Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:11 PM ET, 03/ 1/2011

Will Americans' support for public workers matter?

By Adam Serwer

As Greg noted this morning, three national polls have shown that Americans may not like unions, but they're supportive of public workers' basic right to organize. A Pew Center poll found that Americans support the public workers' position over that of Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker by more than ten points, 42 percent to 31 percent.

With the usual caveats about extrapolating from a single data point, another poll from Public Policy Polling found a significant sense of buyer's remorse among Wisconsin voters, who today would go for Walker's Democratic opponent Tom Barrett 52 percent to 45 percent.

Still, despite the fact that the public supports workers' right to organize, and Walker's image is taking a hit among Wisconsin voters, I'm ultimately not optimistic about the chances that Wisconsin Republicans will give up on Walker's attempt to crush the unions. Despite the unions already having agreed to take benefit cuts, and the Walker-engineered budget shortfall unmasked as pretext, Walker has still refused to budge. Frankly, that makes sense -- it's in his party's long term political interest to eviscerate one of the Democratic Party's strongest constituencies, even if he has to take a short-term hit in public opinion to do so.

Recall that the Affordable Care Act was unpopular and the source of a great deal of popular discontent from the right at the time it was passed (although no where near the size of the Wisconsin crowds). But the structural factors were in Democrats favor -- they controlled both houses of Congress -- and they would be vilified for having supported the bill whether it passed or not. Ultimately, it was in Democrats' long-term interest to pass legislation expanding health insurance coverage to millions of people, more than to get criticized for trying to do so but accomplishing absolutely nothing. Similarly, I don't see why Walker, having made it clear that this isn't about the fiscal health of the state of Wisconsin but about destroying the political enemies of the Republican Party, wouldn't simply persevere.

It's possible, as Greg reported yesterday, that the state's Republicans aren't as stubborn as Walker and may ultimately try to force a compromise. But regardless of how this turns out, another key question is whether or not the left can marshal and sustain the level of enthusiasm seen in Wisconsin long enough to make it matter in 2012. The right's hatred of the health-care bill ultimately helped lead to the Democrats' "shellacking" in November. The question is whether the left can make Republicans pay a similar price for their assault on the rights of public workers and the social safety net.

And there's a broader possibility, as David Dayen suggests: The protests in Wisconsin might lead to something larger than mere victory at the polls -- a revitalized progressive movement. If that happens, even a Walker victory would be a pyrrhic one.

By Adam Serwer  | March 1, 2011; 4:11 PM ET
Categories:  Labor  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did Ben Bernanke undercut key Dem talking point about GOP budget cuts?
Next: Happy Hour Roundup


Thanks Gov. Walker for doing what the Obama administration hasn't been able to do since the 2008 election, and that's unite ALL Dems behind a good cause.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 1, 2011 4:25 PM | Report abuse

This seems to be a roundabout admission that there is really only one poll that matters and it was taken in November 2010.

It is a sign of maturity that a least one commenter has finally, albeit grudgingly, admitted that ultimately the legislators will do what they think is best, without respect to the current polls. As the Democrats in DC did with the dreadful Obamacare.

Now it is the tax payers turn. We elected people we believe will do a better job of representing OUR interests. Since taxpayers are worth no more than a sneer from the left, the liberals are in a snit.

the new governments in WI and OH were elected to restore fiscal sanity and they are doing the hard work that is required. Cost cutting is always a matter of finding the sacred cows and killing them. This is common in business too. The folks whose ox is being gored of course bleat the loudest.

so much of the union thuggery is just the union members doing the only thing they know how to do when facing adversity.

and it is important to remember the stakes for the Democrat party. The civil service unions are a gold mine for Democrats. Let us never forget that AFSCME spent 90 million in 2010 and bragged about it. The taxpayers are basically funding an organization that is fundamentally opposed to the tax payers best interest. That was nice while it lasted, but the lid has been blown off and the this little vein of ore is tapped out.

Too bad, so sad.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 1, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Adam: Please stop lying about the supposed "Walker-engineered budget shortfall" - this has been unmasked as outright falsehood.

