Outlaw public employee unions.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

Ted,
You didn't mention an important point: The absence of the collective bargaining issue from the current recall debate. Walker's opponent isn't talking about the issue much, and, to my knowledge, hasn't come out and said he would undo Walker's reforms. That's because polling is pretty clear that, by and large, Wisconsin voters don't see diminished public-employee collective bargaining as a bad thing. State and local governments are already benefiting from cost savings and flexibility.

Not true. Walker's "divide and conquer" statement is being played widely and frequently by Barrett and the Unions.

A typical TVD attempt at Solomonic wisdom -- split the baby in half, false equivalence all around. After saying that Scott Walker and the Republicans overreached by taking away the unions' collective bargaining rights, TVD goes into his "bipartisan centrist" mode by saying the unions should have shown "more restraint" just as Walker should have. For gosh sake, their very existence is threatened by this anti-union law! The lack of a stable center, TVD? Why won't you and other conventional media types listen to congressional experts Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein and acknowledge that it's the Republicans who have destroyed the center.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
Finally, please present some evidence that deficits are "choking growth" in the United States or indeed in countries like Spain or France. Most mainstream economists, and even business leaders, have been saying since the Great Recession started that it's lack of consumer demand rather than deficits that is hampering growth and recovery. TVD is just repeating the Pete Peterson/Bob Samuelson dogma.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/04/it-can-happen-here-europe-s-screwed-generation-and-america-s.html

Most "mainstream economists" would have been more independent minded if it had read "most liberal economists." I must agree that few economists have given any thought to how the world will function when population increases no longer fan the flames of endless growth, paying off the interest on all the borrowings and supporting its counterpart— hyper-consumption, i.e. consumer demand.

Please clue me in on what "Bob Samuelson dogma" you have in mind.

I don't know if "deficits are choking growth", but we do know Greece has had deficits much bigger than they reported, because of bad government accounting, and their growth rate was terrible.

Ultimately, companies and people invest where they think they will get a positive return and if they see big deficits and / or unfunded liabilities, they know that at some point taxes will have to go up to cover them.

If public employees are somehow out of control, and elected officials refuse to act seriously to correct the situation, who does the public turn to for relief ? Riots ? Posses ? What are the people to do if the government itself has been completely corrupted ?
There are many local examples that don't even require an arguement about Big Labor and organized crime against the people;

Snohomish County Executive has embezzled funds (call it what you will, but that is what he has done)- the County Council "asked" him to step down ..... reminds me of the U.N. and Syria.

The faux Mayor of Seattle and the huge basketball patronage act is so loaded with non-truth that it is hard to know where to start. By appearences, elected opponents are weak and waiting to see if there is something in it for them before calling a flat skunk dead.

Just for amusement, figure out the total State(s) assessment on a 750 ml bottle of liquor - hint: start with the cost at the door of the distillery. With answer in hand, does this information correlate well with open government and processes ? With all these assessments, how was the State able to sell for less ? Please make me laugh with a goofy, patronizing answer ......

My stomach turns if I think, and remember, too much about the cancers of corruption so clearly illustrated in our own "Progressive Utopia".

R.I.P. America
Jsa

P.S. I hope I live long enough to see the rise of alternatives to this mime of democracy and representation. Of course, I guess, I could become an Amishman. Or join a gang.

Don't forget the increasing influence of "sovereign nations" in our state legislature. Buying politicians for favor, helping pass laws to which they are immune.

Thanks for the intitial comments. A couple responses:

--It is true that collective bargaining, per se, has not been a central issue in the Wisconsin recall debate. That is because the governor is campaigning on the basis that his changes have worked---i.e., state and local governments, as Thornton says, are saving money and getting greater flexibility---and his Democratic and union opposition has not wanted to campaign solely on a concept which most voters support intellectually but which seemed to be union-centric. Make no mistake, however, that the collective bargaining issue is what triggered the unions' recall-election effort.

---I refer those interested in the long-term troubles looming not only for the EU, but also the U.S., to the Congressional Budget Office's
annual Long-Term Budget Outlook, released today. Under the most likely taxing/spending scenario, CBO says, federal debt would reach 93 percent of GDP by 2022, 199 percent by 2037, and 247 percent by 2042.
GDP would be nearly 2 percent lower than under current law by 2027 and
6.6 percent lower by 2037. Beyond 2037, debt levels would be too high
to reliably estimate economic consequences. There is a more optimistic
alternative scenario but it appears based on premises which are dubious at best.

