THE STAKES COULD NOT BE BIGGER

Any action by a politician can usually be measured by how that action is received by the voters in the form of an election.

Now the voters of Wisconsin will state with their ballot if the anti-union laws were a good or bad idea. That action gets the ultimate test April 5th.

In Wisconsin, the national news battle between newly elected Governor Scott Walker and worker unions will get a good test of what Wisconsinites think about the actions Walker and his Republican legislature have taken. April 5th is Spring election time in Wisconsin and foremost on the ballot is the race for Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice who earns a ten year term upon winning this election. This pits incumbent David Prosser against challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Republicans are backing Prosser, while Democrats and those anti-union busting protesters in Madison, WI are supporting Kloppenburg.

What is at stake?

Prosser will rule on the state Supreme Court for the new laws that Walker has pushed through. It is presumed that Kloppenburg will rule more favorably for challenges to the new laws.

If Prosser wins, Walker and state Republicans will claim that the voting public obviously supports the new anti-union laws. Should Kloppenburg win, the anti-Walker group will claim that their side was right and the public vote supports that claim. It would also give a big push to the recall efforts that are going on around the state against the eight Republican state senators that are eligible for recall while possibly dousing the same efforts against eight Democratic state senators. At the same time, some anti-Walkerites have set a countdown clock for recalling Walker. By state law, no elected official can be recalled in their first year in office, so Walker could not be recalled until January, 2012.

Are the battle lines really that clearly drawn between Prosser and Kloppenburg?

Money has already poured into Wisconsin from outside the state for both candidates. Republicans see this as a definitive test for their attempt to reduce the power of unions--permanently. Unions and Democrats see this as a battle for survival. The new laws, I've labeled as anti-union, could not be called anything else. State workers would lose collective bargaining rights, rights to grievance, the right to have dues collection by employers, and a state requirement that unions hold an election every year to recertify their union. This all the while the state dictates to workers what can and cannot be bargained. State employees could no longer bargain over health benefits, sick time, personal leave, grievances, discipline, working conditions, and a host of other items that most people take for granted. They could only bargain over wages, but limited to the inflation rate. So, if inflation increased by 1.5%, state unions could bargain to get that amount (not guaranteed) or less. AND, they would be barred by state law from striking or taking any job action that could be considered work stoppage. In other words, the end of unions.

The power of five.

State officials predict the this will be a typical election turnout where only 20% of the eligible voters with actually go out and vote. That means that each voter has the power of five. Each vote is more powerful because of all the non-voters. Usually incumbents hope for a low voter turnout, believing that name recognition alone will put them through with so few votes being cast. Will that happen this time? Will the outrage from Madison's throngs continue and manifest itself into active voters? Was Walker right or wrong? Defeating a supportive incumbent could sent a strong message that the wrong way was chosen. Re-electing a supportive incumbent could embolden the majority to complete their permanent takeover.

Side note, not noted too much.

As reported in the Milwaukee Journal this past week, David Prosser has not gotten along with other Supreme Court Justices in a very loud and vocal way. It was reported that Prosser in a heated discussion with another Justice called her a "bitch". Prosser admitted doing this, so that part of the story is not in dispute. He went on to claim that the other justice provoked him and blamed her for his outburst.

That sounds familiar.

Where have I heard that line of reasoning before?

Oh yes. That is the line that spouse abusers use to explain why they had to batter their spouse. She/he provoked me. She/he did not do________________ which I wanted done or they ___________ which they know sets me off.

That is the line that rapists use to explain how the woman deserved what she got because she provoked/teased/dressed in such a way that she wanted it.

Yes. A Supreme Court justice whom we hope judges things/events fairly, impartially, passively, unemotionally screaming at another Supreme Court justice that she was a "bitch" AND she deserved it because she provoked him. Let's all teach our children and other adults that this is acceptable behavior. This is the way society should treat each other. Look at who is setting the example--openly, defiantly, with bravado, without apology, without regret, defending this act of civility. How do you want your Supreme Court justice to act both in society, in public and on the bench?

Get Out The Vote on April 5th for your next Supreme Court justice.

Where have I been? Terribly depressed.

Sorry for the long absence. Whenever I'd sit down to write again, events raced past my "latest". How to write when events were changing so quickly. The long absence has led to a long blog. As I've been telling people lately, "Hang in there."

