Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/9/2011 1:02:59 AM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Respond to of 35834

Union Myths Thomas Sowell The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians. Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees' free choice as to whether or not to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy. Workers already have a free choice in secret-ballot elections conducted under existing laws. As more and more workers in the private sector have voted to reject having a union represent them, the unions' answer has been to take away secret-ballot elections. Under the "Employee Free Choice Act," unions would not have to win in secret-ballot elections in order to represent the workers. Instead, union representatives could simply collect signatures from the workers until they had a majority. Why do we have secret ballots in the first place, whether in elections for unions or elections for government officials? To prevent intimidation and allow people to vote how they want to, without fear of retaliation. This is a crucial right that unions want to take away from workers. The actions of union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere give us a free home demonstration of how little they respect the rights of those who disagree with them and how much they rely on harassment and threats to get what they want. It takes world-class chutzpah to call circumventing secret ballots the "Employee Free Choice Act." To unions, workers are just the raw material used to create union power, just as iron ore is the raw material used by U.S. Steel and bauxite is the raw material used by the Aluminum Company of America. The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers. There are limits to how long unions can siphon off money from businesses, without facing serious economic repercussions. The most famous labor union leader, the legendary John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers from 1920 to 1960, secured rising wages and job benefits for the coal miners, far beyond what they could have gotten out of a free market based on supply and demand. But there is no free lunch. An economist at the University of Chicago called John L. Lewis "the world's greatest oil salesman." His strikes that interrupted the supply of coal, as well as the resulting wage increases that raised its price, caused many individuals and businesses to switch from using coal to using oil, leading to reduced employment of coal miners. The higher wage rates also led coal companies to replace many miners with machines. The net result was a huge decline in employment in the coal mining industry, leaving many mining towns virtually ghost towns by the 1960s. There is no free lunch. Similar things happened in the unionized steel industry and in the unionized automobile industry. At one time, U.S. Steel was the largest steel producer in the world and General Motors the largest automobile manufacturer. No more. Their unions were riding high in their heyday, but they too discovered that there is no free lunch, as their members lost jobs by the hundreds of thousands. Workers have also learned that there is no free lunch, which is why they have, over the years, increasingly voted against being represented by unions in secret ballot elections. One set of workers, however, remained largely immune to such repercussions. These are government workers represented by public sector unions. While oil could replace coal, while U.S. Steel dropped from number one in the world to number ten, and Toyota could replace General Motors as the world's leading producer of cars, government is a monopoly. Nobody is likely to replace the federal or state bureaucracies, no matter how much money the unions drain from the taxpayers. That is why government unions continue to thrive while private sector unions decline. Taxpayers provide their free lunch. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/9/2011 3:12:17 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

H/T toTim Fowler: Pro-union protester to Tea Partier: “Why do you have a right to your money?” pajamasmedia.com .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/9/2011 11:51:33 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Walker wins the First Battle of Wisconsin BELTWAY CONFIDENTIAL By: David Freddoso 03/09/11 8:13 PM Online Opinion Editor Follow him @freddoso Wisconsin's Senate has been paralyzed on dealing with its budget because it requires a 20-vote quorum to address budget issues. And tied into the governor's budget bill was the provision that caused all of the Democrats in the Senate to flee the state -- a provision limiting collective bargaining rights for state workers to wages only, leaving benefits and work rules for most state employees to be determined by the legislative process instead. But Wisconsin's Senate does not require 20 members to be present to pass non-budget legislation, and some people have asked why the Republicans haven't simply passed the union provision separately. Well, tonight, they did just that. So Gov. Scott Walker, R, has won the First Battle of Wisconsin -- but will he win the war? It remains to be seen what the next battle will be. There will be attempts to force recall elections -- first of several senators, then next year possibly of Walker himself -- but there is still potential for a government shutdown showdown this spring if the fleeing senators stay on the lam. Walker probably calculated, and I think correctly, that he's already crossed the Rubicon, and he was going to take his lumps either way. But he's going to have to be ready for what comes next. He's just provoked the anger of America's biggest-spending political special interest. There is a bull's eye on his forehead (no, I'm not going to stop using that metaphor), and it's not going away any time soon. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/10/2011 12:03:07 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

