Victory for taxpayers in Wisconsin and California - The taxpayers have had enough

The news proclaimed the victory by Scott Walker over Big Labor in Wisconsin....expected and well done Governor Walker...The people told the Unions enough is enough....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77098.html


The BIGGER story came out of California....Too many Public Employees were not satisfied with lifetime pensions and benefits on the taxpayers ( which they never paid into out of their paychecks) and kept gaming the system. Voters in San Diego sent them a real message.

Well, as they say, things that occur in California are "usually" a pre-indicator to things that will occur across the country.....this is the BIG NEWS you will likely not read anywhere else....

REAL change....not the kind that the Fool in the White House yapped about......The taxpayers have had enough. That is the message from last night's vote.


2 California cities voters approve pension cuts
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press 

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Voters in two major California cities overwhelmingly approved measures to cut retirement benefits for city workers Tuesday in contests being closely watched as states and local governments throughout the country struggle with mounting pension obligations.

In San Diego, 67 percent voted in favor of Proposition B while 33 percent were opposed. More than 65 percent of precincts reported.

The margin in San Jose was even wider, with 71 percent in favor of Measure B and 29 percent opposed. Nearly half of precincts reported.

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed called the vote a victory for fiscal reform.

"The voters get it, they understand what needs to be done," he said in an interview.
Supporters had a straightforward pitch: Pensions for city workers are unaffordable and more generous than many private companies offer, forcing libraries to slash hours and potholes to go unfilled.

"We believe people are tired of having services cut back because of big pensions," San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican who is being forced from office by term limits, said recently.

Shrinking tax revenues during the recession are also responsible for service cuts, but pensions are an easy target. San Diego's payments to the city's retirement fund soared from $43 million in 1999 to $231.2 million this year, equal to 20 percent of the city's general fund budget, which pays for day-to-day operations.

As the pension payments grew, San Diego's 1.3 million residents saw roads deteriorate and libraries and recreation centers cut hours. For a while, some fire stations had to share engines and trucks. The city has cut its workforce 14 percent to 10,100 employees since Sanders took office in 2005.

San Jose's pension payments jumped from $73 million in 2001 to $245 million this year, equal to 27 percent of its general fund budget. Voters there approved construction bonds at the beginning of the last decade, but four new libraries and a police station have never opened because the city cannot afford to operate them. The city of 960,000 cut its workforce 27 percent to 5,400 over the last 10 years.

Opponents, led by public employee unions, say the measures deprive workers of benefits they were counting on when they got hired. Some workers decided against potentially more lucrative jobs with private companies, figuring their retirement was relatively safe.
"This is part of a broader effort to attack workers and to make their lives miserable," San Diego Councilman Todd Gloria said during a debate on the San Diego measure.

Thom Reilly, former manager of Clark County, Nev., and now a professor of social work at San Diego State University, said opponents face a difficult task. He expects the California measures may spawn similar efforts elsewhere if they pass.

"The ones who are actually paying the taxes will never see these benefits in their lifetimes, so there's not a lot of sympathy in the public," he said.

The ballot measures differ on specifics. San Diego's imposes a six-year freeze on pay levels used to determine pension benefits unless a two-thirds majority of the City Council votes to override it. It also puts new hires, except for police officers, into 401(k)-style plans.
More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put the San Diego measure on the ballot.
Under San Jose's measure, current workers have to pay up to 16 percent of their salaries to keep their retirement plan or accept more modest benefits. New hires would get less generous benefits.

Reed, a Democrat, joined an 8-3 City Council majority to put the measure on the ballot. He said Tuesday that he expected other cities in financial binds to pursue similar measures.

"We're at the leading edge but we're not alone," he said.

Over 279,000 Federal Workers Owe $3.4 Billion in Back Taxes....

Tax time has rolled around again. At least for you & me. There are far too many others who because they work within the US Government, see taxes as something for the "little people" to worry about.

The figures below should make you as upset as I feel. We could use the $3.4 Billion owed right about now, and not for more wasteful spending, but for things that benefit all like improved infrastructure, defense and approving
no-brainers like the Keystone Pipeline which will assist us in being more energy independent.

