One would hope that by now that the press would debunk the fuzzy budget math Gov. Scott Walker (R.-Wisc.) was using to justify his attack on collective bargaining rights of public sector workers.
Nope.
The New York Times (6/6/12):
The political war in Wisconsin began in February 2011 when Governor Walker, only weeks into his first term, announced that he needed to cut benefits and collective bargaining rights for most public workers as a way to solve an expected state budget deficit of $3.6 billion.
Fox‘s Bill O’Reilly (6/5/12):
On the spending front, when Walker took office there was a budget deficit of $3.6 billion in Wisconsin. Now the deficit is projected to be $143 million… an astounding drop.
That $3.6 billion deficit number was one of Walker’s main tools. But was it accurate?
Not really. Brendan Fischer explained this at the time at PR Watch, noting that Walker was using budget request figures from agencies in order to make things sound worse.
As we wrote in Extra! (4/11):
But as Laura Dresser of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy told CounterSpin (2/25/11–3/3/11), those figures, which came from Gov. Scott Walker’s office, represented funding requests from various state agencies—wish lists that were never likely to be granted unaltered.
Yet media coverage stressed that Walker’s plan to curtail collective bargaining was purely a fiscal move. It was “a key piece of his budget-cutting strategy” (Washington Post, 2/19/11), or “essential to help balance the budget” (New York Times, 2/19/11). On NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams announced (2/17/11) that “the state is broke,” so the governor “is proposing drastic cuts he says will save billions of dollars.” NBC reporter Kerry Sanders chimed in: “Walker says he will cut up to $3.6 billion from the budget, in large part by eliminating unions’ collective bargaining powers to negotiate wages and benefits.”
But would these cuts really reduce a “large part” of Wisconsin’s supposed $3 billion budget deficit? Not really—according to some estimates from Walker’s office, the health/pension cuts might save $300 million (USA Today, 2/23/11).
Media didn’t dig into those numbers at the time, so I guess it’s no surprise that the coverage didn’t seem to get much better now that Walker’s job is no longer on the line.
Fuzzy math and fuzzy on the implications. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision extended the First Amendment’s freedom of speech to corporations paying secretly to sway voters, but so far the media haven’t noticed that denying unions the right to bargain collectively takes away their freedom of speech.
The Citizens United decision wounded the American democracy, and Governor Walker and his supporters in Wisconsin and elsewhere are now in the process of finishing it off.
but so far the media haven’t noticed that denying unions the right to bargain collectively takes away their freedom of speech.
Its very hard to get a person to see a point of view, when their income is tied to, and inversely proportional to the amount of them NOT seeing that P.O.V.
The owners of the News Media do not want Unions any more than the Cock Bros. As Micheal Parenti used to say “they want only one thing; it all”.
Told ya so.Now lets do the math….900 thousand signed the referendum for recall.One -to one point two million, were expected to vote(and did).Sounds like a slam dunk for the left doesn’t it?Yet he won by a huge margin.27% of union homes!!!!The polls were bullshit.As are Obamas polls.The wave is building.It is swelling.November is gonna be a cake walk.Walker is doing a fine job.That was re affirmed.Now you are trying to recall the recall because we were misled on the math.Pa lease.How about that ninny crying?That was your candidate?Better load up on the kleenex come November.
Well michael e. —– that’s wrong! : )
How can you say 27% of UNION homes voted for him…isn’t Wisconsin now a non-union state?
Also, during that prior election, who was that woman who kept the poll results on her private and personal computer instead of on the government one? Did the elections people do that again?
Sadly, I am starting to see Wisconsin as America’s Syria…..no one can really tell who all the players really are, and it’s so hard to believe much of what I hear!
