It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Koch Brothers Behind Wisconsin Effort To Kill Public Unions

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:
Ex

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Read The Bill HERE

OTHER STATE GOVERNMENT
Currently, this state owns and operates numerous heating, cooling, and power
plants that were constructed by the state to provide heating, cooling, and power to
state facilities. The Department of Administration (DOA) determines the method of
operation of these plants and may delegate this authority to any other state agency
that has managing authority for a plant. This bill permits DOA to sell or contract
for the operation of any such plant. The bill exempts such sales and contracts from
the requirement for approval of the Public Service Commission (PSC) that may
otherwise apply under current law. The bill provides that the net proceeds of any
sale, after retirement of any outstanding state debt and any necessary repayment of
federal financial assistance, is deposited in the budget stabilization fund. The bill
also allows DOA, at any time, to petition the PSC to regulate as a public utility any
person who purchases or contracts for the operation of any plant under the bill.
Under current law, the PSC has regulatory authority over public utilities,
including the authority to set rates for utility service.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by SirMike
 


I am still waiting for the proof that the sales of these plants will go straight to Koch.

Just more talking points from Daily Kos, amplified verbatim throughout Google.


I'm still waiting for an example .. just one example ... of a commercial generating station being owned by the State of Wisconsin. And no children, central heating plants dont count.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bossracer
 


Here's what the DOA reported Wisconsin's budget would do in the next few years. If you read just the first page, you'll see Wisconsin was on track for a $10 million surplus by July 2011.

Then, imagine, Walker comes in and his "team" does their own assessment and suddenly finds a $3 billion emergency. To top that off, they cut about $140 million in taxes, which is about what he's now saying is necessary to save by cutting bargaining rights.

Hmmmm........

A little more light reading on Wisconsin's alleged budget shortfalls for you



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   


The billionaire brothers whose political action committee gave Gov. Scott Walker $43,000 and helped fund a multi-million dollar attack ad campaign against his opponent during the 2010 gubernatorial election have quietly opened a lobbying office in Madison just off the Capitol Square.





The lobbyists for Koch Companies Public Sector registered with the state on January 5, two days after Walker's inauguration.


source

It's nice to have your rich friends close at hand, especially now that all that money equals "free" speech.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
WOW this is just a new low right here:

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker gets crank-called by gonzo journalist posing as David Koch, admits to various schemes to end Democratic filibuster


edit: THEY took it down!





theres still 10 more minutes of audio somewhere.
edit on 23-2-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bossracer
 


There was a time when your argument that only private sector employees should be allowed to unionize might hold at least a little weight, but not now.

Now that the supreme court has ruled to allow corporations to contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns, there is no difference between the two. Under these new guidelines, the government is in essence, a private employer put in office by corporate funds. More often than not, these funds are derived from tax breaks awarded by the very representatives who funded their campaigns.

Now more than ever, all workers both public & private, should stand up for their right to organize and bargain for their wages and working conditions. It is clearly evident that corporations plan to create an environment where they operate their businesses tax free, utilizing infrastructure provided by actual working taxpayers, which places the entire tax burden on the subordinate workers. This is a blueprint for the return of full blown, outright, slave labor.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Again,
There was no surplus in Wisconsins budget. The DOA report is fancy accounting. It does not include the 300 million in unpaid bills that the state owes. That report also does not include the 200 miillion that the former Gov. took from a Patient compensation fund to balance his budget. That raid was ruled unconstitutional and will thus be reversed. Leaving the very large hole in the budget that Walker is left to cover.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


Ah, yes, once again we have the lame claim that it was "fuzzy accounting." Okay. Whatever, dude. I'd say it's pretty convenient that people who have been doing this specific job for decades would be wrong, but your little troop of Koch-funded boy scouts came in and got it right where no one else could. Suuuuuure. You just keep drinking that KoolAid.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Look dude, call me liar if you want to, call the press reporting what is going on liars too. Do not bother reading the bill, do not bother reading the Koch Bros MO in similar situations, do not connect any dots, and do not bother making an educated guess.

However, at some point in the future you may need to decide just how much more control of our country needs to be in the hands of these few who care nothing for it before there is a problem.

You made an analogy to WWII earlier. Even though Germany was massing troops on the Soviet frontier, Stalin refused to believe anything was amiss. We know how well that turned out.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by fordrew
 


I cannot speak to how real this may or may not be...

However, if it is real, what amazes me is purely the tone and tenor of the call. The Governor is "answering" to one of the supposed Koch Bros, giving him a play by play of how their desires are being met. Now I fully support that politicians work for us but if I donated $25 to his campaign, would I get the same discussion? H*** no. And it just ain't Walker, it is most politicians.

If it isn't real, well, then it is just more propaganda.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex
 


Here is a list of state owned power plants as of December 2, 2010:


State-owned coal-fired power plants in Wisconsin:

Capitol Heat and Power

Hill Farms

Mendota Mental Health Institute

UW-Madison Charter Street Heating Plant

Northern Wisconsin Center, Chippewa Falls

UW campuses: Eau Claire, La Crosse, Oshkosh, Platteville, River Falls, Stevens Point, Stout, Superior

Waupun Correctional Institution

Winnebago Mental Health Institute

SOURCE: State Department of Administration


Every one of those listed is either a campus, or a prison.

