Right. Darling has the support of the Eighth District of Wisconsin? Please open your eyes for once. She has angered so many people (Democrats AND Republicans) in the Eighth District that Wasserman has enough votes even before the petition is certified to kick her out of office.

Craig, you mean you support Walker, Darling, the Budget Repair Bill . . . but I dare say the majority of voters in SD8 don't. As of November 2008, Darling hardly had what could be called a mandate, edging out Dr. Wasserman by only 1,007 votes. Having actively circulated recall petitions, I feel qualified to say she's lost the support of at least than many constituents -- both republicans and democrats.

Do your believe that Wasserman's income would be impacted by a loss of Medicaid dollars?lol! They pay very little to doctor's that even accept them for patients! This about as absurd as the friend who told me they were getting rich off her Medicare dollars. She actually thought they paid on the full bill!

The Republican majority that was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate last November. Get over it! This poll, that poll is almost meaningless.

Seriously Craig? Polls mean nothing. He was voted in by a pretty good majority and he is doing what he campaigned on. Mr. Wasserman is so worried about recalling Ms. Darling and getting in himself, that he forgets that a majority of people don't want his agenda. Majority rules. Of course there are going to be unhappy people out there if Walker gets his way, but they were not in the majority. The proof is in the vote. Walker is here to stay for at least six years and now we can finally breathe and get our state out of the red. Mr. Doyle was certainly a big spender pretty much screwed things up.

Just a note on the second poll. 52% of those polled who voted in the last presidential election voted for Obama. 43% voted for McCain. 5% couldn't remember or voted for someone else. So it's obvious that there were a larger number of folks who voted Democratic to begin with. I'm not suggesting a fix, just noting the way it fell.

Governor's election was 47% for Walker and Barrett each, and 7% again didn't vote for either.

People who said they'd vote again if given a chance (again, said they would) came back with 52% for Barrett, 45% for Walker and 4% not sure. If you assume that ll the folks that didn't vote last time but who said they would this time would vote for Barrett, that represents a 2% shift

If you go back to the presidential election again, what this means is that a composite of voters who voted 52% for Obama would vote 52% for Barrett. Not an enormous surprise. Hardly what I'd call a sea change of support, particularly considering that there's a margin of error inherent in all polls.

Again, if you want to go by polls it pays to pick them apart a bit to see what you're really banking on.

Personally, I don't use them. I find them to be used much too often in the place of cogent argument in support of or against a particular POV.

I'll also note that in the case of the vote for Governor first time around, the percentages add up to 101%, not 100%. I'm not exactly sure why that would come out that way, but so be it.

And, obviously, that the results of the Governors race as it actually happened weren't so close that they tied at 47%

obviously a no brainer for you.

I have never voted before, but just because I feel so strongly about this issue, I will vote for my first time for Sheldon Wasserman and kick this delusional botox injecting Koch-Republican out of the Senate. It's just not happening fast enough!

Still calling people names Edward? Never voted before? You're either younger than I thought which would explain the name-calling or you're just another person who doesn't know which rights to fight for. You're vote is very powerful, not your mouth!

I'm not trying to start any fight, just trying to convey the present reality.

Yes Maggie, President Obama had a right to push his entire agenda through during his first two years in office, and did so. But I'm sure everyone has noticed the differences between that was then, this is now. No elected representatives walked off the job and refused to vote then, no elected representative walked off the job and refused to vote during former Governor Doyle's term, but now elected representatives have walked off the the job and refused to vote.

I didn't say that citizens should stop participating in our democracy. Those are your words.

I was in Madison on Sunday, February 20th.

I use e-mail to communicate with my representatives. I'd be glad to show you the sent file on my e-mail software. You would see the names of former Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, Governor Walker and State Senator Darling. I've also sent about a dozen of these e-mails in the last few weeks.

May I suggest that you make less assumptions and step into the present, less tense?

Maggie... I voted for Walker. I stand by that vote. I voted for Darling and I stand by that vote, too. Like Joe I have written to my elected reps, from Milwaukee Alderman Puente, who answers his mail, to the county supervisor, who does not respond, to Mayor Barrett, to Senators Kohl & Feingold, who respond most of the time... and for the record I did NOT attend any of the rallies in Madison or any place else. I do NOT support these protests.
As for Obama pushing through his agenda, without objections just because he won the election ? That sounds like you think of the President as a dicatator with a 4 year term. We have 3 branches of government for a reason. And for the first 2 years of Obama's term, there was no compromise with the GOP on Obama's agenda. Liberals and Obama supporters seemed fine that.
As for Walker's platform, he ran on reducing the powers of the public sector unions. There are NO surprises with Walker's actions.

