does that apply to women's reproductive health?

i'm pro-choice too, if a person wants to pay money to another slug (the boss is usually a slug already) that's THEIR prerogative...

just like if a woman wants to murder her unborn fetus, that's HER decision to live with...

heck, i'm not even against someone wanting to shoot themselves in the head either, but is there any real difference between these 3?

@mornimist, It's off topic, but sure.
Not sure how abortion equates to "reproductive health", she can still screw while she is pregnant (unless she is a princess). As I understand it there are more potential Obama supporters aborted than there are potential conservatives, so if we also get the liberal indoctrination out of the class room we should be much better off.
9 out of 10 parents surveyed do not want their children to be union workers.

I'm a little confused. Aren't you and the other gentlemen who have commented so far usually telling us that if a worker doesn't like the pay, benefits or working conditions at a specific job s/he is always free to look for employment elsewhere?

Edward and the other gentlemen have been commenting about working conditions imposed by EMPLOYERS, not their fellow workers...

or the state!

I fail to see the difference. Less than ideal employment conditions are still less than ideal, no matter who is imposing them.

Randy, do you truly not see the difference, or this another of your facetious attempts to look stupid in order to make a point?

Regarless, I will explain it as simply as I can.
An employer is paying an employee to do a job.
If the employee is not delivering on a satisfactory job, the employer has certain steps to take, including corrective action plans or firing that individual.
If the employer is not delivering a satisfactory compensation for a job, the employee as certain steps including asking for a raise or finding another job

An employee pays the union for services, including collective bargaining for compensation. If the union does not provide satisfactory services for their dues, the employee has a MORAL right to fire the union. Unfortunately, they only have a legal right to do this in right to work states.

Unions are afraid of losing their membership and they should be. They have failed to evolve with the times. If unions want to survive, they need to reinvent themselves so that they provide quality services to the members.

Anti - you do know the functions of a union, right?

Without an organized workforce, companies have all the power to pay what they like and provide what ever working conditions they deem. So the company doesn't have to deal with, at times, thousands of people, the workers get together and elect representatives to approach the company on their behalf. If the rep. does not do a satisfactory job, they are voted out of their office. Dues are paid to pay for the services of organizing a great deal of people. Yes, they are also used to lobby the gov. for more worker-friendly legislation. Considering "Corp. are People My Friends... Yes They Are.." is the mantra these days, Unions are absolutely essential as much now as they were when they first began.

FFT:

Do we no longer have OSHA and other laws that set standards for working conditions, wages and compensation?

The unions were 'essential' when the typical worker was an unskilled immigrant that didn't speak much English. The union provided a level of protection from corporate owners that wanted to take advantage of the unskilled and ignorant labor force because they knew that other job options were limited.

Those conditions really don't apply today (for the most part). The public sector isn't out to maximize profits by oppressing labor--not sure why we need public sector unions at all. In the private sector, skilled workers should be free to negotiate compensation that is in line with their particular skills and abilities and the value they provide to the product/company. Unskilled labor is more of a commodity and those workers will likely still benefit from a union.

I see your point, but I still have concern. With no union & an atmosphere of deregulation. With cutting programs that are not "essential" (there was talk about cutting the EPA for goodness sake), How can OSHA opperate if/when their funding is cut? If employers collectively decide the job only pays x or y - or they will move the plant overseas... or hire people who will work for x or y.

Maybe I am being paranoid. I just know our history and am very-very concerned with no organized labor, the middle class in this country is doomed.

@Randy

"I'm a little confused. Aren't you and the other gentlemen who have commented so far usually telling us that if a worker doesn't like the pay, benefits or working conditions at a specific job s/he is always free to look for employment elsewhere?"

No, I am not "usually telling" you that. But the principle is the same yes. But you cannot succeed in trying to catch me in a contradiction, when it is YOUR position that violates the constitution and common sense. NO ONE has a right to force someone to join a union. They get a job to serve the employer and receive a wage.

And yes, Randy, if it's for lower pay and benefits, then that's better than no job at all... which unionization directly leads to.

@Free Thought

"I see your point, but I still have concern. With no union & an atmosphere of deregulation."