All I know is if you or I owed taxes like this, the IRS would be more than happy to assess us with a large penalty and other measures designed to get us to pay up soon....so why is it any different for the 279,000 who work for the taxpayers????

Over 279,000 Federal Workers Owe $3.4 Billion in Back Taxes

Over 279,000 federal workers and retirees owed more than $3.4 billion in back income taxes in 2010 (up from $3.3 billion in 2009, $3.0 billion in 2008, and $2.7 billion in 2007).

The cabinet departments with the largest percentages of employee/retiree tax deadbeats are:

Housing & Urban Development: 3.89%
Education: 3.88%
Army: 3.83%
Veterans Affairs: 3.78%
Commerce: 3.54%
Health & Human Services: 3.51%
Defense: 3.19%
Air Force: 3.11%
Navy: 3.05%
State: 2.94%

Other departments and agencies:

U.S. Office of Government Ethics: 6.49%
Federal Reserve Board: 4.86%
U.S. House of Representatives: 4.24%
U.S. Senate: 3.08%
SEC: 2.50%
U.S. Tax Court: 2.25%
Treasury Department: 0.96% (the lowest delinquency rate among cabinet departments)

Governor Deval Patrick fails to understand the meaning of the word " illegal " - Big surprise...

It seems that the Governor of Massachusetts needs some basic education - Let's help him out. The word he needs to understand better is " illegal "

il·le·gal [ih-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

Synonyms
1. unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal can all describe actions not in accord with law. Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes. Unlawful means not sanctioned by or according to law: an unlawful claim to the inheritance; to take unlawful advantage of the trading situation. Illegitimate means lacking legal or traditional right or rights: an illegitimate child; illegitimate use of privileged knowledge.

Once again, Governor " Spend-it-all " Deval Patrick has not figured out that the citizens of Massachusetts DO NOT want to subsidize the illegal immigrants who have violated the laws of the State of Massachusetts. By definition, that would amount to " aiding & abetting" known criminals.

It is par for the course for him and his best buddy, the other "empty suit in residence" at the White House as neither of them cares about their sworn duties to UPHOLD the laws of the state & country where they serve.

We need to make sure that this pair of pathetic fools gets sent packing as soon as possible as they both do nothing but make a mockery of the will of the citizens they are supposed to serve. They would rather put the needs of illegal immigrants ahead of the wishes of the taxpayers and voters. At a time where everything is about fiscal concerns, taxpayers should not be forced to finance the wish lists of these two feckless politicians.


Patrick backs illegal immigrants on tuition
Urges approval of in-state level
By Maria Sacchetti - Boston Globe
Globe Staff / July 21, 2011

Governor Deval Patrick, just weeks after defying federal immigration officials over their controversial Secure Communities program, unexpectedly appeared at a packed State House hearing yesterday to urge lawmakers to let illegal immigrants pay the reduced resident rate at state colleges and universities.

The surprise visit appeared to signal an aggressive new stance by the Patrick administration on illegal immigration and a sharp departure from the governor’s first term, when he shied from incendiary issues such as tuition and driver’s licenses for unauthorized immigrants.

Patrick’s appearance yesterday could inject new life into a bill that has languished in the Legislature for years. Only hours before he arrived, hopes had seemed dim for legislation that passed the Senate in 2005 but failed in the House and has not budged since, with little visible support from leadership in either chamber.

“I know they’re going to hear the arguments on both sides,’’ he said after he addressed the Joint Committee on Higher Education about two bills that would allow students here illegally to pay in-state tuition. “But they should keep in mind we’re talking about real people - individuals, students, and families - whose ambitions are caught up in the only community in most cases that they know.’’

Massachusetts has been a focal point in the debate over illegal immigrant students, drawing national attention last year when Harvard student Eric Balderas was arrested for being here illegally, then allowed to stay.

Harvard’s president and others have endorsed federal legislation known as the Dream Act that would allow such students to apply for legal residency, but that, too, has been stalled for years.

