The Left Blames Messaging, Money,

. . . anyone but themselves. I'm not going to waste time searching out all of the left wing excuses for yesterday's taxpayer victories in Wisconsin, San Diego and San Jose. The tried and true playbook will be to turn to the courts to defeat the will of the voters in the California elections and to blame money and a bad message in Wisconsin. I watched the President of the San Diego firefighters union, Frank De Clercq, on KUSI on election night telling the voters that he would be heading to court to thwart their will. His basic argument is that the taxpayers were only allowed to change his benefits through negotiation. My answer is, tough, your unions have helped elect patsies who have promised pension benefits that were unaffordable. Those promises were made on my behalf, but not in my best interests as a taxpayer. For me this is personal, to De Clercq and Michael Zucchet, my message is that you were work for us, we don't work for you. As your employer we should have the absolute right to change the conditions of employment when economic circumstances require. There is no inherent right of government employees to be allowed to bargain for wages and benefits. As I have pointed out before:

I am an employee for the federal government. Much of my expected pension benefit comes from a 401 style plan. I'm not in a union. Even if I was, the union couldn't bargain for my pay and benefits, only work place rules. But I have significant protections against unjust firings and am afforded excellent work place accommodations. Why isn't this good enough for state and local workers?

In Wisconsin, Walker's victory was by a significant amount, not a landslide, but the 7% margin left no doubt as to the significant strength of his position. I have seen headlines that I refuse to link calling the election close. I have also seen headlines that this is the "death of democracy." Normally, when we elect politicians, we complain that they don't keep their campaign promises. How ironic that Scott Walker was recalled for keeping his.

Contrast the left's response to what conservatives do when they lose elections. Here is what I wrote in 2008.

Unfortunately, the left is not the only enemy of freedom. One of the reasons for the Obama victory was the failure of Republicans under George Bush to champion limited government, see prescriptions for seniors, “No Child Left Behind” and caving on steel tariffs. This failure was the result of ignorance, lust for power, and corruption. Further, the Republicans became identified as the “party of big government.” I believe that voters are rational; given the choice between two big government parties, the people voted for the party more ideologically committed to making big government work. Dean has more on this in an election post-mortem.

The introspection about our own faults is an important corrective to missteps that we will inevitably make. For reasons not clear to me, the left seems more likely to dwell on the external circumstances that lead to their electoral defeats than libertarians and conservatives.

Progressive Thinking on Wisconsin - UPDATE

Here is the core of the leftist complaint against Scott Walker, from Ruth Conniff writing for The Progressive.

It is a winning strategy for the right to stir up resentment among insecure, nonunion workers against their neighbors who have better benefits and more secure jobs. But Walker and his billionaire backers don't offer them anything--just an ideology that says we need more tax breaks for the very rich, but we can't afford to continue giving public employees good health care and retirement benefits and job security in their public-service jobs.

The tax breaks for the rich part is gratuitous leftist clap trap that had nothing to do with the recall campaign against Walker, so I'll just ignore that. The core of the argument is that the workers who can use political power to get above market wages should do so, too bad if the taxpayers are on the losing end of the proposition. They should all be in unions as well.

Fortunately, this is a fantasy, as private sector union membership has been in steady decline for decades. Ultimately, state workers shouldn't get better benefits than their private sector counterparts. This is especially true of retirement and medical benefits as these costs have a way of ballooning while not directly being tied to the efficacy of the work performed. To suggest that its somehow right for state workers to lord it over the taxpayers because they have organized into unions is to pave the way for dictatorship. When government workers feel unaccountable because they can elect whom they choose, we are on the road to dictatorship. I am not exaggerating, this is a scary path. This is why Walker's impressive victory tonight is so important for the nation.