Did ANYONE say "no union & an atmosphere of dergulation?" I missed that in the GOP plank or Conservative think tanks. You clearly don't understand conservative theory if you're going to imply that's what we seek. Regulation to keep one from harming another is good. But as minimal and locally as possible. FORCED UNIONIZATION is a violation of the Constitution, basic rights, common sense, and countless other principles.

"With cutting programs that are not "essential" (there was talk about cutting the EPA for goodness sake), How can OSHA opperate if/when their funding is cut?"

Where is OSHA funding being cut? Also, where in the Constitution does the EPA get it's authority, or even permission to exist? Not that the EPA has anything to do with OSHA....

"If employers collectively decide the job only pays x or y"

Where are employers "collectively deciding" that? You keep throwing out these hypotheticals without any proof or significant evidence of it actually happening. And if they do, so what? People will choose to not to work a job that doesn't pay what it's worth. Workers are not helpless. But creating a government-sponsored obstacle is insanity.

"or they will move the plant overseas..."

And why would they? Because of unionization and over-regulation.

"or hire people who will work for x or y."

Exactly. And that is the EMPLOYERS' right.

I ran out of space....

Just in case Randy tries his lousy attempt at "catching" us in another contradiction, yes, workers are free to move around. Which is why I said creating a government-sponsored obstacle is insanity. (union-shop rules) Employers and employees benefit best when basic conditions are observed, and nothing else. All bargaining, pay,, benefits, mobility, seniority, etc should be decided freely on a case-by-case basis in a free market.

Forced unionization often blocks out entire industries of skill sets, and in states like Michigan, most jobs in certain areas like Detroit and Flint.

Consider the story of Miller Park and the crane accident that killed three ironworkers. The ironworkers union protected the workers against unsafe working conditions. As I understood from someone actively involved, executives were pushing workers to work ahead of schedule because bonuses were apparently being offered for early completion. The project was slowed because of the choice to outsource the steel work to China, which arrived of poor quality, making fitting difficult and sometimes impossible. (I understood some of it was redone through negotiations with Mitsubishi.) The day of the tragedy, winds were dangerously high and I understand about 2 dozen workers, (including, I understand, the regular crane operator), refused to work under those conditions that morning. The team that did go up was killed. Without the union, its care of the families, etc., these deaths could have been avoided. Furthermore, the problems with the Miller Park roof could have been far worse if the union hadn't been present to report shoddy workmanship. This happened in 1999, not 1879.

Because we aren't in an environment where legislation isn't being introduced from out of nowhere that wasn't campaigned on? Ask the folks in MI that. Because no one is willing to discuss what cuts are on the table? No. No one is. Because the founders had to worry about polution during the drafting of the Constitution? If they did, they didn't show it.

The envoronment needs protecting. Business isn't willing to do that. Workers rights need protecting. Business isn't willing to do that.

Working full time for a wage that is not livable? How is that American? Where is the pursuit of happiness?

Instead of business rights, what about workers rights?

If you don't want to join a union, find a job that is not orginazed. If you want the pay and benefits of representation, then help pay for it.

FFT:

Unions provide no protection from a company that values a job at x dollars instead of y dollars--companies can (and do) move jobs overseas for lower labor costs. I would go so far as to argue that unions contribute to jobs moving overseas by demanding wages that aren't in line with the value of the work.

With Unions, companies are faced with a dilemma--They can either pay higher union wages and hope that they can compete with other companies that pay lower wages (that can sell their product for less than the 'union made' company), or they can move jobs to a place where they can pay the 'going rate' for labor and compete on a level playing field with other companies paying similar wages.

Bren:

I'm not understanding how the Union protected the victims of the Miller Park crane collapse from unsafe work conditions...

Bren

No one said unions shouldn't exist. You keep fighting a line of debate that doesn't exist here. And, the union didn't observe shoddy work. People did. Unions can and should exist for workers, by their CHOICE.

@Free Thought:

"Because we aren't in an environment where legislation isn't being introduced from out of nowhere that wasn't campaigned on?"

Huh?!

"Because the founders had to worry about polution during the drafting of the Constitution? If they did, they didn't show it."

Again, HUH?!

"The envoronment needs protecting. Business isn't willing to do that."

That's a generalized lie, first of all. Secondly, yes, the environment needs protecting. Locally. Not the EPA. The EPA should only exist for national waterways if needed. But the EPA has almost unchecked power in areas it's not constitutionally-authorized.

