Michigan Workers Have the Right to Work
Perhaps Wisconsin’s Republicans will follow their lead...
LANSING, Mich. Republicans slammed right-to-work legislation through the Michigan House and Senate Thursday, drawing raucous protests from throngs of stunned union supporters, whose outnumbered Democratic allies were powerless to stop it.
Just hours after they were introduced, both chambers approved measures prohibiting private unions from requiring that nonunion employees pay fees. The Senate quickly followed by voting to impose the same requirement on most public unions.
Forcing someone to be in a union is un-American.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1051 hrs
Also interesting that the GOP is ramming the bill through in a lame duck session before their numbers go down in January, passed the bill without a public hearing, and are going to attach a trivial budget item to it so as to prevent the voters from taking the bill to a referendum as is permissible under Michigan law.
Sounds like these guys already know exactly how popular this measure will be with their constituents.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 07, 2012 at 1420 hrs
Already confirmed with a referendum.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1439 hrs
3.Already confirmed with a referendum
Explain
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1549 hrs
No fan of unions here but this stinks to high heaven.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1639 hrs
This link shows the referendum to which Mike refers…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1644 hrs
Right-to-work in the state known for the Flint Sit-Down Strike- this must drive the unions crazy-crazy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1653 hrs
If a Democrat rammed something through in a lame duck session that ran against your tea party menatlity you guys would be screaming like stuck pigs!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 1820 hrs
Right to work? Nope, it is a right to leech. Seriously, calling this a “right to work” law is like saying you don’t have to pay a restaurant for the meal you just ate ‘cause folks have a “right to eat”.
Posted by purplepenquin on December 07, 2012 at 1836 hrs
One more example of our Republican egislators burning desire to turn us into Texas.
One of the many reasons I chose to live in Wisconsin specifically was because it was not Texas.
Ps- personal note to Texas and Texans - please secede from the US today.
Austin is a nice city but you really won’t be missed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2012 at 2351 hrs
Good to see this happen. Michigan won’t see the world fall apart just as Wisconsin didn’t fall apart with ACT 10.
This will put pressure on Wisconsin now as Michigan will become more attractive to companies wanting to relocate there or expand there.
For those that are upset with how this was passed, you only have to look at Obamacare and how that was approved. That set the standard for a majority going to town and passing something unpopular by any means necessary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 0758 hrs
you only have to look at Obamacare and how that was approved. That set the standard for a majority going to town and passing something unpopular by any means necessary
I ain’t a fan of Obamacare at all….but it wasn’t introduced and then voted on the very same day like this anti-union bill was.
Also, Obamacare wasn’t pushed through by a lame-duck session because the politicians supporting it were worried that it wouldn’t be able to pass with the lawmakers in the next session, but this anti-union law sure was.
Plus, Obamacare wasn’t included as part of a larger appropriations bill so that it would be illegal for the general public to repeal it via referendum, which is exactly what they did (and bragged about!) with this anti-union law.
Not a fair comparison at all, ‘cept that they are both laws that are bad for the working class person.
That aside, your statement begs the question: Are you saying that you personally have no problem with the way Obamacare was voted on&passed; into law…or are you claiming that two wrongs make a right?
Please clarify…thanks!
Posted by purplepenquin on December 08, 2012 at 1046 hrs
Mark,
If we are picking states to leave the Union…Let’s get rid of the socialist drags.
California and New York should be the states that could leave.
Texas has an excellent job market.
Texas has far less moochers. The moocher attitude is much less acceptable in Texas than in New York or California.
That is a good thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 1144 hrs
If we define “moocher states” by the level of federal assistance they receive, the drags are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
CA and NY are actually subsidizing the moocher states, as they receive 79 cents for every dollar they send to DC.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 1318 hrs
the drags are Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
All of which, ‘cept one, also has the same kind of anti-worker laws that Michigan just passed. If Wisconsin does follow their lead, as our host hopes to see happen, then how soon will it be before our fine state also becomes a taker instead of the giver we currently are?
Posted by purplepenquin on December 08, 2012 at 1325 hrs
What is the source of this info? If I were to define moocher, I can’t say I’d define it as federal tax revenue pp vs. Fed aid to the state (does it include welfare to individuals?) pp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 1448 hrs
Penguin, Obamacare was a sham.
Senators showed up for a unusual session on Christmas Eve of all days and held there by dirty Harry while he doled out special exemptions for the five or so Senators who needed to be bought off to get his 60 votes, all Dem. He couldn’t even get the Lenin sisters in Maine to vote for it. And to get that 60 vote fillibuster proof majority, the Dems got Senate seats in MN and AK by a couple hundred votes in questionable recounts earlier in the year.
