ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Local Business Community May Be Starting To Turn Against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

By Guest Blogger on Feb 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Our guest blogger is Mike Elk, a freelance labor journalist and third generation union organizer based in Washington, D.C. You can follow him for more updates on Wisconsin on twitter at @MikeElk.

The key to winning the battle in Wisconsin is how much endurance the protestors will have in remaining vigilant and how much pressure they can force the business community to bring to bear on Governor Walker. It remains unclear whether people are willing to skip work and other important things for the weeks that it might take to win this fight. Every day, the Wisconsin GOP has dismissed the protests saying they won’t last another day, but each day the protests get bigger by estimates of about ten thousand people each day. These protests have been successful in gaining a great deal of public support. A new statewide poll shows that 65 percent of Wisconsin residents think that Walker has gone too far in his attack on public employees.

The protests do appear to be growing and have entered the realm where they are no longer something being planned through rigorous amounts of organizing, but are happening spontaneously as people get inspired by the events. Dozens of smaller protests are popping up at smaller cities throughout Wisconsin and students walk out of numerous schools across Wisconsin. Many union members and activists across the country are beginning to organize car pools to travel to Madison.

A key thing to watch is whether the protests will grow enough to stop Walker from giving his scheduled budget address on Tuesday. Walker is attempting to move the speech to a location outside of the state legislature building, which could potentially be in violation of state law. Walker has also announced he will not present his actual budget till a week later, but will just give a speech.

The second thing to watch is whether or not that massive amount of public support can translate into pressure from the institutional actors like local governments and the business community. Many local governments are upset by the bill which not only affects the ability of public workers to bargain, but also makes drastic cuts in many basic services and municipality funding. The Mayor of Madison led a march with local public employee union members to the Capitol. Likewise, many local administrators who see their budgets being cut have been sympathetic to workers taking time off to attend the protests.

The deciding factor though is how much pressure the business community puts on Governor Walker to settle. Business leaders fear that the protests will embolden union members to fight back harder against concession and lockout threats. As Wisconsin based labor organizer Andy Gussert told me the other day, “Thank you Scott Walker! If we were given a million dollars, there is no way we could have taught so many kids about solidarity, labor organizing, and the power of the people when they unite”.

As a result of the protests, the business community is finding itself on the defensive. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce President Tim Sheehy would not commit to giving support to strip collective bargaining from public employees in an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio. Sheehy said, “so I think it’s fair to discuss the narrowing of collective bargaining. Whether we throw it out or not is not something we’ve taken a position on.”

Update

The original version of this post included a slight transcription error of Sheehy’s comments. It has been corrected and we apologize for the error.

Security

AZ House Panel Approves Bill To Deny Violently Assaulted Undocumented Immigrants Punitive Damages

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Feb 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm

In 2005, the Mexican American Legal Defense fund brought a lawsuit on behalf of 16 undocumented immigrants who claimed that an Arizona rancher — Roger Barnett — violently assaulted, detained and threatened them with death. Barnett allegedly told the immigrants in Spanish, “My dog is hungry, and he’s hungry for ass.” Barnett previously bragged about capturing 12,000 undocumented immigrants. ABC’s Nightline quoted Barnett — a self-professed border vigilante– saying that undocumented immigrants are “flooding across, invading the place.” “They’re going to bring their families, their wives, and they’re going to bring their kids. We don’t need them.”

In February 2009, a civil jury ruled in favor of the women plaintiffs. The late Chief Judge John Roll of Arizona, who was killed in last month’s tragic shooting in Arizona, received several death threats as he presided over the trial. A couple of weeks ago, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2009 ruling against Roger Barnett, forcing him to pay about $87,000 in damages to the victims.

This past Wednesday, an Arizona state House panel approved legislation that would prevent anyone who is in this country illegally from collecting punitive damages — even after winning a lawsuit. The East Valley Tribune reports:

A House panel on Wednesday approved legislation designed to benefit one man: Cochise rancher Roger Barnett. The measure would spell out that anyone who is in this country illegally cannot collect punitive damages even after winning a lawsuit.

Voters already approved a constitutional amendment doing precisely that in 2006. But that came nearly two years too late for Barnett who was sued following a 2004 incident when 16 illegal immigrants said the rancher illegally imprisoned them. HB 2191 makes that ballot measure retroactive to the beginning of 2004. If it survives the legislative process — and if it is found legal — the change could save Barnett $60,000, the amount of punitive damages four of the plaintiffs were awarded two years ago. Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, said that’s exactly what he has in mind.

When MALDEF won its case earlier this month, MALDEF president Thomas Saenz proclaimed, “[t]his decision vindicates constitutional guarantees for all…Even in Arizona, vigilantes do not have the right to harass and victimize peaceful migrants.” Yet, if HB 2191 becomes law, Barnett’s despicable actions will go largely unpunished.