"Workers rights need protecting. Business isn't willing to do that."

Again, a generalized lie. This isn't 1880 anymore. Most companies are public and accountable to the public. And besides, laws exist to do just that. Unions are unnecessary to accomplish it when we have COUNTLESS agencies that overlap each other to do the same thing.

"Working full time for a wage that is not livable? How is that American? Where is the pursuit of happiness?"

Ummmm..... besides your GRAND generalizations that go ALL OVER the map, your points are moot. "American?" What about forcing someone to join a union to get a job is "American?" What about violating the constitution for the "greater good" is American?

@Free thought (cont...)

"Instead of business rights, what about workers rights?"

What about them? Businesses and workers have rights. Moving along....

"If you don't want to join a union, find a job that is not orginazed."

To use your words, "how is that American?" If I have skills and an employer wants to hire me, they should be able to at whatever wage/benefit level I negotiate with them.

the condescending little twerp Free Thought Troy wrote: "Anti - you do know the functions of a union, right?

Without an organized workforce, companies have all the power to pay what they like and provide what ever working conditions they deem..."

I have seen where you erred on this one Free. Companies do not have ALL the power to pay what they want. First, there are the minimum wage laws. Second, and more important, companies operate in a free market. If a company's competitor offers better compensation, workers will likely change their employment.

I know you have been beat up enough by Cowdung and Edward, but you really need to reprogram your attitude from thinking ALL businesses are run by CEO's with horns.

Cow, the unions protected the workers in the form of providing a voice and other work. Conditions were continually reported to the company but as I said, bonuses were apparently in the offing to executives who get work done ahead of schedule.

If the lead company had hired Wisconsin workers to do the steelwork, the project would have gone more smoothly because the work (quality control and adherence to blueprints) could have been monitored closely and the project thereby kept more closely to its original schedule. Then the bonuses wouldn't have been in jeopardy and perhaps maybe, three men with families wouldn't have died. The union fought for the families of the dead and settlements were made after years of struggle.

My own father was a member of a private sector employee union since his service in Korea. A Republican, he believes, as I do, that the union label stands for American quality and standard of living.

Edward, ALEC Right to Work (for Less) legislation destabilizes private sector unions by allowing non-union employees to mooch off dues-paying union members. Thus unions negotiate pay, working conditions, etc., for all employees at the company. But the union loses effectiveness when fewer employees are actually represented and paying dues. Ultimately the union is marginalized and employers feel empowered to regress wages, working conditions, etc.

One might not say the words aloud but I've always thought actions "speak" louder anyway.

As I said--the union really did'nt protect their safe working conditions...

In my experience, union means delay, and having to redo their shoddy work after hours. I hated having to deal with union electricians...

Anit - I don't mind getting beat up on this site. It happens sometime. The union issue will always be of great debate. I happen to believe strongly the need for unions to maintain and expand the middle class in this country. There are many voices that don't agree with me and all come up will compelling arguments.

I am of the opinion we need to re negotiate our trade agreements, encourage American companies to bring jobs back to the states (I would support major corp. tax breaks for this) and work hand in hand with unions to come up with common sence contracts that will benefit everyone. It' just what I believe.

I due appreciate giving me a pass on joining in on the criticism but I am grateful for you calling me a twerp just so I am clear there is no long-term good opinion of me.

Walkers thugs are a political org.

Sorry Galt, but Governor Walker has bigger issues than right to work to deal with. Start with the biggest problems in the state and work down.

Go Galt -

Walker is not getting weak in the knees. He's being smart. He won election and re-election with the help of private-union voters. I want right-to-work legislation, but dumping on a superstar, balls-of-steel governor because he's backing down on two issues you think are more important goes against the idea of voting for someone. You vote for them to run something, and handle all the complex issues so we don't have to.

Our state is in better shape than when he took over. Just give it time. RTW will come eventually, but I think it's politically risky, especially since he has other potentially HUGE battles coming in tax cuts, infrastructure, school choice, etc.