Oh wait…the SENATE control went to the Dems, I think. That’s a conundrum for some, but a working Senate for others : )
The unions and the Democratic party tried to dispel the spontaneous workers movement in Wisconsin last year and channel it towards support for the Democratic party. The major Wisconsin unions in fact offered to implement most of the cuts demanded by Walker, as long as they continued to receive their automatic dues payments and not be excluded from the effort to suppress working class demands. Obama refused to lend any support to Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democratic challenger, who even emphasized that he was not the choice of the unions, and practically ignored the collective bargaining issue. He himself had made use of the Walker law to impose cuts on Milwaukee city employees. Voters rightly saw him as no better than his Republican opponent. The smug triumphalism of those who predict a wave of right-wing victories in the November elections misses the point: the recall movement was not a continuation of the militant workers movement, but an attempt to choke it off by the Democrats and the union bureaucracy. Regardless of who wins in November, the ever-increasing class war against working people, whether directed by Democrats or Republicans, will lead to an intensification of class consciousness and militancy. Whether it will be able to find expression in an effective political movement is the big question.
As a Milwaukeean who was active in the recall campaign, I think the biggest problem was the money. In Milwaukee we were successful in increasing turnout for Tom Barrett compared to 2010 and his percentage of Milwaukee County’s vote also increased. But outside of the population centers of Milwaukee and Madison, Scott Walker piled up huge margins. I attribute this to his overwhelming financial advantage. In other words, our grassroots campaign could not overcome Walker’s billionaires on a statewide basis. This fight only gets tougher.
Citizens United made sure that the ones with the money make the votes and the laws. Throwing out 100 years of established case law to do so. I smell many rats here.
27% of Union homes is accurate. But why exactly did they vote against their best interests? Was it that Scott Walker had been running ads for a full 7 months before Tom Barrett got started? Also why a loser like Barrett and not some other fresh choice? It is obvious that people by-and-large believe those ads. I wonder how many of them have computers? And of those how many connected to the Internet? And of those how many of them actually use search engines to run down the veracity of such statements made in such political ads?
This is really bad that in the state where Unions got their start has lost a referendum after first electing a fascist style New Republican to office. What can any of us do in lesser states?
I apologize to the intelligent people of Wisconsin–they know who they are–for my comments here. Wisconsin is absolutely typical of the country as a whole, and that’s a shame. After months of getting solicitations for money to help with the recall effort, and hour upon hour of special reports on the Madison occupation and the recall campaign, I see the voters (now fully knowing the intentions, tactics and politics of their governor) turned out in record numbers, 57.7 percent. What would have to happen for the other 42.3 percent to get off their collective ass and vote for the government that will determine their lives until the next election?
I don’t buy the money factor in this instance. The issues were clear, and any jackass who would change his/her vote based on one-minute television ads deserves whatever civic collapse for which their votes helped contribute; unfortunately for the rest of that state’s populace–children, students, public employees, the aged and unemployed, they are doomed to the same future ensured by those who didn’t vote and those whose political sensibilities are so shallow that they voted against their own interests.
I hope that I’m wrong, but with a country that can only generate 57 percent interest when the sky is falling and the TV is covering the event, is doomed.
In the coming election, one-minute television ads will assist voters in choosing between a confirmed 19th century robber baron wannabe and a neo-liberal corporatist with a penchant for killing folks (cause he can) whose political activities seem a bit too radical, and a nonchalance toward the death of innocents who have the bad luck to be in the same place as one of our new imperial drones. It’s a choice of economic (and civil) death by a few quick blows or by a thousand small cuts.
What a country we once thought ourselves to be…or to be capable of becoming.
I hate to admit it, but Steve in Oakland is right on the money.
Night- Gaunt and steve in oakland are on it!
