Information on SB-11, the so-called "Budget Repair Bill"

For my own convenience, I'm just going to post something I wrote previously. I'll come back soon with an update, but for now, I just want to make this more widely available:

l SB-11 IS NOT A BUDGET REPAIR BILL.
Scott Walker’s so-called “Budget Repair Bill” is a 144-page omnibus package that contains a few budgetary items but is not primarily a budgetary measure. It was introduced by the Committee on Senate Organization, not by a finance committee. Among its 400 sections are only 9 that enact fiscal changes, compared with 367 that rewrite the Wisconsin Statutes. About 95% of the bill’s text is non-budgetary. The budget hole it seeks to close did not worry the Governor a month ago, because it did not exist – he created the hole with $140 million in special interest giveaways. The supposed necessity of this bill is a complete fabrication.

l SB-11 WAS NOT SOMETHING WALKER PROMISED DURING THE ELECTION.
During the campaign, Walker was not proposing legislation concerning public sector unions. Last December, after his election, he detailed a proposal in front of the Milwaukee Press Club to negotiate for concessions. Legislation was something that was simply “on the table.” However, his campaign website specifically opposed using budget bills to implement such new polices, saying “The budget process should be about funding essential government services…”

l SB-11 IS NOT THE RESULT OF A FAIR OR NORMAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
This bill was introduced on the afternoon of February 11 with no fanfare, with the intention that it be rushed to an up-or-down vote as written. The Friday afternoon drop is a notorious way of avoiding press attention. The Republican majority then stifled public input on the bill, refused to entertain any amendments proposed by Democratic lawmakers, and has failed to follow their own rules, taking votes without a quorum, and refusing to recognize colleagues with speaking rights. This is a cowardly and dishonest way to legislate, completely at odds with the Wisconsin tradition of fully and openly debating bills to make them the best and fairest possible, and avoiding mistakes that come from secrecy and haste.

l SB-11 IS A GOVERNMENT POWER GRAB.
Strong unions are an important part of the functioning of the free market, as repeatedly recognized by major figures of both parties, from Abraham Lincoln to Robert Taft to FDR to Eisenhower. They counteract the market distortion that occurs when an employer is so large that it can effectively set its own price, something called monopsony power. Fair bargaining power for public workers improves services, creates efficiency, builds professional pride and prevents corruption and attrition to the private sector or foreign employers. The Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader has complained that going through the free market negotiation process may be cumbersome and inconvenient, or prevent the government from getting what it wants. But the alternative, having the government simply dictate the terms of a contract, has not always worked as well, a lesson harshly learned in places like Poland and Russia.

l SB-11 IS UNION BUSTING AS OBJECTIVE FACT, NOT MERE OPINION OF OPPONENTS.
SB-11 completely eliminates the right of some public sector employees to form unions to collectively bargain. Other unions are unaffected. A third group of workers would see their union rights severely curtailed. They would not have the right to bargain over terms and conditions of employment, grievance procedures, hours, seniority, discipline, overtime, benefits, or real increases in wages. Their only legal topic of negotiation would be how large of a cut in real wages to take each year. These unions would also not be able to enforce collection of dues, and would require a fresh vote or workers each year to remain in existence. Even if a majority vote would not be sufficient to remain a union: the law would require an extra (small) margin of support. None of this is subject to debate: it is all spelled out in the law.

l SB-11 DIVIDES WORKERS.
The fact that this bill treats workers in three different ways appears intentionally divisive. Workers are always stronger when they stand together, and this bill seeks to create differences in their interests. The Club for Growth has launched a spite-based campaign supporting the bill and singling out public workers as receiving benefits not received by others. The security forces sent out to control demonstrations by unionists are themselves unionized public sector workers whose rights are spared for now in this legislation. All this points to an effort to weaken all workers, by keeping us at odds. Fortunately, it has not worked well, and workers have mostly stood together opposing the bill.

l SB-11 IS NOT ABOUT FAIRNESS.
Wisconsin public sector workers are not pampered. Their wages are typically lower than similarly qualified private sector employees. They fare better than public employees in many other states simply because those states are faring worse than Wisconsin as a whole: while other states are in severe crisis, we have below average unemployment, and had no budget deficit until Walker created a shortfall last month. If SB-11 were to become law, most Wisconsin public workers would suddenly have far fewer union rights than private sector employees.

l SB-11 IS A PRIVATE SECTOR JOB-KILLER.
This bill has been promoted with the myth that having public workers make concessions will somehow take the heat off private sector workers. The opposite is true. Workers all compete to some extent in one economy. Worsening conditions in one area merely spread by increasing competition among workers elsewhere. Trying to recover state revenue from state workers is inefficient because most money spent on state workers is eventually spent or taxed in-state and so only a small fraction is really saved. A study of the impact of Walker’s proposed concessions from public workers predicts that it will ultimately kill 9,900 private sector jobs.

l SB-11 HAS OTHER THINGS IN IT THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE NOT HEARD ABOUT.
Hidden away in this lengthy bill are dozens of provisions that have eluded public discussion: giving executive appointees power over the Medical Assistance program, and punishing local governments who would treat their public workers more generously than the state, along with many other changes that augment Walker's power at our expense.


