Gov. Walker Publishes a Law Ignoring the Courts and the Sec. of State

Just in case you didn't understand the definition of 'hubris,' this is it. The Legislative Reference Bureau published the collective bargaining law, ignoring  a court order against its publication and the Secretary of State's restraining order.

The Governor and the Republican Party of the State of Wisconsin have no officially voided the right to call themselves the law and order party as they have now ignored a lawful court order, a court order issued by a sitting judge on a pending case in accordance with Section 813.02 of the Wisconsin Statues. During the negotiation and passage this law, the Republicans voided the right to call themselves the party of the Constitution and respect for the institution of the Government of the State.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online, the reference bureau published the law with a footnote acknowledging the court order, but insisting that the law says that all new legislation must be published within 10 days of passage.

The issue is that a law in Wisconsin does not take effect until it is published. Therefore, now that it has been published, cities and counties that have been renegotiating contracts with its public workers have had the ability to do so yanked out from under them.

This is just another example of how the new Republican majority in the Legislature and the Governor are ignoring the law and the courts. During the passage of the law, the Republicans used sleazy parliamentary tactics to pass the law. A late night, 43 second vote on the law in the Assembly, the "emergency" meeting of Senators that separated the collective bargaining part of the law, then passage of that part without the Democratic Senators present.

This is a reprehensible and cowardly act not worthy of the party of Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan. These are the tactics of a fringe group that knows that without snake-like tactics, it will be found out for the radical, out of control minority that it is.

"Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law," said a statement from Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch. "The administration will carry out the law as required." from the above referenced article.

 Secretary Huebsch states it as if the administration didn't know anything about the publication.

813.02 Temporary injunction; when granted. (1) (a)
When it appears from a party’s pleading that the party is entitled
to judgment and any part thereof consists in restraining some act,
the commission or continuance of which during the litigation
would injure the party, or when during the litigation it shall appear
that a party is doing or threatens or is about to do, or is procuring
or suffering some act to be done in violation of the rights of
another party and tending to render the judgment ineffectual, a
temporary injunction may be granted to restrain such act.

This is the state law that governs injunctions. There can and should be punitive damages assessed on the state by the court for ignoring this injunction.

The spirits of Lincoln and Reagan are dead and the New Republican Party has shown that they have no respect for the court system, the law, or gentlemanly conduct. 

A Case for Democratic Budget Balancing

In my lifetime, (I am approximately middle aged), there has been one President who balanced the budget, Bill Clinton; there have been two Presidents who entered into war, both Bushes; there was one President who spent enormous amounts on defense without a war, Reagan; and there was one President who was just nice, Carter. I don't remember LBJ or Nixon, except as History Channel specials. This is a highly subjective over-simplification but it's where my memory starts.

I have always thought that Democrats seemed better at balancing the budget than Republicans.

I decided to put this idea to the test tonight. I decided to look for the facts (that's what this blog is about). Below is a link to the document I would have written had someone else not already done it. This article was written by Dr. Stephen Bloch of Adelphi University.

For those of you who can't bear to slog through a scholarly article, although easy to read and well written, let me summarize:

First, the information is derived from the Department of the Treasury. Dr. Bloch explains everything he did and why.

The last Democrat to show a budget deficit was LBJ. The last Republican was George W. Bush.

The largest deficits in history are all under Republicans, that includes FDR during World War II and the Great Depression.

Personal observations: Democratic economic principles allow the "little guy" to get off the ground. Witness the stellar economy under Clinton. The dot-com economy was bound to collapse under its own weight, but the Clinton administration policies made it possible for business people who are not established to get a start. It helps that Al Gore invented the Internet! :)

Republican/Conservative principles do exactly what the name says: they conserve the status quo. This means that those who are already successful will continue to be successful, but those who are trying to get a foothold will have a harder time.

One example is the idea that under Democrats, the Federal Government will provide more small business grants than under a Republican administration. This helps start-ups to get off the ground.

The "tax and spend" concept might make good bumper stickers or talk radio, but if you tax and spend on the right things, the economy gets better. The rest is simple: More people making more money pay more taxes therefore less deficit.

What does all of this mean for today... As the economy improves, the tax rolls will expand. Leaving taxation levels alone will go most of the way to solving the country's debt problems. Then we need to plug the heinous gaps in our spending, foremost of which is the wars that we are cleaning up, which at one point cost the US taxpayer $1 billion per week each!

Click here to read Dr. Bloch's article: U.S. Federal Deficits and Presidents Stephen Bloch.

Dr. Bloch's personal page at Adelphi University is here.

I would like to thank Dr. Bloch for his hard work and for showing all of his sources and methodology. 

Ronald Reagan and Scott Walker

Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)
An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan

Posted on 08/07/2003 2:05:04 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.  http://goo.gl/Lu3XZ

Scott Walker is not a Reagan Republican.

Recess! Bullying on the Playground? - The Truth about Recess Appointments

It seems every time Congress goes on recess, the President makes a recess appointment or several. And every time, his opponents cry foul. "Unconstitutional," "illegal," "impeach him," "cheating." The truth about recess appointments is very different from what the TV and radio pundits would like you to believe. A simple search of recess appointments and President Obama makes it clear that this is a constant source of controversy. Search further back and it is easy to find kick back for every President who has ever made a recess appointment.

So here is a bit of truth:

- Recess appointments are constitutional.

Article II, Section 2: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

The Constitution allows the President to appoint people while Senate is in recess. It does not require that he ask their permission and does not call for any special circumstances.

- Every President has made recess appointments.


George Washington made recess appointments (His didn't turn out so well. The man tried to commit suicide and ended up resigning.)

Conservatives may be surprised to know that Ronald Reagan made more recess appointments than any other President in history (243 according to USAToday, 4/5/2007).

- Some recess appointments remain famous.



John Rutledge, whose appoint

didn't turn out well



George Washington, used his
recess appointment power
 to appoint John Rutledge





George Washington appointed John Rutledge as Supreme Court Chief Justice (He's the one that went nuts!) Dwight Eisenhower appointed William J. Brennan to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush appointed William Pryor and Charles Pickering to the US courts of appeals.



Recess appointments are legal and have been used by nearly every President to avoid having to sit through the Senate's arduous interview processes. Also, because of the Senate's parliamentary rules which allow the minority to filibuster, to hold up anything on the floor, it can be very difficult for the President to be able move nominees through.