In the absence of federal action giving illegal students a path to residency, advocates for immigrants have lobbied states to make public colleges more affordable for illegal immigrants, many of whom have lived here since they were children. Advocates seize on what they call a discrepancy in federal law: A 1982 US Supreme Court decision guarantees undocumented students a K-12 education, but they are not entitled to go to college and they are barred from receiving government financial aid.

Twelve states, including Connecticut this year, allow such students to pay resident tuition, according to the National Immigration Law Center.

In Massachusetts, illegal immigrants pay the nonresident rate, which is double or triple the price paid by residents, depending on the school. The University of Massachusetts Amherst cost nonresidents $23,630 last year in tuition and fees, compared with $11,734 for state residents.

“We understand that the lawmakers cannot fix the federal situation, but they can fix Massachusetts law,’’ said Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

The House and Senate bills would allow students to pay in-state tuition if they meet certain criteria, such as attending high school in Massachusetts for at least three years and promising to apply for legal residency as soon as the government allows it.

Yesterday, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated that passing the legislation would boost the state’s revenues by about $2 million in the first year, if 315 to 365 students enrolled, and up to $7.4 million by the fourth year, when the enrollment could more than double.

The foundation’s president, Michael Widmer, estimated that Massachusetts is home to more than 14,000 illegal immigrants under age 18, nearly 2 percent of enrollment in public schools statewide. Since such students are not eligible for state or federal financial aid, Widmer said the cost to the state would be minimal.

During his first race for governor, in 2006, Patrick was a vocal supporter of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. But he did not make it a priority during his first term. Since being reelected Patrick has taken a bolder stance on several personnel and policy issues. Last year Patrick said he thought the state could not grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants without changes in federal law, but yesterday he did not mention that concern.

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo voted against in-state tuition in 2006, when it failed in the House, but yesterday he would not comment because the bill is still in committee, said his spokesman, Seth Gitell. Senate President Therese Murray could not be reached for comment last night, but last year the Senate approved a measure to bar illegal immigrants from higher education benefits, though it did not become law.

Yesterday a State House hearing room was filled with supporters of the bills.

Conrado, a 23-year-old who graduated from Somerville High four years ago, said he still has a drawer filled with his hopes from high school: his yearbook, containing pictures of friends who have already graduated from college; his SAT scores; and a state scholarship for high MCAS scores, which he could not claim because he has been here illegally from Brazil since he was 13.

“It shouldn’t be this way, and it doesn’t have to be,’’ he told the panel yesterday, declining to give his last name for fear of deportation. “We know this bill makes sense for the Commonwealth.’’

Isabel Vargas of Methuen, a 19-year-old student here illegally from the Dominican Republic since she was 8 years old, said she had no control over her parents’ decision to come to the United States, but that she wants to contribute to this country. She drew laughter when she waved a receipt from the US government showing that she paid her federal income taxes this year, $476.08, to prove that illegal immigrants pay taxes.

The Internal Revenue Service allows illegal immigrants to file tax returns using a taxpayer identification number and does not report them to federal immigration officials.

Alan, an 18-year-old student from Waltham, wept as he described having been abused as a child in Mexico, then coming to the United States illegally and thriving in school. He has been accepted to a private college, but doubts he can afford the tuition.

“I was 5 years old,’’ he told the committee about coming to this country, “and every day I’m paying for my father’s mistakes.’’

But critics said illegal immigrant students should not benefit from their parents’ decision to break the law. Though proponents of the bill say it would help the economy, critics have said it would offer benefits to illegal immigrants that US citizens from other states cannot claim.

“They’re still here illegally,’’ said Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, which vowed to fight the bills, though she could not attend the hearing. “If you’re not a legal resident of the state, you’re not entitled to in-state tuition. That’s as simple as it is.’’

Steve Kropper, cochairman of Massachusetts Citizens for Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher immigration laws, criticized the governor for championing the tuition issue when the state’s economy is still hurting.

The bills are sponsored by Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz of Boston, Representative Alice Wolf of Cambridge, and Representative Denise Provost of Somerville, all Democrats.

NJ Public Sector Union members pay 1.5 % of their health care - Gov. Christie wants to implement a 70-30% split - Guess who is unhappy???