How the Wisconsin Senate Passed Walker’s Bill By Christian Schneider The Corner March 9, 2011 10:11 P.M. On Wednesday night, Wisconsin Senate Republicans did what most people thought impossible — they passed Governor Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill virtually intact, without having to split out controversial provisions that limited the ability for government employees to collectively bargain. A letter Democrat Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller sent the governor today, indicating Miller’s unwillingness to further negotiate any details of the bill, was what prompted the GOP’s decision to take the bill to the floor. “It was like, ‘I’m in the minority, and I’m going to dictate to you what your options are,’” said one GOP source about Miller’s letter. It was just three days ago that Miller had sent Fitzgerald a letter urging more negotiations, despite the fact that Governor Walker had been negotiating with at least two Democrat senators for nearly a week. “With his recent letter, it became clear that all he wanted to do was stall,” said the GOP source. Another action that provoked the GOP senators to act was Democrat Senator Lena Taylor’s very public decision to have a spring election absentee ballot sent to her in Illinois. The spring election is scheduled for April 5th, which indicated Taylor’s desire to stay out of the state for another month. “That sure didn’t help,” said one GOP source. The Wisconsin Constitution requires a quorum of three-fifths of the Senate in order to pass a bill that “imposes, continues or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state.” For weeks, it had been known that Republican senators could separate the fiscal provisions of the bill from the proposed collective-bargaining changes, which were seen as non-fiscal. However, there was speculation that, if a bill was brought to the Senate floor that contained only the collective bargaining changes, it might not have the votes to pass. On Wednesday night, the bill passed with a number of provisions that could be considered “fiscal,” such as the requirement that many government employees contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries to their pensions and pay 12.6 percent towards their health-insurance premiums. GOP senators consulted with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau on this point, and were sent a memo indicating that while there were some “fiscal” provisions of the bill, these provisions didn’t technically make an “appropriation,” and therefore were not subject to the three-fifth quorum requirement. This allowed senators to keep the bill virtually intact, which the GOP felt helped bolster their argument that all the collective bargaining changes were, in fact, fiscal in nature. What is perhaps most stunning is that Fitzgerald’s maneuver tonight seems to have caught the Democrat Minority Leader completely off guard. Senators Miller and Fitzgerald have access to the same legislative attorneys and were likely given the same options for resolution. “I think [Miller] actually thought he was going to win,” said one GOP source. Following the vote on the bill, GOP senators were hustled out of the Capitol via an underground tunnel that takes them to a government building across the street. For the past few days, senators have made this walk and been loaded onto a bus that takes them to their cars parked in a remote area. Yet after the vote, protesters had apparently caught wind of this process and surrounded the bus full of senators. One witness told me he had seen protesters surrounding the bus and trying to rock it back and forth. The bill now goes to the Assembly, where it is likely Democrats will try to delay its passage by filibustering indefinitely. Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald will likely limit debate, which will lead to accusations that the GOP is “silencing” the minority. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/10/2011 6:48:40 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. SIX-FIGURE BUS DRIVERS AND OTHER WORKING-CLASS HEROES Ann Coulter March 9, 2011 Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people? Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi. This isn't how we usually view people fighting for their own economic interests. When Wall Street opposes financial reforms or a tobacco company opposes new cigarette taxes, no one hails them as "working men and women" who "deserve a decent pay and decent retirement." We're not told Wall Street has a "fundamental right" not to be regulated, or tobacco companies promoting their own interests are just trying to "help working people and middle-class people retain a good job in America." People on the other side of the issue aren't said to be "just trying to kick the other guy in the shin and exterminate him." And yet all that was said by the Democratic governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, on MSNBC's "Hardball" last week, about government workers fighting to preserve their own Alex Rodriguez-like employment contracts. Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget. MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees. Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws. Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous? Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year. When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract." It's ludicrous to suggest that these union contracts were fairly bargained. Only one side was at the negotiating table. Ordinary people with jobs were not at the meetings where public sector compensation was discussed. Union hacks play on our heartstrings, weeping about the valuable work government employees do: These are the people who educate our children, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets! Politicians who do not immediately acquiesce to insane union demands are invariably accused of hating teachers, nurses or cops. In California, this has been standard operating procedure for decades. The voters never seem to catch on. In 1972, E. Richard Barnes lost his re-election campaign to the California state Assembly after being accused by cops and firefighters of coddling criminals. In fact, Barnes, a conservative Republican, had one of the toughest records on crime. But he had voted against fringe benefits and better pension benefits for public employees. Years later, in 2005, Don Perata, Democratic state senator from Oakland, suggested that the legislature reconsider the requirement that 40 percent of the entire state budget be spent on public schools. The teachers' unions instantly plastered his district with fliers calling him anti-education. Perata is a far-left Democrat, who had himself been a teacher for 15 years before entering politics. Fine, we like teachers, firemen and police officers. We appreciate them. (And for the record, it is statistically more dangerous to be a farmer, fisherman, steelworker or pilot than a cop or fireman. Soldiers also have pretty dangerous jobs, and they don't get to strike.) Does that mean we should pay them $1 million dollars a year? How about $10 million? After all, these are the people who educate our kids, run into burning buildings and take dangerous criminals off our streets! Assuming the answer is no, then apparently we're allowed to discuss government workers' compensation -- even though they do important work. As George Bernard Shaw concluded his famous quip (often attributed to Winston Churchill), "Now, we're just negotiating over the price." Why do public sector employees have absurd overtime rules? Why don't they pay for their own health insurance? Why do they get to retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension of 65 percent of their last year's pay -- as state police in New Jersey do? This is asymmetrical warfare. Seven percent of the population cares intensely about public sector union contracts -- and nothing else. The remaining 93 percent of voters can't be bothered to care. Meanwhile, state after state spirals into bankruptcy. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/10/2011 6:59:20 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin We can avoid mass teacher layoffs and reward our best performers. But we have to act now. By SCOTT WALKER WSJ_Opinion In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority. Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules. My state's budget-repair bill, which passed the Assembly on Feb. 25 and awaits a vote in the Senate, reforms this union-controlled hiring and firing process by allowing school districts to assign staff based on merit and performance. That keeps great teachers like Ms. Sampson in the classroom. Most states in the country are facing a major budget deficit. Many are cutting billions of dollars of aid to schools and local governments. These cuts lead to massive layoffs or increases in property taxes—or both. In Wisconsin, we have a better approach to tackling our $3.6 billion deficit. We are reforming the way government works, as well as balancing our budget. Our reform plan gives state and local governments the tools to balance the budget through reasonable benefit contributions. In total, our budget-repair bill saves local governments almost $1.5 billion, outweighing the reductions in state aid in our budget. While it might be a bold political move, the changes are modest. We ask government workers to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions and a 12.6% contribution to their health-insurance premium, both of which are well below what other workers pay for benefits. Our plan calls for Wisconsin state workers to contribute half of what federal employees pay for their health-insurance premiums. (It's also worth noting that most federal workers don't have collective bargaining for wages and benefits.) For example, my brother works as a banquet manager at a hotel and occasionally works as a bartender. My sister-in-law works at a department store. They have two beautiful kids. They are a typical middle-class Wisconsin family. At the start of this debate, David reminded me that he pays nearly $800 per month for his family's health-insurance premium and a modest 401(k) contribution. He said most workers in Wisconsin would love a deal like the one we are proposing. The unions say they are ready to accept concessions, yet their actions speak louder than words. Over the past three weeks, local unions across the state have pursued contracts without new pension or health-insurance contributions. Their rhetoric does not match their record on this issue. Local governments can't pass budgets on a hope and a prayer. Beyond balancing budgets, our reforms give schools—as well as