Oh, To Be a Teacher in Wisconsin
Original Post: WSJ
By ROBERT M. COSTRELL
The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.
Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to restrict collective-bargaining rights.
The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year:
•Social Security and Medicare. The employer cost is 7.65% of wages, the same as in the private sector.
•State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.
•Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.
•Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.
Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. The divergence is greater yet for health insurance:
•Health care for current employees. Under the current collective- bargaining agreements, the school district pays the entire premium for medical and vision benefits, and over half the cost of dental coverage. These plans are extremely expensive.
This is partly because of Wisconsin's unique arrangement under which the teachers union is the sponsor of the group health-insurance plans. Not surprisingly, benefits are generous. The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.
•Health insurance for retirees. This benefit is rarely offered any more in private companies, and it can be quite costly. This is especially the case for teachers in many states, because the eligibility rules of their pension plans often induce them to retire in their 50s, and Medicare does not kick in until age 65. Milwaukee's plan covers the entire premium in effect at retirement, and retirees cover only the growth in premiums after they retire.
As is commonly the case, the school district's retiree health plan has not been prefunded. It has been pay-as-you-go. This has been a disaster waiting to happen, as retirees grow in number and live longer, and active employment shrinks in districts such as Milwaukee.
For fiscal year 2011, retiree enrollment in the district health plan is 36.4% of the total. In addition to the costs of these retirees' benefits, Milwaukee is, to its credit, belatedly starting to prefund the benefits of future school retirees. In all, retiree health-insurance contributions are estimated at 12.1% of salaries (of which 1.5% is prefunded).
Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions, plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe benefits reaches 74.2%.
What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective bargaining. The teachers' main pension plan is set by the state legislature, but under the pressure of local bargaining, the employees' contribution is often pushed onto the taxpayers. In addition, collective bargaining led the Milwaukee public school district to add a supplemental pension plan—again with no employee contribution. Finally, the employees' contribution (or lack thereof) to the cost of health insurance is also collectively bargained.
As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries—not benefits—seems entirely reasonable.
Mr. Costrell is professor of education reform and economics at the University of Arkansas.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Proposed Law Would Ban Infant Circumcisions in San Francisco
Original Post: Yahoo
A self-described "human rights activist" is gathering signatures in San Francisco for a measure on the November ballot to ban circumcisions of infants. The measure very likely would run into
freedom of religion objections if enacted.
"San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is 'on track' to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to 'circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.'"
Circumcisions have been routinely done for most newborn infants in the United States for health reasons, though it is no longer recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association. Debate over the health benefits (mitigation of STDs, etc) vs. the risks (pain and sexual dysfunction) are ongoing.
More importantly, two major world religions require that babies born in their faiths be circumcised. Jewish infants are circumcised in the eighth day of life by a "mohel" in a solemn ceremony called the "bris" in accordance with Jewish law as set down in the Book of Genesis. In Islam, while not mentioned in the Koran, circumcision is widely practiced and is considered mandatory by many Muslims.
Oddly enough, the new law would not ban the practice of female circumcision, a pernicious practice that involves the genital mutilation of some female Muslim babies that destroys their ability to feel sexual pleasure in adult life.
There does not seem to be any provision for a religious exemption in the proposed anti-circumcision law. The fine for circumcising an infant would be $1,000.
The principle behind the anti-circumcision law, that circumcising an infant is a violation of the baby's human autonomy, is something of a mischievous doctrine that could be applied to all sorts of things. Would not
vaccinations for infants, widely practiced and recommended, be banned because a baby cannot consent to being given uncomfortable shots? True, the notion that some vaccinations can cause autism has been proved to be a hoax, but that may not stop busy bodies from searching for all sorts of things parents cause to happen to their kids in order to ban them.
The fact that children are too immature to consent to most things is the reason why they have at least one parent to make that decision for them. This principle is enshrined in the common law of virtually every culture on Earth in recognition of basic facts of human biology.
One ought to invoke the idea of choice, usually raised when the question of abortion is raised, and suggest that the question to circumcise or not is best decided between a parent and his or her pediatrician. The government has no business in the matter.
Source: San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot, Joshua Sabatini, San Francisco Examiner, February 18th, 2011
A self-described "human rights activist" is gathering signatures in San Francisco for a measure on the November ballot to ban circumcisions of infants. The measure very likely would run into
freedom of religion objections if enacted.
"San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield said Thursday he is 'on track' to have enough signatures to place his proposed measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to 'circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.'"
Circumcisions have been routinely done for most newborn infants in the United States for health reasons, though it is no longer recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics or American Medical Association. Debate over the health benefits (mitigation of STDs, etc) vs. the risks (pain and sexual dysfunction) are ongoing.
More importantly, two major world religions require that babies born in their faiths be circumcised. Jewish infants are circumcised in the eighth day of life by a "mohel" in a solemn ceremony called the "bris" in accordance with Jewish law as set down in the Book of Genesis. In Islam, while not mentioned in the Koran, circumcision is widely practiced and is considered mandatory by many Muslims.
Oddly enough, the new law would not ban the practice of female circumcision, a pernicious practice that involves the genital mutilation of some female Muslim babies that destroys their ability to feel sexual pleasure in adult life.
There does not seem to be any provision for a religious exemption in the proposed anti-circumcision law. The fine for circumcising an infant would be $1,000.
The principle behind the anti-circumcision law, that circumcising an infant is a violation of the baby's human autonomy, is something of a mischievous doctrine that could be applied to all sorts of things. Would not
vaccinations for infants, widely practiced and recommended, be banned because a baby cannot consent to being given uncomfortable shots? True, the notion that some vaccinations can cause autism has been proved to be a hoax, but that may not stop busy bodies from searching for all sorts of things parents cause to happen to their kids in order to ban them.
The fact that children are too immature to consent to most things is the reason why they have at least one parent to make that decision for them. This principle is enshrined in the common law of virtually every culture on Earth in recognition of basic facts of human biology.
One ought to invoke the idea of choice, usually raised when the question of abortion is raised, and suggest that the question to circumcise or not is best decided between a parent and his or her pediatrician. The government has no business in the matter.
Source: San Francisco circumcision ban headed for November ballot, Joshua Sabatini, San Francisco Examiner, February 18th, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Congress CAN in fact regulate thoughts
Federal Judge Rules Congress Can Regulate "Mental Activity" Under Commerce Clause
Original Post: Spectator
By Philip Klein on 2.22.11 @ 9:12PM
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler's ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that "there is little judicial guidance" on this question.
Also, Kessler joined the other four judges in dismissing the Obama administration's fallback argument that the mandate was justified under Congress's taxing power, ruling "that Congress did not intend the mandatory payment...to act as a revenue-raising tax, but rather as a punitive measure." Given that even those judges sympathetic to the Commerce Clause argument have rejected the taxation argument, I wonder if the administration will eventually abandon it as the case moves up the food chain.
Original Post: Spectator
By Philip Klein on 2.22.11 @ 9:12PM
A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.
The ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler's ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.
Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler's ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate "mental activity":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that "there is little judicial guidance" on this question.
Also, Kessler joined the other four judges in dismissing the Obama administration's fallback argument that the mandate was justified under Congress's taxing power, ruling "that Congress did not intend the mandatory payment...to act as a revenue-raising tax, but rather as a punitive measure." Given that even those judges sympathetic to the Commerce Clause argument have rejected the taxation argument, I wonder if the administration will eventually abandon it as the case moves up the food chain.
UW Health investigates doctors who wrote sick notes for protesters
Original Post: WSJ
DAVID WAHLBERG | dwahlberg@madison.com
UW Health is investigating reports of doctors writing sick notes last weekend to excuse Capitol protesters from work, and the Wisconsin Medical Society has criticized the doctors' actions.
"These charges are very serious," a statement by UW Health said. "These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health."
The Wisconsin Medical Society, the state's largest doctors association, said it "does not condone these actions under any circumstances."
The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board has received information about the events, the medical society said. Representatives from the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, which includes the medical board, could not be reached for comment.
State regulations ban doctors from "knowingly making any false statement, written or oral, in practicing under any license, with fraudulent intent."
Dr. Lou Sanner, a family medicine physician at UW Health, told the Associated Press he was one of the doctors involved. He said he wrote hundreds of sick notes for protesters because they were suffering from stress.
"Some people think it's a nod-and-a-wink thing but it's not," he said.