And the Fat Cats fund Walker and the Republicrats. I'd rather have the unions fund my candidates any day!

Unions have always been an integral part that stands up to the corporations. Yes, unions definitely need reform, but at least its better than taking away our rights to sit across the table as equals and hammer out a contract that will be fair on both ends. Without these processes, corporations can take advantage of you and you will have no recourse. I think Wasserman is a principled man. Darling has been bought out by the Koch brothers and the Republicons...woops I mean Republicans. Are you so naive enough to put your trust into a politican who doesn't listen to her constituents and takes order from the Republicans?

Um, who's bought and paid for here? How much money have the Koch brothers and their various PACs. . . and who knows how many others. . . lavished on the Republicans, especially Scott Walker?

Really? I tried to contact her on multiple occasions before and she and her staff have done nothing except ignore me. At least some other senators or assemblymen have an automatic email responder that says that this person is listening to you. Nope. Not Darling. She has been disconnected from her constituents since she was elected in 1992. She is so far in la la land that she couldn't even tell you what district she represents. She represents the Koch brothers and the Republicans first. We don't even factor into her thought process on deciding what is best for her district. Do you really want someone in the senate as delusional as that representing you? Come on, now.

You are right about your history lesson. However you are comparing apples and oranges. You are detailing the accomplishments of private sector unions. These comments about the battle with public sector unions.
Giving ground to solve the budget issue only solves the budget problems in the short term. You and others would merely 'kick the can' down the road, again.
Scott Walker was elected Milwaukee County Exec, because of lavish pension benefits for
public sector employees, something all the tax payers of Milwaukee County are still paying for.
Federal unionized workers have NO collective bargaining rights. NO protests, to date.
Indiana took away collective bargaining rights for public sector employees, some 6 years ago-NO protests.
Many states have NO collective bargaining right for public sector employees. NO protests, either
Are all of those states wastelands?

And lastly California is some $24-28 billion in debt and they have collective bargaining.

WOW, you really are something special there Ed

Well written, Lyle Ruble!

Do you even know what it is like to live under fascist rule? You don't even know what a fascist is!

You say it has worked pretty well, after you said it was abused. Whish is it? And there is supposed to be an adversarial relationship, as one party to the negotiaitions is supposed to represent the taxpayers. Can I recommend you visit www.townhall.com and read a piece by Paul Greenburg, I think about Milwaukee School Teachers? Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, in a piece last weekend, said the taxpayers are NOT at the table and NOT even in the room.
I got more...

Please consider some of the things made public in recent weeks:
1. Milwaukee teachers are covered by an insurance company, WEA TRUST, which was selected by the teacher's union. NO competitive bids were received. This was a condition of the contract. This insurance company charges $30,000 per teacher, paid for by the taxpayers of Milwaukee. The coverage for said insurance would be equivalent to $12,000, IF there was competitive bidding. It's estimated the savings to taxpayers would be $68 million. And the insurance company is owned by the Teacher's Union...

2. Madison school teachers that retire, are placed in a 'teacher emeritus' program.
In addition to their pensions, in addition to the health insurance, they receive 19%
of their last active year's pay. Originally these teachers were required to work 20 days to
receive this pay... but there too many teachers, so the work requirement was waived.
I believe, this program last only the first 3 years after retirement. So there might be a
time limit on participation.

3. In Green Bay they have the same program, with some differences. You must work 2 weeks
each year, for 3 years. For that time commitment, the teachers receive 1/3 of their last year's
pay, for each of the 3 years they work those 2 weeks... For example, a teacher who got $60,000 their last active year of teaching, would receive $20,000 for 2 weeks of work, for the 1st year, then another $20,000 for the 2nd year, and finally another $20,000 for the last 2 weeks of work. A work week is 5 days, or 10 days of work each year for $20,000, IN ADDITION to their pension and health insurance... Do the math.

4. In New Jersey last year, Governor Christie asked teachers for a 2 year pay freeze and
and a contribution of 1.5% of their pay toward their pension or health care, so the governor
could start to solve a $10.6 billion deficit.. They said NO, while going ballistic...
Walker is asking for more, to solve a smaller problem, which could be as big as NJ's in 2 years...

