Speaking to a crowd at a campaign stop in Lansing, Mich., on Tuesday, presumptive GOP presidential [...]]]> Is this guy a Presidential candidate from a major party, or a fringe nut? He sounds like Rush Limbaugh. HuffPo: Mitt Romney: Obama ‘Takes Marching Orders From Union Bosses’,

Speaking to a crowd at a campaign stop in Lansing, Mich., on Tuesday, presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney took a swipe at both President Barack Obama and organized labor, saying the president “takes his marching orders” from unions that cost American jobs.

“Liberalism once taught that unions would ensure lasting prosperity for workers,” Romney said at Lansing Community College. “Instead, they too often contributed to disappearing companies, disappearing industries and disappearing jobs. But like many politicians of the past, President Obama takes his marching orders from union bosses, rails against right-to-work states, fights to win union elections by eliminating the vote by secret ballot, and even denies an American company the right to build a factory in the American state of its choice.”

When People Have A Say

People who follow Romney’s line of reasoning think that we need to be more “business friendly” with low wages, low benefits, low environmental protections and low taxes on the rich so we can compete with countries like China. Here’s the thing, in countries like China the people don’t have a say. When people have a say they say that they want higher wages, benefits, good schools, environmental protections and the rest of the prosperity that democracy brings to all the people, instead of huge amounts accumulating in the hands of just a few people.

Unions Drove Wages And Benefits Up

Romney’s argument that unions “contributed to disappearing companies, disappearing industries and disappearing jobs” is based on the idea that unions drove wages and benefits up. He believes that good wages and benefits — namely US — are a “cost” instead of the reason that We, the People decided to develop the body of laws that allow corporations to exist, to use our infrastructure and educated people and laws and courts and police and all the other “public structures” as a foundation for doing business. We, the People did that so that we — all of us — could benefit. All of us, not just a few of us.

In that respect Romney is correct, unions and democracy brought us higher pay, benefits, “the weekend,” vacations, 40-hour workweeks and things like that. Before unions came along to enforce the idea of democracy we didn’t, after unions we did. Before unions we had 12-hours a day workdays, seven days a week. Before unions we had low pay. Before unions we had no benefits. Before unions we didn’t get vacations. Before unions we could be fired for no reason. Unions are why we have had a middle class.

Unions enforce the concept of democracy. Yes, We, the People were supposed to be in charge. Yes, the economy was supposed to be for our benefit. Why else would We, the People allow corporations to exist in the first place? But it was unions that gave people the power to enforce that idea.

Laying People Off, Cutting Wages, Pocketing That Money For Himself

Romney made his fortune buying up companies (not, by the way, using his own money, but using the companies’ own assets as collateral for the loans to buy them with). Then Romney fired many of the workers, making the rest do the extra work. He cut wages and benefits for the rest and then pocketed that money for himself. This is the guy who says that good wages and benefits is what puts companies out of business. In other words, Romney is saying that the problem with our economy is that we have a middle class. Romney wants America to be more “business-friendly.”

Romney hates unions. They get in the way of doing business they way business was done “When Mitt Romney Came To Town:

According to the Christian Science Monitor, this is the story of what happened to the workers in one company when the Romney/Bain machine “came to town”:

The new owner, American Pad & Paper, owned in turn by [Mitt Romney's] Bain Capital, told all 258 union workers they were fired, in a cost-cutting move. Security guards hustled them out of the building. They would be able to reapply for their jobs, at lesser wages and benefits, but not all would be rehired.

Outsourcing jobs to places where people don’t have a say so they can’t demand good wages, firing people and making them reapply for their jobs but at half the pay, gutting people’s benefits, stripping companies, treating employees like throwaway Kleenex, closing factories, stealing pensions, borrowing and pocketing… Locust capitalism. Chop shops. That’s Mitt Romney’s view of how to make money. Unions are in the way.

What Is Business-Friendly?