Several doctors reportedly joined Sanner, filling out formatted notes excusing protesters from work. The notes said each doctor "evaluated" each "patient."
Dr. Tim Bartholow, a senior vice president of the medical society, said the doctors may have meant well but could end up harming physicians' reputation.
"I'm sure they were acting out of conscience," he said. "But our actions as professionals have got to earn the public trust."
Doctors sometimes issue sick notes after brief phone calls, but that's for established patients whose medical history is known, he said.
Video posted online of Sanner and others providing the notes "looked really bad," said Dr. Arthur Derse, director of the Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
"If the person is currently ill, you need a physical examination and history," Derse said. "If someone is ill enough not to go to work, to have them standing outside in the cold in front of you is kind of an oxymoron."
UW Health said its investigation "will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Bartholow said the underlying events at the Capitol underscore why doctors must be concerned today about their public image. State and federal budget pressures are forcing tough decisions about health care expenses, and many are looking to doctors for input, he said.
"We need that public trust," he said.
DAVID WAHLBERG | dwahlberg@madison.com
UW Health is investigating reports of doctors writing sick notes last weekend to excuse Capitol protesters from work, and the Wisconsin Medical Society has criticized the doctors' actions.
"These charges are very serious," a statement by UW Health said. "These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health."
The Wisconsin Medical Society, the state's largest doctors association, said it "does not condone these actions under any circumstances."
The Wisconsin Medical Examining Board has received information about the events, the medical society said. Representatives from the state Department of Regulation and Licensing, which includes the medical board, could not be reached for comment.
State regulations ban doctors from "knowingly making any false statement, written or oral, in practicing under any license, with fraudulent intent."
Dr. Lou Sanner, a family medicine physician at UW Health, told the Associated Press he was one of the doctors involved. He said he wrote hundreds of sick notes for protesters because they were suffering from stress.
"Some people think it's a nod-and-a-wink thing but it's not," he said.
Several doctors reportedly joined Sanner, filling out formatted notes excusing protesters from work. The notes said each doctor "evaluated" each "patient."
Dr. Tim Bartholow, a senior vice president of the medical society, said the doctors may have meant well but could end up harming physicians' reputation.
"I'm sure they were acting out of conscience," he said. "But our actions as professionals have got to earn the public trust."
Doctors sometimes issue sick notes after brief phone calls, but that's for established patients whose medical history is known, he said.
Video posted online of Sanner and others providing the notes "looked really bad," said Dr. Arthur Derse, director of the Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
"If the person is currently ill, you need a physical examination and history," Derse said. "If someone is ill enough not to go to work, to have them standing outside in the cold in front of you is kind of an oxymoron."
UW Health said its investigation "will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Bartholow said the underlying events at the Capitol underscore why doctors must be concerned today about their public image. State and federal budget pressures are forcing tough decisions about health care expenses, and many are looking to doctors for input, he said.
"We need that public trust," he said.
Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can’t Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest
Original Post: CNS News
By Terence P. Jeffrey
Students from Appleton West High School protest a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker that would make teachers pay a fraction of their own pension and health-insurance costs. (AP Photo/Sharon Cekada)
(CNSNews.com) - Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest.
In the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009—the latest year available—only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a “proficient” rating while another 2 percent earned an “advanced” rating. The other 66 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned ratings below “proficient,” including 44 percent who earned a rating of “basic” and 22 percent who earned a rating of “below basic.”
The test also showed that the reading abilities of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders had not improved at all between 1998 and 2009 despite a significant inflation-adjusted increase in the amount of money Wisconsin public schools spent per pupil each year.
In 1998, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Wisconsin public school eighth graders scored an average of 266 out of 500 on the NAEP reading test. In 2009, Wisconsin public school eighth graders once again scored an average of 266 out of 500 on the NAEP reading test. Meanwhile, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil expenditures from $4,956 per pupil in 1998 to 10,791 per pupil in 2008. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator the $4,956 Wisconsin spent per pupil in 1998 dollars equaled $6,546 in 2008 dollars. That means that from 1998 to 2008, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil spending by $4,245 in real terms yet did not add a single point to the reading scores of their eighth graders and still could lift only one-third of their eighth graders to at least a “proficient” level in reading.
The $10,791 that Wisconsin spent per pupil in its public elementary and secondary schools in fiscal year 2008 was more than any other state in the Midwest.
Neighboring Illinois spent $10,353 per student in 2008, Minnesota spent $10,048 per student; Iowa spent $9,520 per student. Among Midwest states, Nebraska was second to Wisconsin in per pupil spending in its public schools, spending $10,565 per student.
Of these nearby states, only Minnesota did slightly better teaching reading to its public school students. In 2009, 39 percent of eighth graders in Minnesota public schools earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average eighth grade reading score in the state was 270 out of 500.
In Illinois, only 32 percent of eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average eighth grade reading score was 265 out of 500. In Iowa, only 32 percent of eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average reading score was 265 out of 500. In Nebraska, only 35 percent of eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in their public schools, and the average reading score was 267 out of 500.
Nationwide, only 30 percent of public school eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average reading score on the NAEP test was 262 out of 500.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress explains its student rating system as follows: “Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. Advanced represents superior performance.”
In other words, despite the $10,791 that taxpayers were paying to educate students in Wisconsin public schools, two-thirds of eighth graders in those schools showed at best only a “partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work” at that grade level.
In fiscal 2008, the federal government provided $669.6 million in subsidies to the public schools in Wisconsin.
By Terence P. Jeffrey
Students from Appleton West High School protest a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker that would make teachers pay a fraction of their own pension and health-insurance costs. (AP Photo/Sharon Cekada)
(CNSNews.com) - Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest.
In the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009—the latest year available—only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a “proficient” rating while another 2 percent earned an “advanced” rating. The other 66 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned ratings below “proficient,” including 44 percent who earned a rating of “basic” and 22 percent who earned a rating of “below basic.”
The test also showed that the reading abilities of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders had not improved at all between 1998 and 2009 despite a significant inflation-adjusted increase in the amount of money Wisconsin public schools spent per pupil each year.
In 1998, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Wisconsin public school eighth graders scored an average of 266 out of 500 on the NAEP reading test. In 2009, Wisconsin public school eighth graders once again scored an average of 266 out of 500 on the NAEP reading test. Meanwhile, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil expenditures from $4,956 per pupil in 1998 to 10,791 per pupil in 2008. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator the $4,956 Wisconsin spent per pupil in 1998 dollars equaled $6,546 in 2008 dollars. That means that from 1998 to 2008, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil spending by $4,245 in real terms yet did not add a single point to the reading scores of their eighth graders and still could lift only one-third of their eighth graders to at least a “proficient” level in reading.
The $10,791 that Wisconsin spent per pupil in its public elementary and secondary schools in fiscal year 2008 was more than any other state in the Midwest.
Neighboring Illinois spent $10,353 per student in 2008, Minnesota spent $10,048 per student; Iowa spent $9,520 per student. Among Midwest states, Nebraska was second to Wisconsin in per pupil spending in its public schools, spending $10,565 per student.
Of these nearby states, only Minnesota did slightly better teaching reading to its public school students. In 2009, 39 percent of eighth graders in Minnesota public schools earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average eighth grade reading score in the state was 270 out of 500.
In Illinois, only 32 percent of eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average eighth grade reading score was 265 out of 500. In Iowa, only 32 percent of eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average reading score was 265 out of 500. In Nebraska, only 35 percent of eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in their public schools, and the average reading score was 267 out of 500.
Nationwide, only 30 percent of public school eighth graders earned a rating of “proficient” or better in reading, and the average reading score on the NAEP test was 262 out of 500.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress explains its student rating system as follows: “Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. Advanced represents superior performance.”
In other words, despite the $10,791 that taxpayers were paying to educate students in Wisconsin public schools, two-thirds of eighth graders in those schools showed at best only a “partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work” at that grade level.
In fiscal 2008, the federal government provided $669.6 million in subsidies to the public schools in Wisconsin.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
University of Wisconsin Medical School Investigating Doctors' Notes at Protest
Original Post: Fox News
The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health is investigating whether some of its doctors wrote fake sick notes to people protesting the governor's plan to strip public union employees of the right to collectively bargain.Over the weekend, FOX News reported that doctors from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine were manning a doctor station to write medical notes excusing those protesting at the Wisconsin State Capitol from work. Physicians were seen standing on a street corner wearing lab coats and giving out medical notes."This involves a few individuals out of the nearly 1,300 physicians at UW Health," Lisa Brunette, Director of Media Relations for the school said in an email."These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health, she continued. "These charges are very serious and in response the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, two of the entities that comprise UW Health, will immediately launch an investigation of the reported behavior. The investigation will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Many protesters could be in violation of their work contracts if they call out sick without a medical excuse. But a fraudulent doctor's notes could protect them from punishment by their employers even though they weren't sick and were out protesting.