Kevin G. Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau, has pointed out the approved 2006 ballot measure already says that “for a certain class of people, gross negligence against them can be excused.” Jaime Ferrant of the Border Action Network told the East Valley Tribune that HB 2191 “sets a dangerous precedent.’ Ferrant notes that Barnett has had his day in court and was sentenced. ‘This bill would establish that a certain person, or certain persons, are so important that we must make sure that they get their own set of laws to protect them,” Ferrant said.

Politics

Does Darrell Issa Want To Repeal The Bush Tax Cuts And End The War In Afghanistan?

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 18, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Seeming to try to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism earlier this week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) submitted a number of amendments to withdraw federal funding for items such as menopausal research, condom use studies, and an analysis of marijuana use in conjunction with malt liquor.

Today on MSNBC, when host Norah O’Donnell called out Issa for thinking his “set of sex, booze and drugs amendments” will do anything to reduce the budget deficit, the California Republican appeared to suggest that he is open, then, to repealing the Bush tax cuts and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

O’DONNELL: But you’re talking about cuts in menapause, research for menapause, condoms, malt liquor, video games. I mean with all due respect you well know that is not the cause of our budget problems and our budget defict.

ISSA: Well Norah you know, you and I have known each other about 12 years and in those 12 years we’ve gone from having a budget surplus to a deficit. So everything that’s been added should be the first to be looked at.

Watch it:

Perhaps Issa is unaware of this fact, but — aside from the recession — President Bush’s tax cuts and war spending are responsible for a large chunk of the current deficits as this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities illustrates:

As the New York Times noted in June, 2009, Bush’s tax cuts accounted for about 33 percent of the $2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit. And Bush regularly used accounting gimmicks so that the budget deficit would not account for war spending. But President Obama ended that practice when he took office, and, in fact, has increased war funding “from the $145 billion he inherited” to $162 billion this year and $159 billion next year.

So it seems that Issa has pledged to take a good look at war spending and the Bush tax cuts in order to reduce the deficit. We’re excited to hear what he’ll propose.

Yglesias

Union Member Voting Behavior

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 18, 2011 at 5:29 pm

I thought I’d look up how union members voted in the 2010 Wisconsin midterms. The exit polls didn’t actually provided the data, but they did ask about whether you live in a union household. Not surprisingly, union households like Democrats:

That’s a strong showing for Barrett but not nearly as strong as, say, his pull of 87 percent of the African-American vote. Had unions delivered 70 percent of the union household vote to Barrett, he would have won. Russ Feingold pulled 59 percent of the union household vote in his failed re-election bid. Nationally, 61 percent of union household voters pulled the lever for a House Democrat in 2010.

Health

Despite Accepting $2.9M From Health Law, Gov Parnell Claims Alaska ‘Swims Freer Of Federal Entanglement’

By Igor Volsky on Feb 18, 2011 at 5:25 pm

TIME’s Kate Pickert has the audio of Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s pronouncement that he would not accept federal funds to implement the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act, citing a district court ruling in Florida which found the individual mandate unconstitutional and invalidated the entire law. Here is the relevant portion:

Seven state legislators who support the federal mandated health insurance have urged me to apply for federal funds to establish a state health insurance exchange in conformance with the new federal health care law. Never mind according to these lawmakers the Florida judge held that health care law unconstitutional and stopped its implementation here. These lawmakers, three of whom are lawyers and know better, urged me to violate – I’m a lawyer to so I’m not going to laugh [crowd laughing]. Huh, I’m a recovering one [crowd laughing]. What these three lawmakers, plus the four others, urged me to violate the court ruling, which is effectively an injunction halting the implementation of the federal health care legislation. I of course will not do so. [...]

The result, Alaska now swims freer of federal entanglement then these other states. These other states are now trying to find out what to do with the oppressive constraints of money taken under a constitutional regime. Next, the supporters of the federal health care law claim, in a letter to me, that the feds will take over implementation of the federal health insurance exchange if I don’t do it. Not true. So long as this court order is in place the federal government is barred from implementing the mandates and the provisions of that federal health care law. That claim is patently false in light of the court ruling. Can the decision be appealed by the federal government? Of course it can. However, at this time, the courts declaratory judgment that the federal health care law is unconstitutional is the law of the land as it applies to Alaska, and 26 other states, by the way. And we will not proceed down an unlawful course to implement it.