Then Scott Brown was elected in somewhat protest to Ted Kennedy’s seat, taking away the 60 votes the Dems needed to avoid filibuster. But that didn’t stop the Dems. They decided to pass the bill in the House with Obama lying to the Bart Stupak anti abortion crowd to get their votes. Then the whole thing came back to the Senate via reconciliation whereby they eliminated any ability to filibuster by the GOP.
I’m not pleased with either method used but the GOP learned from that experience that the war was on and bipartisan solutions for big issues had no place in the Dem Party. Hence Scott Walker and Rick Synder were born.
And give the Obamacare opposition credit for civility. People yelled outside the Capitol that weekend in March of 2010. But they didn’t storm the building or toss death threats at the legislators or have Senators run to Illinois like they did in Wisconsin. Synder knew the Dems use different tactics. Rather than protest the vote, the Dems want to deny the vote from physically taking place. Big difference. So Synder did what he had to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2012 at 1613 hrs
Yes Mike those stats are federal revenue paid vs. taken. Blue states are the makers and red states are the takers. It is amazing that so many Republicans are ignorant of that fact. You can also break it down by urban vs. rural. The urban areas of this country subsidize the rural.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state
Fighting the civil war was the worst decision this UNION ever made. If we weren’t being pulled down by the culturally and morally depraved moochers of the south of the northern half of this country would be thriving. Let the Confederate red state south secede. We would be much better off without them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 0951 hrs
Now, TKMF, how much of that money consists of money dumped into military bases and military personnel? How much is spent on maintaining and subsidizing the vast federal land holdings in the west that are essentially worthless to the states? How much of farm subsidies are counted as going to rural state farmers when their actual effect is to subsidize an urban population?
Be wary of claims of where federal money goes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1141 hrs
I don’t give a shit where the money goes BVBB. Stop taking our money from us and giving it to them.
The blue states should just admit that fighting the civil war was a terrible mistake and start the process disassembling this Union so many Red Staters abhor. Give the confederate states a decades worth of the billions of subsidies they currently enjoy, then sever all ties.
I am damn certain the blue states will be just fine… the red states will figure out within a generation that functioning as a Randian utopia isn’t nearly what they thought it would be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1238 hrs
“19.I don’t give a shit where the money goes BVBB.”
BVBB is right. Many southern states (red states) get a lot of federal money due to military bases and such because the climate is more suitable. And many Western states have millions of acres of federal land that don’t benefit those states a whit.
But, as you say, you don’t care. Fine… enjoy your ignorance. And when you get your utopia of a divided nation, enjoy doing so without the military.
Posted by Owen on December 09, 2012 at 1312 hrs
The moment the red states depart, TKMF, you can count on $10 loaves of bread and even higher prices for gasoline; provided your dollar will still be worth anything. Oh, and you’ll have to give up most of your cheap Asian goods as they all cross the red states during their travel to you, travel that takes place on various freight corridors whose primary purpose is to facilitate those goods travelling to the Great Lakes and Northeast. You’ll have to give up your electrical power as well, fueled as it is in Wisconsin by Wyoming coal.
The Northeast would be utterly and permanently crippled by a red state secession.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1358 hrs
Every time this “red state takers vs blue state makers” comes up the GOP backers always defer to the claim that federal lands and military are the sole reason for the disparity. I don’t doubt that is a significant factor, but lets see the statistics that prove it.
It is indisputable that red states are poorer than blue states. Poor people consume more education and health care subsidies. People working in highly profitable industries in the blue states pay for those subsidies. I am sure that is also a significant factor.
Whatever the reason or cause of these subsidies is immaterial. The point is that we live in a pseudo-socialist country where our tax money is distributed to promote the common welfare. I am ok with that, but I am not ok with my money being spent in places where people who are the recipients of my money want to end the social contract I support and they benefit from.
I agree with Conservatives that a culture of dependency is a serious problem in our culture. The transfer of wealth from one group to another is not a healthy thing. Lets stop that transfer of wealth and disassemble the Union.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1401 hrs
$10 loafs of bread? Whatever BVBB.
The free trade between the red/blue states would still function as well as it does today. There is no reason to believe their would be any market disruption in anything as it would be in the best interests of both states to maintain as close a relationship as possible.
A multiyear planning phase, and polling phase of state referendums choosing which state they wish to belong to and a ten year transition would leave both states feeling as if they are getting more of what they want.
I would guess it would make the most sense to break the country into 3 seperate states. A west coast state, a central plains and southern state and a northeast state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1409 hrs
The entire point of all federal spending, TKMF, is to avoid the consequences of the marketplace. The immediate consequence you would feel is reduced agricultural production resulting in the relatively urbanized areas of the nation getting their food prices jacked up. The second consequence you would feel is states and regions would be free to impose tarriffs and regulation on what had previously been interstate commerce subject only to Federal regulation. The Great Lakes and Northeast would be killed by this.