FOX News Chicago Bureau Chief Todd Ciganek contributed to this story.
The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health is investigating whether some of its doctors wrote fake sick notes to people protesting the governor's plan to strip public union employees of the right to collectively bargain.Over the weekend, FOX News reported that doctors from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine were manning a doctor station to write medical notes excusing those protesting at the Wisconsin State Capitol from work. Physicians were seen standing on a street corner wearing lab coats and giving out medical notes."This involves a few individuals out of the nearly 1,300 physicians at UW Health," Lisa Brunette, Director of Media Relations for the school said in an email."These UW Health physicians were acting on their own and without the knowledge or approval of UW Health, she continued. "These charges are very serious and in response the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, two of the entities that comprise UW Health, will immediately launch an investigation of the reported behavior. The investigation will identify which UW Health physicians were involved and whether their behavior constituted violations of medical ethics or University of Wisconsin and UW Health policies and work rules."
Many protesters could be in violation of their work contracts if they call out sick without a medical excuse. But a fraudulent doctor's notes could protect them from punishment by their employers even though they weren't sick and were out protesting.
FOX News Chicago Bureau Chief Todd Ciganek contributed to this story.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Union teachers do NOT make less than their private sector counterparts
An unknown number of union teachers are veritably rioting in Madison, making wild allegations of slavery, mass lay-offs, and union holocausts. One of the claims that these liars keep making is that they don't get paid as much as their private sector counter parts and that's why they need all these protections.
Well that's simply not true. The AFSCME web page entices teachers to their ranks with promises of pay 30% over their private sector counterparts. So which is it? You can't make both more than someone else and less than them at the same time. Both statements are, in fact, mutually exclusive.
For students of these teachers that means that they can't both be true at the same time. I'm not being condescending, but I realize that you're not being educated right now because the teachers are too busy illegally striking "for the education of the children".
Athens in Mad Town
Original Post: WSJ
For Americans who don't think the welfare state riots of France or Greece can happen here, we recommend a look at the union and Democratic Party spectacle now unfolding in Wisconsin. Over the past few days, thousands have swarmed the state capital and airwaves to intimidate lawmakers and disrupt Governor Scott Walker's plan to level the playing field between taxpayers and government unions.
Mr. Walker's very modest proposal would take away the ability of most government employees to collectively bargain for benefits. They could still bargain for higher wages, but future wage increases would be capped at the federal Consumer Price Index, unless otherwise specified by a voter referendum. The bill would also require union members to contribute 5.8% of salary toward their pensions and chip in 12.6% of the cost of their health insurance premiums.
If those numbers don't sound outrageous, you probably work in the private economy. The comparable nationwide employee health-care contribution is 20% for private industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average employee contribution from take-home pay for retirement was 7.5% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute.
Slideshow: Teachers Revolt
Mr. Walker says he has no choice but to make these changes because unions refuse to negotiate any compensation changes, which is similar to the experience Chris Christie had upon taking office in New Jersey. Wisconsin is running a $137 million deficit this year and anticipates coming up another $3.6 billion short in the next two-year budget. Governor Walker's office estimates the proposals would save the state $300 million over the next two years, and the alternative would be to lay off 5,500 public employees.
None of this is deterring the crowds in Madison, aka Mad Town, where protesters, including many from the 98,000-member teachers union, have gone Greek. Madison's school district had to close Thursday when 40% of its teachers called in sick. So much for the claim that this is "all about the children." By the way, these are some of the same teachers who sued the Milwaukee school board last August to get Viagra coverage restored to their health-care plan.
The protests have an orchestrated quality, and sure enough, the Politico website reported yesterday that the Democratic Party's Organizing for America arm is helping to gin them up. The outfit is a remnant of President Obama's 2008 election campaign, so it's also no surprise that Mr. Obama said yesterday that while he knows nothing about the bill, he supports protesters occupying the Capitol building.
OpinionJournal.com columnist John Fund on the politics of the Madison protests. Also, features editor Robert Pollock explains which occupations are going away.
"These folks are teachers, and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers," he said, "and it's important not to vilify them." Mr. Obama is right that he knows nothing about the bill because it explicitly excludes police and firefighters. We'd have thought the President had enough to think about with his own $1.65 trillion deficit proposal going down with a thud in Congress, but it appears that the 2012 campaign is already underway.
The unions and their Democratic friends have also been rolling out their Hitler, Soviet Union and Hosni Mubarak analogies. "The story around the world is the rush to democracy," offered Democratic State Senator Bob Jauch. "The story in Wisconsin is the end of the democratic process."
The reality is that the unions are trying to trump the will of the voters as overwhelmingly rendered in November when they elected Mr. Walker and a new legislature. As with the strikes against pension or labor reforms that routinely shut down Paris or Athens, the goal is to create enough mayhem that Republicans and voters will give up.
While Republicans now have the votes to pass the bill, on Thursday Big Labor's Democratic allies walked out of the state senate to block a vote. Under state rules, 20 members of the 33-member senate must be present to hold a vote on an appropriations bill, leaving the 19 Republicans one member short. By the end of the day some Democrats were reported to have fled the state. So who's really trying to short-circuit democracy?
Unions are treating these reforms as Armageddon because they've owned the Wisconsin legislature for years and the changes would reduce their dominance. Under Governor Walker's proposal, the government also would no longer collect union dues from paychecks and then send that money to the unions. Instead, unions would be responsible for their own collection regimes. The bill would also require unions to be recertified annually by a majority of all members. Imagine that: More accountability inside unions.
The larger reality is that collective bargaining for government workers is not a God-given or constitutional right. It is the result of the growing union dominance inside the Democratic Party during the middle of the last century. John Kennedy only granted it to federal workers in 1962 and Jerry Brown to California workers in 1978. Other states, including Indiana and Missouri, have taken away collective bargaining rights for public employees in recent years, and some 24 states have either limited it or banned it outright.
And for good reason. Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue bargaining power. Their campaign cash—collected via mandatory dues—also helps to elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. The unions sit, in effect, on both sides of the bargaining table. This is why such famous political friends of the working man as Franklin Roosevelt and Fiorello La Guardia opposed collective bargaining for government workers, even as they championed private unions.
***
The battle of Mad Town is a seminal showdown over whether government union power can be tamed, and overall government reined in. The alternative is higher taxes until the middle class is picked clean and the U.S. economy is no longer competitive. Voters said in November that they want reform, and Mr. Walker is trying to deliver. We hope Republicans hold firm, and that the people of Wisconsin understand that this battle is ultimately about their right to self-government.
For Americans who don't think the welfare state riots of France or Greece can happen here, we recommend a look at the union and Democratic Party spectacle now unfolding in Wisconsin. Over the past few days, thousands have swarmed the state capital and airwaves to intimidate lawmakers and disrupt Governor Scott Walker's plan to level the playing field between taxpayers and government unions.
Mr. Walker's very modest proposal would take away the ability of most government employees to collectively bargain for benefits. They could still bargain for higher wages, but future wage increases would be capped at the federal Consumer Price Index, unless otherwise specified by a voter referendum. The bill would also require union members to contribute 5.8% of salary toward their pensions and chip in 12.6% of the cost of their health insurance premiums.
If those numbers don't sound outrageous, you probably work in the private economy. The comparable nationwide employee health-care contribution is 20% for private industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average employee contribution from take-home pay for retirement was 7.5% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute.
Slideshow: Teachers Revolt
Mr. Walker says he has no choice but to make these changes because unions refuse to negotiate any compensation changes, which is similar to the experience Chris Christie had upon taking office in New Jersey. Wisconsin is running a $137 million deficit this year and anticipates coming up another $3.6 billion short in the next two-year budget. Governor Walker's office estimates the proposals would save the state $300 million over the next two years, and the alternative would be to lay off 5,500 public employees.
None of this is deterring the crowds in Madison, aka Mad Town, where protesters, including many from the 98,000-member teachers union, have gone Greek. Madison's school district had to close Thursday when 40% of its teachers called in sick. So much for the claim that this is "all about the children." By the way, these are some of the same teachers who sued the Milwaukee school board last August to get Viagra coverage restored to their health-care plan.