Some quick thoughts about what “business-friendly” really means: (add your own thoughts in the comments)

Business-friendly =

Low wages
Longer hours
No health benefits
No pensions
No vacations
No sick pay
Low taxes on the wealthy and their corporations
“Smaller government,” — which means less “We, the People” in charge of things:

No safety rules
No privacy rules
No food inspections
No environmental protections
No consumer protections
No citizen access to courts
Arbitration
Tort “reform” which means restricted access to courts

So what are your thoughts on this argument that we need to be more “business-friendly?” What does the phrase even mean? And what happens to the idea that We, the People have an economy for our own benefit?

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary

Oppenheimer’s piece explores [...]]]> While many journalists, scholars and activists have done serious writing about the theocratic Christian Reconstructionist movement and its influence on the development of the Religious Right — others have pooh-poohed it. In a recent column in The New York Times Mark Oppenheimer placed one foot firmly in the pooh-pooh camp.

Oppenheimer’s piece explores the influence of prominent Reconstructionist theorist Gary North on the recent anti-union surge. Sort of. He starts out by stating that North is prominent on the Christian Right, but not widely known elsewhere and is an important influence in the recent anti-union surge in Wisconsin and elsewhere. And then he spends much of the column undermining this idea.

He had read a blog post at Religion Dispatches by Julie Ingersoll, who has written a great deal of excellent material on Christian Reconstructionism. Ingersoll makes a matter-of-fact argument that Christian Reconstructionist writers have been decidedly anti-union, and that this very likely has has played a role in the wider Christian Right. She specifically names authors Gary North, David Chilton, and Gary DeMar.

And yet Oppenheimer, in an interview with Michael McVicar, another scholar of Reconstructionism, makes the matter mostly about just one of them, Gary North.

Mr. McVicar believes that Professor Ingersoll’s attempted connection between Christian economics and the rallies in Madison is a bit tenuous. “Her insight has to be in my mind so heavily qualified as to make it almost nothing,” he said. But he concedes that it “has the most basic essence of truth,” given how widely Mr. North’s teachings have been disseminated on the Christian right.

The problem with this is that Ingersoll was not attempting to make a direct connection, as any reasonable reading of her post would find. What’s more, Oppenheimer and McVicar agree with Ingersoll that North is a prolific author; that his works are widely used in conservative Christian educational settings and that his views are widely influential.

Thus this is a classic case of creating controversy where there actually is none, and undermining the thesis of the piece itself. The unfortunate result is a certain pooh poohing of the role of Christian Reconstructionism. Simply put, Reconstructionism and even Christian economics (North’s specialty) is not all about North.

Here is the relevant section of Ingersoll’s post:

There are now families in which multiple generations—grandparents, parents and children—have all been shaped in these contexts; contexts that include “Christian American history,” dominionism, creationism, and biblical economics. For Reconstructionist Doug Phillips’ organization Vision Forum, cultivating this kind of “multi-generational faithfulness” is an explicit goal. And when you look at tea party rallies and see all those white middle class fifty-somethings you are looking at many of them. Sarah [Posner] has also made the case for this at RD. We’re not arguing that this in the only influence… just that it is an important one.

‘Reconstructionism as one important influence among others’ is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. I have no idea why Oppenheimer and McVicar tried to make it seem like it is not. (On the other hand, Oppenheimer has had trouble discussing the Religious Right accurately in the past.)

The fact is that Reconstructionism’s claim that all areas of life must be brought under a decidedly conservative and theocratic “Biblical worldview” plays a deeply influential role on the Religious Right. While reasonable people may differ on the matter of degree, I have also argued that Christian Reconstruction is central, rather than peripheral, to the ongoing ideological development of the Christian Right. So far, I think history is bearing me out.

An excellent example was a 2007 conference organized by Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar, attended by 800 people, and co-sponsored by a number of leading organizations of the Christian Right. Gary North was among the featured speakers.