I want you to imagine you are going into see your Boss today because the company you work for is looking at the increasing cost of benefits. They have to figure out a way to deal with the rising costs and need to make sure they can afford the cost of employing you and your coworkers.

Is this the way the conversation would go?

Employee: Hey Boss, I don't want to have to pay any more for my benefits.

Boss: Well the Finance group has reviewed the situation and it looks like the employees will have to pay for 30% of the premium. The company will still pay the larger 70% share. I know that is not the best news but we'll still be footing the majority of the cost.

Employee: Hey, you have to negotiate that with me....I get to have a say in how much I have to pay.

Boss: No, you don't really. We are running a business here and we have to have the ability to make some decisions based on what we feel is best. A 70-30 ratio is still very generous as some companies are pushing for a 60-40 or even a 50-50 split. After all, you work for me, remember?

Employee: Well I don't like it and I am going to protest....I'll get the other employees to protest too.

Boss: Not on work time. You need to work as directed or we can find someone who will. After all, the company needs to have all employees working to their fullest ability or we could lose business to our competition and then there will be no jobs for any of us.

Employee: This is unfair. You have to let me have a say in the way things are run here.

Boss: No. You work for me. I will listen to your ideas and suggestions but as the Boss, I have the final say.

This is the basic scenario you would see in most companies. You would not be happy to see increased costs but the 70-30 ratio is still generous...They would need you to work as directed.


This is the way it would go unless of course you work in a Public Sector Union.....like in NJ where the public sector employees only pay 1.5% of their benefit costs and the taxpayers pick up the rest. Or in Wisconsin where the public sector employees skipped work for weeks and still got to have their jobs when the protests were done.

How would that go over at your job ??? How long could you skip work or act defiant before you would be shown the door?

Gov. Chris Christie is going to change the share the NJ Public Sector employees pay to a 70-30% split and the unions want to negotiate about that. Like many other Chief Executives (especially for the company you likely work for), he has stated that this is not negotiable.

But because we are talking about a public sector union, they are NOT HAPPY with having to bite the bullet like the rest of us.....they are special....they need to be coddled. Especially since they want someone else to pay for what they are getting.

Riiiiiiiiigggghhht.

Look, I would like to say that all of us could have more say in the conditions we are offered and be able to negotiate for better benefits BUT in this day and age, the economy is driving many businesses out-of-business. Massachusetts has been losing business as the cost of doing business here is too high and they cannot make a profit, thereby enabling them to stay in business.

The Public Sector Unions don't care if the states lose money or if the cost of benefits goes up because they want the cost to come out of YOUR POCKET, not theirs.

They like to say they are asking to negotiate but they have been taking the free ride on the back of the taxpayers for too long. While the majority of us have been looking at increases in the cost of our benefits for decades, they have been enjoying only paying 1.5% of their own benefits....so the extra $$$ for your benefits is something you have had to deal with and they want you to pay for them too....Does this make sense to anyone BUT the Unions who are looking for a FREE RIDE?

I support Gov. Chris Christie in his fight against the Unions and hope that we can reign in the outrageous costs borne by the taxpayers so that the days of the Public Sector Employees enjoying a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers will become history.

Christie refuses to negotiate health care cost increase with N.J. public unions

Ed Murray/The Star-Ledger
Tuesday, March 15, 2011

TRENTON — Representatives for Gov. Chris Christie have told the state’s largest union that the administration’s plan to sharply increase health care costs for public employees was not negotiable, union leaders said today.

The governor’s office first took the issue of health care costs off the table last Friday when negotiations over a new contract got underway. But union officials said they were determined to have a voice in changes to their benefits.

"It represents a pretty fundamental attack on a long-established right to bargain over health care which goes back as long as there has been unions in New Jersey," said Bob Masters, political director for the Communication Workers of America, which represents that state’s public employees. "We are going to insist that our legal right to bargain over health care be honored by this governor as it has been by every governor."

Instead, a spokesman for Christie said the governor planned to stick to his plan to have state employees to pay 30 percent of their health care premiums by requiring it through having the legislature enact a law. Union members currently pay 1.5 percent of their salary for health care coverage.