state and local governments—the tools to reward productive workers and improve their operations. Most crucially, our reforms confront the barriers of collective bargaining that currently block innovation and reform. When Gov. Mitch Daniels repealed collective bargaining in Indiana six years ago, it helped government become more efficient and responsive. The average pay for Indiana state employees has actually increased, and high-performing employees are rewarded with pay increases or bonuses when they do something exceptional. Passing our budget-repair bill will help put similar reforms into place in Wisconsin. This will be good for the Badger State's hard-working taxpayers. It will also be good for state and local government employees who overwhelmingly want to do their jobs well. In Wisconsin, we can avoid the massive teacher layoffs that schools are facing across America. Our budget-repair bill is a commitment to the future so our children won't face even more dire consequences than we face today, and teachers like Ms. Sampson are rewarded—not laid off. Taking on the status quo is no easy task. Each day, there are protesters in and around our state Capitol. They have every right to be heard. But their voices cannot drown out the voices of the countless taxpayers who want us to balance our budgets and, more importantly, to make government work for each of them. Mr. Walker, a Republican, is the governor of Wisconsin. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/15/2011 7:08:39 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Unions vs. the little guy in Wisconsin recall fight Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 03/14/11 8:05 PM If you're a Republican, it's a scenario straight out of "Alice in Wonderland." Fourteen Wisconsin state senators, all Democrats, flee the state for three weeks, bringing government to a halt in an effort to stop Gov. Scott Walker's budget bill. After three weeks, the fugitive Democrats return in failure. And then, when a rich and highly organized effort to punish lawmakers is launched, it's directed not at the Democrats who ran away but at the Republicans who stayed home and did their job. That is precisely what is now happening in Wisconsin. Local and national labor organizations, enraged by the successful Republican effort to limit the collective bargaining powers of public employees unions, are pouring money and manpower into petitions to recall GOP state senators. At the same time, Republican drives to recall runaway Democrats, while rich in volunteer spirit, are working with far less money and organized support. On the Democratic side are the AFL-CIO, the big public worker unions, party organizations and activist groups like MoveOn.org, which have already raised millions of dollars online. On the Republican side are a few Tea Party groups, taxpayer organizations and not a lot more. "They're off to a quicker start," Wisconsin Republican Party executive director Mark Jefferson says. "We have some structural disadvantages because taxpayer groups and volunteer organizations are more loosely put together than a union syndicate." Officially, there are eight Republicans and eight Democrats facing recall petitions. But it appears the most serious challenges involve three on each side. Democrats are working hard to knock off Republican senators Dan Kapanke, Alberta Darling and Randy Hopper. Republicans are targeting Democratic senators Robert Wirch, Jim Holperin and Dave Hansen. Wisconsin law requires recall petitioners to gather thousands of signatures before an actual election is held. The specific number, based on voting in the most recent elections, is different for each district but ranges from about 15,000 to 22,000. That's where the organizing strength of the AFL-CIO and its unions come in. Labor and its Democratic allies realize that Wisconsin is a critical battle and are desperate to make sure other states do not follow Wisconsin's lead. Republicans, meanwhile, seem less aware of the stakes. "If Republicans do not take this very seriously, they could be in trouble here," says Steve Baas of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, which supports Walker's budget reforms. The imbalance of power might be alarming to national conservatives, but it doesn't seem to worry the troops on the ground trying to recall Democratic senators. "I think it's a huge advantage for us because we are really, really grass roots," says Dan Hunt, an out-of-business real estate developer in the Kenosha area who heads Taxpayers to Recall Robert Wirch. While the other side has more money, Hunt says, "We haven't had a problem raising funds. We're fully funded as of now. We're getting national support; it's just national individual support." Beyond organization, there is a difference in the two recall efforts. The conservative drive to recall Democratic senators began in outrage over the Democrats' flight from the state. How could lawmakers who took an oath of office do that? The liberal drive to recall Republicans began as an effort to pressure those senators to vote against Walker's budget bill. Now that the bill has passed, it's an effort to make examples of the senators who supported it. For Hunt, it's about principle. "I'm doing it because my senator didn't represent me in Madison," Hunt says. "He left, and I think that is the worst thing that can happen in a legislative democracy. People who choose to leave their post on purpose, just to avoid a vote on a bill -- that's an egregious act that requires citizen reaction." Both sides have several more weeks to gather signatures. After that, there is a period for legal challenges of the petitions and then another period before the actual recall election, which could come in mid-to-late summer. Will the intensity of union activists last until then? And just as important, will the intensity of ordinary citizens, the people who are volunteering for Hunt's group and others like it, stay alive as well? Unions are very good at things like gathering signatures and chartering buses to take people to the polls. But don't rule out the team that's fighting on principle. Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/15/2011 7:18:54 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

