Saturday, February 26, 2011

Elections Have Consequences: Dems Reap the Whirlwind

Barbara Boxer explains to Senator Inhofe that elections have consequences.


And of course, Jefe Obama got him a slice of that:

In Washington's current state of dysfunction, everyone has a favorite hyper-partisan moment. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor's moment came at a White House meeting with congressional leaders on day three of the new Administration. He handed President Barack Obama a list of ideas to fix the economy. Pointing to a small business tax-cut item, Obama said: "We disagree on tax policy." When Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."

But inexplicably the elected officials in Wisconsin trying to prevent a vote are brave and "love democracy." Nancy Pelosi unmuzzles her great store of wisdom:

"I’m very proud of what they are doing,” she said. “They’re standing up for the rights of America's workingmen and -women to have a voice at the table about their jobs and their futures, so yes, I support them.”

Working people have a voice at the table because their representatives wet themselves and run away and hide like scared punks? Here I thought elections had consequences, ma'am. In fact, I think you told us we had to pass legislation so that we could find out what was in it, right?

The fact is that Wisconsin is broke, and their government is broken. Nice piece in Reason on this. The business of the Democratic party is taking money at gunpoint and using it to overpay people for public jobs...so those people are forced by self-interest to vote Dem.

This means of buying support has long been the tactic of every dictatorship, of course. But WI, and CA, and OH, are NOT dictatorships. They are republics, and the voters are trying to fix things while there is still time.

Now, I agree that the Repubs in WI are grossly overplaying their hand. Attacking unions this way is way out of line, and they are going to pay for it.

Just. Like. The. Dems. Did. on health care. So spare the indignation, Dems. You taught 'em how to do this.

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
Hosea 8:7

6 comments:

John Thacker said...

Now, I agree that the Repubs in WI are grossly overplaying their hand. Attacking unions this way is way out of line, and they are going to pay for it.

Which part, getting them to contribute more, or not allowing collective bargaining for benefits while allowing it for wages?

If the latter, then are you out there complaining that the state of North Carolina is "way out of line" for having banned all collective bargaining for public employees since at least 1959?

If it's okay for North Carolina to do so but not Wisconsin because North Carolina's done it for a long time, then you're much more of a conservative than I thought, Munger.

BR said...

@Thacker: It wasn't the bible verse that brought you to that conclusion? :)

It does seem the R's are overplaying their hand, but I think that makes sense. Negotiations with the unreason-ing/able are always distributive, so you can't start the bargaining with a reasonable compromise. You have to set a reference point and work to the mid-point (or hopefully more reasonable than the mid-point in this case).

Gerardo said...

As someone in the front row here, I completely agree that Walker is overplaying his hand. No way he expected the protesters and the astroturfing to maintain the drumbeat for two weeks. On Day 2 he basically could have brought the Dems to the table after they caved on everything but collective bargaining, and then met in the middle on that one. Done deal.

Of course, in an absolute sense you are correct that it seems like a reasonable play. BUT, there was talk of the Republicans severing the collective bargaining from the budget and passing it with the Dems in Rockford, but the rank-and-file Republicans didn't go for it.

Most people I know here who don't reflexively snort "union good, corporation bad" seem to be balking at the collective bargaining part. It's Wisconsin.

Anonymous said...

Gov Walker explained that to leave the collective bargaining in place will result in this same situation arising again in a few years, as unions negotiate ever higher benefits to make up for the concessions they made. These folks are protected by civil service protections without unions, and the unions have developed a nice graft with health care benefits, forcing (negotiating?) school boards to go through the union only for heath benefits, with the union skimming a portion off the top.

Anonymous said...

"The business of the Democratic party is taking money at gunpoint and using it to overpay people for public jobs...so those people are forced by self-interest to vote Dem."

Where do I start poking holes in that nonsense? What guns? What excessive pay? Where are the exit polls to back up your votes claim? Isn't self-interest the bedrock of libertarianism? Republicans don't transfer public wealth to private citizens to help them win elections? I mean, it's true, the beneficiaries of Republican redistribution are far fewer and far richer to begin with, but that's not a good thing.

BR said...

@Anon 02/28 10:56,
1) If you want to see the guns, don't pay your taxes.
2) You probably don't need exit polls to figure out that union states and blue states are the same states.
3) The bedrock of existence is self-interest. The bedrock of libertarianism is liberty (could be hard for some to deduce)
4) D's & R's are both guilty of giving money to the rich. The gist of this post however is that some of these new R's appear to be making an attempt at living up to some of their campaign rhetoric.