The Democrat Thread

[Cknolls]

FWIW, here is Scott's press release addressingthe issue:

 

My decision to reject the project comes down to three main economic realities:

 

● First — capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion.

 

● Second — ridership and revenue projections are historically overly-optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur. (from $300 million – $575 million over 10 years) — Note: The state subsidizes Tri-Rail $34.6 million a year while passenger revenues covers only $10.4 million of the $64 million annual operating budget.

 

● Finally — if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds to D.C.

 

● The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits.

 

● Historical data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in 9 out of 10 high speed rail projects and that 2/3 of those projects inflated ridership projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.

 

● It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually. Keep in mind that Amtrak’s Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010. And that market’s population is 8 times the size of the Tampa/Orlando market.

 

● President Obama’s high-speed rail program is not the answer to Florida’s economic recovery.

 

● We must make investments in areas where we will get a return for the shareholders – Florida’s taxpayers.

 

● Rather than investing in a high-risk rail project, we should be focusing on improving our ports, rail and highway infrastructure to be in a position to attract the increased shipping that will result when the panama canal is expanded when the free trade agreements with Colombia and panama are ratified and with the expansion of the economies of central and south America.

 

● By capturing a larger share of containerized imports entering our seaports, expanding export markets for Florida businesses and emerging as a global hub for trade and investment we can create up to an additional 143,000 jobs according to a recent chamber of commerce study.

 

 

http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-go...igh-speed-rail/

[NorthSideSox72]

FWIW, here is Scott's press release addressingthe issue:

 

My decision to reject the project comes down to three main economic realities:

 

● First — capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion.

 

● Second — ridership and revenue projections are historically overly-optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur. (from $300 million – $575 million over 10 years) — Note: The state subsidizes Tri-Rail $34.6 million a year while passenger revenues covers only $10.4 million of the $64 million annual operating budget.

 

● Finally — if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds to D.C.

 

● The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits.

 

● Historical data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in 9 out of 10 high speed rail projects and that 2/3 of those projects inflated ridership projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.

 

● It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually. Keep in mind that Amtrak’s Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010. And that market’s population is 8 times the size of the Tampa/Orlando market.

 

● President Obama’s high-speed rail program is not the answer to Florida’s economic recovery.

 

● We must make investments in areas where we will get a return for the shareholders – Florida’s taxpayers.

 

● Rather than investing in a high-risk rail project, we should be focusing on improving our ports, rail and highway infrastructure to be in a position to attract the increased shipping that will result when the panama canal is expanded when the free trade agreements with Colombia and panama are ratified and with the expansion of the economies of central and south America.

 

● By capturing a larger share of containerized imports entering our seaports, expanding export markets for Florida businesses and emerging as a global hub for trade and investment we can create up to an additional 143,000 jobs according to a recent chamber of commerce study.

 

 

http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-go...igh-speed-rail/

What he is saying about cost overruns is in direct conflict with the other article. Someone is using bad numbers, and I don't know which one.

 

And his stat about high speed rail projects is patently false, because there hasn't even BEEN 10 high speed rail projects in the US. So that part, just throw out the window.

 

[bmags]

I really can't wait for the high speed train to STL.

[Soxy]

Wisconsin democrats didn't show up to the vote today to prevent a quorum being met. Walker tells the state police to round them up and bring them in. Democrats high tail it to Illinois.

 

linky link

[Balta1701]

Wisconsin democrats didn't show up to the vote today to prevent a quorum being met. Walker tells the state police to round them up and bring them in. Democrats high tail it to Illinois.

 

linky link

The fleeing legislature again? Awesome!

[Soxbadger]

Here are some pictures:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/116411054.html

 

Capitol building is packed.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wisconsin democrats didn't show up to the vote today to prevent a quorum being met. Walker tells the state police to round them up and bring them in. Democrats high tail it to Illinois.

 

linky link

Wow, this is quite a thing.

 

It seems that logic and compromise are out the window. I don't blame Walker for forcing the government to find cuts to make... but he's being a beligerent ass about it.

 

[Balta1701]

Wow, this is quite a thing.

 

It seems that logic and compromise are out the window. I don't blame Walker for forcing the government to find cuts to make... but he's being a beligerent ass about it.

If it were just budget cuts it wouldn't have come to this. There might have been protests, but a compromise would have been possible.

 

Declaring unions illegal, declaring that workers have no right to organize, declaring that raises have to be put to referenda, that's something else.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here are some pictures:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/116411054.html

 

Capitol building is packed.

I have to say, regardless of which side (or neither side, as in my case) you agree with here, I really love seeing people make this kind of political action. Its inspiring to see there are still this many people who give a s***.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

If it were just budget cuts it wouldn't have come to this. There might have been protests, but a compromise would have been possible.

 

Declaring unions illegal, declaring that workers have no right to organize, declaring that raises have to be put to referenda, that's something else.

Thus the "ass" part.

 

But, it seems you are exaggerating a bit here too. I don't think this says they have no right to organize, that's not what I have read about the law to this point.

 

[Cknolls]

What he is saying about cost overruns is in direct conflict with the other article. Someone is using bad numbers, and I don't know which one.

 

And his stat about high speed rail projects is patently false, because there hasn't even BEEN 10 high speed rail projects in the US. So that part, just throw out the window.

 

 

Did he mention the US? He just said 9 out of 10. Just curious. I would think there have been more than 10 worldwide though, no?

[Rex Kickass]

Thus the "ass" part.

 

But, it seems you are exaggerating a bit here too. I don't think this says they have no right to organize, that's not what I have read about the law to this point.

 

The bill puts an end to collective bargaining, if I understand it correctly. It essentially makes a union pointless, because it prohibits workers from having a seat at the table when it comes to dictating the terms of their work.