The problem is when people use terms like “voting against their own interests”.What are their self interests?Money?You just don’t get it.That is what is wrong with this country.In four years we have doubled our food stamps.For some who vote their own “self interests”(I call it the I got mine crowd)I suppose that means they will always vote Dem to keep that benefit.But for the rest…..hopefully they will vote with a more long term view of who will do a better job ….for all of us.Why is that stupid?Unions have been told to vote one way and seen a job killing president take charge.Where are the jobs for union workers?Gone in this climate.Walker they felt is doing a good job.Unless the numbers are total bunk(some here would say they are)he has turned things around.So lets not do the lefts fallback dance.Everyone is stupid routine.And did he win because he outspent his opponent?Obama outspent McCain 3 to one.Is that why he won?Steve don’t be depressed.Things are going to get better.As they have for people in Wis.It may not be in the template you envisioned but in the end I see it as a win win.Even for unions.Unions should not be begging for crumbs and promises for support from the government who they need to collect their dues.They should be flourishing in an expanding exploding economy that is begging THEM for their expertise.THAT is their competitive edge.Not strong-arming all competition or people who freely choose not to join..I heard Obama say private industry is doing fine….it is the public sector unions that need help.He seemed to be calling for more stym.Is he lost or what?With an effective unemployment rate of 11% WHO is doing well?His shangra- la is the 1930s.Everyone under the government.So completely lost is this man.He threw all the money in the world in a keynesian confetti storm at the economy.And when all calmed down……Nothing.Now his only idea is the same.More money(of course to those who vote for him)
John Stossle asked a union teacher why you cant fire a union teacher.She said you can and handed him a book you must go through to accomplish that.In the private world things move so much quicker to achieve positive results.People in Wis. chose the guy who is doing a better job for everyone.Even historically union families saw that.
michael-e is so stuck in ideology and illusion that it would take a book to explain everything that is wrong with his postings. Let one example suffice: “They [the unions] should be flourishing in an expanding exploding economy that is begging THEM for their expertise.”
This would indeed be an ideal situation, but under capitalism it is quite impossible. Unions, which are supposed to be organizations fighting for rights and well-being of workers, have always been opposed by the ruling class and its political servant politicians. After World War II, when there was in fact an expanding economy, a historical compromise was reached: in return for abandoning the goals of worker control of production – socialism – unions were accepted as (very) junior partners within the capitalist framework and provided with some limited degree of benefits for their members. Since roughly the 1970s and early 1980s, when stagnation and recession became a permanent feature of the U.S. economy, unions have been under increasing attack on all fronts. Reagan smashed the PATCO union in 1981. Since then, the union leaders have swung further to right, turning into tools for forcing pro-business policies onto their members. Since the 2008 recession (or depression) , the worst since the 1930s, this process has intensified. The UAW no longer fights for its members; it has now accepted a 50% cut in wages for new hires.
Unions have always been opposed by the capitalist ruling class – outlawed, attacked, brutalized; or co-opted, disciplined, subordinated to the new austerity regime. They have never been welcomed by the bourgeoisie, and never will be. Not under capitalism. Whether he realizes it or not, michael-e’s dream of expanding economies and flourishing workers’ organizations are in fact an argument for the replacement of capitalism, a failing system, internationally, which cannot provide a decent life for an ever-increasing part of its population, with a planned, rational system under popular democratic control, with no billionaire ruling class – socialism.
“Yet he won by a huge margin.27% of union homes!!!!The polls were bullshit.”
actually this isn’t right….
walker won by seven points, the same margin as his victory in 2010 over the same candidate…..union voters supported barrett (d) by a 71 to 29 percent margin over walker, but voters who live with a union member, but not members themselves, supported barrett by a much narrower margin: 51 percent to 48 percent. …and 14 of the 15 polls done in the last month before the recall showed walker winning.
the exit polls also showed obama with a 7 point lead over romney and that 18% of those who voted to retain walker planned on voting for obama in november
“He threw all the money in the world in a keynesian confetti storm at the economy.And when all calmed down……Nothing.”
Actually, only around $580 billion of the “stimulus” was spending. Not remotely all the money in the world. There were $250 billion in tax cuts, as well. [The least stimulating part, I’d add.]
Saving the auto industry also worked.
