On Wisconsin

Carlos Lam

Meanwhile, back in Wisconsin…things just keep getting crazier. Now we have the bizarre story of Carlos Lam, a deputy prosecutor for Johnson County, Indiana, who e-mailed Governor Walker to advise setting up a “false flag” operation. This would have been a staged “attempted assassination” of the governor in order to erode public support for the unions.

As Josh Marshall notes, it’s interesting that the prosecutor offering this helpful suggestion cites his 18 years’ experience in Republican politics as a bona fide for giving such advice.

And now an appeals panel has sent the recently-signed collective bargaining law to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

From where I sit, it looks as if the governor’s Excellent Union-Busting Adventure is going to prove very, very costly to the GOP, and the effect will linger well into 2012. Do we have any refugees on the ground out there who can give us a clearer picture of the current mood in Wisconsin and neighboring states?


About filistro

Filistro is a Canadian writer and prairie dog who maintains burrows on both sides of the 49th parallel. Like all prairie dogs, she is keenly interested in politics and language. (Prairie dogs have been known to build organized towns the size of Maryland, and are the only furry mammal with a documented language.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to On Wisconsin

  1. shortchain says:

    And Wisconsin just gets better and better. Although the state Secretary of State was barred from officially “publishing” the law, thereby completing the process of enacting it according to the state constitution, the administration had the law published by the “State Legislative Bureau” and now claims that it has been enacted. Or so it appears.

    This is simply governing by fiat and subterfuge.

  2. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Well, the DA’s and prosecutors in Indiana may be supporting Walker, but it seems that Butler has NO RESPECT for the Badgers! Whoa, Wisconsin!

  3. dcpetterson says:

    Chris Rich, thank you for posting that link! I’m blow away. That’s important stuff.

  4. Mr. Universe says:

    @Chris Rich

    Ah, I met Professor Cronon when he visited here a few years ago. If you liked that, you’ll love Uncommon Ground, particularly his essay, The Trouble With Wilderness. I refer to his writings frequently in my work.

  5. parksie555 says:

    Wisconsin is getting the national headlines but public sector unions are facing challenges everywhere. Here is a swing state where obviously legislators don’t think being anti-union “is going to prove very, very costly to the GOP, and the effect will linger well into 2012” as Filly so glibly predicts…

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/fl-bill-bans-automatic-union-dues-20110325,0,1209569.story

    Even in my true-blue state public service workers are being asked to – gasp! – actually contribute to their pension and benefit plans. But of course our fine Democratic governor promptly gave the savings back to the public workers in the form of a 2% pay raise across the board.

  6. dcpetterson says:

    @parksie
    But of course our fine Democratic governor promptly gave the savings back to the public workers in the form of a 2% pay raise across the board.

    That’s because the benefits that the public workers had received had been given instead of pay increases. So if you take the bennies away, they deserve to have the pay instead.

    —–

    Chris Rich — when someone like Bill Cronon uncovers something like this, that’s what makes more outlandish conspiracies seem plausible. And foul dealings such as Cronon uncovered are the reason why the phrase “conspiracy theory” is used as a cuss word. The people who really do commit conspiracies what the public to stop believing in them. Merely calling something a “conspiracy theory” is a way of ridiculing it, even if it’s true. Especially if it’s true.

  7. parksie555 says:

    So in a tough economy federal sector workers should be spared the pain of private sector workers? Well, it’s easy to negotiate sweetheart deals like this when the same people sitting across the table from you are the ones you helped elect. And it’s even easier when there is no real downside to giving away the farm in the negotiations. Just yank a little more out of the taxpayer’s pockets.

  8. shortchain says:

    Parksie,

    Since everybody in the country helps elect someone, it is impossible to avoid having people “sit across the table from people they helped elect”. What you apparently want is to prevent anybody from dealing with any government official whatsoever. Personally, I think that would be a bit difficult to manage.

    Take a look at what the governor of Florida is doing and then come and tell us how the public unions are so evil in comparison.

  9. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    parksie,

    Please, what do you call it when the SAME CORPORATIONS who donate tons of money to campaigns and 527’s AND pay millions for lobbyists, get BILLIONS in tax breaks and preferential treatment?

    Let’s hear you make as good a case AGAINST that sort of influence.