I wrote at the time:

The conference, titled “Preparing This Generation to Capture the Future,” was organized by the Powder Springs, Georgia-based American Vision, a Christian Reconstructionist think tank and publishing house founded in 1978 and headed by Gary DeMar. The event was sponsored, which is to say, bankrolled by such major organizations as the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal strategy organization which was created by top evangelical broadcasters including James Dobson (Focus on the Family political honcho Tom Minnery is on the board ; Liberty University School of Law (where Newt Gingrich recent gave the commencement address), Home School Legal Defense Association, Summit Ministries and World magazine, edited by former Bush adviser Marvin Olasky. Time was, when leaders of the religious right, including the Falwell empire, were afraid to too publicly associate with Reconstructionists like American Vision honcho Gary DeMar and Gary North. But apparently, the days of worrying about associating with overt advocates of Biblical theocracy are over.

Jeremy Leaming reported in Church & State magazine:

The event was promoted heavily by the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, and it was held in a facility owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest non-Catholic denomination and a religious body closely aligned with the Bush administration.

For his part, Gary North writes at LewRockwell.com that when Oppenheimer got him on the line at his unlisted phone number, he refused to talk to him. North was concerned about the risks of “selective quotation.”

I choose not to give interviews, except on rare occasions…

If he has some published quotations from me, he can cite them. They are public. They are for citing. But the “phone interview” game I will not tolerate. I would have no record of what I said. The reader has no way to be sure I said it. The writer will not run the article by me to make sure that I approve.

He said he would say I refused to talk. Fair enough. I surely did.

He had to invade my privacy to get even that much out of me. He has the ethics of a telemarketer, but without the respect for sales.

The Times is slowly going bankrupt. Print media are dying. The Times is flailing around, desperately trying to find a revenue model that will work. It won’t find it.

I can’t speak to the relative fortunes of the Times’ business model. And in fairness, Oppenheimer by addressing it at all, has flagged as an important matter the role of Christian Reconstructionism and how it relates to the wider politics and economics of the Religious Right and of the Tea Party — even though his journalism got shaky with a little too much ‘on the one hand, but on the other hand’, hesitancy.

[Crossposted from Talk to Action]

I stand with my unionized sisters and brothers, especially in Wisconsin, but everywhere where teachers and unions are under attack.

I am the lead union representative for more than 100 teachers in my school.

Today, all across the country, teachers are blogging their support for our unionized sisters [...]]]>

I stand with my unionized sisters and brothers, especially in Wisconsin, but everywhere where teachers and unions are under attack.

I am the lead union representative for more than 100 teachers in my school.

Today, all across the country, teachers are blogging their support for our unionized sisters and brothers in Wisconsin, and you can follow some of the results of that at EDUSolidarity

Today I want to tell you why I am proud to be a union member as well as a teacher.

I teach my students one period a day. We have 9, since some students take a zero period at 7:15 in the morning to squeeze in an extra course. Most of my students are sophomores, with at least 6 courses besides mine. I am only one of those responsible for helping them learn.

For me teaching is a collaborative effort. It includes not only those of us formally designated as educators, but all of the support staff as well.

Why are teachers unionized? Why do we insist on seniority being a major part of decision making about who stays and who goes?

Let’s go back. Why are any workers unionized? Because without cooperation, without the support of a union, an individual worker is at a huge disadvantage in negotiating with an employer – that applies to working conditions, to compensation, to benefits. As an individual, one is negotiating from a position of weakness. As part of a larger group, there is more leverage, and thus less capriciousness and even maliciousness in how those in positions of authority can deal with one who lacks the protection of a union.

Nowadays we hear all kinds of statements about how seniority is keeping bad teachers and forcing good teachers out. Baloney. As a union rep I have helped move out bad teachers, teachers who were not good for the students. I ensured it was done fairly, that they had due process. That protects me and all the other teachers.

How do we determine an “effective” teacher anyhow? If we make it all about test scores we will cheat the students of a real education.

That’s not the real issue. That is the rhetorical cover to replace more experienced teachers with noobies, largely over money. That’s right. Over money.