The protests have an orchestrated quality, and sure enough, the Politico website reported yesterday that the Democratic Party's Organizing for America arm is helping to gin them up. The outfit is a remnant of President Obama's 2008 election campaign, so it's also no surprise that Mr. Obama said yesterday that while he knows nothing about the bill, he supports protesters occupying the Capitol building.
OpinionJournal.com columnist John Fund on the politics of the Madison protests. Also, features editor Robert Pollock explains which occupations are going away.
"These folks are teachers, and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers," he said, "and it's important not to vilify them." Mr. Obama is right that he knows nothing about the bill because it explicitly excludes police and firefighters. We'd have thought the President had enough to think about with his own $1.65 trillion deficit proposal going down with a thud in Congress, but it appears that the 2012 campaign is already underway.
The unions and their Democratic friends have also been rolling out their Hitler, Soviet Union and Hosni Mubarak analogies. "The story around the world is the rush to democracy," offered Democratic State Senator Bob Jauch. "The story in Wisconsin is the end of the democratic process."
The reality is that the unions are trying to trump the will of the voters as overwhelmingly rendered in November when they elected Mr. Walker and a new legislature. As with the strikes against pension or labor reforms that routinely shut down Paris or Athens, the goal is to create enough mayhem that Republicans and voters will give up.
While Republicans now have the votes to pass the bill, on Thursday Big Labor's Democratic allies walked out of the state senate to block a vote. Under state rules, 20 members of the 33-member senate must be present to hold a vote on an appropriations bill, leaving the 19 Republicans one member short. By the end of the day some Democrats were reported to have fled the state. So who's really trying to short-circuit democracy?
Unions are treating these reforms as Armageddon because they've owned the Wisconsin legislature for years and the changes would reduce their dominance. Under Governor Walker's proposal, the government also would no longer collect union dues from paychecks and then send that money to the unions. Instead, unions would be responsible for their own collection regimes. The bill would also require unions to be recertified annually by a majority of all members. Imagine that: More accountability inside unions.
The larger reality is that collective bargaining for government workers is not a God-given or constitutional right. It is the result of the growing union dominance inside the Democratic Party during the middle of the last century. John Kennedy only granted it to federal workers in 1962 and Jerry Brown to California workers in 1978. Other states, including Indiana and Missouri, have taken away collective bargaining rights for public employees in recent years, and some 24 states have either limited it or banned it outright.
And for good reason. Public unions have a monopoly position that gives them undue bargaining power. Their campaign cash—collected via mandatory dues—also helps to elect the politicians who are then supposed to represent taxpayers in negotiations with those same unions. The unions sit, in effect, on both sides of the bargaining table. This is why such famous political friends of the working man as Franklin Roosevelt and Fiorello La Guardia opposed collective bargaining for government workers, even as they championed private unions.
***
The battle of Mad Town is a seminal showdown over whether government union power can be tamed, and overall government reined in. The alternative is higher taxes until the middle class is picked clean and the U.S. economy is no longer competitive. Voters said in November that they want reform, and Mr. Walker is trying to deliver. We hope Republicans hold firm, and that the people of Wisconsin understand that this battle is ultimately about their right to self-government.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Names of the Doctors's who've choosen to give out fake sick notes for political purposes
NAMES OF DOCS SIGNING FAKE SICK NOTES: Dr. James H. Shropshire, Dr. Hannah M. Keevil, Dr. Bernard F. Micke, Dr. Lou Sanner. They work at UW Health
These are the doctors who are giving out sick notes to teachers who are illegally striking in Madison, Wisconsin over having to pay some toward their pension. They've been filmed diagnosing people with, "being sick with Scott Walker" and "anxiety over their pension" which would be a violation of patient confidentiality as well. Gratz doctors you deserve whatever you get.
These are the doctors who are giving out sick notes to teachers who are illegally striking in Madison, Wisconsin over having to pay some toward their pension. They've been filmed diagnosing people with, "being sick with Scott Walker" and "anxiety over their pension" which would be a violation of patient confidentiality as well. Gratz doctors you deserve whatever you get.
Lost: The common good
Original Post: Chicago Tribune
America's labor movement can claim historic victories that have served the common good. Safer workplaces. Laws to protect children from workplace exploitation. The eight-hour workday. Those who are in unions can justifiably be proud of those and other accomplishments.
But how proud are they that the children of Madison, Wis., have missed school the last two days because so many of their teachers abandoned their classrooms and joined a mass demonstration? Joined a mass demonstration to intimidate the members of the Wisconsin Legislature, who are trying to close a $3 billion deficit they face over the next two years?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has demanded that state workers contribute roughly 5.8 percent of their wages toward their retirement. He wants them to pay for 12 percent of their health-care premiums. Those modest employee contributions would be the envy of many workers in the private sector.
Walker wants government officials to have authority to reshape public-employee benefits without collective bargaining. Walker wouldn't remove the right of unions to bargain for wages.
No, he is not seeking to eliminate unions, though you might get that impression from the heated rhetoric of the employees and even from President Barack Obama, who called this an "assault on unions."
Get tickets to Chicago Live!, a stage show brought to you by the Chicago Tribune and The Second City >>
Walker is trying to give Wisconsin a reality check. In response, public workers have interrupted the Legislature. Madison and many neighboring public schools have closed because so many teachers called in sick and left to join the protest. Democratic lawmakers disappeared on Thursday to stall a vote on the budget measures. Apparently some of them fled to … Illinois.
Public sentiment is changing. There is a growing sense that public-sector unions are not battling for better, safer workplaces. They're not battling unscrupulous employers. They're battling … the common good.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became an Internet sensation when he confronted a teacher in an argument caught on video. A recent Quinnipiac University survey in New Jersey showed that citizens overwhelmingly support layoffs and wage freezes for public employees to save the state government from fiscal disaster. The poll found 62 percent of New Jersey voters had a favorable view of teachers, but only 27 percent had a favorable view of the state's largest teachers union.
Private-sector union membership has declined over the years, while public-sector unions have thrived. One reason: In the private sector, unions and management may argue but they have a common cause. They understand that if their company cannot compete, it will fold and no one will have a job. Look what happened to the U.S. auto industry.
Governments don't operate under the constraints of market forces. They operate under political forces. Public unions play an inordinate role in the selection of management — witness the heavy union support for Gov. Pat Quinn's election last year. In Illinois, labor and management, Republicans and Democrats, have been complicit over the years in overpromising wages and benefits. In negotiations, they essentially sit on the same side of the table: Public officials who generously compensate workers tend to reap votes, contributions and campaign work from those same employees and their unions.
Many states — Illinois is not yet among them — are coming to the realization that that calculation has to undergone a wrenching change.
It might surprise the protesters in Madison to know that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt counseled against public-sector unions because "militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees." Even the late AFL-CIO President George Meany expressed reservations.
Something is happening. Something is changing. In Madison, we see public servants in mass protest to preserve a status quo that has pushed the state toward insolvency. This is not labor versus management. This is labor versus the common good.
America's labor movement can claim historic victories that have served the common good. Safer workplaces. Laws to protect children from workplace exploitation. The eight-hour workday. Those who are in unions can justifiably be proud of those and other accomplishments.
But how proud are they that the children of Madison, Wis., have missed school the last two days because so many of their teachers abandoned their classrooms and joined a mass demonstration? Joined a mass demonstration to intimidate the members of the Wisconsin Legislature, who are trying to close a $3 billion deficit they face over the next two years?
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has demanded that state workers contribute roughly 5.8 percent of their wages toward their retirement. He wants them to pay for 12 percent of their health-care premiums. Those modest employee contributions would be the envy of many workers in the private sector.
Walker wants government officials to have authority to reshape public-employee benefits without collective bargaining. Walker wouldn't remove the right of unions to bargain for wages.
No, he is not seeking to eliminate unions, though you might get that impression from the heated rhetoric of the employees and even from President Barack Obama, who called this an "assault on unions."
Get tickets to Chicago Live!, a stage show brought to you by the Chicago Tribune and The Second City >>
Walker is trying to give Wisconsin a reality check. In response, public workers have interrupted the Legislature. Madison and many neighboring public schools have closed because so many teachers called in sick and left to join the protest. Democratic lawmakers disappeared on Thursday to stall a vote on the budget measures. Apparently some of them fled to … Illinois.