5. Scott Walker, County Exec, asked unions to work 35 hours a week, because the county
was not collecting enough revenue to pay all the bills. Walker did not want to borrow $$
to balance the books and or increase taxes on property owners... the unions said NO.
Everybody else in Wisconsin and the nation, you as well as me, lost pay, lost benefits, had
hours reduced, were laid off, or lost their jobs... and these unions could not give back
5 hours of work, per week, until the crisis passed? Instead they allowed their fellow union
members to be laid off.
Question: Who was served best by the union's actions?

6. There is a school board, were the husband is on the board and the wife is a teacher.
Question: Can he negotiate honesty, for the taxpayers?

I have 4 more but I think this is enough to digest for now... There are so many different things happening, where the taxpayer is getting screwed.

I'm close to retirement. I need my money for me. I also tired of the constant tax increases and all the calls to tax the rich. What ever happened to 'SPEND LESS?' What ever happend to 'use my money wisely?'

Free Shorewood,
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. True socialism balances the rights of the individual with the rights of the whole. Many of the most successful nations are social democracies.
Education and other essential public services are not commodities subject to free market forces. Do you have any idea why seniority was created? It was created to protect the higher wage worker who is also older from being laid off first in order to rid the organization of the highest paid workers. The wage system protects the most vulnerable and eliminates ageism. When you start out in the private sector you also start at the bottom and usually layoffs occur with the newest less skilled and experienced workers.
Shorewood doesn't suffer from out of control spending. Yes we pay high taxes but we also enjoy good services and good schools. I suggest that if you can't afford to live in Shorewood that you might want to consider finding an area that is more favorable to your income.

Lyle Ruble: Education and other essential public services are not commodities subject to free market forces? You are correct, in your world they are not. In your world, everyone loves one another and everyone wants the best for everyone else. Well, except when it impacts them negatively. How is it a teacher's right to keep their job because they got hired 1 minute or 25 years before someone else? What is in the best interest of the Student? For one minute forget pay. What is in the best interest of the student? Does a teacher's salary impact how much a student learns? Does seniority make a student smarter? Is it fair to the future of a student to provide teachers based on their seniority rather than their effectiveness to help that student learn?

Making a student feel guilty about how much a teacher does or does not get paid does not make the teacher more effective and does not make the student better off in the future.

Excellence is not achieved by a guaranteed result, it is achieved by an active pursuit of results with no guarantees.

No, we live in a Democratic Republic.
Compromise is not a function of the U.S. Government. Compromise in and of itself is not always good. For example, what is the compromise between a little bit of arsenic poisoning and a lot when either one leaves you dead?

You say our representatives are elected to carry out the public will; who determines what the will of the public is?

You say socialism use taxes and tariffs to support government operations and are redistributed for the good of the many; isn't that what we have now? Who decides how much redistribution is ok?

Your philosophy of government differs from mine because you think the government's role is to pick winners and losers by redistribution of wealth. I believe the government's role is to be an impartial referee.

An impartial referee does not participate in the game. An impartial referee does not make rules to redistribute points scored by a team that has better jumping and shooting ability to a team that has the oldest players on the court and don't have to compete on a daily basis for their starting position.

While I agree that union costs contributed to US automakers' decline, I think more responsibility should be laid on the shoulders of the automakers themselves who insisted on producing products that people did not want to buy. Foreign automakers, required in their own countries to produce smaller, more efficient vehicles, brought those same vehicles to the US markets, frequently at lower costs than American cars.

Expenditures for public unions comprise a very small (8 percent or so) of the state's budget and are clearly NOT the cause of the state's debt. I say, tax the rich their true fair share and the problem goes away.

Amen, JGK

The monopolistic teacher's union can be compared quite easily to the U.S. auto industry. In the union world, a member is guaranteed a job for life at artificially high wages, a pension for life, and health care for life. In what way does a union member have any incentive to pursue a higher skill set, save money, or take care of themselves? Answer: none!

What happens when you introduce an almost daily competition for your job with no guarantees. You either excel or quit.

Unions desire lifetime employment with static skills and dynamic wages. They believe you should be paid more and more every year just because you have seniority. Forget about are you the most productive employee for your level of wages. That is a lose-lose scenario in the long run. In the short-run the union employee is happy but at some point the company will substitute the product (his labor) for a less expensive product of similar quality.

Coercive monopolistic unions are short term wins for the union and employee, but eventually the labor will be substituted.

Anne:
How is taxing the rich going to help solve our problems?
Why is taxing the rich always the 1st choice to solve budget problems?
How much should the rich pay in taxes?
What is your definition of rich?
Or how much do you need to make, to be considered rich?
And IF there is still a problem, AFTER the rich have given/paid their 'fair' share, what happens next?