Regarding the events in Madison, WI, and now to other states as well, my feelings were that the Republicans' push to cripple unionism would not be stopped. While it was encouraging to visit the protests in Madison, (and nearly every crowd report seemed on the light side) and it was encouraging and uplifting to see "the people" wanting to take back their government, it seemed so inevitable that the union busting bill would become law. The Republicans tried to take cover by tying union busting with balancing the state's budget. But, when the unions agreed to the monetary needs of the governor, and the Republicans stripped the bill of all economic concerns so the Republicans could pass the anti-union bill without any financial concerns where the budget was concerned, the cover was blown away. Most people, including union members, agreed that the state employees would pay more for insurance and pensions. Once that was secured, the move to strip state unions of all organization rights made less and less sense. Now, Governor Walker said this stripping unions of all rights was needed to allow local governments to balance their budgets. This, of course, would be necessary since Walker's budget included slashing state funding for cities, counties, and school districts and the state's reduced funding for those governmental bodies would cause them a deficit and cuts would be needed. Those governmental units would need to bust their union contracts just like Walker was doing with the state employees unions.

Was this really going to solve the financial problem?

This is the key question. Does Walker's plan work? And, at whose expense does he balance the state budget? Well, middle class Americans get hit the hardest. Many thousands of public employee workers will lose income by paying more of their pension and health care and in some cases reduced salary. Many will face layoffs(read no job) resulting in increased unemployment.

Maybe, if all cuts in funding to local governments by the state could be balanced off equally with the proposed reduction in local costs, this has a chance of working. However, Milwaukee's mayor indicated that this can't be done since such a large percentage of the city's budget is for police and fire protection, both of which are not affected by the new law. With those protected, Milwaukee and other cities with the same problem (lots) will have to make deeper cuts to government provided services such as transportation, public libraries, public museums, street repair, garbage pick-up, snow plowing, health care, and anything that requires someone in government doing anything for a citizen. Some school district are suggesting that even with new union bargaining rules in effect, they will have to lay off (read no job) 10%-15% or more of their work force, including teachers, teacher aides, security aides, secretaries, maintenance workers, and delay implementing repair projects, new teaching tools like computers and books, and increase class sizes. Some may have to eliminate extra curricula programs like the arts, sports, and cut back on educationally sound items like field trips, training, and other programs.

Isn't this what the people of Wisconsin wanted?

Didn't the people of Wisconsin elect Walker? Isn't this what they wanted?

Some are probably thrilled with Walker's actions. At the start of his proposals, people who were anti-union, non-union, or not clear on the topic thought that his proposal to get union members to pay more for their pensions and health care were sound and fair. However, once he got that economic concession from unions, it became that Walker was after much more. Politics rose up, big time. Crushing the unions and their continued support for Democrats became more important than fixing the budget. If Walker to do great damage to unions where they were forced to hold an election every year to see if their members wanted to stay in a union, if he could stop the automatic deduction from their paychecks for union dues (make unions go and get their union dues directly), if he could stop unions from collective bargaining, reducing the need for a union, and if he could limit what could be bargained over (wages only, held to the inflation rate), then he could cut off the funding of Democrats by union political action committees and stop the communicating to members to get out and vote by union leaders. IF Walker could accomplish all of that quickly once in office, he could create a weakened opponent and turn Wisconsin permanently into a "red" state. Republicans would have a tremendous advantage and could continue to get elected indefinitely. This was worth the turmoil. The Republicans finally decided to split the financial from the union busting and passed the anti-union bill without any Democrat around. The politics of situation overrode the cover they sought in putting the anti-union legislation in the budget bill. They decided if they could get the bill through, they could withstand the political heat such a law would create. They would have crushed the unions and the Democrats. They win. They always knew they would. So did I.

I have been terribly depressed.

However, this ain't over. Recall elections for 16 state senators are underway. Eight Democratic and eight Republican state senators are facing recall. Will any of these succeed and change the make-up of the state senate? That depends. I can stay depressed or I can get involved. Read that last sentence and apply it to yourself. Individual action causes change. What can I do to change things that thousands of protesters couldn't do? The thousands of protesters did accomplish something. They made this issue a big deal. There was no quick passage of Walker's original proposal. They activated thousands of people to get involved and in some cases bring recall to the perpetrators.

What can I do? (Again, apply to yourself)

If I am not in a recall district, I can volunteer time and/or money. I can write letters to the editor. I can go to protest meetings, attend forums, ask questions. I can work for candidates by volunteering time to pass out flyers, put up signs, work phones, get others involved. I may not be able to do all of these things, but I can do something. Or, I can remain depressed and wonder how this all happened and why didn't someone do something to change it.

I refuse to remain depressed. Individual action does cause change. It is the only thing that does.