    GE last year made over $14 Billion in profits, over $5 billion of that in the US alone and paid NO CORPORATE taxes!!! (Let’s hear no more about “the highest corporate tax rate in the world, BS) In fact, they’ve got a $3 Billion TAX CREDIT.

    So who makes up the difference in the revenue shortfall?

    The rest of us taxpayers!

    When you argue as hard against the GE paid influence as against public employees, your credibility will be higher.

  10. parksie555 says:

    FLA gov does look pretty sleazy in the story as written. But you could you possibly find a more biased source than the comsymp pinkos at Mother Jones, fer cryin’ out loud? Sounds like it is no secret what the governor is trying to do, but I did not see any mention of any investigation underway by any state agency or any pending legal action, so I wonder if Mother Jones could possibly be exaggerating just a teensy little bit, maybe?

    And if it’s the drug testing of state aid recipients and potential state employees that bothers you, I’ve got to say I don’t see a problem with that at all.

  11. parksie555 says:

    Maxie, I think GE owes it to it’s stockholders and employees to pay as little tax as possible.

    If they broke any laws while trying to evade taxes, then the should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if they legally avoided taxes, well, that’s just smart business.

    After all, it sounds nice to call it a corporate tax, like that is somehow different from any other kind of tax. But the bottom line is corporate taxes end being paid by you, and me, and everyone else that purchases goods and services from a corporation. They just pass it on in the form of higher prices.

  12. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Good deflection, parksie. But that was NOT the question posed to you. You wanna try again?

  13. parksie555 says:

    Not a deflection, I’m telling you it doesn’t bother me a bit that GE didn’t pay income tax. It’s sound business for them to pay lobbyists, etc. to try and get government to work for them.

    Here’s the difference: If GE negotiates poorly with unions representing their workers, and as a result the cost of their goods and services increase relative to their competitors, I am free to take my purchasing power somewhere else.

    I really don’t have the same option with government employees. I can try to vote Republican (and usually do) but I don’t really get an option with regards to paying taxes. Men with guns and badges will come and put me in jail if I refuse to pay taxes for too long.

  14. shortchain says:

    Parksie,

    So I guess from where you stand:

    1. Corporations and folks like the Koch brothers supporting politicians with money and advertising, then negotiating special deals with government to their advantage: just good business.

    2. Public unions supporting politicians with money and membership voting in blocs, then negotiating special deals with government to their advantage: disgusting.

    3. A governor with a history of Medicare fraud pulling a shady deal within three months of taking office: probably biased reporting on the part of the left-wing media.

    OK, then. Nice to have that all straight.

    OK, then.

  15. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    parksie, are you deliberately missing the point of my question? I do NOT believe you to be dense, so it does make me a bit suspicious. Let me repeat:

    Please, what do you call it when the SAME CORPORATIONS who donate tons of money to campaigns and 527′s AND pay millions for lobbyists, get BILLIONS in tax breaks and preferential treatment?

    Let’s hear you make as good a case AGAINST that sort of influence.

    After all, by the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens, corporations are people too.

    Just look at YOUR first sentence above with a slight change in the noun:

    Parksie, I think public employees owe it to their wives and children to provide financially as well as possible.

    If they broke any laws while trying to negotiate better salary and benefits, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But if they legally did so, well, that’s just smart business.

  16. parksie555 says:

    Max, I don’t have a problem with individual public sector employees. It’s the unions I have an issue with. For the reason I explained above. So I can’t honestly make the argument you ask for.

    And as has been stated here many times: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, certainly no fan of corporations, shared the belief that unions have no place in the public sector due to a lack of competition between public sector entities that allows for proper balance in public sector labor negotiations.

    You obviously don’t share this belief, and I am certainly not going to change your mind, so let’s call it a day.

  17. Monotreme says:

    parksie says:

    And if it’s the drug testing of state aid recipients and potential state employees that bothers you, I’ve got to say I don’t see a problem with that at all.

    I do. All such tests have a small false-positive rate. If the false-positive rate is much, much higher than the real positive rate (which it is, anytime you randomly test a population for which there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use), then you are going to spend millions of state dollars chasing after phantoms in the form of false positive tests that have to be repeated.

    If you want, I can look up the false positive rate. It is high enough to surprise you.

