Introducing a new page here at MisLeading Wisconsin: Not Necessarily the Blog, a satirical, “Onion”-like feature about our friends in Madison. The page tagline is “The first paragraph is actual news, the rest…not so much.” Page author jh’s self-description: “I’m part Tina Fey, part Jon Stewart, part Irish, and a tiny part Dutch, from my mother’s side.” Seeing as it’s running on this blog, I realize that any recommendation is self-serving, but I think it’s pretty funny. Hopefully, you might, too. Thanks for checking it out.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
WI Republicans ARE up for sale
Bought.
Out.
When given a chance to clarify his note, Kapenga said he stood by his statement. And it's an incredibly serious accusation. Kapenga is saying Wisconsin policy-making is, in fact, up for sale. And that his party is the one that's selling it.
What would be the upside for the Republicans? Walker's initial excuse for excluding police and firefighter unions was supposedly to ensure public safety. But could it be payback for endorsements from Milwaukee's powerful police and firefighter unions (two of the few that backed Walker's gubernatorial bid)? Coincidentally, there have been a couple major isues recently that have benefitted those departments: Senate Republicans seemingly going against their standard line by promoting pay for suspended police officers , and the GOP proposal to end residency requirements for, hmmmm, Milwaukee police and firefighters.
With earlier corporate giveaways--some, such as Walker's JobFundsNow, even too much for staunch Walkerites like Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend)--it's easy to see how people could believe Wisconsin's policy-making may be up for sale.
Now, even one of the Republicans' own says it's so.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Sure, it's illegal, but we're WI Republicans!
Another week, another likely illegal proposal from the Republicans. Now, to add to the indignity of not being able to find work, the Joint Finance Committee endorsed a proposal (in the budget, mind you) to require the unemployed to pee into a cup, so to speak. If a drug test is failed, or if the individual even refuses to submit to this affront, unemployment benefits could be suspended for a year (JS Online). A spokesman for the US Labor Department said, "Requiring a person to take a drug test as a condition of eligibility is not related to the 'fact or cause' of a person's unemployment and would raise an issue under federal law." And, in the same article, the ACLU rep says such testing should only be related to business or health or safety-related issues.
And this is in the same week in which running fake candidates in recall elections may not be illegal, nor are once-GOP-criticized late night meetings to approve things such as vouchers in Green Bay, and in the week the lock-step conservative Supreme Court may not find open meetings violations illegal.
Whew! That's a busy week. Even for Republicans.
And it's only Tuesday.
And this is in the same week in which running fake candidates in recall elections may not be illegal, nor are once-GOP-criticized late night meetings to approve things such as vouchers in Green Bay, and in the week the lock-step conservative Supreme Court may not find open meetings violations illegal.
Whew! That's a busy week. Even for Republicans.
And it's only Tuesday.
Monday, June 6, 2011
WI Supreme Court: If I were a betting man...
Well, the WI Supreme Court started hearing arguments as to whether or not it should take on the collective bargaining atrocity of Walker and his pals. And, if they do, hmmmm, which way would they rule?
Not surprisingly,the four conservatives on the bench banded together during the hearing (to be fair, as did the other three justices). But, surprisingly to me, it doesn't appear they were challenging how the bill was advanced in an illegal meeting, but rather they were challenging Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's order blocking implementation of the bill as law. Conservative Justice Michael Gableman asked, during what the Journal Sentinel called "aggressive" questioning, if a judge can stop a law from being published, could a judge stop a senator from even introducing a bill?
That just sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Wasn't this about the legality of the bill's creation and passage in a violation of the open meetings law? If the meeting wasn't legal, would anything else matter?
Walker's Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John actually did address the issue of the open meetings law by basically saying the open meetings law doesn't apply to the Legislature, which was echoed by conservative Justice Patience Roggensack's comments. St. John went on to mention that the Legislature has the right to lock doors, and that even letting in one member of the public would satisfy open meetings requirements.
Either way this falls, it's a scary thing--the Court agreeing with this, or the Legislators in power actually believing what they say about open meetings. Attorney Lester Pines, who is representing State Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Madison) says, “I don’t hold the view that the court makes its decisions solely based on ideology.”
I wouldn't bet on it.
And, at this juncture, I'm not sure it would even matter.
Not surprisingly,the four conservatives on the bench banded together during the hearing (to be fair, as did the other three justices). But, surprisingly to me, it doesn't appear they were challenging how the bill was advanced in an illegal meeting, but rather they were challenging Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's order blocking implementation of the bill as law. Conservative Justice Michael Gableman asked, during what the Journal Sentinel called "aggressive" questioning, if a judge can stop a law from being published, could a judge stop a senator from even introducing a bill?
That just sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Wasn't this about the legality of the bill's creation and passage in a violation of the open meetings law? If the meeting wasn't legal, would anything else matter?
Walker's Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John actually did address the issue of the open meetings law by basically saying the open meetings law doesn't apply to the Legislature, which was echoed by conservative Justice Patience Roggensack's comments. St. John went on to mention that the Legislature has the right to lock doors, and that even letting in one member of the public would satisfy open meetings requirements.