NYT: Public Sector Unions Defending Workers Accused of Abuse and Sexual Assault By: Mark Hemingway Beltway Confidential 03/14/11 5:20 PM The New York Times had an eye-opening story about abuses in state-run homes for the elderly and disabled in New York this weekend. In particular, the article highlights how unions are aggressively defending those workers accused of very serious crimes: <<< The Times reviewed 399 disciplinary cases involving 233 state workers who were accused of one of seven serious offenses, including physical abuse and neglect, since 2008. In each of the cases examined, the agency had substantiated the charges, and the worker had been previously disciplined at least once. In 25 percent of the cases involving physical, sexual or psychological abuse, the state employees were transferred to other homes. The state initiated termination proceedings in 129 of the cases reviewed but succeeded in just 30 of them, in large part because the workers’ union, the Civil Service Employees Association, aggressively resisted firings in almost every case. A few employees resigned, even though the state sought only suspensions. >>> However, it's the specific examples in the story that are truly horrifying: <<< At a home upstate in Hudson Falls, two days before Christmas in 2006, an employee discovered her supervisor, Ricky W. Sousie, in the bedroom of a severely disabled, 54-year-old woman. Mr. Sousie, a stocky man with wispy hair, was standing between the woman’s legs. His pants were around his ankles, his hand was on her knee and her diaper was pulled down. The police were called, and semen was found on the victim. But the state did not seek to discipline Mr. Sousie. Instead, it transferred him to work at another home. Roger Macomber, an employee at a group home in western New York, grabbed a woman in his care, threw her against a fence, and then flung her into a wall, according to a 2007 disciplinary report. He was then assigned to work at another group home. Mr. Macomber, in fact, was transferred to different homes four times in the past decade for disciplinary reasons. It was not until last year, after he left a person unattended while he went into a store, that he was put on employment probation and eventually dismissed. Over the past year, the state agency overseeing the homes, the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities, has repeatedly declined to make its top officials available for interviews. A spokesman, Herm Hill, said that the vast majority of the agency’s employees were conscientious, and that its hands were often tied because of the disciplinary and arbitration rules involving the workers’ union. Mr. Hill emphasized that the agency takes allegations of abuse “very seriously.” >>> Emphasis added. It turns out that Sousie had also assaulted a co-worker in 1992 and stayed on the job. And believe it or not, after being caught with the disabled woman, Sousie was allowed to return to work -- no doubt thanks to union disciplinary and arbitration rules: <<< The inquiry by the Hudson Falls police foundered. It took the department nearly 10 months to get a DNA report on the seminal fluid from the state police laboratory. But during that time, officers never obtained a specimen of Mr. Sousie’s DNA for comparison. The case then sat dormant for nearly a year and a half, during which time Mr. Sousie was allowed to return to work at a different home. The Washington County district attorney, Kevin C. Kortright, and the Hudson Falls police chief, Randy Diamond, said DNA technology was not sufficiently advanced in 2007 to make progress in the case, even though it was in widespread use at the time. Finally, in 2009, an enterprising police detective took up the case, and a court order was obtained to get a DNA sample from Mr. Sousie. A case was brought against him in county court, including a felony sodomy charge, only to be dismissed after a judge ruled that the district attorney’s office withheld evidence from the defense. >>> The state moved to fire Sousie but instead it reached a settlement with the union: <<< He was placed on probation for two years, had 80 hours of back pay withheld, lost six days of leave time and was ordered to undergo counseling. But he remained on the job. If the Hudson Falls detective had not revived the sexual assault case and sent him to jail, of course, Mr. Sousie would, presumably, still be employed. In the interview, Mr. Sousie, who was released from the county lockup last year, said he was now looking for work and looking forward to collecting his state pension. “Today’s another day, you know,” he said. “I’m waiting till I get old enough to draw my retirement.” >>> I'm sure taxpayers in the state of New York feel great about paying this man's pension, and even better about the union bosses who kept him employed long after he was credibly accused of sexual assault. Read more at The Weekly Standard. .

