I heard that a prankster pretending to be a Koch called Walker and got him to discuss strategy—and that Walker had said they’d thought about bringing in troublemakers but decided that would not work well. My first reaction was that this was a despicable calculation. I mulled it over a while, and then spent the 20 minutes listening to the recording so I’d be armed with chapter and verse for my tirade. Oops.
Several things were quickly obvious: Walker didn’t know what this Koch sounded like—so much for being a Koch puppet. The harsh stuff and nasty language came entirely from the fake "Koch;" Walker’s language and descriptions were temperate. And the smoking gun turned into haze—"Koch" suggested bringing in outsiders to cause trouble and Walker said no. It wasn’t possible to tell whether Walker’s group had really contemplated agitators and Walker was giving an honest description, or if Walker was trying to politely decline without insulting a rich contributor. I like to think I’d have said "We don’t do that sort of thing," and not worried about insulting anybody, but I remember a time or three when I tried gentle contradiction to avoid making somebody feel despised. In the end I couldn’t convict Walker of anything more objectionable than failing to contradict a rich jerk.
FWIW, I haven’t found any convincing explanation of why the Koch brothers are an especially great threat to Wisconsin democracy, or unique candidates for becoming the "power behind the throne."
I also watched the complaint after the Assembly Republicans rushed through a vote on the bill without warning at 1 in the morning. That kind of maneuver is dirty pool, and there’s no excuse for it. Although the fact that this was after a record-breaking 60 hours of continuous objections and proposed amendments might have had something to do with it. I supported some of those amendments, BTW.
One thing is very clear—the bill is too large and too complex for proper debate, and I’m pretty sure it contains some very unfortunate clauses which remove oversight for Medicaid decision-making and sale of state power plants. At least the preamble says this (not in so many words), and the amendments to medical care rules seem to refer final decisions back to a single department. But I can’t be sure that the preamble is correct without reading the statutes these changes are embedded in. And knowing what the legal structures are. That needs some expert discussion which (for some unexplained reason) we’re not having.
In any event, there’s no logical reason to connect a radical (and probably necessary) change to public employees’ bargaining status to changing Badger Care rules under the direction of a new (?) "department." I predicted that Pelosi-Care would be a train wreck; inspected and far-reaching and kitchen sink as it is; and I likewise object to this sort of complicated nonsense.
Wisconsin sold off the tobacco revenue settlement for short-term cash; Chicago sold off parking meters for short-term cash and to help out political cronies. Even if we stipulate that Walker is as honest as the day is long, giving the governor the right to no-bid sales of state assets is begging for trouble. And are the power plants really a drag on the state? I haven’t heard word one about that issue. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? Where’s the fire?
The Tilted Kilt became famous in column and jest as the haunt of the Democratic Senators, but I’ve not actually heard of any sightings in that establishment. (Which I’d not heard of before.) The Clock Tower Inn is a nice logical place to meet—just over the state line, close enough to keep in easy contact and with lodging and dining. I’d have picked it. I wonder how many of them knew of the other restaurant?
I’ve not been out with sign in hand. I’m not a huge fan of crowds; I haven’t come up with a short enough statement of my judgments to fit on a little bitty sign; and it feels somewhat self-indulgent(*). The lawmakers won’t pay me any mind, and the only thing I can really hope for is that some cameraman will notice me and send my message around. But the cameras point at the noisy and the crazy and the stupid. No doubt I’m underestimating the effect of mutual encouragement—but then I think some provisions are useful and I’m not sure I want to encourage opposition to those.
One other thing missing from the debates has been: What do we replace collective bargaining with? I wrote before that I thought the adversarial model was a poor one for public employees, but there needs to be some kind of just compensation. Tie it to Legislator’s salaries? Tie it to a bundle of non-government taxpayer salaries? Does somebody want to talk about this? Anybody?
Update (*) To be clear, I am not trying to impugn any of the protesters, merely explain why I'm not entirely comfortable.
No comments:
Post a Comment