-Capitol Heat and Power Plant- 3.0 MW output, or about the output of a diesel locomotive.

-Hill Farms is a project to house the State DOT on said land, not yet built.

-Mendota Mental Health is a prison, incidentally the very prison Ed Gein was housed at.

UW-Madison Charter Street Heating Plant:


The campus Charter Street Heating Plant (CSHP) delivers heating and cooling to the campus and also generates about 9 megawatts (MW) of electricity via a back pressure steam turbine generator that reduces the amount of electricity purchased from Madison Gas & Electric.

Charter St Heating Plant

-Northern Wisconsin Center, Chippewa Falls:


Northern Wisconsin Center (NWC) is a state operated intermediate care facility for persons with intellectual disabilities (FDD) that specializes in serving adults and children with developmental disabilities combined with mental illness and aggressive/challenging behaviors. NWC is a short-term treatment facility named the EXCEL Treatment Unit.


The last few on the list are all jails, or campuses.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 




Now that the supreme court has ruled to allow corporations to contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns, there is no difference between the two.


As opposed to the limits imposed on unions and their P.A.C.'s?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Oaktree
 


Quite to the contrary, there is a huge difference.

"By law," political action committees formed by unions are done so on a voluntary basis and there is no requirement imposed by the union that anyone participate in donating to the PAC. In my union, it was done via a "voluntary service charge check off system" where any employee wishing to participate voluntarily signed the authorization for 1/10 of 1% of their straight hourly wage to be deducted and forwarded to the PAC.

"By law," any worker could discontinue his contributions at any time he/she wished by simply withdrawing their PAC service charge authorization.

"By law," union "dues" cannot be utilized for political purposes by any union in this country. This is because of the fact that "all" union members pay "dues" and to utilize their dues for political purposes would mean that dues could be used to support a candidate that a dues paying member may or may not support. This is precisely why the law mandates that union PACs be funded on a voluntary basis.

Now, if you could be so kind as to explain just what legal safeguards are in place that would prevent a corporate CEO from donating unlimited amounts of money to the campaign of a politician against the will of some of it's shareholders, I would be forever grateful.

Please don't try to say that shareholders voices are heard via their proxies. We both know that most proxies are voted by secondary corporations who's business it is to vote shareholder proxies in a manner consistent with generating future profits for the parent corporation. As someone who served for over 10 yrs. on the board of 4 benefit trust funds, I have extensive knowledge of precisely how these shareholder proxies are voted and I won't accept some lame explanation.

I'm not trying to imply that I'm in favor of PACs, quite the contrary, I have never supported the idea of PACs but that doesn't blind me to the fact that they were only formed out of the need to offset huge political donations coming in from corporations via their 501(c)(3) funnel organizations. If allowed to continue, money will always rule the day, just like the old saying goes; "Money Talks and Bull# Walks."

I firmly believe that all private donations to political campaigns should be outlawed along with all forms of paid lobbying. Furthermore, I believe that all political campaigns should be publicly funded and no one other than private individual voters of this nation should be allowed to redress their congressman with regards to their needs and concerns. Regardless of the supreme court ruling to the contrary, corporations are not born of a live birth and therefore, are not "people" and thus should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as people.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   



Finally hits MSM...... I'm surprised.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 




Quite to the contrary, there is a huge difference.

"By law," political action committees formed by unions are done so on a voluntary basis and there is no requirement imposed by the union that anyone participate in donating to the PAC. In my union, it was done via a "voluntary service charge check off system" where any employee wishing to participate voluntarily signed the authorization for 1/10 of 1% of their straight hourly wage to be deducted and forwarded to the PAC.

"By law," any worker could discontinue his contributions at any time he/she wished by simply withdrawing their PAC service charge authorization.

"By law," union "dues" cannot be utilized for political purposes by any union in this country. This is because of the fact that "all" union members pay "dues" and to utilize their dues for political purposes would mean that dues could be used to support a candidate that a dues paying member may or may not support. This is precisely why the law mandates that union PACs be funded on a voluntary basis.


I have read your response several times, and have not found the “limit” placed upon union donations, while not being applied the same to corporate PAC’s.

From your response, I infer then, that unions are limited only by the amount they are able to collect from members and members families, correct?



Now, if you could be so kind as to explain just what legal safeguards are in place that would prevent a corporate CEO from donating unlimited amounts of money to the campaign of a politician against the will of some of it's shareholders, I would be forever grateful.


I will admit, that I’m no lawyer, however,
I do know that a corporate CEO would be contributing as an individual.

Beyond that, I know that, prior to 2010, all PAC’s acting on behalf of
interest groups, corporations, and unions operated under the same set of rules and laws.

No distinction was made between corporate and union PAC’s.

In 2010 case, Citizens United v. FEC, The Supreme Court ruled making it legal for
corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures.



Please don't try to say that shareholders voices are heard via their proxies.
We both know that most proxies are voted by secondary corporations
who's business it is to vote shareholder proxies in a manner consistent with generating future profits for the parent corporation.
As someone who served for over 10 yrs. on the board of 4 benefit trust funds, I have extensive knowledge of precisely how these shareholder proxies are voted and I won't accept some lame explanation.