"What about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

"... The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

"Here’s the bottom line:

"There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it."

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I think what we are seeing is as Imsinca said earlier: the Great Awakening of the Middle Class.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I think that ultimately Walker will have his hollow victory.
What the resident Right Wingers here don't want to acknowledge is that the November election had your typical low mid term election turnout of mainly white and older voters, not a cross section of the country by any means. By Novemeber 2012 Walker may already be out of office and many of the gains of the GOP will be reversed. If I'm wrong then there's always Canada. One second tier country is the same as another.

Posted by: filmnoia | March 1, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The unions want to keep the camel's nose in the tent.

Intelligent people like myself know EXACTLY how this realistically works.

- The unions accept the wages cuts for the time being biding their time
- Then a democratic legislature and governor get in and in return for the campaign contributions they negotiate the wages and benefits right back to their current unsustainable levels
- They tax their consituents to pay for it

Sorry but this bait and switch is over. The last few years have shown liberals will lie to any degree to get what they want.

Posted by: Cryos | March 1, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

What was the question in the poll? I support public workers, they do great things. I like my kid's teachers and several close friends are local cops and firefighters. I also have friends on city councils, friends who are police chiefs and are school board members. The issues are real.

Walker isn't trying to crush the union, he's trying to control the expense of running the state. If anyone ever suggests changing any union privilege, they are met with violent protests.

Wouldn't you want some mild reform vs. what is happening in California?

Posted by: casadeloro | March 1, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Shorter Comrade skip-

blah-blah, thugs, blah-blah, nipple-sucking, blah- blah, gummint, blah-blah...

You really need a new schtick there, Comrade...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | March 1, 2011 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Is this fallout from the bashing of public workers?

"The House on Tuesday approved a stopgap measure that would keep the federal
government funded through March 18 and cut $4 billion in spending by
targeting programs that President Obama has already marked for elimination.

The proposal, which passed the House on a 335-to-91 vote, now goes to the
Senate, where it is expected to pass easily. Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D-Nev.) said on Tuesday that it is likely to come to a vote in his
chamber within 48 hours.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), addressing reporters in the
Capitol shortly before Reid's news conference, said that Senate Republicans
are also behind the House's short-term proposal."

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"If anyone ever suggests changing any union privilege, they are met with violent protests."


There has been no violence.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

@12bar: "Is this fallout from the bashing of public workers?"

What do you mean? The Dems folded and agreed to "draconian" cuts.

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"If anyone ever suggests changing any union privilege, they are met with violent protests."


There has been no violence.

Some people think that any protest about something they don't personally endorse is violent. Remember the famous poster on this blog who still defends the shootings of passersby at Kent State as some kind of justified action because they were, well, in the vicinity. Some people are still mad about antiwar protests, so now all protesters are reincarnations of Jane Fonda, excepting of course, the Tea Party, who are reincarnations of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse


The GOP folded on funding for ACA and Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 5:23 PM | Report abuse

@sbj: Unless I missed something (always possible!) those "draconian" cuts were spending cuts that Obama had proposed coupled with removal of earmarks. The Dem's substituted $4B that they wanted cut for the arbitrary cuts that the Repubs were going to make. Same dollar amount, different targets.

Posted by: Michigoose | March 1, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

@sue: It's a two-week CR that includes $4,000,000,000 in cuts! The GOP can attack ACA in a more substantial CR that runs through September.

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

@12bar: "Is this fallout from the bashing of public workers?"

What do you mean? The Dems folded and agreed to "draconian" cuts.
And, the GOP didn't hit their $100b target or shut down the government or eliminate funding for the national health care law. "All but six Republican House members voted in favor. Among the Republicans opposing it was Rep. Steve King (Iowa). King tweeted Tuesday afternoon that he would vote no because it would not eliminate funding for the national health care law and would not include an amendment proposed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) that would bar federal funding of Planned Parenthood."