To be honest, I'd rather expand school choice universally in Wisconsin than RTW legislation. But we'll get there on both eventually. With patience, not shooting inside our own tent. :)

I might support school choice if data suggested an improvement in test scores overall. I also don't agree that "Walker is getting weak in the knees." I do think his benefactors have instructed Walker and the other ALEC governors to lie low until the furor in Michigan dies down (which I don't think it will, and it's also what I would advise).

Walkers going to prison.

Ed ... Walkers got balls the size of a chipmunk.

The costs to repeal same day registering is from that left wing marxist group known as the GAB....I don't believe a word they say.

Well you're not "Go Galt", so what's your point?

The $5.2 million price tag is not the reason the reform isn't being sought....

It's a battle that needs to be fought, and I hope Walker changes his mind. But I know the reason is deeper than a paltry $5.2 million.

Then you apparently know more about why Walker isn't pursuing it than he does...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/183173611.html

You have to pick your battles. He wisely isn't picking this one right now.

Unfortunately, we've got ideologues on both sides of the equation, most of whom can't provide any evidence of insider knowledge, a record of correctly calling past outcomes or a particularly strong grasp of the way politics works insisting they know the "real reasons" for this, that and the other thing.

Unless there's a statement directly from Walker's office specifically disclaiming the information in the link above, I'm sticking with the reasoning - as given.

Thank You Bob ... Bucky.

FTT -

Prove the gerrymandering. Go on, prove it. There was virtually NO dissention on the new lines being drawn, and both parties control the process when they're in power every 10 years.

And, there's no suppression of voting going on, so that's a red herring. (read: LIE)

Also, the only thing that kills "union power" is the power of choice. RTW legislation gives employees the chance to choose. The fact that most choose not to is somehow read by YOU as killing union power. If people, given the choice, choose not to do something, then who are YOU to force them to? For your OWN power.

Now, your true intentions, and those of the unions are exposed.

http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2012/08/07/emails-reveal-wisconsin-gops-gerrymandering-efforts-to-be-quite-dubious/

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/same-day-registration-wisconsin-121112

Proof.

LOL! You call that garbage "proof?"

Sobeit, man. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party disagreed.

Enjoy swatting flies, bub.

@Free Thought

It's pretty amusing that when asked for proof you provide an extreme op-ed piece and a no-name blog.

LOL

Bren:

Why does it matter to you so much if ALEC wrote the bill or not? Can't you judge bills on their content and merit rather than your anti-ALEC prejudice?

Cow, I have never considered the marriage of business interests and governments a recipe for democracy. The degree to which special interests have infiltrated our government is alarming. Corporations/employers should not be penning state or federal legislation on workers' rights, or anything else for that matter. We are all supposed to have an equal voice. Shame on the lazy, opportunistic legislators who pander to special interests, they do our democratic republic no service.

Then I expect you to be equally vocal when the special interest groups on your side writes model legislation for the causes they support...

Who wrote Obamacare? It sure wasn't any elected officials - since Nancy Pelosi stated:

"we have 2 pass the bill 2 find out what's in it."

At least ALEC is up front:

http://www.alec.org/

Some of us like the idea of a limited government - and freedom - and don't need to be restrained and maintained by the hand of Big Brother. We can practice self-restraint - unlike a lot of those around me -and therefore don't need the hand of big government. If we weren't forced into supporting the unrestrained teeming masses breeding activities - we cold have a high tech world closer to a Utopia.

Instead we got a steaming mass of decay and coming collapse.

You got your Idiocracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

Bren's recipe for democracy is the marriage of unions and government.

Shame on the lazy, opportunistic legislators who pander to union special interests, they do our democratic republic no service.

Yes Bren and her kind would rather have organized crime organizations like SEIU and other union thugs draft laws, shame shame shame!!

Oh yes, I forgot. All unions are mafia.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Because there has been no foul play from corp. throughout the years. No violence toward workers. No unfair treatment. No. All saints they are.

Actually, I do believe the same folks who drafted Mass. Healthcare law were involved in the Affordable Care Act? I can't remember who the gov. was overseeing that process?

Ahhhhh yes...

Troy you aren't very bright are you? Finish college? Attend government schools?

Are there any liberals out there with a modicum of intelligence?

There you are Go Galt!

Got nothing to say? Just insult. There you go. Nice work

@Bren

You have a problem with a "marriage of business and government interests" to be a bad marriage, but then sponsor the idea of government-sponsored forced-unionization by BUSINESSES called "unions." Yeah, I'm sure you have a really thin, lousy explanation for why that's different....