Put all the pieces together.

We have Bill Gates saying that teachers don’t really improve after their 3rd year. He says that additional degrees don’t benefit the students by improving the teaching. Oh, and he wants to stop paying for years of service.

My base pay is twice that of a beginning teacher. Absent protections of seniority, how hard would it be for an administrator pushed financially to find an occasion to find me, and other more experienced teachers, less than effective so that s/he could replace me with two bodies, thereby saving money on the budget.

The workman of any kind is worthy of his hire. Some apparently don’t believe that. They opposed raising the minimum wage, which is still far below what one needs to live. They want to pay less than minimum for teen-aged part-time workers.

If the mentality is only about saving upfront costs, then we may be penny wise and very pound foolish. In engineering, whether a nuclear reactor near Sendai or levees near New Orleans, failure to put enough resources in up front can lead to catastrophic failure.

The unwillingness to pay for the experience and quality of senior teachers leads to a constant turnover of younger, inexperienced teachers who are still trying to learn how to teach. While there may not be a catastrophe of the magnitude of Katrina, the loss of learning opportunities for our students is often irrecoverable.

I want to quote a dear friend, with her permission. Renee Moore is one of the most distinguished educators in the US. She is a former Mississippi State Teacher of the Year. She has sat on the boards of a number of key organizations, including the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. She is a superb writer and speaker about education. She recently included the following words in an email a number of us received:

The seniority system was put in place in an attempt to end capricious, retaliatory firings and various shades of nepotism. Given the current status of our evaluation system, if administrators are going to use “keeping the most effective teachers” as justification for who goes and who stays, teachers and parents should unite to demand they be very transparent.

capricious – what did the principal have for lunch, or who from the Central office yelled at him today

retaliatory – Speak up, point out that this latest educational emperor is naked, and one might well be dismissed. Or if not dismissed, experience a retaliatory transfer, as happened to an outspoken teacher in DC who criticized the wrong-doings of one of Michelle Rhee’s hand-picked principals. Even Jay Mathews, in general a supporter of Rhee, criticized her on this.

nepotism – too many people forget when school boards would hire people who were related to them by blood or political affiliation even if they were unqualified. Absent protections, qualified people would be forced out for the nephews and the political contributors.

Due Process – and transparency – things that unions can demand on behalf of their members, that individual teachers cannot.

On Thursday I have been invited to the premier of a film. It is titled “The Finland Phenomenon: Inside the World’s Most Surprising School System” and the viewing will be introduced by the Ambassador of Finland. 25 Years ago Finland did not do well on international comparisons. Now their schools are acknowledged as among the very best in the world. They take time to train their teachers, insisting on the equivalent of a masters degree. Oh, and their teaching corps is 100% unionized.

The current highest scoring state is Massachusetts. As my friend Diane Ravitch points out, it also has a unionized teaching corps.

Some want to take away collective bargaining rights completely. Others want to limit the rights severely, excluding working conditions and issue of assignments. These steps would deprofessionalize teaching, and then allow opponents to further demean those who teach, and justify further slashing their compensation and benefits.

My periods are 45 minutes each. For some of my students, that 3/4 of an hour is more time than they spend with their parents each day. Do you want that 45 minutes to be with a trained, caring adult, who is not constantly fretting over how to pay basic bills? Do you want the teacher able to concentrate on the task of teaching our young people, or do you want to force her to take a second job in order to make ends meet?

Teaching should be an honorable profession. For all the rhetoric that some offer about great teachers and the importance of teachers, their actions with respect to policy provide those paying attention a very different picture. They claim it is important to hold teachers “accountable” in many cases for things they do not fully control, but scream bloody murder at accountability for the criminal offenses of the financial sector that have helped create the financial crises that are being used as justification for attacking the unions and the benefits and the compensation of public employees, including teachers. They rant about bad teachers having tenure but say nothing about promoting generals who violate international and US law in their treatment of those detained under their custody. They want to examine everything about teachers to try to find an excuse to bash them further, to delegitimize them, but God forbid there be an honest investigation of the wrongdoings and dishonesties that involved us in conflicts abroad that by the time they are done will, according to Nobel winning economist Joe Stiglitz, cost this nation at least 2 TRILLION – maybe even 3 TRILLION – dollars.