UPDATE

John Nichols at The Nation offers his delusions, attributing Walker's victory merely to money and spinning a solid defeat thusly:

Yet, against overwhelming odds, Wisconsin's recall movement fought its way to a dead heat, losing only narrowly in its effort to remove a "right-wing rock star" whose reelection became the top priority of the Republican party, the conservative movement and the 1% billionaires who made Walker's reelection a national priority.
. . .
What could Democrats and the unions have done differently. They could have taken a portion of the millions they did spend on television ads attacking Walker -- whose negatives were already high and who was taken regular media hits regarding a criminal investigation of his aides and donors -- and spent it on early advertising to make the case for collective bargaining and the recall election. Democrats and their allies do a lousy job of framing debates, and that was certainly the case in Wisconsin.

Dead heat? Walker won in Wisconsin by about the same margin that Obama won nationally in 2008. As to the message, the Democrats ran away from the collective bargaining issue when their own polling indicated that it was a big loser with the voters. This was an election with very high turnout. Voters frankly just rejected the idea that unions shouldn't be reined in.

Pre-Election Outlook for Team Taxpayer

I played high school football and tonight feels like Thursday night before an important Friday game, not the big game, but an important one we need to win. Team taxpayer is favored to win two important contests tomorrow, the Wisconsin governor's recall and Proposition B in San Diego.

The U-T is reporting that Proponents of Proposition B have spent $1.8 million on the measure against $227K by those opposed. That doesn't prove it will win, but it makes me smile nonetheless. A bit of Schadenfreude came from this quote in the Voice of San Diego.

“From a political standpoint, it’s pretty likely that this is going to pass in June," labor leader Michael Zucchet said in April. "And when I say pretty likely, I mean we’re [expletive].”

I don't get the anger. I am a government employee for the federal government. Much of my expected pension benefit comes from a 401 style plan. I'm not in a union. Even if I was, the union couldn't bargain for my pay and benefits, only work place rules. But I have significant protections against unjust firings and am afforded excellent work place accommodations. Why isn't this good enough for state and local workers?

On [to] Wisconsin. Barack Obama is flexing his muscle in support of Democrat Tom Barrett, on Twitter! That's been the extent of the President's campaign to unseat Scott Walker. Meanwhile the truth of how well Walker's reforms appears to have sunk in, as he is a steady favorite, and above 50% in all of the polls. The RCP average is at 6.7% in favor of Walker on the eve of the election. As most political junkies know, Walker's reining in the public employees unions is the reason for this recall. That's what makes the race so important; the taxpayers have to believe that they can put a lid on public employee pay and benefits if state and local government is to ever become affordable again. This is what makes me wonder about the left. Unchecked, employee benefits will destroy government's ability to deliver any of the services the left wants government to deliver, but they don't seem to get math.

In the San Diego mayor's race I feel fairly certain that Carl DeMaio will be in a run off, whether against Filner or Fletcher, I don't know. I have been supporting DeMaio for some time. My regret is that Nathan Fletcher is being vilified in TV ads. I disagree with him on some issues and his decision to leave the GOP, but he seems to be a decent guy with a long history of service. These campaign ads makes me glad I lost an election in junior high and lost any appetite for further campaigning as a candidate. The ads against Carl DeMaio over the police benefits for widows seemed pretty miserable as well.

Walker Leads in Wisconsin Poll

I feel confident that Scott Walker will win his recall rematch with Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett. Rasmussen is reporting that Walker currently holds a 5% lead 50-45 over Democrat Barrett. But not so confident that I won't donate again to his campaign. The reason that he will win is that the benefits of his reforms are starting to be felt in the local budgets throughout the state. Although the following quote is a quibble over the exact amount of the savings, consider this article from the Sheboygan Press:

The budget-repair law passed last spring and required most public workers to contribute 5.8 percent toward their state pensions and 12.6 percent toward health care premiums and stripped them of nearly all union rights — a move that triggered the current recall effort against Walker.
. . .
Sheboygan County reported saving about $1.6 million in its 2012 budget as a result of benefit concessions required under Walker's bill, compared to the $2.1 million that Endsley and the Walker administration both claimed.