Also, there's nothing wrong with ALEC. It's an organization that seeks to have as local, free-market oriented legislation as possible, which leads to the greatest prosperity. Walker paying attention to what ALEC puts out is a good thing, considering we want the state to be business-friendly within the confines of our laws.

Your last point about "recent evidence" and "same-day voter registration" didn't make sense. His son and his reading of bills have nothing to do with each other. You're always trying to catch someone in a contradiction where one doesn't exist.

Cow, I'm going to have a problem with any politician that submits cookie-cutter legislation. To me that is disrespectful of constituents.

Richard, "we" are the government. I'm not interested in having a smaller say. I am interested in leveling the playing field so that democracy is served and everyone has a voice. Those who want "limited" government either don't understand what a democratic republic is or would benefit from removing all of the pesky regulations that keep the air and water from being fouled and otherwise interfere with profits.

Here are three words that represent my appreciation for regulations: 1. Melamine 2/3. diethylene glycol. China exported pet food that killed 5,000 U.S. pets because it contained a toxic chemical. 2/3. More than 50 people died in Panama after using toothpaste made from an ingredient purchased from China. Chinese-made toothpaste is now banned in the U.S. Regulations are good. If the customs service were fully staff I'd sleep better at night.

Greg, when have I suggested such a thing? I believe that trade unions/guilds perform multiple services to its members and the community. Union membership indicates high quality training and pride in one's work. That's important to me, especially when it comes to equipment, motor vehicles, etc., that must be well built and safe to operate.

If the legislation has merit, why not use the 'cookie cutter' and bring it to other states? Certainly you don't think that all the legislation that gets proposed has all been original material and unique for each governed body?

What do you think union lobbying groups (as an example) do all day?

"Union membership indicates high quality training and pride in one's work."

Do the unions actually train anyone? Pretty much anyone willing to pay the dues can become a union member...

Their main goals are to protect the incompetent from being fired, and make sure that nobody steps in to do the work that the incompetents don't get done. Hardly a formula for 'quality'...

Could it have something to do with police and firefighters not being allowed to strike?

Or this is just more proof that Walker is fiscally conservative/responsible.
Now if he had pursued this despite the cost, how much crying would you do then?

David, that point didn't make any sense.

I had to re-read it a few times to see if there was a deeper point I was missing, but the reality is that it just doesn't hold water.

The police and firefighter exception is normal. The relation to "long way to get rid of their past history" is completely unrelated to the topic, or the point of the legislation.

You're also contradicting yourself by saying rights are being taken away, but the police are being "given special privileges." They already have "privileges" (not "rights") so none are being taken or given to the P & F.

You're making a strange presumption that there would be a need to maintain order "against workers who have inferior rights (i thought they were "privileges?") compared to the police." Seriously? What a strange and random thing to surmise...

Finally, there's nothing "Radical" about us "Tea Party Supporters." We're a large group of concerned voters with conservative principles. Calling us radical just makes you sound moderate when in fact, your positions are radical in and of themselves.

According to a 2006/2011 study of national political attitudes conducted by Campbell (Notre Dame) and Putnam (Harvard), solid evidence was provided, by interviewing the same people in 2006 and 2011, to identify the traits of individuals likely to join the Tea Party movement. These included being predominantly highly partisan Republicans, desire to have religion play a "predominant role in politics," "overwhelmingly white," "low regard for immigrants and blacks." The study disproves the myths that the Tea Party was born of nonpartisan political newbees or as a result of the recession. Here's a nice NYT Op Ed/summary they wrote last year if you don't want to access the entire study: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=2&;

Doesn't it make sense that states with relatively low unemployment rates would be more likely to show 'less percent growth' than states with relatively high unemployment rates? States with full employment will show zero percent growth--it that really a bad thing?

It will do who no good?
As an employer (non-union), I have had to pay into unions just to work on "union" projects. My employees will never benefit from those contributions. I have lost contracts because the GC did not want union problems. My employees are paid well, they have great benefits and they get 40+ hours per week, which is something the scum bag unions don't provide for our trades. My employees have made the choice to be non-union, many were union but they could not support their families by sitting on the bench, yet they don't get to work certain jobs because they don't pay the union bribe. If the unions are worth anything they will survive WTW, if they aren't they can go on the shelf next to the buggy whip.

