One more thought, and not to overgeneralize---but I cannot imagine the folks in Northern Wisconsin voting for Trivedi. I'm willing to hear him out though if he gets to debate.

@DJ -

"Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." Besides, it was Teamster concrete that they tried to bury me in, so it didn't hold up very well :-)

Sorry for messing up the flow of the conversation--I wanted to fix my comment, so I reposted and deleted the original...

C.Sanders, that is exactly the path I think is most useful!

My understanding is that the savings from such a measure would be minor. But the symbolic value would be priceless. Many of these gentlemen and ladies haven't a clue about how pension and healthcare deductions affect a regular working person.

Randy, the symbolism would be enough for me. My health insurance cost doubled two years ago, and we had to readjust a lot of our expenses as a result.

Amen! Let them find out what typical medical care is like too. While we are at it, I suggest they start to become part of our Social Security program as well. Maybe, just maybe, they will care about it then.

@DJ -- Sometimes their attitude is something like, "Let them eat cake." I recall a member of Congress telling one of her constituents, a single mother working as a waitress, to "grow up" and purchase her own health plan since her employer didn't provide one. Only someone who hadn't much of an idea about the cost of private health insurance and the take-home pay of a waitress could say a thing like that.

There's really no good way of making them understand, because most of these individuals are well off to begin with before entering public office.

I believe that members of congress do contribute to their health, pension and social security benefits...

DJ Bradley - It would be refreshing to see elected officials begin the movement by demonstrable example, especially the U.S. Congress! Agreed.

Here's what they get -- http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

Congress should be purged (both sides of the aisle) with new set salaries and benefits that only rival the middle class worker.

I can't believe that came out of me.

Randy, thank you for that FactCheck piece, and it illustrates exactly what I pointed about the cost. The government (aka we the taxpayers) pay 72-75% of the cost of their care. That $357 a month cost for a Congress member is peanuts. My health insurance is double that cost--but I'm not bitter. LOL!

It seems to follow the standard that most private sector companies follow though. 75% of my health benefit costs are paid by my company, I pay 25%.

While we are on the subject, compare that to Walker's changes that require public employees to pay 12.5% of their health benefit cost. To me, that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable demand.

@Bob McBride...Damn, I hate it when I have to agree with you. Did I say this is being done by professionals? I have seen social science games that are better planned and executed by a bunch of first year students, than what has happened here. It has clearly moved beyond the pale.

As I understand it, Congressmen receive automatic salary adjustments for health insurance increases. A sweet deal most of us don't enjoy...

Can you confirm that Bren? I don't recall seeing mention of that benefit when I researched the 'automatic' pay raises that they voted to not accept for the last couple of years...

Mau, you touch on the key idea that has created my ambivalence about unions. I worked with and for unions and again, the principles of protecting the worker means a lot to me. However, once I managed a couple of union employees, I ran into the issues people complain about. I couldn't fire an unproductive secretary without a year-long grievance process through her union. I couldn't ask other employees to work beyond 5pm on too many instances, lest I readjust my budget to account for the comp time or overtime.

Did the unions not make the concessions Gov. Walker asked for?

I seem to recall that he wanted contracts re-opened to make changes. In fact look at all the contracts that were opened and quickly signed before Act 10 went into effect. So they had no intent on making any concessions.

I belonged to a union for a company that now is able to fire employees that you talk about or who break company rules. The grievance process starts after they lose their job and It is then their job to prove the the firing was not just. There is no back pay or settlement if they prove their case. Work hours are not a negotiated item. They are agreements reached between the workers, the union and the company. Overtime abides by law with a few tweaks that have been in place for many years.

Beg to differ Lyle.

Walker's policies are mean-spirited, unreality based, egregious and run counter to the spirit of Wisconsin. Can't wait for the clueless answers to the last one.

The head of the snake must be cut off and a sign that the people of Wisconsin have had enough.

@Keith Schmitz....I can't argue with the description that you have portrayed. I am of the mind that sometimes the way to handle the snake is to pull its fangs. This is the position that Walker found himself in as County Executive. All the time and trouble we have put ourselves through should be directed at reclaiming the assembly and senate.

Keith:

Please expand a bit on why you think that Walker's policies are to 'unreality based'. If you want reality, then Walker should have had public employees paying 25% of their health benefit costs like the rest of the middle class...

Lyle,

Taking down a couple of legislators doesn't do much for those who fancy this as their shot at "the bigs". Think anyone at the national level gives a rip if Fitzgerald or Van Wanggaard go down? A movement interested in a strategic victory would have done just what you said. A movement run by folks trying to make political hay for themselves goes the splashy route. Hence your suggestion essentially being a non-starter.

Bren, I supported the recall until I saw the potential candidates. I'll research Erpenbach. I don't think Trevedi can be a viable candidate.