We shift wealth to the already wealthy, who then balk at paying for public services, perhaps because they have become so wealthy and powerful they have the ability to purchase whatever they need – including the occasional judges, senators, congressmen and governors. And more. But teachers are greedy because we want to keep the pensions to which we agreed as a form of deferred compensation, for our willingness to be paid less than people with comparable educational background.

I am a teacher. I am by choice. I came to it late, but it is what I should do.

I am willing to make some sacrifices. We do not have children of our own, in part because I could not commit myself to teaching as I do with the attention I give my students, were I to have the responsibilities of a caring parent. I make less than I did when I worked with computers, and my hours are far longer.

Yet now some would want you to believe that my experience is not worth more compensation, that I should not be paid for the additional professional education I obtained AT MY OWN EXPENSE, and would be happy to see me replaced by two brand new teachers, in some cases with only 5 weeks of training and who are not committed to stay beyond two years, a period at the end of which they MIGHT be becoming good teachers.

I have worked in Maryland, which is unionized in its schools, and in Virginia, which as a right to work state BANS collective bargaining by public employees, although Arlington, where I live and for one year taught, sort of gets around that. Which might be why they maintain a strong teaching force, without that much turnover. Which increases my real estate taxes because the good schools are something that draws families, along with our closeness to DC and the superb access to public transportation. My taxes go up because the value of my home goes up. The schools are a large part of that.

What is happening in Wisconsin and other states, if it goes unchecked, will destroy much of value in this country. It will start with schools, already a target. It will affect other public service employees. It will bleed into the private sector as well, depressing wages for everyone, and exacerbating the increasing economic inequity in this nation.

I am a union rep because I understand this, because I can speak – and write – to it.

I am a union rep because my fellow teachers trust me to keep them informed, to make sure their interests are represented fairly, both within the building and within the very large (over 130,000 students) school district.

I stand with my sisters and brothers in Wisconsin, in Indiana, in Florida, in Michigan, in all the places they are under attack.

Today many of us are speaking out. We are writing. We are wearing red.

Today we express our solidarity.

It is not YET too late to take back our country, to save our public institutions, and thereby save the middle class.

Not YET. But time is running out.

Stand with us.

Make a difference.

And remember, if you could read this, thank a teacher.

Solidarity! The only true form of Peace.

PS to read more posts on this theme, please go to EDUSolidarity

Let us begin with this simple, indisputable truth: public employees’ unions don’t get a single red cent from taxpayers. And they aren’t a mechanism to “force” working people to [...]]]> Ed note: This is a feature I ran on AlterNet last week. I’m reprinting it here in its entirety because I think it’s an important reality–check.

Let us begin with this simple, indisputable truth: public employees’ unions don’t get a single red cent from taxpayers. And they aren’t a mechanism to “force” working people to support Democrats – that’s completely illegal.

Public sector workers are employed by the government, but they are private citizens. Once a private citizen earns a dollar from the sweat of his or her brow, it no longer belongs to his or her employer. In the case of public workers, it is no longer a “taxpayer dollar”; it is a dollar held privately by an American citizen. Public sector unions are financed through the dues paid by these private citizens, who elected to be part of a union – not a single taxpayer dollar is involved, and no worker is forced to join a union against his or her wishes. No worker in the United States is required to give one red cent to support a political cause he or she doesn’t agree with.

There is no distinction between the role public- and private-sector unions play: both represent their members in negotiations with their employers. At the federal level, both are prohibited from using their members’ dues for political purposes. They donate to political campaigns – to elect lawmakers who will stand up for the interests of working people – but only out of voluntary contributions their members choose to make to their PACs.