Either way this falls, it's a scary thing--the Court agreeing with this, or the Legislators in power actually believing what they say about open meetings. Attorney Lester Pines, who is representing State Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Madison) says, “I don’t hold the view that the court makes its decisions solely based on ideology.”
I wouldn't bet on it.
And, at this juncture, I'm not sure it would even matter.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
JS article catalogs Walker's Feb deceit
Words including mistake and firestorm greeted Walker's plan to destroy public-sector unions back in February, and the Governor didn't care. The deceit of the measure, along with behind-the-scenes info and candid reactions from many in the midst of it, can be found in a riveting article in this morning's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Budget confrontation rocked the state and beyond" by Bill Glauber, Dave Umhoefer and Lee Bergquist. I just don't understand how Walker backers can't see him for the slimeball that he really is.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Walker planning Sat., June 4, visit to Rock County farm
Walker will appear tomorrow morning at the Rock County Dairy Breakfast at the Daluge farm on Highway G between Janesville and Beloit. Visitors to WEAC's facebook are hoping to provide a "welcoming committee." Non-Walker-related info about the event here. I can't make it, but give my best to the guv.
UPDATE: SAT. 1PM--if you were at either of Walker's farm visits today (in Iowa or Rock Counties), please leave a comment about what you saw. THANKS!
UPDATE: SAT. 1PM--if you were at either of Walker's farm visits today (in Iowa or Rock Counties), please leave a comment about what you saw. THANKS!
WI teachers: Paying union dues IS important
I haven't posted in a week because, due to some family sadness, I couldn't feel the passion. Our 30 year old niece went into hospice care, and quite frankly, I couldn't see the importance of my little blog compared to that immense sadness.
Today, I got an e-mail from a first-year teacher who logically wondered why teachers should continue paying union dues despite unions having been emasculated by Walker's collective bargaining "law." Without minimizing our family tragedy, I realized that other things do matter, and, if nothing else, I want teachers reading this to understand that continuing to pay union dues is unbelievably vital for the sake of our students, our profession, and our state.
Here's my reply:
I can understand the saving money aspect, especially with all the extra money the Republican legislature is making public workers pay (that no one else has to). Recouping that $800 is awful tempting.
As a matter of fact, even in our district, there are veteran teachers who are questioning the necessity of paying union dues if the union has such little power.
I guess the biggest thing for me is that the money goes towards lobbying and people who make sure our voice gets heard--both for teachers and for education. If union payments stop, there's a very good chance the pendulum would never swing back towards us (or even towards the middle) regarding salaries and procedures that have been negotiated fairly between teachers and elected officials over the years, but would very likely continue to swing towards more payments from, and fewer rights for, us.
And it's not just about us and our salaries/benefits, it's about providing a voice for what's in the best interest of student education--Walker has proposed almost a billion dollars in cuts to education, and has increased programs to diminish the institution of public schools (including increasing the voucher system, no limits on the amount of kids in computer "virtual" schools, not using the same tests every public school and teacher will be judged on, not even requiring teacher certification in charter schools). Without a continued and unified presence, education--and the teaching profession--will be severely limited in the future. To be honest, in my opinion, salaries and benefits will continue to slide, because they will be allowed to slide--as will things such as "specials" and extra-curriculars--and our kids (not just us) will be in a lot worse shape because of it. So, even if unions are severely crippled because of Walker's plan, again, in my opinion, it really is important to keep the unions intact, and that pro-education voices continue to be heard in Madison and in the nation (and in our community).
But my thoughts are still elsewhere.
Today, I got an e-mail from a first-year teacher who logically wondered why teachers should continue paying union dues despite unions having been emasculated by Walker's collective bargaining "law." Without minimizing our family tragedy, I realized that other things do matter, and, if nothing else, I want teachers reading this to understand that continuing to pay union dues is unbelievably vital for the sake of our students, our profession, and our state.
Here's my reply:
I can understand the saving money aspect, especially with all the extra money the Republican legislature is making public workers pay (that no one else has to). Recouping that $800 is awful tempting.
As a matter of fact, even in our district, there are veteran teachers who are questioning the necessity of paying union dues if the union has such little power.
I guess the biggest thing for me is that the money goes towards lobbying and people who make sure our voice gets heard--both for teachers and for education. If union payments stop, there's a very good chance the pendulum would never swing back towards us (or even towards the middle) regarding salaries and procedures that have been negotiated fairly between teachers and elected officials over the years, but would very likely continue to swing towards more payments from, and fewer rights for, us.
And it's not just about us and our salaries/benefits, it's about providing a voice for what's in the best interest of student education--Walker has proposed almost a billion dollars in cuts to education, and has increased programs to diminish the institution of public schools (including increasing the voucher system, no limits on the amount of kids in computer "virtual" schools, not using the same tests every public school and teacher will be judged on, not even requiring teacher certification in charter schools). Without a continued and unified presence, education--and the teaching profession--will be severely limited in the future. To be honest, in my opinion, salaries and benefits will continue to slide, because they will be allowed to slide--as will things such as "specials" and extra-curriculars--and our kids (not just us) will be in a lot worse shape because of it. So, even if unions are severely crippled because of Walker's plan, again, in my opinion, it really is important to keep the unions intact, and that pro-education voices continue to be heard in Madison and in the nation (and in our community).
But my thoughts are still elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)