When the polling showed that both parties were equally blamed by the people for the budget impasse, interestingly enough, both parties voted together to move things along. When the polls show that people don't hate public workers like the Giant Satan, both parties voted together.

So much for polls don't matter.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse


Read Michigoose. The GOP gave in to Obama's proposed cuts.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

hey Chuck, thanks for spending some of you finite time on this planet reading my comments. I appreciate it.

BTW I spend virtually no time reading anything that starts with "comrade skippy" or some such.

Just not worth it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 1, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

@sue and 12bar: I can't speak for all conservatives but if the GOP House can get the government to reduce its spending by $2,000,000,000.00 every week then I will be quite happy with their performance.

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 5:33 PM | Report abuse

All it would take, sbj, is looking at the DOD for a few weeks. . .

Posted by: Michigoose | March 1, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

@sue and 12bar: I can't speak for all conservatives but if the GOP House can get the government to reduce its spending by $2,000,000,000.00 every week then I will be quite happy with their performance.
There you have it--the essence of compromise. Obviously both parties felt the same way. Congratulations to all moderates, because moderates make deals. Ideologues jump on the funeral pyre and we sing ballads to their memories.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Talks about how the housing bubble is the primary driver of the collapse of the state employee pension plans, not the plans themselves.

Cliff notes for Conservatives: Me and the writer of the link I posted to and the writer of the link he posted to are the three dumbest people in the world and should all be sent to China. Let's just make that your implicit constructive criticism.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh Ma Gawd.

Did you guys see the name of the guy Koch trotted out to defend the Koch Bros BS?


"Richard Fink, the executive vice president of Koch Industries"



Omg, you can't make this stuff up. First reported at NRO. Omg, lmfao.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | March 1, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

@michigoose: I'm all for reasonable cuts across the board. And not quite right about the cuts - the Dems wanted them prorated over 7 months and the GOP did them all at once over two weeks. The $4,000,000,000.00 rate conforms precisely to the GOP's original $61,000,000,000.00 rate through September.

Here's what Reid's spokesman originally said about the two-week CR that cuts $4,000,000,000.00:

“The Republicans’ so-called compromise is nothing more than the same extreme package the House already handed the Senate, just with a different bow,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said. “This isn’t a compromise, it’s a hardening of their original position.”

Are y'all seriously going to try to spin a two week CR that cuts $4,000,000,000.00 in spending as a Dem victory? At the same time that Greg is arguing that spending cuts will hurt the economy?

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse


Liam is gonna have some fun with Rich Fink!

Next time you see him here, mention this again.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 5:48 PM | Report abuse


What was cut matters as much as how much. Is that simple enough for you?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"Are y'all seriously going to try to spin a two week CR that cuts $4,000,000,000.00 in spending as a Dem victory? At the same time that Greg is arguing that spending cuts will hurt the economy?"

Yeah, don't you know that hurting the economy is a Republican victory?

But nice job with the zeros, sbj. Your internet penis is soooooooo big!

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I retract my nice words to sbj about being a dealmaker moderate. I guess he is a burning pyre jumper after all. Too bad, we'll miss him when he's nothing but a cinder in our eye.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute, sbj. You actually think that the government is cutting $2b this week and $2b next week. That they will actually spend $2b less this week than they would have?

Have you looked at the detail of the continuing resolution?

Here's the first item:

Election Assistance Grants = -$75 million. This termination was requested in the President's budget request. The states have yet to spend large amounts of funding provided by this program, and both the House and Senate proposed eliminating the program last year.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 5:57 PM | Report abuse

@12bar: I think the Senate and House are about to pass a two-week spending bill that would cut federal spending by $4 billion.

I'm actually rather surprised that y'all aren't going just a bit crazy over what Huck said...

