This is Walker's explanation for why he's trying to cut benefits and take away most collective-bargaining rights of public workers in Wisconsin:
“I’m just trying to balance my budget,” Mr. Walker said. “To those who say why didn’t I negotiate on this? I don’t have anything to negotiate with. We don’t have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we’re broke. And it’s time to pay up.”If that's true — if he has no choice because he simply doesn't "have anything to give" — then why does he want to exempt police and firefighters?
10 comments:
Because firefighters, police, and state troopers have jobs that are uniquely important.
I haven't seen Walker support his policy by saying most public workers just aren't very important. He's saying there is no alternative because of a simple brute fact: we are out of money. Why doesn't that apply just the same to police and firefighters?
Of course, many people would strongly disagree with your opinion that other public workers aren't so important, but that's beside the point.
"Why doesn't that apply just the same to police and firefighters?"
The state has been facing bankruptcy for years. These cut backs are only the beginning and firefighters, police, and state troopers will likely be called upon soon to share in the necessary sacrifices too. Walker was elected by voters who wanted him to take just this kind of tough negotiating stance.
"...many people would strongly disagree with your opinion that other public workers aren't so important..."
If by not "so" important you mean not "as" important, then you fairly characterize my opinion.
JAC: Why doesn't that apply just the same to police and firefighters?
Divide and conquer.
It may be that the governor and his GOP honchos are using the budget crunch to try, opportunistically, to break the power of the teachers' union. I wonder... if the people of Wisconsin suspected that (or knew that), would they be outraged, or would they support the governor.
Remember how Bill Clinton established his political clout: going after the teachers in Arkansas.
Let's assume the exemption for police and firefighters, in Gov. Walker's proposal, is an example of crass political favoritism toward a targeted electorally supportive constituency. Is that wrong? And if it is wrong, in judging the politics of previous state legislatures and governors, shouldn't we have applied equal scrutiny and held them to the same standards?
"Is that wrong?" Well, some people are more bothered than others by crass political favoritism. That's a wide-open question of opinion.
But I didn't write this post to say that Scott Walker is a bad person for making a cynical political move. This post wasn't supposed to be about Walker as an overall person or politician. I'm just trying to figure out if his specific public statements are plausible descriptions of the true motivations behind his proposed reform. I'm saying: if the reason truly were that there is no money available not to end public workers' collective-bargaining rights, then I fail to see why this fiscal necessity wouldn't apply to police and firefighters just as it applies to all other public workers.
JAC: I'm just trying to figure out if his specific public statements are plausible descriptions of the true motivations behind his proposed reform.
If that's the case then Scott Walker is perfectly correct. "We're broke", is a statement many Wisconsins will be echoing, looking at their personal finances. And even if they aren't at that point yet, they will be worried they might end up there soon enough.
When you face financial difficulties you have to make painful choices. You have to prioritize. The governor made choices. And now JAC comes to ask the niggling question, "was that choice absolutely necessary?".
Someone's unemployent checks end and they decide to send their pet to the pound. JAC would ask: "Did you really HAVE to do that, or did you just not like your dog?". There are people in Wisconsin thinking about what to do with their pets, their utilities, their houses, right now.
If we want to throw words around like "crass" and "cynical", I think they could ornament a description of JAC just as well as Scott Walker.
There are 314 police and firefighters unions in the state of Wisconsin. Four endorsed Walker. The other 310 endorsed Barrett.
Governor Scott Walker is a piece of work. What some people are not realizing is that part of the 3.6 billion shortfall was created by the Republican senators and representatives. How? Passing tax cuts for businesses, I believe the numbers I read was approximately $200 million. This is ultra conservative/hyper-pro business at it's finest. This is not necessarily about the pay cuts, it's about removing rights and political grandstanding. And lastly, this is more of the "Party of No". Why can the state and federal politicians stop acting like little children and actually vote their conscience. Just another assault on the middle class.
Post a Comment