WI State Senate Democrats who fled to disrupt voting, may stay out for weeks

[Little-Acorn]

The Democrats in the Wisconsin state Senate, who fled the state in an attempt to reverse the outcome of the Nov. 2010 elections and prevent the majority from enacting legislation, are rapidly turning the farce they started into a full-blown circus. According to one of them, the truant Democrats are ready and willing to stay out for weeks if they don't get their way... regardless of the wants of the citizens of Wisconsin.

It just keeps getting better and better.

I have one question. If/when these Democrats return from their little excursion, will they be paid their normal salaries for the time they spent away from the WI Senate? ...and will they be filling out vouchers for per diem reimbursement?

Wisconsin has elections coming up in Nov. 2012, just as the Federal government does......

-----------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110218/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions_59

Wisconsin Democrats could stay away for weeks

by Scott Bauer And Todd Richmond, Associated Press
Fri Feb 18, 2:37 pm ET

MADISON, Wis. – Democrats on the run in Wisconsin avoided state troopers Friday and threatened to stay in hiding for weeks, potentially paralyzing a state government they no longer control.

The party's stand against balancing the state's budget by cutting the pay, benefits and collective bargaining rights of public workers is the boldest action yet by Democrats to push back against last fall's GOP wave.

But the dramatic strategy that's clogged the Capitol with thousands of protesters clashes with one essential truth: Republicans told everyone unions would be a target, and the GOP has more than enough votes to pass its plans once the Legislature can convene.

The 14 Senate Democrats left the state Thursday, delaying action in that chamber on a sweeping anti-union bill. Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who was among those who fled, said Friday that the group was prepared to be away for weeks, although he would like the standoff to end as soon as possible.

"That really, truly is up to the governor," he told The Associated Press in an interview Friday at a downtown Chicago hotel. "It's his responsibility to bring the state together. The state is not unified. It is totally torn apart."

[Editor's Note: Senator Erpenbach, isn't it the responsibility of the people who tore it apart, to put it together again? That would be you, wouldn't it? -LA]

 

[icono1]

From what I can tell this is becoming a battle ground for the individualist financial responsibility ideals of Tea Party, i.e., balanced budget through financial belt tightening and taking some responsibility for your own financial future, vs the socialistic financial functions of the workers Unions, i.e., the threatening leverage of 'collective bargaining' to force more income into a system without the necessary proof that the system deserves that uptick in income regardless of the economic realities of the people or organization paying for the increases.

Now Obama's govt has thrown in with the Unions supporting the WI Teacher's Union against the State Govt. Which I think is an error that will hurt the Progressives later on down the political road for it seems that Obama's govt is anti grass roots and anti individual, preferring the desires of the large workers Unions and Central National Government in place of the energy and efforts of the individual person, or State, to address it's internal financial problems

From what I can tell, what the Gov of WI is asking for is reasonable, considering that the percentage he is asking each teacher to contribute from their pay, which comes from state tax revenues, to support their retirement and health care is very reasonable.

I also find it ironic that the teachers are calling in sick, which is a payable day off for them, a day that is paid for by the state's tax payers, to basically complain about how much they should be getting paid under the guise of protecting their disposable income by not paying for their benefits that they do not pay for as of now, but that the tax payer pays for.

 

[dogtowner]

Gov sent the st police to fetch them back.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gov sent the st police to fetch them back.

But state police can't operate outside the borders of Wisconsin. The truant Democrats are in Illinois, aren't they?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

there is also nothing that says they can make them vote anyway even if in the state...it says that the state can "compel them" thats it.

Funny though that republicans would say anything...since what this is basically is a filibuster...that they just have to actually do something to do, and for a good reason...unlike the Republican filibuster everything for no reason and have to make no effort at all to do it...and do it for almost every vote.

thus why we have it...to be used rarely

 

[Rick]

Besides everything else the leftwingers hate about this country, which is practically everything, they reserve a special hatred for democracy and its processes. When they're going to lose, they don't show up. What they can't get from votes, they get from leftwing lawless judges. Or they get it from arrogant appointed bureaucrats who don't stand for election.

 

[BigRob]

there is also nothing that says they can make them vote anyway even if in the state...it says that the state can "compel them" thats it.

Funny though that republicans would say anything...since what this is basically is a filibuster...that they just have to actually do something to do, and for a good reason...unlike the Republican filibuster everything for no reason and have to make no effort at all to do it...and do it for almost every vote.

thus why we have it...to be used rarely

What "good reason" are you referring to?

 

[dogtowner]

there is also nothing that says they can make them vote anyway even if in the state...it says that the state can "compel them" thats it.

Funny though that republicans would say anything...since what this is basically is a filibuster...that they just have to actually do something to do, and for a good reason...unlike the Republican filibuster everything for no reason and have to make no effort at all to do it...and do it for almost every vote.

thus why we have it...to be used rarely

they only have to be present to make a quorum. not like a fillibuster at all

 

[pocketfullofshells]

they only have to be present to make a quorum. not like a fillibuster at all

just like you need 60 votes to vote...and only 51 to pass...so if you don't have the 51 votes to beat a bill...you just filibuster and make it 60 to pass....

same here, they have enough to pass...but not enough to vote on it....same exact idea.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What "good reason" are you referring to?

that is something that one must decided them self and the people must agree if it was or not....when you do it 120 times in a year...then your just doing it to stall ...when you cant even state why...your just doing it for politics....

the WIS gov decided that he was going to take away the rights of the unions to organize...and then pushed a vote with no time to debate, and offering no amendments, and specifically said Unions that supported him, where exempt...(not in those words of course)

taking away the right to organize for the all the teachers, correctional officers and all other groups...deserves a bit more debate..And the Unions had already suggested they where willing to talk about changing the money around to help the budget...but the gov and republicans found a easier way...just take away there rights to negotiate...its alot easier to just take from the workers what they already promised them.

 

[dogtowner]

just like you need 60 votes to vote...and only 51 to pass...so if you don't have the 51 votes to beat a bill...you just filibuster and make it 60 to pass....

same here, they have enough to pass...but not enough to vote on it....same exact idea.

No. You need a quorum to hold a vote. That does not mean that
a) everyone has to vote
b) any sort of cloture requirement (60 votes in the US Senate to end debate)

When the state police being them back (they are not criminals so there is no jurisdiction issue) the quorum wil be met and a vote may occur.

If this were a cloture matter they would not need to have left the state, just voted no.

 

[Little-Acorn]

(they are not criminals so there is no jurisdiction issue)

I keep hearing that by deliberately leaving without good cause and deliberately disrupting WI Senate business, they ARE violating some Wisconsin law. But I don't know which one, or even if it's true.

 

[steveox]

Remember Poland in the 80s?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I keep hearing that by deliberately leaving without good cause and deliberately disrupting WI Senate business, they ARE violating some Wisconsin law. But I don't know which one, or even if it's true.

They are not violating any law...all the state constitution says is that, they can be compelled to vote...but all that means is pressured or pushed to go vote...it does not say its against the law or that you can be arrested or anything for it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No. You need a quorum to hold a vote. That does not mean that
a) everyone has to vote
b) any sort of cloture requirement (60 votes in the US Senate to end debate)

When the state police being them back (they are not criminals so there is no jurisdiction issue) the quorum wil be met and a vote may occur.

If this were a cloture matter they would not need to have left the state, just voted no.

again same result...you don't have enough votes to Win a vote...so you use the power to not take a vote to postpone the result of the vote...2 ways of doing it, same result.