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Rather than go through the smaller items in the continuing resolution, here's the big dollar amount:

Highways - Additional General Fund spending (Federal Highways Administration) = -$650 million. No funds were requested for this use in the President's budget request. This one-time, non-recurring funding addition was provided in fiscal year 2010 and distributed to all States through the existing, authorized highway formula. Removing these funds will have no impact on the authorized, mandatory side of the highway program and its limitation of obligations.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

One thing that has become abundantly clear is that Repubs aren't serious about the budget or governing (to channel my inner Steve Benen). Yes, sbj, the targeted cuts--thought out ahead of time and debated--not a random dollar amount are a good thing. Targeted, not pray and spray. . .

Posted by: Michigoose | March 1, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"I'm actually rather surprised that y'all aren't going just a bit crazy over what Huck said..."

Huck has nuthin' on RICH FINK!

Posted by: ronnieandrush | March 1, 2011 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the big enchilada in the continuing resolution is the cut to earmarks:

TOTAL Terminations Savings = $1.24 billion [...] TOTAL Earmark Savings = $2.7 billion TOTAL CR Spending Cuts = $4.01 billion

Excuse me, what are earmarks? Aren't they congressmen spending on projects to benefit their own districts.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

It is heartening to see liberals who only a few short weeks ago were demanding tax increases finally recognizing that cutting the government is possible.

I doubt Mr Sargent will mention this but the GAO released its first annual study of government waste and overlap.

It is here:

Here are a couple of important findings from NRO:
Eight federal agencies oversee 80 programs to provide “transportation for the transportation disadvantaged.” The GAO could not determined a cost estimate for these programs because the agencies “often do not separately track transportation costs from other program costs.” However, 23 of these programs were allotted $1.7 billion in 2009.
Two separate bureaus within the State Department received close to $80 billion in 2010 for “Arms Control and Nonproliferation.” The reports found significant redundancy, noting that a guiding document to outline the role and responsibilities of these bureaus “has never been drafted and approved.”

the list goes on and on. Billions in waste. Last week the secretary of the treasury released a report that admitted to 125 billion in waste. I've reported here before that Sebelius, the abortion queen, admitted to 30 billion in wasted medicaid payments.

We can easily find enough to make a significant impact on our debt and deficit. Every dollar of waste we find is a dollar less that must be confiscated from tax payers, who have little enough to waste as it is.

Arguing for more money from the American citizens gets more difficult with every day that passes, thanks to an energized conservative movement and a re invigorated Republican party.

My hope is that enough of this work get done before the current crop of enthusiastic Republicans in congress get burnt out by the DC sirens and return to the mess they made for us in 04 and 06.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 1, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

@12bar: I thought you followed things closer than this. Reid has been arguing that he would not agree to any two week CR unless it kept spending at current levels. When Boehner proposed a 2 week CR that cut $4,000,000,000.00 in spending they called it a non-starter. Then they learned that the cuts would largely consist of the $2.7B in earmarks and some of Obama's proposals for his 2012 budget. So the Dems got boxed into agreeing to a two-week CR that cut spending that they never wanted to agree to. GOP wins this round, hands down.

Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"I'm actually rather surprised that y'all aren't going just a bit crazy over what Huck said..."

A Republican trying to scare Americans with lies, racism, and making people think Obama is not "one of us"?

yawn, wake me up when you all decide to really be offensive. You people shot your wad with the death panel stuff, so it will be hard to top. If you guys really want to go the racist route, stick a mike in front of Barbour's face. Huckabee is just a wannabe. Barbour is a real life, home grown, country fried, ni**er hater.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 1, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

GOP wins this round, hands down.
Ok, sbj, you win.


Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 1, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

12BB: "Aren't they congressmen spending on projects to benefit their own districts."

Yup. And I hope that train money that the jacka$$ from IL wanted the Senate to put back in for him is included in the earmark cuts. Then let him take the heat from his constituents.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"Ok, sbj, you win."


Posted by: sbj3 | March 1, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

@skip: "It is heartening to see liberals who only a few short weeks ago were demanding tax increases finally recognizing that cutting the government is possible."

I posted this morning that the GAO report was coming and that we need to cut waste and redundancy.

NoVA and I had a whole conversation about it over two threads.

You were busy wagging your finger at liberals to notice.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | March 1, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

sbj: ""I'm actually rather surprised that y'all aren't going just a bit crazy over what Huck said..."