To me, Jon Erpenbach seems like a smart, down-to-earth, no-nonsense guy with a sense of humor. I really believe he has our state's best interests at heart. I like what I've seen of Hari Trivedi, but I agree with you about his viability, he needs to start getting his name and ideas out there in a serious way, soon.

The Unions have selected their puppet. Falk will end up being the one to face Walker...

Cow, the unions may have a favored candidate, but there are many other voices involved and committed to the recall. We'll see what happens. I'm not a union employee, but if Falk ends up being the challenger, she would have my vote. I've seen her on TV and observe that she also presents and comports herself in a reasoned, professional manner and we need that. My vote is for Wisconsin, not ALEC.

Funny how you seem to equate 'union puppet' with 'Wisconsin'...

Funny how your skewed mind twists what others say.

@J.B. Schmidt....Sorry my friend, but you don't need to dig your hole any deeper by more racial overtones.

For some the recall is all about ACT-10, but for the majority it is not strictly about the loss of public union collective bargaining, but the lust and pursuit of complete political power. It is about imbalance and overreach. To assume that it is only about unions is a mistake.

@J.B. Schmidt -- It's about much more than Act 10. It's about Voter ID, passed without reasonable amendments to help honest voters who may not be able to procure the necessary documentation. It's about 'balancing' the budget by making life easier for those with more and harder for those with less. The latest -- plugging a budget hole with the mortgage settlement money. If it was wrong when Doyle did it with the tobacco settlement, it's wrong now.

If my jest was ill timed I apologize. However, it is no more insulting then Patrick quoting me out of context.

@Lyle and Randy
This recall started by union members because of Act 10. That was the outrage. I was in Madison in February being heckled by union members as I stood for a Tea Party rally. I can understand the misconception that it was an overreach of power. However, no one has ever pointed where in the state constitution Walker overstepped his authority. Everything else you have listed is conservative policy. If we can recall for that, then our democracy is dead. I also will assume that both of you supported the ramming through of Obamacare which was enacted with one parties complete control just as Act 10 and Voter ID.

@Randy1949 -

Looks like Voter ID isn't as big of an issue as you guys were making it out to be:

http://fox6now.com/2012/02/16/only-130-have-taken-advantage-of-5000-free-voter-ids/

@Randy 1949
Based on the terms of the settlement, the state is at liberty to do whatever it wants with $31 million and the other $100 million goes to those harmed by foreclosure. The feeling was that states economies were also harmed by the foreclosure crisis. Hence the banks should pay towards the states budgets. The Tobacco settlement was to be used to fight kids using tobacco. There is a distinct difference.

@JRH -- Verifying the citizenship of people who have been legally registered and voting in Wisconsin for years is not that big a necessity. The requirement to show a birth certificate is difficult for some people. If you wanted to make first time registration more difficult, I could support that, but simply to vote in a precinct where you've been legally registered for years?

How does one show that they have indeed been 'legally' registered for years? Getting a name registered as a voter does not mean that the person ever really existed, just that a person voted under that name for several years...

@CowDung -- Honest to Pete -- how does the possession of a birth certificate prove you're the person on that certificate? My appearance has changed since 1949 and so has my address.

A birth certificate proves two things -- age and US citizenship. Both of which were already proved by other means at the time of registration, which for me was so long ago that I've honestly forgotten what documents I had to show at the time.

For one, it proves that you are a real person...

Both age and US citizenship have not necessarily been proven at registration. We saw that in the last election with the fraudulent registrations that ACORN created.

@J.B. Schmidt... I am continually distressed by people's lack of knowledge concerning history and lacking a view of the bigger picture. The founders of the nation and the writers of the Wisconsin State Constitution understood the need for spreading and separating power to avoid the rise of tyranny. In the state election of 2010, legislative power and executive power passed onto a very conservative Republican majority and chief executive. If the Republicans would have won the legislature only or the governorship, then the need for all the social strife could have been avoided, since both sides would have been forced to govern through the process of compromise.However, that is not the reality of the situation, the Republicans won it all and saw an unusual opportunity to finally to place the opposition (Democrats) at a permanent disadvantage. It truly became a partisan's dream come true.

The change to the public union's collective bargaining rights was not to close the budget shortfall, which could have been accomplished with or without abridging collective bargaining, but it was done to cut off the life blood of the Democratic Party, union campaign contributions. This overt act was the call to attention of the Republican Party's overall strategy to not only gain control of the state, but to hold it far into the future. (continued)

@J.B. Schmidt...Capitalizing on the power shift, the Republican's sought to put through every little piece of pet legislation possible. High on their agenda had been voter-ID, conceal/carry, etc. Clearly, fifty percent of the population suddenly found themselves completely disenfranchised with no other way of redress than to attempt to force a recall, bringing balance back to the government. The summer recall didn't get the desired result, falling one seat short in the senate. Therefore, the governor, Lt. governor and more senators became eligible for recall and action has been taken. I personally don't necessarily agree with the scope of the current recall, but it certainly is understandable given the political position the opposition finds themselves thus engaged. So, in conclusion; is it only about the unions; unequivocally no. It is to bring order and balance back to government and Wisconsin.

