The Battle of Wisconsin

Well, that's that. The Wisconsin Senate Republicans used a possibly illegal parliamentary maneuver to break the gridlock over the issue of public workers rights and passed a bill which restricts the collective bargaining rights of  public sector workers. Scott Walker looks like he may have a win. For now. I am positive that if this change becomes law that Wisconsin will become a virtual new Eden of economic development as businesses fall over themselves to move to a state with weakened public sector unions who gave up money and rights to lure these companies there. I mean low wages and weak unions are the stepping stones to prosperity, right?

In an 18-to-1 vote, the Senate Republicans approved the restrictions on collective bargaining.

Republican Sen. Dale Schultz, the lone no vote, warned his GOP colleagues: "This issue is not going away."

"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators un-did 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin. Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten," Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller said. Miller and other Senate members said they would now be coming back to the state and continuing the fight.

The Senate bill severely restricts collective bargaining for tends of thousands of the state's public worker unions and increases their health care and pension contributions.

The measure has prompted massive demonstrations in the state capital by the bill's opponents and triggered a wave of recall campaigns targeting both the governor's supporters and opponents in the legislature.

On Wednesday night in the Capitol, the ground floor and first floor appeared nearly as full as they were during the first days of the demonstrations more than three weeks ago, and protesters stayed in the Capitol overnight, defiantly chanting "recall" and "Whose house? Our house!"

Outside the Assembly chamber, Barca allowed protesters to fill out forms listing themselves as witnesses to a violation of the state's open meetings laws, stemming from the Republicans' earlier conference committee meeting. 

Let's be honest about this and drop the niceties for one moment. I know that there are reasonable people on both sides of the spectrum. I know and work with a great many honorable and decent Republican leaning people. I don't think they strangle puppies and foreclose on widows before breakfast-at least not all of them.

But make no mistake, the modern Republican Party has one overarching purpose that unites it and that is a war against working people. They want cheap labor with no restrictions on business, the wealthy and the powerful. That's it.

The other goals which are popular among some subgroups among the Republicans-immigration restrictionism, creationism, libertarian fundamentalism, anti-abortion activism, neo-con war mongering, scaring white people about all the fertile non-whites, increasing the police and warfare state powers, telling Christians that gays are out there being gay, while getting their opponents hot and bothered are simply not as important to the Republican leadership as ensuring that the rich and connected can do what they want, when they want and how they want while getting richer and more connected. This is why Republicans mount ongoing attacks on any institution which does not serve or is not dominated by the wealthy. Unions are front and center. Republicans have to struggle to say anything nice about unions because fundamentally Republicans and their corporate bosses simply do not believe that unions have the right to exist.



Unions are bad for you. Trust me on this.

The ultimate goal for many conservatives is to reverse the entire past century of union struggle and government spending and protections directed at middle class/lower class people. No matter what the issue is - food safety, oil drilling regulations, discrimination, manufacturing, workplace safety regulations, the ability to sue for damages, protection from police abuse, cash and food subsidies for the poor and /or disabled, the ability for non-property owners to vote, social security and yes the ability of workers to organize and agitate for better working conditions and pay- it's a pretty safe bet that conservatives will be found arguing that the market knows best, anyone harmed should just get over it,  there should be no restriction on the ability of the corporation or employer to act as it pleases and government shouldn't protect people.

There's no shame in their game. They created a crisis and moved to exploit it. This time though they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's up to the people of Wisconsin to make sure that Walker and his friends are recalled or pay the price at the polls. It's up to the rest of us to look in our own states and decide what we can live with. Governor Walker is hardly an outlier-though he may be an out and out liar.

If you work for someone else for a living, if you have a net worth of less than $1 million, if you know people whose salary is calculated in a two digit hourly rate, if you know what the minimum wage is, if an unexpected car repair messes up your budget for the next 3-6 months, if you financially could not afford to take a few years off from your position, the Republicans are not on your side. It's that simple.

The only question left is which side are you on?