Public sentiment is changing. There is a growing sense that public-sector unions are not battling for better, safer workplaces. They're not battling unscrupulous employers. They're battling … the common good.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became an Internet sensation when he confronted a teacher in an argument caught on video. A recent Quinnipiac University survey in New Jersey showed that citizens overwhelmingly support layoffs and wage freezes for public employees to save the state government from fiscal disaster. The poll found 62 percent of New Jersey voters had a favorable view of teachers, but only 27 percent had a favorable view of the state's largest teachers union.
Private-sector union membership has declined over the years, while public-sector unions have thrived. One reason: In the private sector, unions and management may argue but they have a common cause. They understand that if their company cannot compete, it will fold and no one will have a job. Look what happened to the U.S. auto industry.
Governments don't operate under the constraints of market forces. They operate under political forces. Public unions play an inordinate role in the selection of management — witness the heavy union support for Gov. Pat Quinn's election last year. In Illinois, labor and management, Republicans and Democrats, have been complicit over the years in overpromising wages and benefits. In negotiations, they essentially sit on the same side of the table: Public officials who generously compensate workers tend to reap votes, contributions and campaign work from those same employees and their unions.
Many states — Illinois is not yet among them — are coming to the realization that that calculation has to undergone a wrenching change.
It might surprise the protesters in Madison to know that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt counseled against public-sector unions because "militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees." Even the late AFL-CIO President George Meany expressed reservations.
Something is happening. Something is changing. In Madison, we see public servants in mass protest to preserve a status quo that has pushed the state toward insolvency. This is not labor versus management. This is labor versus the common good.
Police have to hunt down Democrats to do their job
Wis. police hunt Dem. leader, protests continue
Original Post: Yahoo
By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press Scott Bauer, Associated Press – 1 hr 42 mins ago
MADISON, Wis. – The Wisconsin State Patrol was dispatched Friday to find a Democratic state senator who fled the Capitol to delay the near-certain passage of a bill to end a half-century of collective bargaining rights for public workers, a measure that's attracted thousands of protesters for four days.
[Related: First person: Gov. Walker taking away our rights]
With Democrats saying they won't return before Saturday, it was unclear when the Senate would be able to begin debating Gov. Scott Walker's measure meant to ease the state's budget woes. Democrats who disappeared Thursday at first kept their whereabouts secret, then started to emerge to give interviews and fan the protests.
Senate Republicans convened briefly Friday morning to renew a call to find the Democrats, then recessed. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, told reporters he has asked the governor to send two state troopers to Senate Democratic Minority Leader Mark Miller's suburban Madison home. He said he believes Miller may be there — he did not elaborate on why he thought that — and Walker agreed to dispatch the officers.
[Related: Angry Wis. dad: Fire ‘sick’ teachers protesting bill]
The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits police from arresting state lawmakers while the Legislature is in session, except in cases of felonies, breaches of the peace or treason. Fitzgerald said he's not looking to have Miller arrested, but he wants to send a signal about how serious things are becoming in the Capitol.
Fitzgerald said he spoke with Miller by phone late Thursday night and asked him to bring his caucus back to Madison for a vote on Friday morning, but Miller refused. Meanwhile, the protests are growing so large that Capitol workers and lawmakers' staff cannot safely move through the halls, he said.
The situation has become "a powder keg," he said.
"I'm starting to hold Sen. Miller responsible for this," Fitzgerald said. "He shut down democracy."
The protests have attracted teachers, grade school children, college students and other workers over four days. Police report they have been largely peaceful, with only nine people cited for minor acts of civil disobedience as of Thursday night.
While the Senate was paralyzed, the Assembly met briefly on Friday. Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said the Assembly would vote on the bill later in the day after Democrats have had a chance to meet privately.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca vowed to fight to the "bitter end," in a speech delivered on the Assembly floor after Republicans had turned off the microphones and left.
"This is wrong!" Barca shouted to wild applause from the packed gallery. "Desperately wrong and we will not stand for it!"
Several hundred protesters were in the building early in the morning. The ranks grew as the day progressed. Many of them spent the night in the Capitol and another large rally was planned around noon.
As many as 25,000 students, teachers and prison guards have turned out at the Capitol this week to protest, standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the building's hallways, sitting cross-legged across the floor and making it difficult to move from room to room. Some brought along sleeping bags and stayed through the night. Union organizers expected yet more to gather Friday.
The protesters chants of "Kill the Bill!" and "Recall Walker Now!" could be heard throughout the day and long past dark. They beat on drums and carried signs deriding Walker and his plan to end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol.
Hundreds of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing school districts — including the state's largest, Milwaukee Public Schools — to cancel classes.
Some signs seen at the Capitol compared the governor to former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, who stepped down last week after weeks of mass protests against his three-decade rule. On read, "Impeach Scott Mubarak!" and another said, "Walker like an Egyptian." Others compared to Walker and his supporters to boy wizard Harry Potter's nemesis and his evil minions, calling them "Governor Voldemort and his DeathEater Legislators."
Despite the groundswell of support, it seems Democrats are merely delaying the inevitable — Republicans say they have the votes to pass the bill — yet the protesters are undeterred.
"I always expect the worst, but at the least I figure this would lead to such larger strikes that it would be a bad move for Republicans and Scott Walker," Graupner said.
In an interview with Milwaukee television station WTMJ, President Barack Obama compared Walker's bill to "an assault on unions."
Senate Republicans planned to try for a vote again Friday. With 19 seats, they hold a majority in the 33-member chamber, but they are one vote short of the number necessary to conduct business. The GOP needs at least one Democrat to be present before any voting can take place. The measure needs 17 votes to pass.
Speaking on CBS' "The Early Show" on Friday morning, Walker urged the Democrats to return to Madison and face the vote.
"The state senators who are hiding out down in Illinois should show up for work, have their say, have their vote, add their amendments, but in the end, we've got a $3.6 billion budget deficit we've got to balance."
Senate rules and the state constitution say absent members can be compelled to appear, but it does not say how.
"We left the state so we were out of the reach of the Wisconsin state patrol, which has the authority to round us up and bring us back to the legislature," state Sen. Mark Miller told ABC's "Good Morning America" from an undisclosed location Friday.
Sen. Tim Cullen said he and other Democrats planned to stage their boycott until Saturday to give the public more time to speak out against the bill.
"The plan is to try and slow this down because it's an extreme piece of legislation that's tearing this state apart," said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who was with Democratic senators in northern Illinois on Thursday before they dispersed.
Walker, who took office last month, called the boycott a "stunt." He vowed not to concede.
"It's more about theatrics than anything else," Walker said.
Some Democrats elsewhere applauded the developments as a long-awaited sign that their party was fighting back against the Republican wave created by November's midterm election.
"I am glad to see some Democrats, for a change, with a backbone. I'm really proud to hear that they did that," said Democratic state Sen. Judy Eason-McIntyre of Oklahoma, another state where Republicans won the governorship in November and also control both legislative chambers.
Thursday's events were reminiscent of a 2003 dispute in Texas, where Democrats twice fled the state to prevent adoption of a redistricting bill designed to give Republicans more seats in Congress. The bill passed a few months later.
The proposal marks a dramatic shift for Wisconsin, which passed a comprehensive collective bargaining law in 1959 and was the birthplace of the national union representing all non-federal public employees.
In addition to eliminating collective-bargaining rights, the legislation also would make public workers pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage — increases Walker calls "modest" compared with those in the private sector.
Republican leaders said they expected Wisconsin residents would be pleased with the savings the bill would achieve — $30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years to address a $3.6 billion budget shortfall.
Original Post: Yahoo
By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press Scott Bauer, Associated Press – 1 hr 42 mins ago
MADISON, Wis. – The Wisconsin State Patrol was dispatched Friday to find a Democratic state senator who fled the Capitol to delay the near-certain passage of a bill to end a half-century of collective bargaining rights for public workers, a measure that's attracted thousands of protesters for four days.
[Related: First person: Gov. Walker taking away our rights]
With Democrats saying they won't return before Saturday, it was unclear when the Senate would be able to begin debating Gov. Scott Walker's measure meant to ease the state's budget woes. Democrats who disappeared Thursday at first kept their whereabouts secret, then started to emerge to give interviews and fan the protests.
Senate Republicans convened briefly Friday morning to renew a call to find the Democrats, then recessed. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, told reporters he has asked the governor to send two state troopers to Senate Democratic Minority Leader Mark Miller's suburban Madison home. He said he believes Miller may be there — he did not elaborate on why he thought that — and Walker agreed to dispatch the officers.