  18. Todd Dugdale says:

    Monotreme wrote:
    All such tests have a small false-positive rate.

    And the false-negative rate of typical urine tests is upwards of 15%, with some saying 20%.

    Unless you have used a drug other than marijuana in the past three days, no urine test will detect it reliably, so this is really about marijuana. With public opinion shifting in favour of legalisation, is it really good policy to deny benefits based on marijuana use three weeks prior to the test? Even then, roughly 1 in 5 users will pass with a false-negative.

    These tests cost $50-75. Merely drinking as much as a quart of water before the test will render it “inconclusive”. Unless we want to deny benefits based on consumption of water, a re-test will be required. Now we are in the range of $100-150 for a dubious test, and the person being tested just bought themselves a few more days.

    I am not sure how many people realise how little money someone on public assistance gets, or how expensive marijuana is these days, but I tend to be sceptical that many of these recipients could afford to be anything more than “infrequent users”.

    So this is a policy that will not detect any users of “hard” drugs, and will do a mediocre job of detecting infrequent marijuana users, for the cost of $100-150 per month. The most abused substance, alcohol, would not be detected by this test unless someone consumed it a few hours before the test. So alcoholics are fine, users of “hard” drugs are fine, and infrequent users of marijuana are the ones that we are going after. Brilliant policy. Money well spent.

  19. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Actually, I have no personal opinion one way or the other on such unions.

    I do have a problem with the double standard that folks that make your argument have when it comes to “unions” of people that wish to speak as one voice when it comes to their compensation, and “unions” of people that form a corporate entity speaking with one voice for THEIR interests.

    But, I can point to a number of states, including South Carolina of which I have first-hand knowledge and does NOT have public service unions, that have the same budget problems as Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. These states’ LEADERS made promises to their employees that created the pension liabilities in lieu of pay raises.

    The issue is NOT the employee unions, since the problem exists in non-union states, but THEY are being used as a red herring in a social conservative agenda. The same agenda with the double standard.

  20. dcpetterson says:

    @parksie:
    So in a tough economy federal sector workers should be spared the pain of private sector workers?

    Yes.

    If you lose our job, do you have the right to talk to your neighbor’s employer and tell him to fire your neighbor, simply because of your sense of spite?

    I see no reason to make other people suffer simply because I am suffering. That’s simply selfish cruelty, and does no one any good.

    And your suggestion actually does positive harm. By further reducing the amount of cash in the hands of consumers (in this case, public-sector workers), you are slowing the economic recovery. Simply because you’re pissed at them., since you had to take a pay cut.

    You did get a pay cut, right? Or are you asking public workers to experience more pain than you?

  21. msgkings says:

    parksie’s right re: GE taxes. If they are breaking/broke any laws, they deserve all the punishment they can get. But more likely is they have losses to carry forward (that’s what tax credits are mainly) and they are using them. Same as you or I would. It’s not a special tax break for them.

    parksie, what’s your opinion of the Citizen’s United decision of SCOTUS? Not trolling, honestly asking. In my experience both right and left tend to think they screwed that one up.

  22. dcpetterson says:

    Weird view of the world. It’s a good thing when corporations bribe public officials to reduce their tax rate — or even give them a negative tax rate, where the government pays them money.

    But for citizens to do this, in the form of collective bargaining agreements, is a bad thing. In fact, citizens who use collective bargaining to swap a pay increase for a pension benefit, even that is a bad thing.

    What an utterly upside-down view of citizenship, human rights, liberty, and even conservativism.

    We need a Citizens United-type ruling that gives humans the same rights we grant to corporations.

  23. msgkings says:

    @ dcpetterson:

    I think your missing the point on that…it’s not spite to expect all stakeholders in a time of economic pain to take a hit, it’s common sense. And the pension obligations of much of the nation’s municipalities really are out of hand, and require a lot of renegotiating. The gov of WI definitely went too far going for rolling back collective bargaining, especially as the WI union already caved on the financial terms.

    Lest you think I’m David Koch typing this, I also think it’s quite obvious that Obama’s absolutely correct in his goal to get takes raised on higher incomes, basically just back to 1990s levels. I don’t recall the tax rates of that era ushering in a world of economic calamity. The argument that higher tax rates stifle growth doesn’t apply at marginal rates that low.