Walker is claiming $1 billion in savings throughout the state, but even if that is exaggerated, there is no denying that he has changed the dynamic of local budgets. As teacher layoffs are avoided and local budgets get some breathing room, the public is going to reward Walker with the continuation of his term.

At the LA Times, Democrat and educator, Jonathon Zimmerman argues against the recall on process grounds.

As a liberal, I'm troubled by the prospect of voters unseating an elected official over taxes. Or abortion. Or gun control. If you can recall leaders for any political reason, sooner or later your own ox will be gored.

I'm also worried that the Wisconsin recall, which has drawn nationwide attention and money, will trigger a vicious cycle of partisan retribution. Your guy didn't win in November? No problem. Start a recall drive now.

Most of all, though, I fear that the recall threat will make our elected officials even more timid and poll-tested than they already are.

I supported the recall of Gray Davis in 2002, so I don't have any right to complain about this recall on moral grounds. I do complain that unions are able to extract money from taxpayer funded paychecks nationwide, to fund this recall effort.

UPDATE

This graphic illustrates why Scott Walker's victory is so important. It breaks this cycle:

Half Truths and Lies in the News - Indiana to Ban Unions?

The headline on Google News and CBS news is:

Indiana on the cusp of union ban

Of course they aren't going to ban unions, who are protected by federal law. What is really going to happen is that unions won't be allowed to force employers to collect dues on their behalf from workers. If a worker doesn't wish to join a union, even at a union workplace, then he or she won't have to. This doesn't ban unions.

The article actually spends more time shilling for Scott Walker's recall in Wisconsin, falsely claiming that he stripped state workers unions of collective bargaining rights. In fact, the privileges stripped were not rights, because the state of Wisconsin, as a sovereign entity has the right to set conditions of state employment as a matter of law. Little reported is that this is exactly the way my workplace, a part of the federal government, is governed. Unions can bargain all they want, but ultimately, Congress sets pay and benefits. The laws surrounding this were laid down by Democratic Congresses over 40 years ago, for good reasons. FDR also opposed collective bargaining for government employees.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

So Scott Walker is to be pilloried for following the example of FDR and the Democratic Congress of the 1978? The left and its fellow travelers in the media need to get a grip on reality.

Wisconsin and Bargaining Rights - A Bridge Too Far?

Protesters by bused in union supporters in Madison, WI with attendant violent rhetoric and imagery remind us that those currently getting the largess of our tax dollars will use those dollars to maintain the status quo. Dean has coverage here and here. The LA Times is reporting that Tea Party supporters have joined the counter protest, telling the public employees "Do Your Job." This is a watershed moment for the Tea Party, we have said that government employee unions are ruining the ability of state and local government to deliver basic services. This is why removing automatic pay check deductions for union dues is important, as is passing right to work legislation.

But I question if going after collective bargaining is the smart move, as it has energized the opposition, and made it look to the public as if some fundamental right is being violated. During the 1980s when Lech Walesa was organizing Polish workers to fight back against Soviet hegemony, we applauded his efforts and part of our criticism of communism was that workers lacked the right to organize independent unions. Granted, public employee unions are in a bit different category than those in the private sector, but that seems a difficult case to make. The most important goal should be to break their power to continue to elect politicians who do the bidding of the union overlords. To do so, right to work and no paycheck deduction for union dues are sufficient to deprive them of the cash needed to influence elections.

The proposed removal of bargaining rights seems secondary and not efficacious towards achieving the main goals of the Tea Party. It has energized the unions, and brought them some measure of public sympathy. I would propose that Governor Scott Walker take that issue off the table and propose a statewide referendum on the issue. It would also have the effect of putting the unions on defense, having to spend millions to defeat such a measure. In the interim, the state of Wisconsin would be putting money in workers pockets and taking it out of the hands of union bosses by removing the pay check deduction.

If I am wrong with this analysis, I would like to hear from other Tea Party organizers.