FURTHER POINTS
REGARDING THE CRISIS IN WISCONSIN


Has Walker threatened to bring out the National Guard?
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel calls this claim a pants-on-fire lie, because Walker has not stated explicitly that he would use the Guard. But threats are often veiled, and the claim of a threat here is a quite reasonable interpretation of the facts. Walker has not ruled out using the Guard, and reported that its commanders had been briefed on the potential need for action. Anyone paying attention would understand this as meaning that the use of force was “on the table.”

Is everything in this bill relevant to the budget?
Walker says nothing in this bill can be negotiated because the changes are all needed to secure future budget savings. But the bill is full of provisions that would have no direct budgetary impact – or worse. For example, the limitation that public sector unions may not bargain over issues other than wages means that they will have no say at the table regarding budget-neutral issues, even where workers might be willing to trade off wages for getting their way on these issues. Provisions like this would actually make it harder for the state to save money.

Shouldn’t public sector workers have to sacrifice like everyone else?
Shared sacrifice sounds fair, but state workers have already sacrificed more than many. Public service typically pays less than private service, and state and local workers have been forced to take unpaid leaves because of budgetary shortfalls. Plus, it is the upper class, not the working class, that is responsible for our present economic crisis, and has the spare resources to contribute to its solution without cutting into the bare essentials. Yet the Walker Administration has made no demands on them, and has even showered them with state money. (Though Walker decried the proposed rail line as too expensive, he has already given his business backers enough money to have maintained high speed rail service to roughly the year 2200.)

How else can we fix the budget?
Public sector workers have offered to give Walker all the budgetary concessions he wants, but that isn’t good enough for Walker because his real interest is not the budget. If it were, he could accept their concessions, or repeal his last round of giveaways to business, or use the usual devices of tax base growth, rate hikes, fees, borrowing, refinancing, federal subsidies, realized efficiencies, improved revenue collection, elimination of fraud, and sales of property and services. Walker’s intransigence on union busting is leading him to continue the current standoff at the expense of harming the budget in other areas.

Are the 14 errant senators neglecting their jobs by breaking quorum?
No. It is true that part of the job of a legislator is to pass legislation that their constituents want and need. But an equally important part of their job is to block legislation that harms their constituents. In this case, the drastic action of leaving the state gives voice to their positions. Their action violates no law, nor any principle of good government.

Is the whole union issue overblown?
Opponents of the unions say so, that this will all be forgotten in a few months. They apparently find it to be not such a big deal when someone else’s rights, won after struggle and held for five decades are to be abruptly taken away. The same people were shocked at the enormous public response to this legislation, so they can hardly be relied upon to predict that it will all just be quickly forgotten.

Should workers who skip work to protest be punished?
Different workers are subject to different work rules and some may legitimately face penalties, while others may be completely within their rights. Those who are engaging in civil disobedience by not reporting to work should be prepared to accept reasonable consequences. But no one should be subject to excessive punishment simply because someone else disagrees with the position they are protesting for: that would be unconstitutional. If anything, the fact that workers are responding to a public emergency by making their political voice heard in a responsible manner should be reason for leniency toward any who are acting outside of the rules, compared to those who skip work for less legitimate reasons. There is a long tradition in this country of respecting and protecting the civilly disobedient from overly harsh repercussions.

Why doesn’t the bill affect all public sector workers equally?
Good question. One suspicion is that Walker is attacking unions that skew Democratic, and protecting those that supported him in the election. Another suspicion is that there is a regional component: in Milwaukee, where Walker trailed in the election and his political rival is Mayor, the city’s largest union – which supported Walker in the election – would emerge after the bill as having the most rights of any union in the state, and Milwaukee would be denied the revenue benefits received by municipalities elsewhere in the state. It is not because the unions exempt from the bill have already made the largest sacrifices or are insignificant to the budget: studies show that some of the highest paid public workers in the state are police sergeants and corrections officers who attain six-figure incomes by use of overtime and sick benefits negotiated by their unions.

Is it important that not all the protesters are from Wisconsin?
Scott Walker has emphasized the point, suggesting that the support of people outside Wisconsin is delegitimizing. But most of the protesters are from here, and there is nothing wrong with outside support. Walker is echoing those governors that complained throughout the civil rights movement that Martin Luther King was acting as an “outside agitator.” King’s response was his famous Letter from the Birmingham Jail, centered on the idea that our rights are not separate, and it would be unchristian to let a state line stand between him and the defense of another’s rights. Walker might want to read it.

Don’t polls still favor Walker?
No. The most recent polls show that the people in Wisconsin support the protesters by more than a 2-1 margin and that most do not approve of Walker’s performance. The more people know, the more they oppose this plan. Importantly, the pro-Walker side is mostly “somewhat” pro-Walker and the protester side is mostly “very” opposed to his plan. That is why, even after hearing millions of dollars of ads against public workers and hearing a lot of dishonest pro-Walker soundbites, this state fields huge demonstrations day after day against Walker’s plan, and only an occasional small counter-protest. To work, democracies must protect small, harshly impacted groups by giving voice to the intensity of their sentiment: otherwise, we all lose in the long run.

First Post

Welcome to Taxideae. The name does not have anything to do with taxes. I wanted something representing Wisconsin, and it happens that the American badger has the scientific name Taxidea taxus. Taxidea was alredy taken as a name so I used the plural. It was probably a stupid name to use. Who’s going to remember something that ends in eae? Nevertheless, here we are. Welcome. Forward! On Wisconsin!