You are right. We do have a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the country. My concern is the ranking as well as the pace compared to the Gov. promise.

I fear we are going to push through RTW (for less) with the weak excuse this will get us to the promised 250k jobs - which statistically, doesn't help. Lower wages (that come with RTW legislation) will do nothing to help WI economy.

My point is that the growth ranking really shouldn't matter--it's propaganda. The states with the best unemployment numbers are expected to rank near the bottom. Having low jobs growth isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly if there is low unemployment...

I think I am beginning to see your point. So based on that, in your opinion, do you think we are on the right track when it comes to job creation and economy in the state? I promise, I am not being snarky here. I respect your opinion and genuinly want to know.

I'm not sure that Right to Work is going to be the 'magic bullet' to increase job creation, but I don't think that it will hurt jobs either. Keeping labor costs relatively low should make it easier for employers to justify adding to their headcount, and provides less of an incentive to move jobs out of state.

I think the best way to grow jobs is to provide tax breaks/incentives for companies that move into the state and hire Wisconsin residents.

@Free Thought,

Your EPI study is from a liberal organization that does crackpot studies to support quasi-socialist/progressive policies.

And they're wrong. For every link you give, I could give 5 that say the opposite. The unemployment rate in RTW (for market-rate) states is 1.5% less than the states that force unionization.

And that's beside the point that forcing someone to join a union, pay dues or be part of a skewed-democratic organization is unconstitutional.

We have lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and elsewhere because of the ridiculous cost of doing business here in the state. Walker is looking to change that.

And besides, WALKER ISN'T PUSHING FOR RTW. So the argument is kind of moot.

Walker may not be pushing RTW, but I highly-highly doubt he would veto any legislation. Are you going to tell me that the state senate & assembly won't push it through? I would be shocked and amazed if they don't

I agree, there should be NO exemption from RTW.

maybe because no one could do business while the Recall happy "frothing at the mouth" union jerks drove everyone away with their chanting and drum beating...

that's why i got an apartment in Colorado MM - people like you making it unbearable to live here any more

Blessings to you and your new home. I wish you all the good fortune in your new environment.

You do know that there are many job openings currently in Wisconsin? We don't have a job creation problem, we have a problem supplying qualified employees. If that is true in 10 years you can then blame it on Governor Walker.

FTT
"Got nothing to say? Just insult. There you go. Nice work"

Greg: don't know where that came from...

Walker is such a failure.

Wisconsin's reforms doesn't violate the state Constitution. No legal expert with their head on straight can make that connection. Flanigan's and Colas' rationalization was a complete crock.

So is your story from a liberal source. It's a red herring. Try again.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with ALEC. Except that it might make you feel uncomfortable for a private organization (ALEC) to have as much power as YOUR preferred private organizations. (Unions)

If there's "nothing wrong" with ALEC, why have so many former donors/partners walked away? Here's a link to the 42 companies and 4 nonprofit organizations, among them Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Amazon, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, GE, etc. Despite the fact that these companies were direct beneficiaries of ALEC's successfully passed cookie-cutter, excuse me, "model" profit-promoting legislation.

So if you aren't willing to believe Patch posters, perhaps you'll consider the decisions made by the CEOs of these companies.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Corporations_that_Have_Cut_Ties_to_ALEC

Oh cripes, Bren is in his rocking chair repeating ALEC over and over again. Geesh, who lit him up again?

Add me to the ALEC donor list. The only reason I do is because of Bren and her insane postings. My company can handle the political heat which is why other may drop out. Yet anything Bren types needs to be taken with a grain of daily kos.

That's because government doesn't have to compete in the 21st.C global economy. Government has taxing authority - so it's profits are locked in. Government simply raises tax rates.

The problem is that the tax rates have become so heavy that it is difficult to be in private business. Businesses can raise prices, cut wages, move elsewhere or close. Government is now openly looting businesses and making them unprofitable. Unlike government - the private sector needs to make a profit - to stay in business.

A very simple concept that is beyond the conception of the big government, government to the rescue types.