"We and the Senate president are pursuing that area in the same way through legislation," the spokesman, Michael Drewniak, said.

Christie contends that he does not have to negotiate over increasing health care costs because in the past the unions, at least in some instances, appealed directly to the Legislature.

The last time employees saw an increase in their contributions was in 2007, when Gov. Jon Corzine reached an agreement with the union requiring members to pay 1.5 percent of their salary for benefits.

Masters said the governor’s office could not provide an example of the union skipping collective bargaining.

A spokesman for the Assembly Majority, Tom Hester said it was the responsibility of Christie’s office to engage ion collective bargaining with the union.

"This governor spends a lot of time bragging about his ability to shake up government," Hester said, "so it’s time for him to back his talk and prove his worth at the bargaining table, where health insurance matters have traditionally been decided."

Pathetic Union Thugs try to rebrand their failed effort to hang on to bloated pay, benefits and pensions as a " civil rights issue"

The Public Sector Unions have seen the handwriting on the wall....Taxpayers are sick & tired of the greedy public sector hacks griping about having to pay a fair market share of their benefits and retirement plans, like the rest of us have done for years....They need to get over themselves and understand that those of us who have endured the beat-down of the recession have little sympathy for their complaints where they will be living off the taxpayers for the rest of their lives....

NOW, they will try to raise a protest that keeping their rich benefits and pay plans is an issue of " civil rights ".....This is pathetically lame.

The idea that the rejection of the Union's motive to stick it to the taxpayers being a "civil rights" issues is one further sign of how desperate they are to hang on to their bloated compensation regardless of how it effects the majority....They want to keep what was promised to them 20-30 years ago no matter how ridiculous....

The new economy means adjustments for all.... The Public Sector cannot be isolated from the changes we all have had to adjust to....The comparison of how the recession has effected the millions who have lost their homes in comparison to these hacks having to pay a larger share of their healthcare & retirement is a sign of how out of touch these greedy fools really are.

These idjits better figure it out as NO ONE is buying their foolish arguments and that their thuggish protests in Wisconsin failed is the start of the real change that this country needs.....It is about time.


Unions Frame Collective Bargaining As Civil Rights Issue
HUFFPO - SAM HANANEL 03/11/11 04:23 AM

WASHINGTON — Labor unions at the heart of a burning national disagreement over the cost of public employees want to frame the debate as a civil rights issue, an effort that may draw more sympathy to public workers being blamed for busting state budgets with generous pensions.

As part of that strategy, unions are planning rallies across the country on April 4 – the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. Union officials want the observances in dozens of cities to remind Americans that King was supporting striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tenn., the night he was shot.

By portraying collective bargaining as a human rights issue, union officials hope the rallies can help fuel a backlash against Republicans in Wisconsin and other states trying to curb collective bargaining rights for public employees.

"This is a fight for workers, this is a fight for the middle class, this is a fight to try to stave off the shift in power and wealth that is starting to become gross," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

The planned rallies on the 43rd anniversary of King's death are part of a coordinated strategy by labor leaders to ride the momentum of pro-union demonstrations and national polls showing most Americans support collective bargaining rights as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and other GOP leaders in states fight to reduce or strip those benefits.

Walker has argued that collective bargaining is a budget issue. He says the bill the state Legislature passed Thursday stripping most collective bargaining benefits will give local governments flexibility in making budget cuts needed to close the state's $3.6 billion deficit. He is expected to sign it soon.

"That's something people forget about Dr. King," said Liz Shuler, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation. "We all know about his work in the civil rights movement, but he was also a workers' rights advocate."

It's also another signal that labor leaders are trying to broaden the coalition of groups speaking out against efforts to limit collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. Unions are coordinating the rallies with the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and other civil rights, religious and progressive groups.

"Dr. King lost his life struggling to help sanitation workers – public sector employees – achieve their goals for a dignified existence as workers," said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference. "We think that's an extraordinary backdrop in which to frame the debate over what's taking place in the country today."

Backbreaker....

Tyranny of the Minority

Let's break down a complicated issue into a simple equation. This can bring to focus the heart of the issue.