[Jenksismyhero]

The bill puts an end to collective bargaining, if I understand it correctly. It essentially makes a union pointless, because it prohibits workers from having a seat at the table when it comes to dictating the terms of their work.

 

Pretty sure that would violate a number of Federal labor laws, so I'm doubting that's the case.

[Balta1701]

Pretty sure that would violate a number of Federal labor laws, so I'm doubting that's the case.

It's true. The bill explicitly strips those unions from the right to bargain with the State over any issue, whether it be]retirement, health care, or even workplace safety. The Unions for everything other than the police would effectively be banned. And even wages that were bargained for would be subject to a popular vote.

Except for police, firefighters and troopers, raises would be limited to inflation unless a bigger increase was approved in a referendum. The non-law enforcement unions would lose their rights to bargain over anything but wages, would have to hold annual elections to keep their organizations intact and would lose the ability to have union dues deducted from state paychecks.

[Soxy]

Pretty sure that would violate a number of Federal labor laws, so I'm doubting that's the case.

 

That is the bill. There is no collective bargaining for state employees (except for a select few unions that endorsed Walker).

[Soxbadger]

Well its the case according to the news. And a state can pass a law that is in violation of federal law, you would then need to sue the state in federal court and that would take years.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116381289.html

 

Except for police, firefighters and troopers, raises would be limited to inflation unless a bigger increase was approved in a referendum. The non-law enforcement unions would lose their rights to bargain over anything but wages, would have to hold annual elections to keep their organizations intact and would lose the ability to have union dues deducted from state paychecks.

 

Two GOP sources familiar with internal talks said Sens. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) and Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) were backing a plan to put at least some union bargaining rights back into the bill. One source said the plan would make use of devices such as sunset clause to bring back certain bargaining rights in future years.

 

So its clear that the bill will take away bargaining rights. Whether or not that is in violation of federal law would be for some one that knows about that type of stuff to determine.

 

It looks like a mess.

[NorthSideSox72]

Did he mention the US? He just said 9 out of 10. Just curious. I would think there have been more than 10 worldwide though, no?

 

That's a good question, it may be what he meant. Its the only way its not a complete falsehood. But really, I would say that foreign examples are sort of useless for this discussion. So either he is just flat out lying, or he's carefully using his words to mask an unreliable data set.

 

Well its the case according to the news. And a state can pass a law that is in violation of federal law, you would then need to sue the state in federal court and that would take years.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116381289.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So its clear that the bill will take away bargaining rights. Whether or not that is in violation of federal law would be for some one that knows about that type of stuff to determine.

 

It looks like a mess.

If it passes, it will be contested in court, and the first judge might very well issue a stay order on the legislation until the matter is resolved. So this thing may die a quick death anyway.

 

[Balta1701]

If it passes, it will be contested in court, and the first judge might very well issue a stay order on the legislation until the matter is resolved. So this thing may die a quick death anyway.

I think a number of those are probably legal at this point (the federal union laws have been chipped away at for decades). You can certainly ban the paycheck withholding, you can decertify a union, you can pass regulations that override collectively bargained workplace safety issues.

[Soxbadger]

The first judge may issue a stay, he also may not. If you are against a law the best way to fight it, is to prevent it from ever becoming a law.

 

You just dont know what a district court judge will do. But this could be a case that gets expedited review if necessary.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think a number of those are probably legal at this point (the federal union laws have been chipped away at for decades). You can certainly ban the paycheck withholding, you can decertify a union, you can pass regulations that override collectively bargained workplace safety issues.

But if the law goes past that, as was pointed out, the whole law can be stayed. Or part of it, or none of it. All are possible.

 

[Balta1701]

Different topic but discussed here a few pages ago. The South Dakota "Justifiable Homicide/Kill an abortion provider" bill has been shelved, seemingly permanently.

[Soxbadger]

http://www.badgerherald.com/

 

Some photos from outside the building.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yep, I was wrong. Apparently federal labor laws don't apply to state workers. Interesting.

 

"Federal law does not provide employees of state and local governments with the right to organize or engage in union activities, except to the extent that the United States Constitution protects their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Constitution provides even less protection for governmental employees' right to engage in collective bargaining: while it bars public employers from retaliating against employees for forming a union, it does not require those employers to recognize that union, much less bargain with it."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._and_organizing

[Balta1701]

I think this is a worth-while editorial with an additional note on how the WI situation came about...

In fact, like just about every other state in the country, Wisconsin is managing in a weak economy. The difference is that Wisconsin is managing better -- or at least it had been managing better until Walker took over. Despite shortfalls in revenue following the economic downturn that hit its peak with the Bush-era stock market collapse, the state has balanced budgets, maintained basic services and high-quality schools, and kept employment and business development steadier than the rest of the country. It has managed so well, in fact, that the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau recently released a memo detailing how the state will end the 2009-2011 budget biennium with a budget surplus.

 

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

 

To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January. If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes -- or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues -- the “crisis” would not exist.

The programs he established through votes in January were some corporate tax cuts and additional money for Health-Savings accounts. The Governor actually generated his own fiscal imbalance to start this.

[Soxy]

I think this is a worth-while editorial with an additional note on how the WI situation came about...

 

The programs he established through votes in January were some corporate tax cuts and additional money for Health-Savings accounts. The Governor actually generated his own fiscal imbalance to start this.

 

Which further underscores the point that this is not about the budget at all--it is a union busting bill.

 

UGH!

 

And next week we'll have to deal with his plan to break UW-Madison off from the rest of the UW System and basically try to privatize us piece by piece.

 

I lived in MN when Jesse Ventura was gov--and holy crap I wish he was my gov again.