same hypocrites who support (more silently, but ultimately) in negotiations, unionist seniority and pay rates over continued employment of those public workers who would be furloughed, laid off, and fired when government has been stymied in all its other attempts to achieve a balanced budget.

Supporters of Gov. Walker’s proposals would do well to remember and internalize that his offered solutions will necessitate sacrifices by public employees. These are real and should not be trivialized. It is no small thing to abruptly reduce someone’s disposable income and disrupt family budgets.  It is little comfort to point out that many in the private sector had to make similar sacrifices or have less to begin with. However, people would also do well to realize that these proposals are not being made to punish public employees, but to address an unsustainable taxpayer burden that holds back the economy thereby hurting all citizens including those very same public sector workers. The Walker proposals would also re-balance negotiating power between taxpayers and unions, provide more freedom for workers to choose their associations, provide an opportunity to decide whether the high dues cost of union membership is worth the advantages, open the door for merit pay possibilities, and grant local governments the flexibility to make needed changes.

Just as proponents of welfare reform and school choice were unjustly vilified, now Alinsky-style tactics are being used against proponents of public union law changes. These changes are long overdue and the sooner that they are made, the sooner Wisconsin will begin to see their benefits for all citizens.