  24. msgkings says:

    @ dcp

    – Was your post at 16:50 directed at me? If so you are off again. The reason GE paid not tax in 2010 is not some special tax deal their lobbyists got, it’s simply losses carried forward from past years. You and I have the same tax break.

  25. dcpetterson says:

    @msgkings

    I certainly respect your viewpoint. And I will respectfully disagree. Unless we start dictating pay cuts and benefit cuts to the private sector — particularly for the CEOs and other corporate officers — and for bankers, and Wall Street investors, etc., etc., then the “everyone should suffer” argument doesn’t hold water for me. “Everyone” is not suffering. Nor should they.

    Public sector workers are being singled out as scapegoats. That seems to me to be the bottom line.

    And the pension obligations of much of the nation’s municipalities really are out of hand,

    I disagree. What’s out of hand, and has been out of hand for years, is the unwillingness for government bodies at all levels to provide the services (including employment benefits) that they are required by law and by legal contract to provide. A great part of that reason is that the public has had this odd idea that it should get benefits, but should not pay taxes to fund those benefits. That is what is “out of hand” — this absurd anti-tax meme, particularly when it comes to having a reasonable top marginal tax rate.

  26. dcpetterson says:

    @msgkings
    Was your post at 16:50 directed at me?

    No, more at parksie. I didn’t mention any particular corporation or industry. Corporate taxes in the US in general are far too low.

  27. msgkings says:

    Obviously we agree on the tax issue. But a private sector unemployment rate of 9% shows the private sector got hit too. The way to hit the CEOs is higher taxes which they can afford. The way to hit Wall Street is higher taxes + income tax on hedge funds carried interest (long technical story) instead of cap gains.

    But I do have a sense I’m to the right of you on this.

  28. msgkings says:

    @dcp:

    Actually our corporate tax rate is pretty high relative to the rest of the OECD. We do have too many loopholes in that code, and I favor a reform of that code along with the personal one to lower the rates but close a bunch of distorting loopholes while raising revenue from both.

  29. dcpetterson says:

    msgkings,

    Yes, the private sector definitely got hit. The public sector is getting hit, too. Whenever there are government cuts in any programs, public sector workers get fired or laid off. I just feel we shouldn’t make it a point to cause more human misery simply because we can. That doesn’t improve the situation we find ourselves in. It certainly doesn’t improve the economy. I honestly can’t see any reason for it, beyond being a step toward undermining workers’ rights in general.

    The “everyone should be made to suffer” argument is an appeal to one particular way to view “fairness” — it is not an economic argument. If we are to discuss this in economic terms, that’s one thing. But parksie’s contention is: since (some number of ) private sector workers (note: not “all”, but some significant number) “took a hit”, therefore we should punish public sector workers. This has nothing to do with a) how to solve the current economic problems, or b) how the current economic problems happened in the first place. It’s about making group D suffer simply because because some percentage of group C is suffering.

    Instead of vindictively taking out our frustrations on someone else, let’s see what solutions exist to our current recession, and work to improve everyone’s economic standing.

  30. msgkings says:

    I don’t think we disagree, dcp. The unions have to take economic pain to help solve the mess, not because ‘we can’ or to ‘suffer’.

    Demographics are the basic culprit here, the aging population means our public finances are getting destroyed by two main, simple arithmetic factors: people are living longer, so they collect lifetime pension and healthcare benefits longer, and there are relatively fewer workers supporting them.

    This is exactly what’s the source of the primary problem facing our nation, the coming Medicare cost explosion. There will be no easy answers, but they will involve higher taxes and lower benefits. It’s just math.

  31. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Y’all don’t seem to understand that the majority of public sector employees are teachers, police and corrections officers, and firemen. They have no real counterpart in the private sector, so comparisons are not exactly accurate.

    They are the people teaching your children and grandchildren.

    They are the people who are protecting your lives and property.

    They are the people guarding the criminals our laws put in jail.

    These are the people you are playing semantic games with when you talk about “sharing the pain”.

    Are these the people you really want to disincentivize?

  32. WA7th says:

    A fake assassination attempt to garner sympathy for a crooked Republican? Tim Robbins wrote and directed that movie years ago. “Bob Roberts”. Pretty funny flick. It was the first time I ever saw Jack Black.