“Unions cannot, from their general funds, contribute a dime to any federal candidate or national political party,” says Laurence Gold, an attorney with the AFL-CIO. “They can only do it through their separate political PAC and only according to strict limits.”

The states have a patchwork of different laws, and many do allow unions to donate to campaigns. But membership is entirely voluntary – when a group of workers elect to form a union, it doesn’t mean that everyone must sign up. The union negotiates on behalf of all the workers in the group – and all of the workers get the job security and other benefits that come with collective bargaining — but by law it can’t compel them to pay union dues. “It is a right-wing canard that anyone needs to join a union,” Gold told AlterNet. “If a union member doesn’t like what his or her union is doing, he or she is ultimately free to walk, without any diminution in their employment rights. They still get all the benefits and the union still has to represent them – just like it did the day before.”

In states that haven’t passed so-called Right-To-Work laws, the union can charge all workers in a “negotiating unit” for the direct cost of representing them, but cannot, by law, force them to pay for the union’s political activities. “They can only be required to pay for their share of bargaining costs and representation costs – not politics, not legislative stuff, not anything else,” Gold said. “Compulsory union dues are a canard, everywhere, and without exception. Anybody who says, oh you can compel somebody to support the union’s electoral activities – well, that’s simply false.”

Now that we have established a baseline of factual reality, let’s take a look at what much of the media – even the ostensibly “liberal” media – are telling the American people.

In a widely cited opinion piece in the Washington Post, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson claimed that “public employee unions have the unique power to help pick pliant negotiating partners — by using compulsory dues to elect friendly politicians.” Again, a blatant falsehood, and one that prompted economist Dean Baker to point out that “if Mr. Gerson knows of any violations of the law, I’m sure that there are many ambitious prosecutors who would be happy to hear his evidence.”

The irony here is that while unions can’t compel workers to fork over a penny for political campaigns, corporations can donate unlimited amounts of their shareholders’ equity to do so – they are, in fact, in the “unique position” to elect pliant lawmakers. “What the right-wing and the business community always try to portray is that you have these union bosses that are forcing helpless employees to give them money,” says Gold, “when the reality is that these are their members who chose to be in a union and then elected their officers democratically, in sharp contrast to corporations, none of whose officers are elected democratically unless you count shareholders voting at an annual meeting as a real democratic system.”

And conservatives have long held that voluntary donations to political campaigns are a high form of free speech. The double standard is clear– “money equals speech” unless it’s money freely donated by working people to advance their own economic interests.

The corporate-backed Heritage Foundation – which has waged a longstanding propaganda war against the American labor movement — notes that “state and local employees in 28 states are required to pay full union dues” – patently untrue — and, “using this government coercion, government unions have amassed tremendous financial resources that they use to campaign for higher taxes and higher pay for government workers.”

There are no “government unions,” just unions of private workers. And they have no interest in campaigning for higher taxes – they are unions of taxpaying citizens. They do push for better pay, benefits and working conditions, like private sector unions, but officials elected by American voters determine the number and size of public programs and therefore the ultimate cost of government.

Heritage also makes much of the fact that public unions lobby for various policies that conservatives don’t like, and claims, yet again, that they do so with “taxpayer dollars.” That’s false, as we know, but it is true of another group: private contractors. They routinely include a line-item billing the government for part of the money they spend on lobbying – they, rather than the unions, actually use taxpayer dollars to lobby for, as Heritage puts it, “legislation and ballot measures that raise taxes and spending.”

Writing for Newsweek, Mark McKinnon writes that “it is the abuse by public unions and their bosses that pushes centrists like me to the GOP.” (McKinnon was a political adviser to both George W. Bush and John McCain.) His enthusiasm to spin public unions as something to be feared is so great, he ends up making this confused – and confusing – argument:

Unlike private-sector jobs, which are more than fully funded through revenues created in a voluntary exchange of money for goods or services, public-sector jobs are funded by taxpayer dollars, forcibly collected by the government (union dues are often deducted from public employees’ paychecks).