According to news reports, there are 300,000 public sector employees in Wisconsin.

According to the US census, the population of Wisconsin is 5,654,774.

If we do the math, that means that the public sector employees make up 5.3% of the total population.

That means at present, a little more than 5% of the total citizens in Wisconsin think they can set the tone for the rest of the State of Wisconsin and that have the right to tell the rest of the citizens (i.e. taxpayers, who the public sector employees work for) what they will or will not do, not show up for work and lie about why they refused to come to work when they should have worked or been fired.

If this is not a clear cut case of " Tyranny of the Minority", I don't know what else is.....

The Public sector Employees work for the taxpayers and should be grateful to have a job as many others would like to have their jobs. Enough of the BS already. Get back to work, and that includes the cowardly Legislators who ran across the border and abandoned their responsibility to serve the public's interests, and instead chose to serve their own shallow interests.

Public Employee Unions need to get a clue - "This is the new norm. It's a different day for public sector employees."

When you look at how things are rigged in favor of Public Employee Unions, you realize that if anyone in private business operated this way, you'd be able to support an indictment for Racketeering.

Of course, the Union Bosses and members don't see it that way but in the new economy, they are trying to hold on to promises that were made by people who had no idea how bad our economy would be at this time.

Public Sector employees need to adjust to the new reality as the taxpayers have had to do so for some time now....and I am getting a little tired of listening to their gripes when the rest of us, (The Majority of Workers), have little sympathy for Unionized Government Workers when all other workers have suffered severe pay cuts, loss of benefits and job cuts.

The tax dollars we pay must benefit all citizens, not just those lucky enough to be inside the system....The Hacks need to get over themselves....really.



Unions Mobilize Against Curbs
By KRIS MAHER And JEANNETTE NEUMANN - Wall Street Journal

Several big public- and private-sector unions are launching a campaign aimed at stopping a growing push by states to curb union bargaining rights and benefits.

Union members, clergy and community leaders were using a pre-Martin Luther King Day candlelight vigil in Cincinnati on Friday to protest proposals by Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich to eliminate collective-bargaining rights for thousands of home health-care workers.

Mr. Kasich is considering changes to union rights and benefits in light of a pending big budget gap, said Rob Nichols, a spokesman for the governor. Mr. Kasich also supports banning strikes by public school teachers.

"There are going to be concessions in many facets of government," Mr. Nichols said. "Everyone needs to be contributing."

The Cincinnati event is one of several planned over the next few months, coordinated by both private and public unions. Those representing government workers face a tough battle this year to convince lawmakers and the public that precious tax dollars should be spent on their pensions and health-care benefits amid widespread government budget woes.

Unions are also filing lawsuits challenging cutbacks and offering lawmakers other suggestions on how to cut costs and raise revenue.

"Every segment of the labor movement is under attack right now," said Naomi Walker, director of state-government relations for the AFL-CIO, which is working with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the U.S.'s biggest public-sector union; the Service Employees International Union; the American Federation of Teachers; and others.

The pay and benefits of the highly unionized public-sector work force have become prime targets for cuts as many states face budget shortfalls. Some politicians argue that union workers, who typically enjoy stronger job and benefit protections than those in the private sector, will have to make sacrifices.

The union campaigns—targeted now on Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and New Jersey—will include phone calls and visits to union members, as well as demonstrations and meetings with elected officials. The goal is to get union members to convince state officials to oppose these measures and turn public opinion in their favor.

Labor expects the fights to be most intense in typically union-heavy states, such as Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Changes are being considered in those states that include right-to-work proposals that would eliminate mandatory union membership and dues in organized workplaces.

Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said eliminating bargaining rights for public-sector workers is one option to help rein in costs and help control the state's budget gap, which is $158 million now and set to grow to $3 billion in the next fiscal cycle.

Some unions are trying to prevent cuts affecting their members by proposing ways for states to address shortfalls.

"They are seeking to put out their ideas and to engage the budgets in some new and innovative ways," said Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in labor issues.

Other unions are turning to the courts. In Miami, the firefighters' union last fall filed a lawsuit in state circuit court saying the city circumvented full collective bargaining and then cut wages, health insurance and pension benefits for current workers because of what the city called financial urgency.