Questions: Is this the beginning of the end for public sector unions? Will this energize the middle class and working class to throw out the Republicans in 2012? Why did the people of Wisconsin vote Walker into office if NOT to do this? Do you think that restricting or eliminating public sector unions is a good idea?  Will everyone have forgotten about this in a year or so?

Still wrong after all these years

Walter Williams

A physicist, biologist, and economist are shipwrecked on an island with no food except canned goods. They have no can opener. They soberly consider their dilemma. Each professor presents a plan to the others.

The physicist has identified some coral reef. He proposes that at low tide he carefully wade out to the reef, break off some coral, attach it to a stone and use that tool to open the cans. The biologist disagrees. She states that because this island is known for inedible and highly acidic snails they should dig for those snails and express their acid to cut through the can lids.

The two scholars look expectantly at the economist. He says "Let's assume we have a can opener".

Walter Williams is an economist.  Much like the economist in the story, he is prone to making useless assumptions. Williams was the subject of a recent WSJ column. 

As a right wing libertarian Williams has a blind spot to free market inefficiencies and immoralities. He assumes morality. Williams thinks the majority of issues which impact black people are either their own fault or caused by the government.

Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren't union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.

Analysis of this issue launched Mr. Williams' career as a public intellectual, and in 1982 he published his first book, "The State Against Blacks," arguing that laws regulating economic activity are far larger impediments to black progress than racial bigotry and discrimination. Nearly 30 years later, he stands by that premise.

"Racial discrimination is not the problem of black people that it used to be" in his youth, says Mr. Williams. "Today I doubt you could find any significant problem that blacks face that is caused by racial discrimination. The 70% illegitimacy rate is a devastating problem, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with racism. The fact that in some areas black people are huddled in their homes at night, sometimes serving meals on the floor so they don't get hit by a stray bullet—that's not because the Klan is riding through the neighborhood."

Williams glosses over a few things.

The bloodiest war in this nation's history was fought because a group of slave owners were worried that the Federal government might interfere in the private marketplace and limit or end slavery. Afterwards the partisans and descendants of the losing side set up a formalized system of apartheid while those of the winning side, who generally eschewed most of the Southern Jim Crow system, still practiced what amounted to informal segregation. Each system also featured semi-regular outbursts of public or private violence should any Black person ignore certain barriers.

These systems finally broke down post-WW2 for a variety of reasons, free market capitalism not being the most prominent. In fact the general arc of the US political economy from 1910-1970 was away from free market capitalism. The most effective tool used to dismantle these structures was government action to limit the choices of private individuals and companies.

This is anathema to libertarians. Fundamentalist free market libertarians don't accept the government’s right to interfere in the private marketplace. They believe that the market will work it all out and if it doesn't why then it's up to the individual to shop, work or move somewhere else. So food safety laws, anti-discrimination laws, environmental protections, workplace safety regulations, child labor laws, medical licensing, unions, fair housing laws, affirmative action, taxes etc are all bad things under this point of view - very bad things indeed.

Williams ignores current studies which show that all else equal, race is still a major factor in who gets hired, who gets promoted, who even has the opportunity to interview in the first place (Helpful hint -try not to have a “black sounding” name on your resume.)

Black people don't get the same benefit (income) from education. 

Private decisions in aggregate can have a negative effect on a black person's ability to buy a home of his/her choosing. This also impacts future inherited wealth. (subject of a future post)

So is government always the solution? Are Black people perpetual victims? Does this mean that there aren't some Black people who need to get their behind in gear and get in the game?

OF COURSE NOT! No intelligent person argues that.

What's past is past and can't be changed. But the past has an impact on the present. Additionally some bad things are still occurring today.

Pretending that most problems arise from government intervention in the marketplace is just silly. It fits what I consider a loony libertarian view of the world but it doesn't match reality. It's a straw man which Williams has constructed in order to avoid confronting the limits of his ideology. Unsurprisingly he's no fan of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, viewing it as unconstitutional and unnecessary.

  

So what's your take? Do you think the challenges black people face were primarily created or aggravated by government actions?  Does the federal government (or any arm of government) have the constitutional right to ban private discrimination?  Did the Great Society destroy the Black family? Is racism a thing of the past?