    If you haven’t seen it, you should.

  33. msgkings says:

    @ Max: I agree, many of these folks deserve all they can get. The question is, how much is there to give them?

    I do believe if there was a way to tilt the field so teachers get more (them most of all) and say sports stars and hedge fund guys get less, I’m all for that. Hence raising taxes on the super-income earners.

    @ WA7th: +1. Great flick.

  34. dcpetterson says:

    msgkings,

    Demographics are the basic culprit here, the aging population means our public finances are getting destroyed by two main, simple arithmetic factors: people are living longer, so they collect lifetime pension and healthcare benefits longer, and there are relatively fewer workers supporting them.

    I disagree. I think the culprit is lack of imagination. I think the solution is to do these things better (particularly health care), not to cut them back. But that’s a discussion for another time. But I think Max has the right of it — these particular dedicated and vital public servants are not the place we should be laying economic burdens, particularly when doing so isn’t going to come close to balancing the budget anyway.

    Thank you for a fascinating exchange. And I agree on “Bob Roberts.” Great movie.

  35. msgkings says:

    Thanks back atcha, I liked the exchange. My only parting word is that the public employee union battles are at the state and local level, and getting some of those costs under control does in fact have significant effects on those budgets.

    At the federal level it’s about restructuring Medicare, SocSec, and cutting defense spending.

  36. DC,

    the public has had this odd idea that it should get benefits, but should not pay taxes to fund those benefits.

    They got this odd idea because it turned out that it was possible. At least for a while. As in over three decades. That’s a mighty long time for most people, so what was an anomaly in the broader view of history appeared to be the norm.

    Corporate taxes in the US in general are far too low.

    Based on what? And in what way are the taxes too low? You really need to be very specific on this statement.

  37. dcpetterson says:

    They got this odd idea because it turned out that it was possible. At least for a while. As in over three decades. That’s a mighty long time for most people, so what was an anomaly in the broader view of history appeared to be the norm.

    True enough. Sad, but true.

    Based on what? And in what way are the taxes too low? You really need to be very specific on this statement.

    Based on my own unsupported opinion, with absolutely nothing to back it up 🙂

  38. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    MW and dc,

    In the 1950’s, corporate taxes were approximately 30 percent of revenue. Today they are only about 6%. Corporations were doing quite well in the 50’s. Corporate profitability is doing at least as well today.

    Currently, our revenues do not meet outlays. Revenues need a boost.

    By that measure, therefore:

    currently, corporate taxes are to low. ipsos factos, ipse dixit, quid pro quo, domine in excelsis!

  39. Max,

    In the 1950′s, corporate taxes were approximately 30 percent of revenue. Today they are only about 6%. Corporations were doing quite well in the 50′s. Corporate profitability is doing at least as well today.

    Currently, our revenues do not meet outlays. Revenues need a boost.

    By that measure, therefore:

    currently, corporate taxes are to low.

    Unfortunately, that measure is faulty. A handful of things have changed since the 1950s, including speed and cost of long-distance transportation, speed and cost of long-distance communication, and industrialization of Asian countries. That combination of factors provides lower exit barriers for industry that in the 1950s was entirely American.

    Or, put another way, corporate taxes were high in the 50s in part because the US had an effective monopoly. Of course you get to charge more when you have a monopoly. Now that’s no longer the case, so increasing corporate taxes will have the result of driving much industry away from the US, which doesn’t fix the revenue problem. Rather, it makes it worse.

  40. dcpetterson says:

    Michael,

    increasing corporate taxes will have the result of driving much industry away from the US,

    We frequently hear this argument, that raising corporate taxes (on the state or federal level) “will” drive corporations away. I’ve never seen any actual studies or figures on this. Do you know where we can find some?

    Can you address the issue of not simply raising corporate income taxes in isolation — but also setting up something like import duties, to tax corporations who profit from our markets? This could potentially prevent or mitigate the strategy of moving a company off shore simply to avoid taxes.

  41. DC,

    We frequently hear this argument, that raising corporate taxes (on the state or federal level) “will” drive corporations away. I’ve never seen any actual studies or figures on this. Do you know where we can find some?