@Lyle
That is a very loose interpretation of the constitution. Yes, they wanted separation of power(s). however, not separation of power. By assuming that they wanted balanced power separation one must call into question free elections. They trusted the people to elect the government they wanted. If you want to introduce balanced power, then you must eliminate free elections. The separation of power(s) prevents dictatorial rule, not control by single party. I think mining bill is perfect example that complete control has not been had by Walker. Therefore, either you think that process of election must be changed or you belief the current electorate is to stupid to understand what they have done and a recall must correct that.

Yet, you have not identified how this differs from the first 2 years of Obama's administration. If the Dems had not had control of senate, house and presidency; Obamacare would not have passed. Therefore, we must condemn that action as equal to anything Walker did. Nationally, the people saw the problem and corrected it in the midterm elections. If the same problem exists in Wisconsin the correct action is to elect Dems in 2012, not take a mulligan on 2010.

@J.B. Schmidt...You forget my friend that originally the US Senate was not a direct election and were appointed by the state legislatures. In addition, the third leg of the three legged stool is the courts. However, the conservatives hold a 4:3 majority and any challenges will be probably upheld by the conservative supreme court. Therefore, the only action is to hold a constitutional recall.

@Lyle... You lost me on the 17th Amendment and the direct election of Senators. Care to explain?

@Lyle
I am not supporter of the 17th amendment. I think that it is a progressive agenda to create a more centralized government by limiting states rights. I think the passing of it has made the adaption of entitlements easier, since the states don't have direct access to the objection of power imposed by the federal government. The current set up allows people (being bought by government entitlements) to elect officials that are willing to increase those entitlements.

However, I disagree that it would have any impact on the political balance of power within congress. Especially when you see the number of blue states vs. red states.

Again, I will ask, do you approve the Obama administration passing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Also, I will point out that any solution to achieving balanced power would reduce freedom of elections.

@J.B. Schmidt...The Healthcare Affordability Act, although was passed while the Democrats were in control of the House and Senate, it is subject to rulings as to constitutionality by the USSC. If all or parts of the Act are ruled unconstitutional, then the separation of powers will have worked. In any case the court is independent of the other two branches and can offset a move for total control.

When I brought up the elements of the antecedent to the 17th amendment, I was attempting to illustrate the concern that the framers had to complete control that could be gained from direct elections. The changes introduced by the 17th amendment have positive and negative consequences and one of the positives was the termination of corruption that was occurring with people buying senatorial seats. A negative was that the direct popular election of senator increased the impact of special interests and the states did much to lose their voice within the federal government. I am sorry I introduced the 17th amendment into the dialogue since it proved extraneous to the conversation and only muddle my argument. My issue remains the same, with all three branches of the state government firmly in control of the Republicans, there isn't any other means to bring about some curb on misused power other than hold a recall election.

@Lyle
Now I am confused. If the Health Care Act's constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court nationally, which as you say is an independent body; why then is the same not true for the state constitution and Walker's actions? I am still interested to know where Walker overreached constitutionally, because I don't think he did. Which in turn brings me back to the fact that this is the democrat in Wisconsin attempting to take a mulligan on the 2010 elections rather then wait for democratic process to affect the balance of power.

Also, you said that Act 10 was done 'to cut off the life blood of the Democratic Party, union campaign contributions.' I must disagree. It only put the burden to fund the union on its members, as it should be. The tax payers should not be assisting in the transfer of union dues. Especially since it is the 'life blood' of a single party.

@Patrick -

And speak of the devil - and the devil does appear!

It's so comforting to know that I meet with your approval in this instance - that just really makes my day and quite possibly my entire weekend!

Thanks bud!

Ah, yes. But when it's 'important' legislation, the end justifies the means.

If that's true . . . then the America truly is f'd up.

I wasn't even aware that a 'March on the GAB' was scheduled for today. If there was such an event, it certainly was not well publicized...

This is a positive in my book. It's a pointless exercise of a type best left to those on the left, who cherish symbolic gestures of this nature. You could start a rumor that Scott Walker was spotted having lunch somewhere up there and you'd have 20 times as many folks show up in an instant, plastic buckets and hand scrawled signs at the ready. I'm perfectly fine with being on the side that has less nut-jobs ready to take it to the streets and look foolish.