To imply that corporations distribute contributions with a view toward future profit (and influence), while unions do not distribute according to the same motivations is disingenuous.
We both know better than that.




I'm not trying to imply that I'm in favor of PACs, quite the contrary, I have never supported the idea of PACs but that doesn't blind me to the fact that they were only formed out of the need to offset huge political donations coming in from corporations via their 501(c)(3) funnel organizations. If allowed to continue, money will always rule the day, just like the old saying goes; "Money Talks and Bull# Walks."

I firmly believe that all private donations to political campaigns should be outlawed along with all forms of paid lobbying. Furthermore, I believe that all political campaigns should be publicly funded and no one other than private individual voters of this nation should be allowed to redress their congressman with regards to their needs and concerns. Regardless of the supreme court ruling to the contrary, corporations are not born of a live birth and therefore, are not "people" and thus should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as people.


On all of that, we completely agree.
I am simply addressing the notion that corporations and unions, as well as every other special interest group, operate under separate, unequal sets of laws and regulations applied unfairly to one while not the others.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hey Everyone, I found this page which is all about boycotting the Koch Brothers Products

Koch Brothers - Boycott


Also here is an image that shows the Koch Brothers products. I'd suggest boycotting any of their products as they are going to continue to pillage our United States Assets for pennies on the dollar. Let's put an end to this NOW!




edit on 27-2-2011 by HellstormRising because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Government does not have to operate with a profit because it can tax the citizens to pay its bills. I think that is the thinking of government workers who belong to unions.

Since I am not a government worker, or a union member, I have a different view.

Like business, government ought to run efficiently and it ought to control its labor costs, much as industry has to.

On average, I don’t believe that government workers are over paid but I do believe that their entire employment package, including retirement and health care, is bloated. I also believe that government has too many employees doing the job that has to be done.

More than once I’ve been in a government office and was able to watch a lot of wasted time and not a whole lot of productivity. It appears to be the norm.

This gets me to the topic of unions. I believe that unions protect jobs, even if they are not needed. I believe that unions protect workers who ought to be gotten rid of. I also believe that government unions believe they can beat officials at the ballot box if they do not get what they want and they use this bully club to get want they want.

I also believe that this tactic only works for so long and eventually, someone decides to draw a line in the sand and fight. I believe that Governor Scott Walker is that person and I hope he wins the battle.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BeenieWeenie
 


BW, this is far more than what Unions stand for. This is about State assets being sold for pennies on the dollar. By ousting the unions they can fire everyone at state owned entities sell the buildings for nothing and let whoever the special interest buyer hire their own workers.


edit on 27-2-2011 by HellstormRising because: grammatical correction that got my OCD going.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BeenieWeenie
 




I also believe that government unions believe they can beat officials at the ballot box if they do not get what they want and they use this bully club to get want they want.


This can be said to almost any lobbying entity or voting block. While unions do not have stellar reputation when it comes to this, they are only less sophisticated than let's say AIPAC, Big Pharma, etc.



More than once I’ve been in a government office and was able to watch a lot of wasted time and not a whole lot of productivity. It appears to be the norm.


Who hasn't? But do not forget, these yahoos work for you. What is stopping you from speaking with a manager or supervisor? You may not get an immediate free set of licence plates or free postage, but contrary to popular belief, the zeros can get fired. Few ever complain to make this happen. More people will complain about their hamburger than something far more pertinent in their lives.



I believe that unions protect jobs, even if they are not needed.


They must be taking their cue from Wall Street. They do not need a union because they have enough money to get what they want. Those who contribute little if anything to the economy or our welfare can surely be deemed "not needed".



Like business, government ought to run efficiently and it ought to control its labor costs, much as industry has to.


Absolutely. All state and local governments do run on a budget. It is dependent on taxes and revenue from odds and ends. Their purpose is to provide as much as possible to a public who wants it all but doesn't want to pay. States and local governments are continually in a juggling act to provide more with less. That includes labor costs. Can they do it more efficiently? Sure, what entity couldn't? They are not perfect. They are as susceptible to avarice and corruption as any. But the juggling act is mostly open to citizens to weigh in on unlike a lot of private corporations. Few do however. Except when their piece of the pie gets the ax.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
just a point of view here:

It is a well known fact that a lot of
big businesses have moved their
production facilities to other 3rd
world countries due to union demands
or should I say worker's demands.
This holds corporations hostage
to the work force it employs.
The rise of unions is a major culprit
to millions of jobs shipped overseas.
Now you can shame Koch if you want to,
but in some people's opinions, doing
away with unions will bring a lot of
jobs back to Americans. And isn't
unemployment one of the major
issues in America today?
So you're gonna bash Koch
cuz they're trying to bring jobs
back to Americans ???
hmmmm

something to ponder

while I agree that Koch Ind
aren't the perfect choir boys,
sometimes you have to do
a lil evil for the overall common good
of a nation. Sometimes
it requires being a snake to kill
another snake if you're in a den
of vipers.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join