Where do unions fit in all of this? I personally am from a union family, have been a member of two unions personally, and have worked closely with union leaders over a lifetime in politics and public policy. The union movement has, over time, been afflicted by the same ills that beset institutions which have reacted tardily to change.
The U.S. economy has shifted from its old industrial base to a mixed economy with a strong service sector. The strongest and most influential unions in this new economy are public-employee and teachers unions, which typically provide more than half the delegates at any national Democratic convention. In states such as Washington,
they provide a political and financial base for Democratic officeholders and candidates. Over decades their wages and benefits have expanded beyond those available to comparable private-sector employees. In the post-2008 state-level budget squeezes, they have
been asked by governors and legislatures to make concessions on pay and benefits. Without such concessions, public spending obligations
to these public-sector union members will be unsustainable.

Foresighted union leaders and elected officials can sit down together
to arrive at mutually acceptable changes. Or, as in Wisconsin, they can come to confrontation and extend debate beyond pay and benefits
to issues such as collective-bargaining rights. This moves debate from pragmatic horse-trading to fundamental issues which leave little room for compromise on either side. This leads to further polarization and to emotional 1930s rhetoric---capitalism vs. socialism, etc.

Unions are not alone, of course, in resisting adjustment to a new
financial/economic setting. Wall Street and corporate executives,
beneficiaries of government tax breaks and subsidies, and many others
have refused to give ground for the greater good. Until now, only a few elected leaders have challenged them speciically to do so. These issues are being fought out on many fronts in many countries.

"Over decades their wages and benefits have expanded beyond those available to comparable private-sector employees. In the post-2008 state-level budget squeezes, they have been asked by governors and legislatures to make concessions on pay and benefits. Without such concessions, public spending obligations to these public-sector union members will be unsustainable."

And by and large the unions have been making those concessions, repeatedly, as in WI. Also remember the wage levels cannot be determined so simplistically to make your assumptions. Have the Unions been lax in moderizing their approach and focused upon 20th century battles? Yes. That does not mean they are not starting to wake up to that, and one would hope that it is not too late.

This is not about what the Unions cost the taxpayers, this is about an ongoing ideological war on unions to snuff out the last significant vestages of them. It has little to nothing to do with the things neocons claim it does as propaganda.

A real third party would best be a Labor focused party, but not necessarily dependant upon Union support.

TVD - your response comes across as a bit tepid,

....... been afflicted by the same ills that beset institutions which have reacted tardily to change ....... and most influential unions in this new economy are public-employee and teachers unions ...(aka public employees)....,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but, being protected from competition, they can continue to in their illness without restraint. Not unlike the airlines and phone system when both were quasi-government dependents.

which typically provide more than half the delegates at any national ... (State and local) .... Democratic convention.
In states such as Washington,they provide a political and financial base for Democratic officeholders and candidates. Over decades their wages and benefits have expanded beyond those available to comparable private-sector employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There used to be a tradeoff; private employment = possibly more opportunity and income, public employee = job security, public service, and comfortable life. These days, public employees have it all and are not likely to give anything significant to politicians "asking" for "givebacks". Let's be real !!!!!!

In the post-2008 state-level budget squeezes, they have been asked (????!!!!!???!!!) by governors and legislatures to make concessions on pay and benefits. Without such concessions, public spending obligations to these public-sector union members will be unsustainable.
>>>>>>>>>>> NO KIDDING !!!!!! Imagine you are an old poor destitute WA. person. You have boils and growths all over your body. Your attempts at dating have been unsuccessful. If you contact your State Leaders and ask them to pay for a check-up, they will ask the Unions to pay a $5 per month increase in a co-pay. The union negotiator says, "what are you offering?". Since the Leaders MUST have union support, who wins here ? You or the union ? You are better off starting on online club for people with skin conditions.

Foresighted union leaders and elected officials ...(<<<< come on ! an oxymoron at least !)

... pragmatic horse-trading to fundamental issues which leave little room for compromise on either side .....
Where is pragmatic horse trading when both traders are working for the farmer down the street? Its like going to an auction where the only person bidding against you is the person selling the piece. Yes, they are colluding with the auctioneer to boost the final sale price you are willing to pay ..... it works very well, I've been a target before.

OK, got to go. I need to breathe for a while ...
Jsa

TVD and other folks, if you go back and look at what happened in Wisconsin last year, the public sector unions indeed had agreed to the requested concessions before the anti-union law was passed by Walker and Republicans. The union-busting law clearly was not necessary to achieve those budget-saving moves. In addition, TVD apparently hasn't been paying attention but public sector unions all around the country have made very substantial wage and benefit concessions since 2008, including in Washington state. On government budgets, there clearly are long-term deficit issues. My point, and the point of most mainstream economists and business leaders, is that the deficits are not what's causing slow job growth and economic recovery in the U.S. and European countries like Ireland, Spain, France, etc. (Greece and to some extent Italy are special situations). The U.S. remains able to borrow money at extremely low rates, so government borrowing at this point is not crowding out private lending and investment. Corporations are recording record profits and are sitting on huge piles of cash, and their leaders say they are not expanding because of the lack of consumer demand. And that of course is driven by unemployment, job insecurity, the fall in the value of their homes, etc. This has been pointed out again and again by leading economic experts but TVD and others cling to the inapplicable metaphor of households tightening their belts in tough times. When the U.S. government and European governments go to austerity budgets, it just advances the downhill slide. National economies are not the equivalent of household economies. As Paul Krugman and others have said, let's drop the bogus comparison to household budgets.