In fairness, hear is what the Governor himself has said (in context of his previous experience as Milwaukee County Executive):

Walker argued that collective bargaining was the biggest hurdle to balancing the budget and that unions had little incentive to give ground because they almost always prevailed in arbitration. He said that the cuts he proposed were intended to prevent layoffs and accused union leaders of being uninterested in compromise.

Perhaps a better answer is to remove binding arbitration. Meanwhile, going for the jugular seems to have won the Governor a nice set of concessions.

Wisconsin public employees have agreed to the financial concessions pushed by the governor in exchange for retaining their basic organizing rights, Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach said in a statement released Saturday.

“I have been informed that all state and local public employees — including teachers — have agreed to the financial aspects of Governor Walker’s request,” Erpenbach said. “This includes Walker’s requested concessions on public employee health care and pension. In return they ask only that the provisions that deny their right to collectively bargain are removed. This will solve the budget challenge.”

He is standing firm. I really like him. Please take my new poll.

My Newest Hero - UPDATE

. . . after Mutnodjmet is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, pictured at left in a photo from his successful gubernatorial campaign. He has taken aim at the public employee unions in his state, and outrage has ensued. If only Jerry Brown would follow suit.Walker has taken the sensible stance that public employee unions should have limited bargaining rights and should contribute to their own pension and health plans. According to the American Federation of Teachers web site his proposals include:

Limiting collective bargaining to the base pay rate; and requiring approval by referendum of any wage increase that exceeds the Consumer Price Index .

Requiring an annual vote of collective bargaining units to maintain certification as a union.

Rescinding the right of faculty and academic staff in the University of Wisconsin System to collectively bargain.

Prohibiting employers from collecting union dues through payroll deduction.

Increasing the amount state, school district and municipal employees pay toward their pension benefit under the Wisconsin Retirement System. State employees, for example, currently contribute about 0.2 percent of their gross pay, says Art Foeste, chair of AFT-Wisconsin's State Employees Council. Under Walker's proposal, workers would pay 50 percent of the monthly contribution amount. For 2011, Walker estimates the contribution would be 5.8 percent of gross salary. Foeste, a member of the AFT Public Employees program and policy council, says the increase "would be equivalent to a more than 6 percent pay reduction."

Upping state employee health insurance premium contributions. Currently, employees pay approximately 6 percent of the annual premium, or $78 a month for the family plan. Walker wants to increase worker contributions to "at least 12 percent of monthly premiums."

Sounds like a great template for states across the country. Unbelievably, the AFT web site describes these measures as a sign of disrespect to the workers. I know of no other retirement plan where workers contribute a paltry 0.2% of their pay for their own retirement and only 6% of their health insurance premium. In return for concessions, the governor has said their will be no furloughs (layoffs), and still the unions are stirring up huge trouble. Here is a picture of union protests from the WSJ:



And let's not forget the real import of the plan to reduce union power and therefore curb state deficits: it might harm Democrat electoral chances.

Proposals in Wisconsin and other states have "great ramifications" beyond the damage to union coffers and membership, said Gerald McEntee, president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation's biggest public-sector union.

Unions have told the Obama administration that the state fights could affect the 2012 presidential election by draining unions' political resources, especially in states like Wisconsin and Ohio. "I think it can put him in some [political] danger," Mr. McEntee said of the president.

Good.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com. Don't forget to take our poll on renaming the Coronado Bay Bridge after Ronald Reagan, at right.

UPDATE

sdrostra.com commenter Michael A. Schwartz provides the following additional love for the Packer fan who is the governor of Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker has also said he will sign legislation to turn Wisconsin into a “shall issue” state meaning that all law-abiding, sane, trained citizens will be able to obtain a concealed weapon permit for the purpose of self-defense. Wisconsin will join the 40+ other states that will choose not to trample Second Amendment rights. (California NOT being one of those 40+ and San Diego County having one of the worst track records in the state when it comes to issuing CCWs)