    I’ve seen some. I’ll try to see if I can find them again. Short conclusion from what I read: our taxes don’t have to be the lowest, but they can’t be much higher than other countries. The difference in taxes and various regulatory burdens must be lower than the cost of having the business elsewhere. The transportation costs, or time zone issues, or language issues, or the cost of moving stuff…that sort of thing…is a barrier to exit. As long as that barrier is higher than the burdens of staying in the US, the business stays. Once they become lower, business does move.

    Can you address the issue of not simply raising corporate income taxes in isolation — but also setting up something like import duties, to tax corporations who profit from our markets? This could potentially prevent or mitigate the strategy of moving a company off shore simply to avoid taxes.

    Given that we are signatories to the WTO, we are limited in what we are allowed to do in that space. Would you advocate withdrawing from the WTO?

  42. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Michael,

    If a corporation (person by Citizens) does business in this country, and they pay taxes on THAT income, what does moving their headquarters to another do?

    If the corporate tax rate is applied to net income earned in the US, regardless the “state” the corporation resides in, relocation to another country has no effect.

    Somewhat simplified, but that is how it works for personal taxes.

  43. dcpetterson says:

    Michael,

    Given that we are signatories to the WTO, we are limited in what we are allowed to do in that space. Would you advocate withdrawing from the WTO?

    Is there a middle ground between ever-lower corporate tax rates with virtually no import duties, and withdrawing from the WTO? I admit to being completely uneducated on the topic.

    We often hear that many other countries (Japan, China, India, most of Europe, etc.) have protectionist policies that make it impossible for American industries to function on a “level playing field,” policies that encourage foreign companies to sell here, but make it difficult for American companies to sell there. I honestly don’t know much about it. Are these arguments false? Or would it indeed be possible to have policies that punish companies for shipping jobs overseas, and for evading our taxes, even while America remains part of the world economy?

    If other countries can make it difficult for American companies to enter their markets, can we not make it difficult for a formerly American company to participate in our markets? Or are the countries that do this not members of the WTO?

    And on that score, what are the advantages of belonging to the WTO? Again, this is not an area I know much about.

  44. DC,
    <blockquote.Is there a middle ground between ever-lower corporate tax rates with virtually no import duties, and withdrawing from the WTO?
    Not really. It’s similar to the tax-break war Mr. U mentioned in the Hot Fudge threads, but on an international scale. Short of getting the WTO to mandate higher corporate taxes (a real long shot), acceptance or withdrawal are the only remaining options.

    We often hear that many other countries (Japan, China, India, most of Europe, etc.) have protectionist policies that make it impossible for American industries to function on a “level playing field,” policies that encourage foreign companies to sell here, but make it difficult for American companies to sell there. I honestly don’t know much about it. Are these arguments false?

    Like the “fair taxation” arguments, they’re true from some perspectives and false from others.

    Or would it indeed be possible to have policies that punish companies for shipping jobs overseas, and for evading our taxes, even while America remains part of the world economy?

    Depends on how the laws or regulations are crafted. Tariffs are not going to fly with the WTO, nor are most government subsidies designed to prop up otherwise unprofitable industries.

    And on that score, what are the advantages of belonging to the WTO?

    The super-short answer is that it reduces the likelihood of trade wars, which on a global scale are economically depressive.

  45. Max,

    If a corporation (person by Citizens) does business in this country, and they pay taxes on THAT income, what does moving their headquarters to another do?

    So that would be something like a VAT. What it does is incent all links of the supply chain except the last one or two to be outside the US.

  46. parksie555 says:

    msgkings – not dodging your question re: Citizen’s United, was busy the last two days.

    I don’t honestly think the ruling is that big of a deal. I think that given the myriad games that can be played with regards to political donations, I really don’t think it is going to make that big of a difference. Corporations have so much political influence in other ways (lobbyists, tax break/relocation extortion schemes, etc.) that campaign finance is only part of the pie. And they were already probably finding ways around existing campaign finance laws anyway.

    And I agree with you that income taxes in the highest brackets should be pushed back at least to where they were in the 1990s, if not the 1950s.

    And your point about demographics creating many of the pension issues is spot on.

    Nice piece by Karl Rove in the WSJ on the public sector union issue..

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218701704322310.html

    I think I trust his opinion on the possible political impact of these efforts rather than Filly’s misguided hope that this issue will sink the GOP in 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s