"The bottom line was that wages and pensions are the biggest chunk of our budgets," said Julie Bru, Miami city attorney. "This is the new norm. It's a different day for public sector employees."

Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com

"We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and the taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots.’’

We are seeing the start of the WAVE that will swell and crest over the rigged systems that have allowed the Public Employees to stick it to the taxpayers. Gov. Chris Christie in NJ was the first sign of this and now two newly elected governor from Indiana and Missouri are following suit.

A " Tipping Point" is now clearly in sight....None too soon. The days of the Public Employee Unions using the taxpayers as a cash-cow are drawing to a close....About flippin' time !!

Jeff Jacoby

Fighting public-sector unions
By Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe Columnist / January 9, 2011

As Resistance to public-sector unionism has intensified, many of the noisiest confrontations have been on the coasts.

In New Jersey, freshman Governor Chris Christie has been locked in a battle royale with his state’s powerful teachers unions. In California, Oakland’s new mayor began her first full day in office by demanding that unionized police officers, who pay nothing toward their pensions, be required to contribute 9 percent of their salaries. In New York, federal prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into whether Sanitation Department workers purposely paralyzed the city with a work slowdown during last month’s blizzard. In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick infuriated public-safety unions by replacing costly police details with civilian flaggers at many construction and repair sites.

Now the Midwest is poised to become a major theater in the war against insatiable government unions.

Within days of taking office in 2005, two Republican governors — Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Matt Blunt in Missouri — issued executive orders rolling back collective-bargaining rights for state workers. Because public-sector unions in those states had been granted the right to bargain collectively through executive orders in the first place, Daniels and Blunt had only to rescind their predecessors’ actions.

In most states, however, public-employee unions are authorized by statute to negotiate wages, pensions, and health care. Any effort to weaken or repeal those laws is guaranteed to face bitter resistance from the unions and their legislative allies.

Two newly elected Republican governors say they’re ready for that fight.

Even before he was sworn in last week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had fired a shot across the bow of his state’s public-sector unions. Speaking to the Milwaukee Press Club, he said he would consider using “every legal means’’ to weaken those unions — from decertifying their exclusive right to bargain on behalf of state employees to modifying state law.

“You are not going to hear me degrade state and local employees in the public sector,’’ Walker said. “But we can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and the taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots.’’ More than 50 years ago, Wisconsin was the first state to enact a public-sector collective-bargaining law, and killing it outright might be too tall an order even for a governor whose party controls both houses of the legislature. But Walker and like-minded lawmakers may well succeed in excluding from collective bargaining the most highly-abused benefit categories, such as pensions and health insurance.

In Ohio, meanwhile, incoming Governor John Kasich has long made ending public-sector collective bargaining a priority. In 2009 he said he wanted to “break the back of organized labor in the schools,’’ and last month he underscored his conviction that government workers who go on strike should be fired.

“I really don’t favor the right to strike by any public employee,’’ Kasich said. “They’ve got good jobs, they’ve got high pay, they get good benefits, a great retirement. What are they striking for?’’ He is just as hostile to binding arbitration, which many states require when strikes are illegal, and government managers and public-sector unions are at an impasse. “Binding arbitration,’’ Kasich says bluntly, “is not acceptable.’’ (What’s wrong with binding arbitration is the subject of Wednesday’s column.)

It was Calvin Coolidge who, as governor of Massachusetts during a police strike in 1919, famously declared: “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time.’’ Coolidge’s assertion made him a rising star in national Republican circles, but opposition to public-sector unionism has an honorable Democratic pedigree as well. “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,’’ President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote in 1937. He recognized that government can never be just another employer, and that empowering labor unions to negotiate wages and benefits with public officials would inevitably result in abuse.

Today, evidence of that abuse is everywhere. Private employees find themselves working longer and being taxed more heavily so that government employees can enjoy outlandish pay and perks. “Public-sector unions have become the exploiters,’’ Minnesota’s outgoing Governor Tim Pawlenty argued last month, “and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.’’ In the heartland as on the coasts, that challenge is being taken up