I don’t pretend to know what he means when he says private sector jobs are more than fully funded – we do have an underemployment rate of about 17 percent – but the rest is an incomprehensible mish-mash of “public sector jobs,” which are obviously paid for out of tax revenues, and public sector unions, which, as he notes, are funded out of the paychecks of private citizens working for the government – workers who choose to belong to a union.

He then advances the Big Lie, essentially turning reality on its head:

Big money from public unions, collected through mandatory dues, and funded entirely by the taxpayer, is then redistributed as campaign cash to help elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions.

This falsehood pitting public employees against taxpayers is ubiquitous. The Washington Post ran a story headlined, “Ohio, Wisconsin shine spotlight on new union battle: Government workers vs. taxpayers”; Rush Limbaugh called public sector unions, “money launderers” for “Democrat politicians”; Mark Steyn called them, “rapacious, public sector-shakedown kleptocrats,” and self-proclaimed liberal Joe Klein wondered if they “are organized against the might and greed…of the public?”

All of this is meant to serve another, Bigger Lie – even more ubiquitous — that the cost of public workers is killing state budgets. As Bill O’Reilly put it with typical understatement, state “governments can’t afford to operate” because of “union wages and benefits.”

Here’s another factual baseline: those “cadillac” pensions we always hear about public workers getting actually average $22,000 per year and amount to just 6 percent of state budgets. Some states’ pension funds have problems because they’ve been raided to pay for tax cuts, but in aggregate, pensions aren’t eating up state budgets. Andrew Leonard, writing in Salon about what he calls  “the imaginary public sector pension fund crisis,” notes that because the stock market has recovered to a great degree, “those horrible ‘shortfalls’ everyone has been making such a big deal of are already in retreat.”

As economist Dean Baker notes, it was Wall Street, not a bunch of teachers and firefighters, which is to blame for the gaps that do exist. “Most of the pension shortfall,” he wrote, “is attributable to the plunge in the stock market in the years 2007-2009. If pension funds had earned returns just equal to the interest rate on 30-year Treasury bonds in the three years since 2007, their assets would be more than $850 billion greater than they are today.”

Public workers’ salaries are another 28 percent of state budgets. They get paid less than comparable workers in the private sector, even including benefits. The problem, as far as an honest debate goes, comes from the word “comparable.” Last week, USA Today (mis)informed its readers that workers in the public sector make more than in the private, a claim it backed up with misleading averages. The article only quoted in passing an economist who pointed out that their “analysis is misleading because it doesn’t reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees.” It’s actually meaningless, as public workers are twice as likely to have a college degree and have, on average, more years on the job than workers in the private sector.

State and local employees’ wages and salaries have virtually nothing to do with the budget gaps which many states are grappling with – that too is a result of the recession caused by Wall Street, not Main Street. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “State tax collections, adjusted for inflation, are now 12 percent below pre-recession levels, while the need for state-funded services has not declined. As a result, even after making very deep spending cuts over the last several years, states continue to face large budget gaps.” According to Census data, states’ social welfare payments to struggling individuals and families increased by around 25 percent between the first quarter of 2007 and the last quarter of 2010.

Most of the media lazily accepts that collective bargaining by state workers is a fiscal matter – a typical headline on AOL news asked, “Can collective bargaining bills stem state deficits?” as if there is some correlation between those two things. But the evidence doesn’t suggest as much: There are already 13 states that restrict public workers’ bargaining rights and it hasn’t helped their bottom lines. As Ed Kilgore noted, “eight non-collective-bargaining states face larger budget shortfalls than either Wisconsin or Ohio,” and ” three of the 13 non-collective bargaining states are among the eleven states facing budget shortfalls at or above 20%.”

Tragically, the corporate media, rather than shedding light on these facts –which are necessary for a healthy debate — is helping to obscure them under a cloud of anti-union spin.