It's time to end the looting - cut the wages and benefits of government at all levels - and yes - they will lose their McMansions, SUV's, Benefits and Vacations. Better to have some - than none - well, not in their eyes. Watch for the Boomers to have a hissy fit and collapse the entire economy before they learn to share.

Right. This is not the 1950s. We are not an industrial island.

We truly need honest pragmatic leaders who can collaborate and find the compromises that will help us all to collectively deal with the REAL issues facing this state. I continue to urge my governor and my legislators to be such leaders.

***********************

And what, exactly, does that mean? The only plans we seem to get from the other side involve taxpayer funded public expenditures and an expansion of the educational system that, in terms of employment, only guarantees expansion of that within the education system itself - both options that increase dramatically one of the key negative factors cited in that same article. There is nothing offered in terms of ideas for how to truly attract and maintain businesses, which have the ability to pick and choose where to locate their facilities and create/maintain employment opportunities.

Oh, and btw, from that same Forbes article...

"All but one of the top 10 states have right-to-work laws on the books (No. 5 Colorado is the exception). Of the bottom 10 states, No. 46 Mississippi is the only right-to-work state."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/12/12/utah-tops-list-of-the-best-states-for-business/

Walker's stance on the issue is correct. Let others lead the charge but when the opportunity arises here, take advantage of it.

dpatric2 wrote: "Yes...Wisconsin needs to work on job creation...not like we did the past two years where that false theme resulted in non-job creating legislation that has torn this state apart and has diminished our "Forward" motto..."

Exactly what "non-job creating legislation" are you referring to? Act 10? While it didn't actually create jobs, it did stop the bleeding created by out of control public unions. Had Act 10 not been in place, THOUSANDS of jobs would have been lost as local governments tried to balance their budgets. And lets not forget all the good exposure the Capitol riots, I mean protests, created. It really makes a business owner notice what a great workforce we have to offer them.

How about looking beyond the headlines for a minute. Factors that contributed to Forbes final ranking are:
#35 in Business Costs
#39 in Labor Supply
#30 in Regulatory Environment
#29 in Economic Climate
#43 in Growth Prospects
#10 in Quality of Life
( http://www.forbes.com/places/wi/ )
The top 4 are factors that have been years in the making, and they will be years in the un-makeing. You don't want "honest pragmatic leaders"! You want leaders that will give everything to labor at the expense of the business climate.

YOUR leaders are the ones that created this mess!
YOUR leaders knew change was coming and couldn't stop it!
And YOUR leaders ran down to a water park in Illinois instead of providing an honest debate when the time came!

AS long as Walkers in there this state is shit out of luck.

@GovWalker has too many felons as friends for that job.

Actually, using B.O. as a benchmark, he doesn't have enough:
Ron Kirk-tax fraud for writing off Dallas Maverick tickets
Tim Geithner-failing to pay taxes
Tom Daschle-tax fraud for not reporting taxable employee benefit
Nancy Killefer-tax fraud
Bill Richardson-pay for play
Hilda Solis-tax fraud (actaully spousal tax fraud)
as well as many others
( http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2011/04/18/obamas_tax_hypocrisy/page/full/ )

Pretty hard to be the president of the USA from a prison cell and like mist said the con has to many felons for friends. I wonder if he has any friends that aren't felons ?

and there sure is a lot of fools on here !

@GovWalker makes a fool of himself once more!!

Liam Goldrick @lgoldrick25 3m
PolitiFact - "Pants On Fire": #ScottWalker says #Wisconsin has created almost 100,000 jobs since he took office

Our rating

Walker said the state has created "just under 100,000" jobs since he took office. He arrived at that number by combining full and partial years of census data.

However, several within his own administration, including his primary spokesman, have said that is the wrong way to measure jobs -- you can’t combine partial and full year data sets. As one aide said: It would be "misrepresenting the truth."

By his administration’s own yardstick, his statement is false. We think it’s ridiculous to -- after private admonitions -- publicly present it this way. Pants on Fire.

constant lies coming from @GovWalker does not make WI a state condusive to business.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Forbes Ranks Wisconsin 42nd For Business

Two years of Scott Walker's "Open For Business" slogans, corporate tax breaks and ideological scapegoating of public employees haven't been building a business climate in the state, finds Forbes.

The magazine ranks the state 42nd nationally.

http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/