[Related: Angry Wis. dad: Fire ‘sick’ teachers protesting bill]
The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits police from arresting state lawmakers while the Legislature is in session, except in cases of felonies, breaches of the peace or treason. Fitzgerald said he's not looking to have Miller arrested, but he wants to send a signal about how serious things are becoming in the Capitol.
Fitzgerald said he spoke with Miller by phone late Thursday night and asked him to bring his caucus back to Madison for a vote on Friday morning, but Miller refused. Meanwhile, the protests are growing so large that Capitol workers and lawmakers' staff cannot safely move through the halls, he said.
The situation has become "a powder keg," he said.
"I'm starting to hold Sen. Miller responsible for this," Fitzgerald said. "He shut down democracy."
The protests have attracted teachers, grade school children, college students and other workers over four days. Police report they have been largely peaceful, with only nine people cited for minor acts of civil disobedience as of Thursday night.
While the Senate was paralyzed, the Assembly met briefly on Friday. Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said the Assembly would vote on the bill later in the day after Democrats have had a chance to meet privately.
Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca vowed to fight to the "bitter end," in a speech delivered on the Assembly floor after Republicans had turned off the microphones and left.
"This is wrong!" Barca shouted to wild applause from the packed gallery. "Desperately wrong and we will not stand for it!"
Several hundred protesters were in the building early in the morning. The ranks grew as the day progressed. Many of them spent the night in the Capitol and another large rally was planned around noon.
As many as 25,000 students, teachers and prison guards have turned out at the Capitol this week to protest, standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the building's hallways, sitting cross-legged across the floor and making it difficult to move from room to room. Some brought along sleeping bags and stayed through the night. Union organizers expected yet more to gather Friday.
The protesters chants of "Kill the Bill!" and "Recall Walker Now!" could be heard throughout the day and long past dark. They beat on drums and carried signs deriding Walker and his plan to end collective bargaining for state, county and local workers, except for police, firefighters and the state patrol.
Hundreds of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing school districts — including the state's largest, Milwaukee Public Schools — to cancel classes.
Some signs seen at the Capitol compared the governor to former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, who stepped down last week after weeks of mass protests against his three-decade rule. On read, "Impeach Scott Mubarak!" and another said, "Walker like an Egyptian." Others compared to Walker and his supporters to boy wizard Harry Potter's nemesis and his evil minions, calling them "Governor Voldemort and his DeathEater Legislators."
Despite the groundswell of support, it seems Democrats are merely delaying the inevitable — Republicans say they have the votes to pass the bill — yet the protesters are undeterred.
"I always expect the worst, but at the least I figure this would lead to such larger strikes that it would be a bad move for Republicans and Scott Walker," Graupner said.
In an interview with Milwaukee television station WTMJ, President Barack Obama compared Walker's bill to "an assault on unions."
Senate Republicans planned to try for a vote again Friday. With 19 seats, they hold a majority in the 33-member chamber, but they are one vote short of the number necessary to conduct business. The GOP needs at least one Democrat to be present before any voting can take place. The measure needs 17 votes to pass.
Speaking on CBS' "The Early Show" on Friday morning, Walker urged the Democrats to return to Madison and face the vote.
"The state senators who are hiding out down in Illinois should show up for work, have their say, have their vote, add their amendments, but in the end, we've got a $3.6 billion budget deficit we've got to balance."
Senate rules and the state constitution say absent members can be compelled to appear, but it does not say how.
"We left the state so we were out of the reach of the Wisconsin state patrol, which has the authority to round us up and bring us back to the legislature," state Sen. Mark Miller told ABC's "Good Morning America" from an undisclosed location Friday.
Sen. Tim Cullen said he and other Democrats planned to stage their boycott until Saturday to give the public more time to speak out against the bill.
"The plan is to try and slow this down because it's an extreme piece of legislation that's tearing this state apart," said Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who was with Democratic senators in northern Illinois on Thursday before they dispersed.
Walker, who took office last month, called the boycott a "stunt." He vowed not to concede.
"It's more about theatrics than anything else," Walker said.
Some Democrats elsewhere applauded the developments as a long-awaited sign that their party was fighting back against the Republican wave created by November's midterm election.
"I am glad to see some Democrats, for a change, with a backbone. I'm really proud to hear that they did that," said Democratic state Sen. Judy Eason-McIntyre of Oklahoma, another state where Republicans won the governorship in November and also control both legislative chambers.
Thursday's events were reminiscent of a 2003 dispute in Texas, where Democrats twice fled the state to prevent adoption of a redistricting bill designed to give Republicans more seats in Congress. The bill passed a few months later.
The proposal marks a dramatic shift for Wisconsin, which passed a comprehensive collective bargaining law in 1959 and was the birthplace of the national union representing all non-federal public employees.
In addition to eliminating collective-bargaining rights, the legislation also would make public workers pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage — increases Walker calls "modest" compared with those in the private sector.
Republican leaders said they expected Wisconsin residents would be pleased with the savings the bill would achieve — $30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years to address a $3.6 billion budget shortfall.
Democrats flee Madison, Wisconsin (with police chasing them)
Original Post: Hillbuzz
Never in my life would I imagine Wisconsin would become the most fascinating state for politics, but that’s what it is right now as the newly elected Republican governor and legislature stand up to the public employee unions that are crippling that state financially.
This is not the Cocktail Party establishment playing go-along-to-get-along games…this is what Republicans need to do in every state, coast to coast.
Grow that spine. Stand up. Be heard. Sock it to the unions and the rest of the Democrat machine. Do not be afraid of bad media coverage or being called “big meanies” for doing what voters WANT you to do to get the country back on sound financial footing.
Democrats have actually fled the city of Madison, Wisconsin in contempt of a court order requiring them to do their elected duty and sit for a vote to curtail the power of Democrat-supporting public employee unions.
Police have actually been dispatched to hunt Democrats down so that a vote can be taken, since the legislature is required to have at least one Democrat present for a vote to be cast.
Democrats do not want to curtail union power, since union dues keep Democrats in power.
This simple fact has never been more clear…as is the reality that curtailing union power is the only way we will save this country from ruin.
Keep monitoring what’s happening in Wisconsin. If that state manages to liberate itself from union control, just imagine what strides can be taken in Arizona, South Carolina, and New Jersey, where other assertive and take-no-prisoners Republicans are in office.
Just think: the Cocktail Party establishment could have saved this country from the current predicament it’s in if only it had stood up to the unions a decade or two ago…but all of those GOP consultants advised them it was much better to “go along to get along”.
But look where that’s gotten us.
Do you know of any other good examples of newly elected Republicans showing some toughness towards former sacred cows and the various apparatuses Democrats depend on to keep their political contributions flowing (at ultimate net financial detriment to state budgets)?
Could a revolution of sorts be now underway with Republicans who have actually broken away from their Cocktail Party establishment ways?
Never in my life would I imagine Wisconsin would become the most fascinating state for politics, but that’s what it is right now as the newly elected Republican governor and legislature stand up to the public employee unions that are crippling that state financially.
This is not the Cocktail Party establishment playing go-along-to-get-along games…this is what Republicans need to do in every state, coast to coast.
Grow that spine. Stand up. Be heard. Sock it to the unions and the rest of the Democrat machine. Do not be afraid of bad media coverage or being called “big meanies” for doing what voters WANT you to do to get the country back on sound financial footing.
Democrats have actually fled the city of Madison, Wisconsin in contempt of a court order requiring them to do their elected duty and sit for a vote to curtail the power of Democrat-supporting public employee unions.
Police have actually been dispatched to hunt Democrats down so that a vote can be taken, since the legislature is required to have at least one Democrat present for a vote to be cast.
Democrats do not want to curtail union power, since union dues keep Democrats in power.
This simple fact has never been more clear…as is the reality that curtailing union power is the only way we will save this country from ruin.
Keep monitoring what’s happening in Wisconsin. If that state manages to liberate itself from union control, just imagine what strides can be taken in Arizona, South Carolina, and New Jersey, where other assertive and take-no-prisoners Republicans are in office.
Just think: the Cocktail Party establishment could have saved this country from the current predicament it’s in if only it had stood up to the unions a decade or two ago…but all of those GOP consultants advised them it was much better to “go along to get along”.
But look where that’s gotten us.
Do you know of any other good examples of newly elected Republicans showing some toughness towards former sacred cows and the various apparatuses Democrats depend on to keep their political contributions flowing (at ultimate net financial detriment to state budgets)?
