Flight, Fight or Swim - Wisconsin has me at wit's ends

I've just realized how pissed off I am with my representatives in the past. No, I'm not talking about the liberal progressive Dems. I'm talking about the conservative Republicans.

Apparently, when the Dems push through pro-Welfarian legislation, pro-abortion legislation, pro-gay rights legislation, voting against the legislation was not really going to the mat for America. I thought it was but no. If they were really prepared to stand up for America, they should have fled across the border to Canada, taken a trip to Ireland or something. Instead, they failed America by allowing the Dems to achieve a quorum.

Well, maybe they didn't know any better. Maybe they just didn't realize the way to fight bad legislation was to hide away in a Bohemian closet somewhere. Now they know.

So, the next time the Dems have 'the power' and want to vote on a typical liberal piece of trash legislation, I expect my representative to flee across the border - get out of town quick.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

I just watched a video of the Wisconsin House of Representatives after the passage of the "Budget Vote." Here are the Dems who didn't hide (I suppose the Republicans in the Wisconsin House didn't need any Dems to have a quorum or the House Dems would probably have run for the border, too) shouting, "Shame! Shame! Shame!" at the Republicans. Will those same Dems condemn their Democrat colleagues from the Wisconsin Senate someday when their colleagues sneak back into the state?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

By the way, just for your information, Wisconsin Senators with a capital D after your names - we have enough liberal loons in Illinois already. If you stay here too long, you might tip Illinois over and we'll all spill into Lake Michigan. And that wouldn't even be half bad considering the breakdown of voters in this state.

WGN radio host smooches with Wisconsin Dem hiding in Illinois

I woke to a love fest on the radio this morning. A WGN radio host was questioning one of the Wisconsin Democrat legislators currently hiding out like a common criminal in Illinois. Did he ask him any tough questions? Certainly not during the time that I was listening. In fact, every question he asked seemed to come from a place where hiding in another state to avoid the passage of unwanted legislation is treated as entirely valid.

If anyone else was listening, please tell me - did the host ask the one question that begged to be asked, the only truly valid question? Did he ask, "If you and your peers had a Democrat majority in the Wisconsin legislature, and the Republicans fled the state to avoid a vote they didn't want, what would you say to them?"

Now, I know the Democrat on the radio this morning would not give an honest answer to that question. He would answer it based on the current situation: "Well, sometimes you have to do what you have to do. I'd understand and I'd compromise with them so they'd come home and we'd all work together like a happy family."

Here's the answer he'd give if he was in Madison, the Republicans were hiding in Iowa (they wouldn't hid in Illinois because our Democrat governor would almost certainly send our state police to send them back) while the Wisconsin Dems were about to pass legislation the Republicans didn't agree with: "This is an irresponsible dereliction of duty. These Republicans are nothing more than criminals. Imagine, running away to hide across state lines."

Of course, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would twist the rules in Wisconsin so that they could vote without the Republicans.

You don't need to tell me. I missed the beginning of the interview but the question I've posed here was not in the spirit of the moment. Instead, the host seemed to validate statements by the Wisconsin Dem that the governor of Wisconsin is wasting state funds by having the state police drive to the homes of Democrat legislators he knows aren't home (hmmm, who paid for the gas when the Dems fled across the border?).

So, I have another question; how long do the Dems have to stay in Illinois before they lose their residency in Wisconsin, and hence their jobs? Oh, and one other question - will Taco Bell look to this as fodder for a new "Run for the Border" commercial?

Polls on Wisconsin issue are clearer than they seem

Bill O'Reilly asked Dick Morris to wade in on the Wisconsin issue that has already spread to other states. In the face of outright attacks against FOX instigated, apparently, by the SEIU thugs, O'Reilly has demonstrated an evenhanded perspective on the issue. Morris did an even better job.

The polls might, on the face of it, present the possibility that the public is somewhat schizophrenic on the topic. Not true. As Morris explained, the general population supports unions in general - the right to collective bargaining. On the other hand, the general population doesn't see why union members shouldn't be willing to pull back a little in hard times, such as these.

For those who haven't examined the issues beyond the Left-wing rhetoric, it appears that Wisconsin Governor Walker is on a crusade to blatantly bust the unions. However, upon closer examination, it turns out he merely wants a little restraint in terms of how much union members will contribute to their pensions and health insurance. In particular, this is related to government workers in the state.

While those in the private sector watch their contributions for health insurance skyrocket, they see those in the public sector enjoying benefits completely out of step with the times.

In the multi-state battle over the issue, private sector unions have joined in arm-in-arm with their public-sector brethren and sisters. It's a heart-warming show of solidarity. It's also misguided.

Public sector workers have become an elite group unto themselves. In these instances, they are consistently putting their immediate profit motive ahead of the welfare of the government bodies their work within. As Michael Medved said earlier today, what makes sense in the private sector, where profit and entrepreneurial viability place restraining forces on both management and the work force, makes no sense in the public arena.

States don't exactly go out of business the way companies do. The unsavory reality is that, without market-driven restraint, the public sector unions have operated at the expense of the public they're supposed to serve. Now, they have an unholy alliance with SEIU.

SEIU does not favor strong and successful unions; SEIU favors what comes after they use the unions to win their battles - the socialism of a welfare state. In fact, the driving forces at SEIU, the big name leaders of the organization, whether they're lying to themselves or not, really see the battle as one to redistribute the seating arrangements in a political game of musical chairs. And, when the music stops, those SEIU big shots expect to hold favored seats in the new America.

Theirs is an America unhindered by the inconveniences of Constitutional law or limited government. Government will provide all and, therefore, will rightly determine the cost, how the money will be raised and how the services will be administered. And that has nothing to do with private sector unions.

The reality is, though the folks at SEIU may be thinking otherwise now - I'm sure they're seeing this crisis as an opportunity - the American public is waking up. Yes, they do support unions, even unions in the public sector. But, they expect the unions to support the nation or, in this case, the states they work for.

For those private sector union leaders, you may want to think about where you'll be standing when the music stops. For all the bravado of the SEIU bigwigs, things may not shake out as expected.