Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Mar '11 01:46
    Kaboom.
    In a surprise move late Wednesday, Senate Republicans used a series of parliamentary maneuvers to overcome a three-week stalemate with Democrats and pass the governor's controversial budget repair bill.

    With a crowd of protesters chanting outside their chambers, Senators approved an amended version of Gov. Scott Walker's bill, which would strip most collective bargaining rights from public employees.

    The new bill removes all fiscal elements of the proposal, but still curbs collective bargaining and increases employee payments for pension and health benefits.

    After the session, Senate Republicans scattered, answering no questions. But Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a release, "Enough is enough."
    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8747fa04-4a74-11e0-8e6b-001cc4c03286.html

    Now what? A general strike? Violence? Both?
  2. 10 Mar '11 01:54
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Kaboom.[quote]In a surprise move late Wednesday, Senate Republicans used a series of parliamentary maneuvers to overcome a three-week stalemate with Democrats and pass the governor's controversial budget repair bill.

    With a crowd of protesters chanting outside their chambers, Senators approved an amended version of Gov. Scott Walker's bill, which would ...[text shortened]... _8747fa04-4a74-11e0-8e6b-001cc4c03286.html

    Now what? A general strike? Violence? Both?
    I doubt there will be a general strike or violence.

    They have already started campaigns to recall some of the senators. I think they should at least consider a recall effort when they can (1 year in).
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Mar '11 02:25
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Kaboom.[quote]In a surprise move late Wednesday, Senate Republicans used a series of parliamentary maneuvers to overcome a three-week stalemate with Democrats and pass the governor's controversial budget repair bill.

    With a crowd of protesters chanting outside their chambers, Senators approved an amended version of Gov. Scott Walker's bill, which would ...[text shortened]... _8747fa04-4a74-11e0-8e6b-001cc4c03286.html

    Now what? A general strike? Violence? Both?
    Why did the bill remove all fiscal elements of the proposal. Wasn't that supposed to be the point of the proposal?
  4. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Mar '11 02:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    Why did the bill remove all fiscal elements of the proposal. Wasn't that supposed to be the point of the proposal?
    I'm not sure how "fiscal" is being defined. Perhaps they just removed tax provisions? I'd wager lawyers were consulted before they made the move (and will be again for the inevitable legal challenge).
  5. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    10 Mar '11 03:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    Why did the bill remove all fiscal elements of the proposal. Wasn't that supposed to be the point of the proposal?
    To eliminate the supermajority quorum necessary to consider bills related to Wisconsin's fiscal concerns.

    From what I understand, though, the whole debate is moot, because apparently a law exists in Wisconsin that requires 24 hours notice to the public and to all legislators before a new bill is voted on. So now Republicans can look forward to a legal challenge, too.
  6. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Mar '11 03:28
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    To eliminate the supermajority quorum necessary to consider bills related to Wisconsin's fiscal concerns.

    From what I understand, though, the whole debate is moot, because apparently a law exists in Wisconsin that requires 24 hours notice to the public and to all legislators before a new bill is voted on. So now Republicans can look forward to a legal challenge, too.
    There's got to be some kind of "in case of emergency" exception to that rule.
  7. 10 Mar '11 03:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Why did the bill remove all fiscal elements of the proposal. Wasn't that supposed to be the point of the proposal?
    “...supposed to be”… Well, um…

    Since those who convened the conference meeting refused to answer questions about the specifics of what was removed from the budget bill (or the legal notice requirements for such a meeting), and rushed to shut up the minority leader by calling then roll, it seems clear this has little to do with what it was "supposed to be”—but perhaps a good bit to do with what it was all along.
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Mar '11 03:49
    Originally posted by vistesd
    “...supposed to be”… Well, um…

    Since those who convened the conference meeting refused to answer questions about the specifics of what was removed from the budget bill (or the legal notice requirements for such a meeting), and rushed to shut up the minority leader by calling then roll, it seems clear this has little to do with what it was "supposed to be”—but perhaps a good bit to do with what it was all along.
    Are we really going to hear how "undemocratic" this all was after 14 AWOL Dems refused to partake in the democratic process to the point of becoming refugees in another state? Gimme a break. Friggin crybabies. I'll bet there's a full on riot there tomorrow courtesy of all these lovers of democracy. Tea partiers will be there too, with video cameras, to document what passes for democracy on the left.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Mar '11 03:55 / 1 edit
    There is something ironic about people who used a legal loophole in parliamentary tactics to avoid an up and down vote then complaining about the other side using a legal loophole in parliamentary tactics to defeat the initial legal loophole in parliamentary tactics.

    This whole thing sounds a little like a reconciliation maneuver to defeat the filibuster, a legal loophole in parliamentary tactics.

    Oh, wait.
  10. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Mar '11 04:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, wait.
    Yeah, there's that little bit of karma too.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Mar '11 04:23
    A little more on how the bill was amended to get by the fiscal requirement. Apparently it was amended so that it did not appropriate money.