Could a revolution of sorts be now underway with Republicans who have actually broken away from their Cocktail Party establishment ways?
Friday, February 18, 2011
U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’
Original Post: Torrent Freak
he US Government has yet again shuttered several domain names this week. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security’s ICE office proudly announced that they had seized domains related to counterfeit goods and child pornography. What they failed to mention, however, is that one of the targeted domains belongs to a free DNS provider, and that 84,000 websites were wrongfully accused of links to child pornography crimes.
As part of “Operation Save Our Children” ICE’s Cyber Crimes Center has again seized several domain names, but not without making a huge error. Last Friday, thousands of site owners were surprised by a rather worrying banner that was placed on their domain.
“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution,” was the worrying message they read on their websites.
As with previous seizures, ICE convinced a District Court judge to sign a seizure warrant, and then contacted the domain registries to point the domains in question to a server that hosts the warning message. However, somewhere in this process a mistake was made and as a result the domain of a large DNS service provider was seized.
The domain in question is mooo.com, which belongs to the DNS provider FreeDNS. It is the most popular shared domain at afraid.org and as a result of the authorities’ actions a massive 84,000 subdomains were wrongfully seized as well. All sites were redirected to the banner below.
This banner was visible on the 84,000 sites
The FreeDNS owner was taken by surprise and quickly released the following statement on their website. “Freedns.afraid.org has never allowed this type of abuse of its DNS service. We are working to get the issue sorted as quickly as possible.”
Eventually, on Sunday the domain seizure was reverted and the subdomains slowly started to point to the old sites again instead of the accusatory banner. However, since the DNS entries have to propagate, it took another 3 days before the images disappeared completely.
Most of the subdomains in question are personal sites and sites of small businesses. A search on Bing still shows how innocent sites were claimed to promote child pornography. A rather damaging accusation, which scared and upset many of the site’s owners.
One of the customers quickly went out to assure visitors that his site was not involved in any of the alleged crimes.
“You can rest assured that I have not and would never be found to be trafficking in such distasteful and horrific content. A little sleuthing shows that the whole of the mooo.com TLD is impacted. At first, the legitimacy of the alerts seems to be questionable — after all, what reputable agency would display their warning in a fancily formatted image referenced by the underlying HTML? I wouldn’t expect to see that.”
Even at the time of writing people can still replicate the effect by adding “74.81.170.110 mooo.com” to their hosts file as the authorities have not dropped the domain pointer yet. Adding mooo.com will produce a different image than picking a random domain (child porn vs. copyright), which confirms the mistake.
Although it is not clear where this massive error was made, and who’s responsible for it, the Department of Homeland security is conveniently sweeping it under the rug. In a press release that went out a few hours ago the authorities were clearly proud of themselves for taking down 10 domain names.
However, DHS conveniently failed to mention that 84,000 websites were wrongfully taken down in the process, shaming thousands of people in the process.
“Each year, far too many children fall prey to sexual predators and all too often, these heinous acts are recorded in photos and on video and released on the Internet,” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano commented.
“DHS is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to shut down websites that promote child pornography to protect these children from further victimization,” she added.
A noble initiative, but one that went wrong, badly. The above failure again shows that the seizure process is a flawed one, as has been shown several times before in earlier copyright infringement sweeps. If the Government would only allow for due process to take place, this and other mistakes wouldn’t have been made.
he US Government has yet again shuttered several domain names this week. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security’s ICE office proudly announced that they had seized domains related to counterfeit goods and child pornography. What they failed to mention, however, is that one of the targeted domains belongs to a free DNS provider, and that 84,000 websites were wrongfully accused of links to child pornography crimes.
As part of “Operation Save Our Children” ICE’s Cyber Crimes Center has again seized several domain names, but not without making a huge error. Last Friday, thousands of site owners were surprised by a rather worrying banner that was placed on their domain.
“Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution,” was the worrying message they read on their websites.
As with previous seizures, ICE convinced a District Court judge to sign a seizure warrant, and then contacted the domain registries to point the domains in question to a server that hosts the warning message. However, somewhere in this process a mistake was made and as a result the domain of a large DNS service provider was seized.
The domain in question is mooo.com, which belongs to the DNS provider FreeDNS. It is the most popular shared domain at afraid.org and as a result of the authorities’ actions a massive 84,000 subdomains were wrongfully seized as well. All sites were redirected to the banner below.
This banner was visible on the 84,000 sites
The FreeDNS owner was taken by surprise and quickly released the following statement on their website. “Freedns.afraid.org has never allowed this type of abuse of its DNS service. We are working to get the issue sorted as quickly as possible.”
Eventually, on Sunday the domain seizure was reverted and the subdomains slowly started to point to the old sites again instead of the accusatory banner. However, since the DNS entries have to propagate, it took another 3 days before the images disappeared completely.
Most of the subdomains in question are personal sites and sites of small businesses. A search on Bing still shows how innocent sites were claimed to promote child pornography. A rather damaging accusation, which scared and upset many of the site’s owners.
One of the customers quickly went out to assure visitors that his site was not involved in any of the alleged crimes.
“You can rest assured that I have not and would never be found to be trafficking in such distasteful and horrific content. A little sleuthing shows that the whole of the mooo.com TLD is impacted. At first, the legitimacy of the alerts seems to be questionable — after all, what reputable agency would display their warning in a fancily formatted image referenced by the underlying HTML? I wouldn’t expect to see that.”
Even at the time of writing people can still replicate the effect by adding “74.81.170.110 mooo.com” to their hosts file as the authorities have not dropped the domain pointer yet. Adding mooo.com will produce a different image than picking a random domain (child porn vs. copyright), which confirms the mistake.
Although it is not clear where this massive error was made, and who’s responsible for it, the Department of Homeland security is conveniently sweeping it under the rug. In a press release that went out a few hours ago the authorities were clearly proud of themselves for taking down 10 domain names.
However, DHS conveniently failed to mention that 84,000 websites were wrongfully taken down in the process, shaming thousands of people in the process.
“Each year, far too many children fall prey to sexual predators and all too often, these heinous acts are recorded in photos and on video and released on the Internet,” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano commented.
“DHS is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to shut down websites that promote child pornography to protect these children from further victimization,” she added.
A noble initiative, but one that went wrong, badly. The above failure again shows that the seizure process is a flawed one, as has been shown several times before in earlier copyright infringement sweeps. If the Government would only allow for due process to take place, this and other mistakes wouldn’t have been made.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Compassionat open minded Liberals want to hang black judge
But that's ok, because being a Liberal makes you a good person and anything you do is innately a good thing regardless of moral or ethical considerations. It's inflammatory rhetoric of the right that is the cause of all things evil.
Malawi To Make Farting In Public Illegal
Original Post: Reuters
By Jetpacker
Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:27pm EST
It’s comforting to know that at least one country in the world has their priorities set straight.
The African nation of Malawi — the country you never knew existed until Madonna adopted a child from there to be used as a fashion accessory — is set to pass a bill that includes new laws intended to “mold responsible and disciplined citizens.”
By far the most beneficial new law is the one that makes it illegal to fart in public.
That’s right, farting in public will no longer be just rude and discourteous to others, it will now be a crime. Which means farting will go on your criminal record.
Finally, a government that isn’t afraid to take on the most diabolical criminals.
Say all you want about armed robbery, there really is no crime more atrocious than crop-dusting in a crowded mall, forcing innocent and unsuspecting people to breathe in the foul gas that’s been fermenting inside somebody’s bowels.
These nefarious degenerates should be locked up for good in a room without ventilation and made to smell their crime for the remainder of their pathetic lives.
By Jetpacker
Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:27pm EST
It’s comforting to know that at least one country in the world has their priorities set straight.
The African nation of Malawi — the country you never knew existed until Madonna adopted a child from there to be used as a fashion accessory — is set to pass a bill that includes new laws intended to “mold responsible and disciplined citizens.”
By far the most beneficial new law is the one that makes it illegal to fart in public.
That’s right, farting in public will no longer be just rude and discourteous to others, it will now be a crime. Which means farting will go on your criminal record.
Finally, a government that isn’t afraid to take on the most diabolical criminals.
Say all you want about armed robbery, there really is no crime more atrocious than crop-dusting in a crowded mall, forcing innocent and unsuspecting people to breathe in the foul gas that’s been fermenting inside somebody’s bowels.