The Great Plains have only a small interest in maintaining transportation corridors that are primarily used to transport goods from Asia to the Midwest and Northeast.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1433 hrs
You are probably right BVBB. I am foolish to think the red states would ever be responsible actors. They probably would start a trade war.
You are way off in your predictions of the blue states being at the mercy of the red states. The blues would control most of the eastern ports, and the entire west coast. The Canadians would be happy to open up more rail lines shipping goods from Seattle to the North East. There is nothing the reds have that the blues wouldn’t have easy access to on the international market.
There is one really important thing the blues have the reds would desperately want… highly profitable knowledge based industries and the wealth created by those industries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1448 hrs
Note that Eastern seaports ship very little of anything west of Chicago. Tha Canadians already ship coast to coast, but note that the ports involved are Canadian and of the two Canadian railroads CP goes through North Dakota. The closest West coast ports to most of the Plains are in Mexico, unaffected by any US split. The closest ports overall to the Plains and South are Gulf Coast ports, also unaffected by any split.
In an international environment by themselves your blue states would be attempting to compete with the world for basic commodities using a currency issued by a nation unwilling to develop its’ natural resources and not possessing sufficient existing production. The blue states possess very little knowledge not available elsewhere.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2012 at 1523 hrs
TMKF, the graph you show seems a bit deceptive. Did you notice the 4 most populous states both pay in and receive the most money? And the 4 lowest populations paid in(excepting of course, Washington DC who seem to get about 6 dollars for every dollar they pay in) and received the lowest category of numbers. What that really means is that taxes paid/received ratios are something more akin to lot charges than equal comparisons.
Example, in my line of business we often have to coat screws to avoid rust. There are two cost sharts. A minimum lot charge and a per pound price. If a lot charge is forty bucks and I only want to coat 40 screws, that is one dollar per screw. If I have 400 screws it drops to .10 per screw and if I have 4000 screws it drops by another order of magnitude to .01/ea., but here is the thing. The lot charge does not change to a per pound price(which is cheaper than any lot charge) until 40,000 screws. After 40,000 screws it will be a straight one tenth of one cent each, no matter how many I do. As far as ratio goes, that lot charge on the 40 and 400 screws is pretty damn large.
That is what one military base or the cost of maintenance of one extensive tract of Gov’t land is to a place like Alaska or New Mexico, a significant lot charge. I think it would be difficult to create a graph that actually proved what you wanted it to prove, but this one does not do it. Even one just showing say, food and shelter money, would be colored by simple marketing laws. Buy 1,000 loaves of bread at a dollar and give to the poor in Albuquerque. Buy 1,000,000 loaves of bread at .14 cents ea(even with the cost of living difference) to give to the poor in NYC. You can pay $1000 dollars in Albuquerque or $140,000 in New York. By ratio, NYC is a much better deal, right?
To put it in even more fitting terms, NM has 4 military bases. If we assigned them the cost of only 1 billion ea (they have planes that cost more than that) that is four billion divided by population. This means we are paying ‘the people of NM’ $1921 ea for our military presence there. NY has five military bases. Divide 5 billion by the New york population and we are paying the ‘people of NY’ about $257 ea for their military bases. Is that a fair comparison?
Every time this “red state takers vs blue state makers” comes up the GOP backers always defer to the claim that federal lands and military are the sole reason for the disparity. I don’t doubt that is a significant factor, but lets see the statistics that prove it.
I don’t know if this ‘proves’ anything to you, but it sure seems like a significant factor to me. I did not look up how much shepherding land costs, but Alaska has such a low population, any cost will be a large ratio. In addition, they have 6 military bases and 3 coast guard stations. Just for the military bases the US is ‘paying’ Alaskans about $8300 per person. Your link is a bad comparator.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 0943 hrs
C’mon BVBB, you can’t believe what you are claiming here. I know you know more about economics than that. The bottom line is that the Blue states are wealthier and more productive than the red states. The blue states create wealth which is spent in red states, that is indisputable.
Yes the red states have natural resources that the blue states would want and need, but in the 21st century global economy that doesn’t really matter as long as you have access to ports. The wealthiest countries on earth aren’t dependent on natural resources for their wealth. You can’t become as wealthy as the US is with natural resources alone. The US is wealthy because we create things that are very valuable. Most of those things are created in the major metropolitan areas of blue states. The new sources of wealth Americans are going to need to thrive in the future are likely going to be created in those Blue states.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1125 hrs
No they don’t TKMF, and if the federal government were to disappear, the blue delusion of supporting the country would go with it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1152 hrs
the blue delusion of supporting the country
Sorry friend, I am not the one who is delusional. I just added up all the gross federal tax revenue collected by the states in 2007. Blue states paid $1.7T Red States paid $950B.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xlsPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1505 hrs
The first thing that should give you pause, TMKF, is that you are collecting similar amounts of money per capita between red and blue states in spite of the blue states having a higher per capita income.