It’s difficult to know where to begin, so I’ll start with the most recent events first. Yesterday, the administration filed a motion asking Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson to clarify the practical impact of his holding, effectively asking for a stay of his decision. “Defendants will appeal both the Court’s judgment and the rulings that underlie it,” the government wrote. “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In his ruling, Vinson found that of the 26 states that took part in the lawsuit just two — Utah and Idaho — had standing to challenge the law. That means that the other 24, including Alaska, are on shaky ground if they decide to halt implementation.

From his comments, one would think that Parnell hasn’t applied for any federal dollars that were appropriated through the Affordable Care Act. But Alaska has asked for and received $2.9 million from the ACA. That includes: Medicare improvements for patients and providers, epidemiology labs, strengthening public health infrastructure to improve health outcomes, the maternal and child home visitation program, background checks for long-term care providers, workforce development, and HIV Prevention and Public Health Fund activities. Why those dollars don’t fit under the description of “oppressive constraints of money ” is unclear, as is the question of why Parnell thinks that it is worse to be broke than to receive an enormous pool of money that you are not allowed to spend in frivolous ways.

His claim that the federal government won’t be able to implement a federal exchange is also misguided. As the law states, if a state “will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014,” “the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not- for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.” Of course, if a formal stay is granted, then the government can proceed implementing this portion of the law.

Economy

Koch Industries Slashed WI Jobs, Helped Elect Scott Walker, Now Orchestrating Pro-Walker Protest

By Lee Fang on Feb 18, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Wisconsin’s newly elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker is facing a growing backlash over his attempt to cut pay and eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in his state. Although Walker is claiming his power grab is an attempt to close a budget gap, the budget “crisis” was engineered by Walker as soon as he got into office. As Brian Beutler reported, half of the budget shortfall comes from Walker’s own tax cuts for businesses and other business giveaways enacted in January.

A number of the big business interests standing with Walker are beneficiaries of his administration’s tax giveaways. But the greatest ally to Walker is the dirty energy company Koch Industries. In response to the growing protests in Madison, Koch fronts are busing in Tea Party protesters to support Walker and his union-busting campaign. Last night, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz reported on the involvement of Club for Growth and the Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity in the pro-Walker protest scheduled tomorrow. Watch it:

Koch Industries is a major player in Wisconsin: Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state; and a large network of pipelines in Wisconsin. While Koch controls much of the infrastructure in the state, they have laid off workers to boost profits. At a time when Koch Industries owners David and Charles Koch awarded themselves an extra $11 billion of income from the company, Koch slashed jobs at their Green Bay plant:

Officials at Georgia-Pacific said the company is laying off 158 workers at its Day Street plant because out-of-date equipment at the facility is being replaced with newer, more-efficient equipment. The company said much of the new, papermaking equipment will be automated. [...] Malach tells FOX 11 that the layoffs are not because of a drop in demand. In fact, Malach said demand is high for the bath tissue and napkins manufactured at the plant.

Koch Industries was one of the biggest contributors to Walker’s gubernatorial campaign, funneling $43,000 over the course of last year. In return, Koch front groups are closely guiding the Walker agenda. The American Legislative Exchange Council, another Koch-funded group, advised Walker and the GOP legislature on its anti-labor legislation and its first corporate tax cuts.

According to the EPA, Koch businesses are huge polluters, emitting thousands of pounds of toxic pollutants. As soon as he got into office Walker started cutting environmental regulations and appointed a Republican known for her disregard for environmental regulations to lead the Department of Natural Resources. In addition, Walker has stated his opposition to clean energy jobs policies that might draw workers away from Koch-owned interests.

Moreover, other organizers for the pro-Walker protest are from groups associated with corporate and Koch interests. American Majority, a Virginia-based front group founded by organizers funded by millionaire investor Howie Rich, is on the ground contacting Wisconsin Tea Parties to support Walker in Madison. Austin James, an American Majority official who was caught teaching Tea Party members to spam Amazon.com profiles of liberal books with negative comments, is the contact for the Facebook page organizing the pro-Walker protest. Eric O’Keefe, a longtime conservative operative who helps lead American Majority, attends Koch strategy meetings.

Update

Koch’s Americans for Prosperity group has launched a new website and petition called www.standwithwalker.com. The new site attacks all collective bargaining, not just for public sector unions. Koch’s front group also declares: “In fact, every state should adopt Governor Scott Walker’s common sense reforms.”

Yglesias

Shakespeare and Copyright

By Matthew Yglesias on Feb 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Your bizarre argument of the day is Scott Turow, Paul Aiken, and James Shapiro invoking Shakespeare in defense of copyright maximalism. You’d think an essay on the subject of copyright and Shakespeare might take note of the fact that there was no copyright law anywhere in the world until England’s 1709 Statute of Anne, almost 100 years after Shakespeare’s death.