Huckabee opened his mouth and some total ignorance fell out.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 1, 2011 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Love the commenters celebrating the GOP "victory." The best case result was forecasted today by Bernanke:

"In any case, it hardly matters. Maybe it's a million jobs, maybe it's half a million jobs. Maybe it will cost a point of GDP, maybe it will cost half a point of GDP. But considering that the economy is still sluggish and unemployment is extremely high, why are we considering budget cuts that will have any negative effect on jobs and growth? Especially cuts in the only part of the budget that isn't a long-term problem?

That's the big news from Bernanke's testimony: not that he thinks other estimates of job losses are too high, but the fact that he agrees the Republican budget plan will cost jobs and slow growth. That's coming from a Republican Fed chair! How much more evidence do we need that our current budget cutting mania is insane?"

Congratulations to the GOP on its victory.

So be it.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | March 1, 2011 6:24 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

Posted by: Greg Sargent | March 1, 2011 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"...and the Walker-engineered budget shortfall unmasked as pretext"

That is incorrect.

Perhaps Mr. Serwer and Mr. Beutler aren't aware that is incorrect.

My sense is that neither understands biennial budgeting. Neither seem to have much of a grasp of economics or accounting(Serwer; BA/English; Vassar).

The "ginning"/"pretext" tax cuts were not a line item of the current year budget and did not affect any current deficit.

Mr. serwer and Mr. Beutler are incorrect so often, Mr. Serwer in particular, that it seems to almost be purposefully.

The 2012-2013 biennial budget was released today. The forecast for that period was a projected $3.6Billion shortfall. The proposed budget addresses that projected 2yr deficit.

Posted by: tao9 | March 1, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

The party most willing to tackle real problems in a forthright manner, in this case Wisconsin's Republicans, is always most at risk of taking a hit in the public arena, especially when the media rise against them as in this case. Sargent is right on one point: with the help of mainstream media, this episode could lead to a revitalized progressive movement, and that is what we have most to fear.

Posted by: bubba31138 | March 1, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

It's a single datum point--if there are two or more points, they're data points.

Posted by: bandit409 | March 1, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

What I find so hilarious and disturbing at the same time are the liberals who call out the Rich. When they themselves are usually Rich, yet the way they get their funds are usually from ill gotten booty. They mooch off the general population and thats why they love socialism. You can take your public unions and stick them where the sun doesnt shine.

Posted by: Lanche | March 1, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

bubba31138: The Democratic Progressive Union Socialist Communist Party is losing more members now than at any other time in history. That is because old school Democrats do not view themselves as any of the above. The only good thing that Obama, Reid and Pelosi did (the Three Horsemen) is to wake America up about the dangers of letting a statist party rule. Progressives, unionists, socialists and communists can never be given this much power again. 2012 cannot get her soon enough to continue what was started last November.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | March 1, 2011 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Of course Americans' support for public workers matter. Gov Walker and those who follow him may win this battle but to once more ignore the sentiment of the American public will matter in 2012. Most likely what will happen is Walker and team will pass legislation to remove collective bargaining rights. Wisconsin will only be in budget balance on paper. Wages will drop as will the ability for those workers to make purchases and stimulate the economy. The top 2% in Wisconsin with their tax breaks (which brought on the Wi deficit) will not purchase locally nor stimulate their economy or create jobs. In 2012 all who created the mess will be voted out of office and whoever is voted in will have a mess to clean up. Trickle down economics and corporatism does not work and we've tried it with Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush W.

Posted by: WPDebbie | March 1, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

It's remarkable reading these comments. Do liberals just not get the concept of "broke". The US is broke. Practically all of the government, at every level has bankrupted the United States. These high and might ideals are meaningless. We are broke.

These people marching up and down the street in Wisconsin are soon going to be out of a job. They, and their counterparts in the other states (and at the federal level) are negotiating with a boss that has no money. The federal government is just a few years behind only because they print the money.