The second thing you should consider is the level of both state and personal debt between red and blue states and the impact that is going to have on the future. You won’t like the result.
None of the above addresses outlays, of course.
This claim is nothing new. Demonizing one part of the country to gain political favor in another has a long tradition. Avoid it if you can. Anyone who gets around the country quickly sees what a crock it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1718 hrs
you are collecting similar amounts of money per capita between red and blue states
Gotta link BBB?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 1936 hrs
What should give you pause BVBB is that you have no idea what you are talking about. The picture is even worse if you break down the IRS data I linked to per capita. 8 of the highest paying states per capita are blue, the bottom 11 are all red.
This doesn’t even take into account the fact that a huge chunk of the taxes the red states are paying is income taxes on income they receive from blue state tax money.
I have seen most of this country and more of this globe than maybe 99.5% of my fellow global residents. One of the ugliest corners of the developed world is Red State America.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 2022 hrs
I meant to say 8 of the top 10. I could have said 15 of the top 20.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 2027 hrs
Add the numbers up TMKF. You get 35% and change in revenue from 36% and change of the population taxing the states that went for Romney. You can do it with your own link.
See above, fu.
No, you haven’t TMKF, or you wouldn’t be that ignorant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 2205 hrs
I did add it up BVBB.
I am not sure how you are calculating these percentages of yours, but if you add up total taxes divided by total people you get average revenue per capita.
The national average is about $8500
The average blue stater pays about $9600
The average red stater pays about $7450
And this doesn’t account for the taxes the red states are paying in income taxes on income they receive from blue state tax revenue.
I don’t know what you have seen of this earth, but I have seen way more than most. Some places I hope to one day get to spend more time in. If I never visit Little Rock, Omaha or Atlanta or Lexington ever again I won’t be disappointed. There are some places in the south I would like to visit again, but they might as well be a different country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2012 at 2357 hrs
The average blue stater pays about $9600
The average red stater pays about $7450
Maybe off topic, but I wonder how much buying power those incomes equal in their respective locations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 0752 hrs
My mistake TMKF. I used your $950B number in comment 30 and that number should actually be lower.
Note that the new result will be people paying in red states paying about a pecentage point lower in taxes, not surprising given the lower incomes and progressive taxation. Corporate taxes should probably be filtered given that they’re highly influenced by the state a company chooses to incorpoate in (Deleware for instance).
All of which leads to a big so what? None of these claims ever publish how they arrived at the disbursement calculations and I don’t expect that they ever will. Without that we’ll conclude nothing.
Omaha’s great. Lexington is also good. Way better places than any Northeastern city.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1125 hrs
None of these claims ever publish how they arrived at the disbursement calculations and I don’t expect that they ever will. Without that we’ll conclude nothing
You can bury your head in the sand if you want. I don’t care. I don’t see how anyone can look at the available data and not conclude that the Blue states are wealthier and more productive than the red states and that a significant chunk of the wealth created in blue states is spent in red states.
There are books written on the subject. This discussion has peaked my interest enough that I think I might read one. Analyzing this data made me think harder about why the GOP is so gung-ho on military spending. They have to find some way to funnel money into their states. The military is the perfect vehicle.
Omaha’s great. Lexington is also good. Way better places than any Northeastern city.
Personal preference. I would take Boston over either of those places any day. I would own a place in NYC if I could afford to live there. I am sure most red staters would rather die than live in NYC. That is the entire point of this rant. This country has been divided by the Mason-Dixon line since before the civil war. The divide isn’t closing… it is widening in many respects. If you distill the divide down to its essence I think many blue staters think the red states are holding them back, and the red states think the blue states are holding them back. Due to the divergent cultures I think they are both right.
If Conservatives were true to their ideology they would be working hard to bust this union.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1154 hrs
OK, TKMF, consider this proposal: Red states will raise all their wages and pay more taxes to equalize it per capita. You and I will in turn pay more for our power, energy, food, etc.. How are we better off?
I recognize that the spending claiming to be a subsidy to red states is actually a subsidy to me in a blue state and vice versa.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1236 hrs
TMKF and anyone else who might wish to understand the very deep origins of why the south the north are the way they are should read “Albions Seed: four British folkways in America” by David Hackett Fischer. I would also recommend a new book, “Deer hunting with Jesus” by Joe Bageant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2012 at 1913 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 43
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2013 03:31 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).