These nefarious degenerates should be locked up for good in a room without ventilation and made to smell their crime for the remainder of their pathetic lives.
Gun-Mandate Bill is Jab at Health Care Reform
Original Post: Outdoor Life
by J. R. ABSHER
The South Dakota state lawmaker who introduced a bill to require firearms ownership for adult residents admits it won’t pass Constitutional muster, but he wanted to make a point about the “individual mandate” included in the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Titled “An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others,” the bill would require every South Dakota adult 21 or older to buy a firearm within six months of becoming law.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, and its four additional co-sponsors know the measure doesn’t have the slightest chance of passage and will likely die during committee hearings.
“It’s no more constitutional than the federal health-care law,” Rep. Wick told the Mitchell Republic newspaper this week. “To be honest with you, it won’t pass. It’s unconstitutional.”
Rep. Wick, an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast, said the idea for the measure came to him while discussing the health care bill with friends in hunting camp this past fall. His hunting buddies reasoned that if the government could order people to have health insurance, why couldn’t it mandate they own a firearm?
“I thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Wick said. “It makes just as much sense for South Dakota to make the requirement and provide for everybody’s protection.”
Ironically, less than an hour after introducing House Bill 1237 on Monday, Jan. 31, Rep. Wick learned that Florida District Judge Roger Vinson had ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 unconstitutional in its entirety.
by J. R. ABSHER
The South Dakota state lawmaker who introduced a bill to require firearms ownership for adult residents admits it won’t pass Constitutional muster, but he wanted to make a point about the “individual mandate” included in the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Titled “An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others,” the bill would require every South Dakota adult 21 or older to buy a firearm within six months of becoming law.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, and its four additional co-sponsors know the measure doesn’t have the slightest chance of passage and will likely die during committee hearings.
“It’s no more constitutional than the federal health-care law,” Rep. Wick told the Mitchell Republic newspaper this week. “To be honest with you, it won’t pass. It’s unconstitutional.”
Rep. Wick, an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast, said the idea for the measure came to him while discussing the health care bill with friends in hunting camp this past fall. His hunting buddies reasoned that if the government could order people to have health insurance, why couldn’t it mandate they own a firearm?
“I thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Wick said. “It makes just as much sense for South Dakota to make the requirement and provide for everybody’s protection.”
Ironically, less than an hour after introducing House Bill 1237 on Monday, Jan. 31, Rep. Wick learned that Florida District Judge Roger Vinson had ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 unconstitutional in its entirety.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Obama admin vows to continue implementing health care law despite ruling
Original Post: Daily Caller
Obama administration officials are vowing to continue implementation of the president’s health care law “apace” despite a second ruling that the law is unconstitutional, calling the decision by Judge Robert Vinson “a plain case of judicial overreaching” well outside mainstream legal thought.
“We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld,” said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter in a blog post published at WhiteHouse.gov.
Senior administration officials vowed implementation of the law would “proceed apace.” The Justice Department is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the [health care law] is constitutional,” said Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, “The department intends to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Officials dismissed the ruling as the work of a rogue judge and predicted other courts wouldn’t follow Vinson in ruling the entire law void.
“Those with any degree of perspective on the issue…will see this case as an outlier,” one senior administration official said, criticizing Vinson for the decision’s reference to the Boston Tea Party.
Asked by a reporter whether the ruling would have any practical impact on implementation of the law at all, a second senior official said “no…we don’t see any basis for that judgment.”
Obama officials predicted states party to the lawsuit would not use the ruling as a basis to resist mandates in the law. “I don’t believe any state would take that position,” said the first senior administration official.
However, lawyers representing states that are party to the lawsuit said states facing budget crises may see the ruling as a means to escape funding mandates in the law.
Cutter’s blog post argued that the health care law’s “individual mandate,” which imposes a sizable fine on those who do not purchase health insurance, is well within constitutional bounds.
Those claiming the provision “exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes ‘inactivity’ are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us,” Cutter said.
Vinson warned in his ruling the legal precedent of the individual mandate could open the door to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
Obama administration officials are vowing to continue implementation of the president’s health care law “apace” despite a second ruling that the law is unconstitutional, calling the decision by Judge Robert Vinson “a plain case of judicial overreaching” well outside mainstream legal thought.
“We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld,” said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter in a blog post published at WhiteHouse.gov.
Senior administration officials vowed implementation of the law would “proceed apace.” The Justice Department is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the [health care law] is constitutional,” said Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, “The department intends to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Officials dismissed the ruling as the work of a rogue judge and predicted other courts wouldn’t follow Vinson in ruling the entire law void.
“Those with any degree of perspective on the issue…will see this case as an outlier,” one senior administration official said, criticizing Vinson for the decision’s reference to the Boston Tea Party.
Asked by a reporter whether the ruling would have any practical impact on implementation of the law at all, a second senior official said “no…we don’t see any basis for that judgment.”
Obama officials predicted states party to the lawsuit would not use the ruling as a basis to resist mandates in the law. “I don’t believe any state would take that position,” said the first senior administration official.
However, lawyers representing states that are party to the lawsuit said states facing budget crises may see the ruling as a means to escape funding mandates in the law.
Cutter’s blog post argued that the health care law’s “individual mandate,” which imposes a sizable fine on those who do not purchase health insurance, is well within constitutional bounds.
Those claiming the provision “exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes ‘inactivity’ are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us,” Cutter said.
Vinson warned in his ruling the legal precedent of the individual mandate could open the door to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Second federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional
Original Post: Daily Caller
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
In a decision steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, a federal judge has ruled for the second time the President Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional and must be “declared void” in full.
Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida also warned in the ruling that Obamacare’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
The ruling says the “individual mandate,” which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, “the entire act must be declared void,” the ruling says.
Vinson argues the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.
Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is expected to have final say on the matter once the cases work their way up the court system.
Conservative critics of the health-care law quickly hailed the ruling.
“Judge Vinson rightly declared the healthcare law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause,” said Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and counsel to Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the case.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Conservative Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans, said ‘“Even if you ignore that Obamacare will slow our economy and lead to massive budget deficits, you cannot ignore that it violates the supreme law of the land.”
The ruling itself is steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, citing Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
“This is an opinion by a judge who is steeped in the history and tradition of the Constitution. He is someone who has studied the framing of the Constitution and seriously considered the purposes of the Constitution. What he wrote is a work of scholarship,” said Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney at Baker Hostetler working on the health care litigation.
Vinson even mentions British policies on tea just before the American Revolution to question whether the Founding Fathers would have ever approved what Vinson says is such a far-reaching law.
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” the ruling says.
Vinson warns the health-care law’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
“The mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ’slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service,” the ruling says.
Generally, when courts strike down particular portion of laws, those laws are not rendered void in full. Rather, the particular portions are removed from the law.
Vinson argues in this case, the individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.
“If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate,” the ruling says, arguing that the individual mandate would indeed undermine the primary legislative goal of Obamacare.
The White House is holding a conference call with reporters at 4:45 p.m.
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
In a decision steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, a federal judge has ruled for the second time the President Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional and must be “declared void” in full.
Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida also warned in the ruling that Obamacare’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
The ruling says the “individual mandate,” which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, “the entire act must be declared void,” the ruling says.
Vinson argues the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.
Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is expected to have final say on the matter once the cases work their way up the court system.
Conservative critics of the health-care law quickly hailed the ruling.
“Judge Vinson rightly declared the healthcare law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause,” said Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and counsel to Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the case.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Conservative Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans, said ‘“Even if you ignore that Obamacare will slow our economy and lead to massive budget deficits, you cannot ignore that it violates the supreme law of the land.”
The ruling itself is steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, citing Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
“This is an opinion by a judge who is steeped in the history and tradition of the Constitution. He is someone who has studied the framing of the Constitution and seriously considered the purposes of the Constitution. What he wrote is a work of scholarship,” said Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney at Baker Hostetler working on the health care litigation.
Vinson even mentions British policies on tea just before the American Revolution to question whether the Founding Fathers would have ever approved what Vinson says is such a far-reaching law.
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” the ruling says.
Vinson warns the health-care law’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
“The mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ’slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service,” the ruling says.
Generally, when courts strike down particular portion of laws, those laws are not rendered void in full. Rather, the particular portions are removed from the law.
Vinson argues in this case, the individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.
“If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate,” the ruling says, arguing that the individual mandate would indeed undermine the primary legislative goal of Obamacare.
The White House is holding a conference call with reporters at 4:45 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)