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	3/17/2011 8:32:25 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Here We are Stuck in the Middle Ramirez Editorial Cartoons investors.com

To: Sully- who wrote (35575)	4/9/2011 4:52:56 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

H/T to Lindybill: Turnabout in Wisconsin By Ross Kaminsky on 4.8.11 @ 9:24AM Wow! That's really all I can say as I read the news that a County Clerk in Wisconsin failed to save on her computer, and thus failed to report, 14,315 votes cast in the heavily Republican city of Brookfield. Those new votes, combined with "typing errors" in two other parts of the County appear to add a net 7,582 to Prosser over Kloppenburg, giving the incumbent non-leftist justice a lead of about 7,378 votes before other vote total adjustments from around the state. With a total of votes cast at about 1.494 million, the current margin of Prosser's lead is now less than 100 votes short of what would be needed to force Kloppenburg to have to pay for a recount, an effort that would cost at least a million dollars and would be, in my view, as good a use of union dues money as anything; after all, it would keep them from being able to spend that money in another election. If any more errors are found prior to a recount process which add to Prosser's lead, one could see a situation where there is no longer a free, automatic recount, though if that were going to happen you'd probably expect it to have happened already. So far, the reported changes in vote totals in other counties are small, with a net gain for Kloppenburg based on one news report of about 30 votes over seven counties, nowhere near enough for her to reclaim victory, but putting her slightly more safely inside the margin needed for a free recount. The Kloppenburg campaign is, appropriately and not surprisingly, "filing open records requests for all relevant documentation related to the reporting of election results in Waukesha County, as well as to the discovery and reporting of the errors announced by the County." The vice-chair of the Waukesha Democratic Party acknowledged that she and Democrat election watchers were "satisfied that (the new count) is correct." Although I'm rarely shocked by the arrogance of politicians, and even giving Mrs. Kloppenburg a little wiggle room for not being a seasoned politician, the arrogance of her press conference on Wednesday was annoying and disturbing, showing a remarkable self-centeredness for someone angling to be a Supreme Court Justice. The first question to her during that conference: "How do you feel comfortable declaring victory when the margin is so thin? Certainly Justice Prosser's supporters think they may be able to pull out a victory in a recount process." Kloppenburg mostly dodged the question, offering some pablum about having run a "respectful" campaign, adding "and we did win and we're confident that the margin will hold." The questioner persisted: "Many observers say that with a vote count that's this close, that could be one adding error in one county that's making up the difference. Why do you feel that vote count is so reliable at this point in time?" (This reporter certainly gets the Carnac award for the month...) Kloppenburg's response: "You know, the number showed that we won and we are gratified to have that victory in hand." Later, Kloppenburg said she was "confident that the (Government Accountability Board) will certify the numbers that we all have in front of us now" and that "we are enjoying our victory." Another question from a reporter who was also gunning for the Carnac award: "What would happen if during the canvassing certification that the vote flips around and Justice Prosser wins? Would you seek to challenge that?" Kloppenburg: "I won't speculate. We've won right now and we're pleased with our victory." In typical leftist fashion, a commenter on the Democratic Underground (with agreement from others), never fearful of the most intense hypocrisy, suggested, "In a civilized world we could expect Prosser to concede" even if the original count showed him "beaten by one vote." Can anyone say Bush v. Gore? I don't like anything that makes American elections look "dodgy," as my Australian wife might say, but despite the expected grousing on the left there is no reason to think that this was anything other than simple human error (leaving out the totals for an entire city is much less likely to be an attempt at fraud than some huge change in a city's original count would be). Still, one can't help but sit back and enjoy -- at least for a few minutes because obviously this is a rather fluid situation -- an election where the last votes aren't from Democrat strongholds, aren't likely to be votes by the dead, the illegal, the late-arriving absentees, and the incarcerated -- each group a remarkably reliable Democrat voting bloc, such as those who gave the U.S. Senate Race to Al Franken in 2008. Although this is just a statewide judicial race, the implications are substantial, perhaps made all the more substantial by the apparent change in victors. If Kloppenburg had won (or if she does end up winning), it could be highly motivating for unions and other leftist organizations; they would come to believe that with enough advertising spending, they can convince taxpayers that, as Ann Coulter aptly put it, "People who are already suffering have to suffer more so that those who are doing pretty well don't have to suffer at all." A Kloppenburg victory would likely spur the unions' fund-raising gains and generally raise their level of political optimism just at a time when the Tea Party and other supporters of liberty and capitalism feel that the left is finally on the ropes in America (at least until the next time that the public forgets just how bad Progressivism is for our economic health). A Kloppenburg defeat, especially after the left poured a few million dollars into the race early, propelling Kloppenburg from being at least 30% behind in the polls to being in a dead heat even in internal GOP polls, according to National Review, should take the wind out of its sails. The gut-punch should be that much more intense for the unions after believing they won. One has to wonder, after blowing millions in union dues money on this race, and after perhaps $10 million incinerated in a failed attempt to beat Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in a primary challenge after Lincoln came out against "card check," when the average union man or woman will revolt, even a little bit, against their money being wasted like this. Still, at the level of the union bosses this is an existential battle for their power and they won't give up until the last of their members has been sacrificed on the altars of "social justice" and "soaking the rich." Too bad it's really the rank and file being soaked.