Funny ...
"made very substantial wage and benefit concessions ",
Oh sure, for example .... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017883655_apwaxgrschoolworkerhealthinsurance1stldwritethru.html

OR
They are so confident and bold, in their power and influence, that the lobbyist(s) for the WEA, proposed a budget busting teacher pay increase for the next biennial budget. Supposedly it was approximating the size of the most recent deficit. Do you remember that ? Was it 30% ? They claimed they had given sooo much recently that they needed to "catch up" to recruit quality teachers .... says a lot of what they think of the current rank and file (?)

Ha ha ha ha
Is Paul Krugman the new John Kenneth Galbraith ?

Paul Krugman is just the same old predictably statist Paul Krugman. As long as he keeps getting invited to all the right cocktail parties, he has no incentive to return to economics as his line of work.

"Gov. Walker will survive narrowly but at least one of the GOP state senators will be recalled, giving Democrats the ability to block further Walker initiatives during his term."

Good analysis, and a fair call. However, the voter turnout so far has been reported as heavy all over the State, which usually favors the Dems. Yes, the consolation prize is taking back the Senate and the legislature as a whole. Based upon the last recall election for the Senate, 2 of 3 GOP were defeated. If this election follows suit, with a much broader turnout, the same result for the Senate would provide the same means to deal with Walker as if he had lost the recall.

Yet, guess what the MSM and the GOP will focus upon, should this come about with Walker barely surviving...

One followup to my previous comment. It sure would be nice if TVD and other budget austerians would at least acknowledge that there is broad agreement among economists, elected officials, and voters in Britain, Spain, France, Ireland, etc. that austerity budgets adopted in those countries have blown up in their faces and damaged those economies and hurt recovery. That would reassure me that we're having a reality-based conversation rather than a faith-based one.

They will never acknowledge that, because they don't want to admit that austerity is not about balancing budgets, but is an excuse to eliminate social service programs and further redistribute wealth upwards.

Actually, Iceland and Sweden are never, ever, mentioned as non-austerity successes. Those two dealt with it far better than other European countries.

True, those are successes in a sea of denial.
However:
Iceland is a case unto itself –small enough to let all the mistakes fail, hardly what I 'd call non-austerity.
And as I understand it Sweden started pruning very early which greatly reduced any bubbles—the adult in the room.

If you have information to the contrary, please share.

Right, let's spend ourselves out of debt!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpento/2012/05/17/why-austerity-is-europes-only-hope/

Crosscut's delete function does not work, but fortunately its edit one does. LOL

The voters of Wisconsin showed it does.

Not even close. More voters turned out than during the first elections, and Walker won by a larger margin. Not a single Republican lost.

Wisconsin union membership dropped 1/3 to 1/2 when employees were finally given the choice to opt out.

It's a staggering loss for the Democrats, for the unions, and for Obama. There is simply no other way to interpret the results.

They lost a big one, but "staggering?" Nah. The game goes on.

It was a disappointing night in Wisconsin for the Democrats, no doubt. But let's not forget the recent referendum on the Ohio union-busting law, and Ohio is a more important and tighter battleground state than Wisconsin. I suspect that if Wisconsin voters could have voted on Walker's law by itself, they would have shot it down just like Ohio voters did.
And Ohio is actually a more important and challenging state for Obama than Wisconsin is.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/unions-are-clear-losers-in-walker-victory-565l09i-157377275.html
But Slater cautioned that there were other national lessons from the last year and a half. He pointed out that in his home state of Ohio, GOP Gov. John Kasich suffered an embarrassment last year when a similar rollback of collective bargaining for public employees was struck down by voters in a resounding referendum.

Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
Yes I have.
Look!
It's just a flesh wound.

How 'bout California? Is California important?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2018359050_apuspublicpensions.html

Too soon to gloat, the Dems appear to have taken control of the Wisconsin senate.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/3-gop-senators-survive-recalls-ib5jfeg-157395125.html

The Wall Street Journal reports that under state law, the only way the Wisconsin Senate will reconvene before the November election is if the governor calls them into session.

The issue with public employee unions isn't their existence per se, but their existence in an era when private sector unions have been pretty much busted out of existence -- the machinists at Boeing being a notable exception, at least for the time being.

The public will allow government employee unions if everyone's on the escalator. But that no longer being the case, the public unions are endangered.