    From John McCormack of Weekly Standard...
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/breaking-wisconsin-senate-voting-largely-intact-budget-repair-bill_553936.html
    Update 7:33 p.m.: As I was writing this up, the state senate voted 18-1 to pass the bill described below.

    Update 7:38 p.m.: Wisconsin senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald confirms in a statement that the amended bill passed tonight includes both the collective bargaining provisions and the requirements for state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance premiums:

    “Tonight, the Senate will be passing the items in the budget repair bill that we can, with the 19 members who actually DO show up and do their jobs. Those items include the long-overdue reform of collective bargaining needed to help local governments absorb these budget cuts, and the 12 percent health care premium and 5 percent pension contribution.

    Original post here:

    According to Wisconsin GOP sources, the state senate is moving towards a vote tonight on the budget repair bill--without senate Democrats present.

    The legislation being voted on tonight has few changes from the bill as initially proposed. The bill removes a refinancing provision and doesn't count savings during this fiscal year accrued by requiring public employees to pay more for their pensions and health insurance.* But it would still save the state $300 million over the next two years by requiring state employees to contribute about 5% of income toward their pensions and by requiring state workers to pay for about 12% of their health insurance premiums. It would also save $1.44 billion by requiring public employees in school districts and municipalities to pay 5% of their salaries toward their pensions and by removing collective bargaining for benefits, thus giving school districts and municipalities the option of requiring their employees to pay about 12% for their health insurance premiums.
    More by John McCormack

    * Scott Walker Defends Budget Bill in Wall Street ...
    * Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald's ...
    * Senate Votes Down Dem and GOP Spending Bills
    * Illinois Abolishes Capital Punishment
    * Walker Discusses Compromise with Senate Dems

    "We are not splitting the bill. It's an an amended bill," says one source, who explains that the state's non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau has said that such a vote could take place without a three-fifths quorum required for some fiscal bills. "It still has a fiscal impact, but doesn't appropriate money," which is why the senate can vote on the bill with a simple majority present.

    "All the collective bargaining and everything else is the same as the original bill."

    *Correction/Clarification 8:27p.m.: I initially reported that the bill would "would save just $30 million less than the original budget bill by stripping out a refinancing provision." As I've now had it explained to me, the bill doesn't count the $30 million in savings through the end of this year that would be achieved by requiring state workers to contribute more for health and pension benefits, and the refinancing provision was also removed. Events transpired very quickly tonight, and I'll add more details when the text of the bill is released.
  12. 10 Mar '11 04:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    There is something ironic about people who used a legal loophole in parliamentary tactics to avoid an up and down vote then complaining about the other side using a legal loophole in parliamentary tactics to defeat the initial legal loophole in parliamentary tactics.

    This whole thing sounds a little like a reconciliation maneuver to defeat the filibuster, a legal loophole in parliamentary tactics.

    Oh, wait.
    Is there a difference between a parliamentary loophole and a violation of state law? I'm not claiming the latter, but it's been raised.
  13. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    10 Mar '11 04:40
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, wait.
    I have gone out of my way to point out that irony to other people. Indeed I think the Democrats are handling this the wrong way.

    That doesn't make the actions of the Republicans any more mature, though. By the sound of things, though, their time in office might be limited, anyway.
  14. 10 Mar '11 04:44
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Are we really going to hear how "undemocratic" this all was after 14 AWOL Dems refused to partake in the democratic process to the point of becoming refugees in another state? Gimme a break. Friggin crybabies. I'll bet there's a full on riot there tomorrow courtesy of all these lovers of democracy. Tea partiers will be there too, with video cameras, to document what passes for democracy on the left.
    My post was not about democratic or undemocratic, but about a (possibly) deceitful argument from the outset, and insisted upon until suddenly--hey, maybe it's not a fiscal issue after all...

    You certainly seem to salivating at the prospect of "violence" and a "riot". Quite frankly, you seem to be one of the "friggin crybabies". What makes you think that acts of civil disobedience don't fall under the heading of what "passes for democracy"?
  15. 10 Mar '11 04:53 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    A little more on how the bill was amended to get by the fiscal requirement. Apparently it was amended so that it did not appropriate money.

    From John McCormack of Weekly Standard...
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/breaking-wisconsin-senate-voting-largely-intact-budget-repair-bill_553936.html
    Update 7:33 p.m.: As I was writing this up, the onight, and I'll add more details when the text of the bill is released.
    "We are not splitting the bill. It's an an amended bill," says one source, who explains that the state's non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau has said that such a vote could take place without a three-fifths quorum required for some fiscal bills. "It still has a fiscal impact, but doesn't appropriate money," which is why the senate can vote on the bill with a simple majority present.

    "All the collective bargaining and everything else is the same as the original bill."


    We’re not going to actually show you in a conference committee what was or was not done so that a vote can take place without a quorum, by going through it—just trust us… And if you don’t, you’re a “friggin crybaby”—“call the roll!”