Some other things to consider: Shakespeare’s storylines? Largely ripped off from other authors. Merchant of Venice, etc. would all be illegal today. Shakespeare-derived works? West Side Story would be illegal had today’s standards been around in the Bard’s time. Think of the children? Is it a good thing or a bad thing that a kid today can download a copy of “Julius Caesar” for free? Would the world be a better or a worse place if every high school performance of Macbeth required you to pay royalties to Shakespeare’s heirs? The public domain is an excellent thing. The Bard put it to good use in constructing his works, and artists in subsequent centuries have put the public domain status of Shakespeare’s material to good use themselves. But thanks to endless retroactive copyright extensions, nothing new will ever enter the public domain. It’s a problem.

Health

CBO: Repeal Of Health Care Law Will Lead To ‘Government Takeover’ Of Health Care

By Igor Volsky on Feb 18, 2011 at 4:12 pm

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is out with an updated estimate of the effects of H.R.2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which passed the House of Representatives on January 19, 2011. According to the CBO, the GOP’s much-touted repeal would “cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period” and increase the number of uninsured by 33 million, “leaving a total of about 57 million nonelderly people” without coverage.

Republicans dismissed the initial estimate by claiming that the deficit reductions from the health law were the result of budget gimmickry and thus, they argued, the deficit increases from repeal are similarly unbelievable. As Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) described it on the Senate floor in early February, “So what I’m saying is, garbage in, garbage out.”

But for those who don’t dismiss uncomfortable reports — after repeatedly praising other more favorable scores from the agency — the new CBO offers its own bit of irony. That is, by repealing the coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans may be lowering the government’s commitment to health care over the first 10 years, but because they’re also going after the cost control measures in the law (and growing Medicare outlays), they are increasing the government’s involvement over the next 10:

CBO projects that enacting H.R. 2 would reduce the “federal budgetary commitment to health care” by $464 billion over the 2012–2021 period…The net reduction in that commitment would be driven primarily by repeal of the coverage expansions….However, CBO projects that enactment of H.R. 2 would increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the decade following the 10-year projection period. The estimated effect in later years differs from that in the first decade because the effects of those provisions that would tend to increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (such as the increase in Medicare spending and the repeal of the excise tax on insurance policies with relatively high premiums) would grow faster than the effects of provisions that would tend to decrease it (primarily the repeal of the coverage expansions). As with the longer-term estimate of overall budgetary effects, that projection incorporates an assumption that the provisions of current law would otherwise remain unchanged throughout the next two decades.

In other words, Republicans may think they’re preventing a so-called “government takeover” of health care by repealing the law, when in fact they’re putting one off for another 10 years.

Politics

Rep. Steve King Wants Endless Continuing Resolution Showdowns

By George Zornick on Feb 18, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Congress is locked in an emotional stalemate over a Continuing Resolution that would fund the government past March 4. Rabble-rousing Republican members of the House are attempting to advance the Tea Party agenda with a continuing resolution with draconian cuts, especially in areas that have long been anathema to conservatives. Over $60 million in cuts are in the Republican continuing resolution proposal, including steep reductions to the National Endowment for the Arts, the SEC and FCC budgets, women’s health block grants, and reductions in federal education spending. Senate Democrats have already said they are “deeply disappointed” with the proposal and will reject it, as will the White House.

If an agreement is not reached, the government will effectively shut down on March 5, something that an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called “likely” today. This showdown threatens not only many valuable areas of federal spending, but possibly the entire operation of the federal government.

But Rep. Steve King (R-IA) not only welcomes this process as a “big political vehicle” — he wants more “opportunities” like this. In an interview with CNS News, King suggested the possibility of a “series” of short-term Continuing Resolutions, even if they only last a matter of days, and that repeated showdowns would be useful for Republicans looking to make even more dramatic cuts, in particular, the total elimination of health care reform funding:

KING: But if we have to do a short-term CR because this one doesn’t pass, the one we are on now. We could end up doing a series of short-term CRs. This could be a big political vehicle out here, this CR we are debating right now. We could be doing a series of short-term ones, two weeks long, 30 days long. Each one of those would be potential opportunities . So I will be trying to work on every single one of them. [...]

CNS: So, in other words, congressman, if this CR passes the House tonight or tomorrow, even without your prohibition on funding for Obamacare, the Senate might reject this language, and the president might reject it, so the issue comes back to the House and you might end up with a shorter term funding bill that gives you additional chances this year–is that what you are saying–to defund Obamacare.

KING: Yes. Yes, absolutely.

CNS: Excellent.

Listen:

King also mentioned votes to raise the federal debt ceiling and setting a budget for the next fiscal year as opportunities to slash funding for health care reform, making it clear that many Republicans are more interested in hostage-taking and slashing government than in actually governing.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up