Absolutely remarkable, the inability to read a simple balance sheet. Yeah, labor is getting energized. Energy is not going to produce tax revenue.

Posted by: golds | March 1, 2011 8:43 PM | Report abuse

WPDebbie: These are not "public workers", these are "government workers". What is likely to happen is the taxpayers will issue a great sigh of relief as the two headed parasite of big government and their cronies government workers, are forcibly removed like a tick.

This fight is between taxpayers on one side, and big government and government unions on the other.

The Internet is now providing information to citizens not tainted by the liberal drooling press. Cannot wait for 2012 to finish the job that was started in November.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | March 1, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Serwer don't use polls;they are like statics; can lie. Wisconsin is broke. Further more US is broke; for every $1.00 the government spends, $0.40 will be borrowed.

Posted by: jamberry28 | March 1, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Serwer don't use polls;they are like statics; can lie. Wisconsin is broke. Further more US is broke; for every dollar the government spends 40 cents will be borrowed.

Posted by: jamberry28 | March 1, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The public employee unions had already agreed to pay/benefits cuts for their members. Now the governor wants to wreck the unions themselves. But the right to organize unions is a basic human right. Pope Leo XIII said as much way back in 1893. People on this blog call those, who support basic union rights; "Commies". Was Pope Leo a "Commie" too?

Posted by: davidirby | March 1, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Answer: No. Impeach.

Why do Republicans hack anyone who isn't stuffing their back pockets?

The moment they're given one iota of power (real or imagined) they go for the jugular of The People. They are so greedy they can never ever get enough.

2012 will be "a time to remember" - the Bush years. And these crazy Republicans who are drunk with a minimal gain in a mid-term election can all be called back to reality. The reality today is who got us where we are economically. And we all know the answer is GW and his Dad and his cronies.

Where is Donnie Dumbsfeld? Sunning on a beach in the south of France after losing all of our respect, young blood and money in the mid east to protect the Bush family's oil profits... oh, and while they were at it turn a few billion tax dollars back to himself and Cheny while they were at it of course. Cheney. He was Dumbsfeld's aide in DC when he started out. The perfect example of the problem with too long in DC. Total and complete corruption.

Posted by: Thinker | March 1, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Most rational people realize the governor Is Doing his Job and he should be applauded. Too many so-called leaders are afraid to make the hard decisions.
Unions have fallen behind-the-times.
With the global economy and technology, its
become critical that government and private sector are flexible enough to make quick decisions and changes.
Unions are rigid and move at a snail's pace; they don't allow anything to change, either. This is very old-school, and just doesn't fit today's world.

Posted by: ohioan | March 1, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

First, no article and no poll mentions that the unoins only agreed to have the employees share the costs for one year. Obviously that is not enough, which is why the media and the polls don't mention it.

The state does not have the money so there really is no way to avoid this one way or another.

The employee expenses are a major amount of the state budget and to be honest much better then cutting services that are needed for people in much worse off then the public employees.

Posted by: win1 | March 1, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Biased Polling EVIDENCE confirmed.

The PPP sample seriously overweighted union households by 6%.

"Put together, the PPP voter sample used to show a huge swing since November appears to have accomplished the result by underweighting Walker voters and overweighting union households. This is particularly important since PPP claims that it was a shift in union household voting patterns which was most prominent."

Polling Credibility: 0.00 (dismal failure)


Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | March 2, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse

The parasitic unions and dems will be defeated once and for all becasue the taxpayers have had enough of their Maddoff like theft. Thank god.

Posted by: DCalle10411111 | March 2, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Everyone is paying too much attention to this one 'battle'

If the Republicans 'win', union influence and money will decrease directly as a result.

If the Democrats 'win', the higher cost of public employees will result in more and more of them being laid off. Union influence and money will still decrease.

Scott may be wrong about a lot of things but he is right about one thing.


That applies to most states and to the federal government. Getting the unions 'fired up' may help win the next election but over the next few years there are going to be fewer public employees.

A lot fewer.

Posted by: TECWRITE | March 3, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company