Washington Post:
Did the stimulus work?
Certainly not according to Republicans, but on Wednesday, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he told the House Budget Committee, the vast majority of economists agree.
In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.
“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html
Post stimulus , GDP started going up, private sector job creation stated going up, the Dow Jones average started going up.
The stimulus was successful, proving the President did the right thing and that the Keynesians were correct again. That’s why Republicans claim it wasn’t.
Money may buy an election. I suspect the polls in Wisconsin have been compromised via the vote America act. That new newfangled computer voting may in fact be quite easy to hack. But, again no-one wants to expose the wizard.
What was forgotten in this post recall commentary (shame on FAIR for forgetting) is that Walker created the “massive deficit” through his giveaways to business and upper income groups after his election in 2010.
What worked for Walker is what the article states. The press here is mostly owned by conserative people/groups and they don’t ask the inconvient questions. So the narrative of false blame played nicely, making the ads much more effective. I swear, whenever the local tv anchors have to mention anything that would be bad for da’gov they begin to squirm.
Emotions rule us, if we want to admit that or not, and there’s a lot of pain to go around thereby producing a fertile ground for propaganda. The Republican’s can blame the Democrats, unions, anyone with brown skin, educated people, animal rights, gays, Madison, Milwaukee, and of course Obama and get away with it. Nice. Being paid for legislation you’ve already been received donations to support. Do exactly what you’ve accused others of and blame someone else for it. Find conservative judges for rulings, and ones that try to rewrite procedures they don’t like or get in the way. And, it goes without saying, always the victim.
I’m not trying to say the Democrats are much different, or better. I have voted for them most of the time. There is a hope that their slow convertion back to the conservative party can be stemmed, but it doesn’t look likely. The communication has broken down. People have become incurious and easily manipulated. Give them something to rage against, someone to blame and their yours. At some point, I hope, it will change. The French revolted over similar conditions, [I’m not suggesting we should] but a peoples movement could be a real possibility. The question is how?
Thanks for that, sumwunyumaynotno–and Steve in Oakland.
“Yet he won by a huge margin.27% of union homes!!!!”
sadly, there’s nothing unusual about that, as kevin drum notes:
“In 2004, 38% of union members and 40% of voters in union households voted for George Bush. In 2008, 39% of union members and 38% of voters in union households voted for John McCain. In 2010, 37% of voters in union households nationwide voted for Republicans, and that’s also the share of the union vote that Walker got in Wisconsin that year.”
this is the ultimate example of whites voting against their own interests.
i’d also point out that walker did worse with union members in the recall than he did in 2010.
Woodward when did everyones vote become the end results of “their own self interests”?Is that why everyone on welfare will only vote for the man who holds their payday in his hand?What a f$#cked up mentality.No it just shows people also do what is best for the long term picture.And boy oh boy that is far from the liberal mindset as we are from mars.
Jerry money does buy elections. 95% and the other 5% do not. So you see it is a winning strategy that they have made national after the Supreme Court ruling paved the way. Finding out who gave how much after the election is useless. I’d like to take money out of the elections. It can be done and is being done in places like the UK.
“In 2004, 38% of union members and 40% of voters in union households voted for George Bush. In 2008, 39% of union members and 38% of voters in union households voted for John McCain. In 2010, 37% of voters in union households nationwide voted for Republicans, and that’s also the share of the union vote that Walker got in Wisconsin that year.”
this is the ultimate example of whites voting against their own interests.
Well put Woodrow-Bernstien and we see it again. Maybe some Union members are Republicans despite the party’s avowed mission to destroy them. That would be a huge disconnect.
Question is for unions…why would you back a job killing president?Those jobs are YOUR jobs!
that’s the right question…why would union members vote for a job killing republican for president?…Those jobs ARE their jobs!
paraphrasing j.c watts’ father “union members voting for the rebublicans are like chickens voting for colonel sanders.”