In my 4.5 years there I’ve seen a lot of good, and some not so good.  I’ve seen Kossacks [...]]]> I’ve been blogging on Daily Kos since Fall of 2006.  In that time, I’ve mostly blogged about what I call “fluff” – pooties, soups, community because to me community is the backbone of the Progressive Agenda.

SOME Democrats are bad Democrats, others are GREAT!

But the Right has never been known to let reality get in the way of a good story, and the intellectual gymnastics they’re performing to [...]]]>

It’s a tough job to portray pro-union demonstrators as “thugs” when the local police department is busy issuing press releases thanking them for conducting themselves “ with great decorum and civility.”

But the Right has never been known to let reality get in the way of a good story, and the intellectual gymnastics they’re performing to paint the ‘Midwest nice’ crowds in Madison as a horde of marauding hooligans has become pretty damn comical.

This week we had a Fox News reporter just lying straight out about being punched in a violent melee, we saw Bill O’Reilly airing footage from an old rally in California – complete with palm trees in the background – and now another, equally frightening example of “union thuggery.”

This story of workers’ perfidy came to me via Twitter (follow me!), where a conservative used it as proof that “union thugs” had no respect for the First Amendment. But when I clicked through for the details, well…

Dan Edelstein, 23, was cited for disorderly conduct by Madison police after he allegedly yanked the cords from the outlets on the outside of the Fox News truck at about 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, police said.

The network wasn’t broadcasting at the time, so Fox News Channel viewers weren’t left in the dark about the latest goings-on from Madison.

“No permanent damage was done and the cords were plugged back into the news vehicle,” said police spokesman Joel DeSpain.

That’s right, no indication the young man was a member of a union, and his act of “thuggery” amounted to pulling a plug out of a socket. Not something I condone, of course, but also not a terribly good example of violent mayhem, unless you happen to be a wing-nut.

After more than two weeks of protests outside the Capitol, this was only the second ticket issued by Madison police related to the protests.

The first ticket was issued to a woman who spat on a 10 year-old girl who was “holding a sign and chanting, ‘What’s disgusting, union busting.’”

Here’s the thing we all know: Right-wing Republicans don’t usually win if they’re honest about what they want to do. So in order to be successful, they have to lie, coerce, threaten, manipulate and cheat their way to victory. They can’t lead on the basis of their policies, because so few people support [...]]]>

Here’s the thing we all know: Right-wing Republicans don’t usually win if they’re honest about what they want to do. So in order to be successful, they have to lie, coerce, threaten, manipulate and cheat their way to victory. They can’t lead on the basis of their policies, because so few people support them once they know what they are.

So I’m not all that surprised that they’re trying to bully the Wisconsin Democrats out of their paychecks, their staff and their ability to serve. I’d be surprised if this new resolution is even legal:

MADISON – The 14 Wisconsin state Senate Democrats who left the state two weeks ago will now face fines of $100 for each day they miss, if they miss two or more days.

Republicans remaining in the Senate approved the daily fine on Wednesday morning with none of the Democrats present.

The Democrats left Wisconsin in order to delay indefinitely a Republican-backed bill taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees.

The resolution passed on Wednesday also requires the missing Democrats to reimburse the Senate for any costs incurred during attempts to force them to return. Their salary and other per diem payments can be withheld until they pay back the penalties and costs.

Republicans have already withheld the checks of missing Democrats from direct deposit and denied access to copying machines for their staff.

According to TODAY’S TMJ4′s Mick Trevey, there are punishments incorporated into the resolution which would allow for the removal of offices from senators, to downsize their offices, to take away spending capabilities for their offices for photocopies and office supplies, even to changing the way the staffs are run.

The two-day clock would not begin until Thursday, and if senators do not return two days later, the $100 fines and other measures could possibly begin.

I don’t think Democrats will have a problem raising the money, do you?

In the meantime, the Republicans might want to consider, you know, actually negotiating with the Democrats.