scott walker apparently lied under oath

[Eastoff]

link

nothing amazing, but currently relevant as he is being recalled.

 

[PapaG]

Short answer.

No

What about that says he lied under oath? The unions are spending millions to try and recall him, though, and even with that, he's up in the polls.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Under questioning from other members of the committee (especially Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley), however, Walker admitted that many of the moves he initiated had no real impact on the state budget.

They did have the impact of weakening unions in the workplace and in the politics of the state, however.

It was in that context that Congressman Gerry Connolly, D-Virginia, pressed Walker on the matter of political intentions.

“Have you ever had a conversation with respect to your actions in Wisconsin and using them to punish members of the opposition party and their [union] donor base?

"No," replied Walker.

“Never had such a conversation?" Connolly pressed.

“No," said Walker.

The videotape from several months earlier, in which Walker speaks at length with his most generous campaign donor, suggests a very different answer to the questions from Murphy and Connolly. Indeed, the videotape shows Walker having just such a conversation.

I think the bolded parts are where he lied under oath, but it's all near the end of the article, so I can understand if you got bored and stopped reading before you got to that part.

 

[PapaG]

I think the bolded parts are where he lied under oath, but it's all near the end of the article, so I can understand if you got bored and stopped reading before you got to that part.

No, I read the quotes. I just see a vagueness to his answering questions during the conversation. Hardly any smoking gun of perjury at all.

He was never asked if he's run on an anti-union platform. It is The Nation, though.

Plus, Wisconsin's now already in a surplus, so it would be almost impossible to say he did it for political reasons.

A non-story for simple-minded partisans. Probably why it was written on The Nation website. I think I'll go to Newsmax and see what the kooks on the right are writing about, next.

 

[PapaG]

Love this comment.

Ridiculous.

Gov Walker, did you pass that law to punish unions?

No, I passed that law to strengthen Wisconsin's business environment.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and WI is now operating within its fiscal restraints.

 

[PapaG]

Of course, The Nation doesn't provide the full quote on the tape.

Stay dumb, Ammmurrica

Walker: Well, we're going
to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is,
we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee
unions,"because you use divide and conquer." So for us the base we've
got for that is the fact that we've got — budgetarily we can't afford not to.
If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only
the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of
Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door
once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there.

 

[speeds]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The pudding itself holds no answers.

 

[PapaG]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The pudding itself holds no answers.

I always enjoy obviously biased articles that delete information that clearly states that part of the collective bargaining plan was to balance the state's budget. Which, lo and behold, seems to have worked in WI.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I think I'll go to Newsmax and see what the kooks on the right are writing about, next.

No self-respeciting conservative on the internet considers Newsmax to be anything but center-left... almost as far left as Drudge.

 

[speeds]

I always enjoy obviously biased articles that delete information that clearly states that part of the collective bargaining plan was to balance the state's budget. Which, lo and behold, seems to have worked in WI.

Noted. Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

 

[Ed O]

I think the bolded parts are where he lied under oath, but it's all near the end of the article, so I can understand if you got bored and stopped reading before you got to that part.

The "Indeed, the videotape shows Walker having just such a conversation" part is the opinion of the columnist. I don't think that the taped conversation in question had anything to do with punishing members of the opposition party nor their donor base. Defeating members of the opposition party? Undercutting their donor base? Sure. It's not necessary to punish, though, to achieve those ends... and if every effort to win a political campaign was deemed as an effort to punish then I think that's a pretty odd definition of "punish".

Ed O.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

The "Indeed, the videotape shows Walker having just such a conversation" part is the opinion of the columnist. I don't think that the taped conversation in question had anything to do with punishing members of the opposition party nor their donor base. Defeating members of the opposition party? Undercutting their donor base? Sure. It's not necessary to punish, though, to achieve those ends... and if every effort to win a political campaign was deemed as an effort to punish then I think that's a pretty odd definition of "punish".

Ed O.

That's a fair point; it's more appropriate to say that a politician's entire term, not the campaign, is the punishment.

 

[Masbee]

That's a fair point; it's more appropriate to say that a politician's entire term, not the campaign, is the punishment.

By definition, the typical government employee coverered under collective bargaining is overpaid.

If a state is well under revenues in order to balance they can:

Raise taxes
Slash services, or "services" if you prefer
Cut payroll and benefit expenses
Creative accounting, ie, cooking the books, kicking the can down the road, selling assets, etc.

Or, some combination.

There was an election.

Walker said he would not raise taxes as Wisconsin is already a high tax state, nor would he play games with the books or kick the can down the road. He said he would cut "uneeded and wasteful" programs and cut personnel expenses rather than firing a huge chunk of the state staff, so service levels could be maintained.

The Dem candidate (Barrett), said he would raise taxes and (essentially) play accounting games to balance. He said nothing about high salaries and benefits costs.

One side lost the election.

Chaos and hilarity ensues.

Sometimes, when a candidate wins, they try to follow through with their plan. Some people are shocked when that happens and act surprised when a pol doesn't want to be everybody's Sugar Daddy.

 

[PapaG]

link

nothing amazing, but currently relevant as he is being recalled.

The original link now prompts me to sign up/log in just to read that biased piece.

 

[jlprk]

So you admit you didn't read the article before you wrote all those posts arguing it's wrong. Looks like Blagojevich will have a friend in prison for 14 years.

 

[Blaze01]

with Clinton?

 

[Eastoff]

By definition, the typical government employee coverered under collective bargaining is overpaid.

If a state is well under revenues in order to balance they can:

Raise taxes
Slash services, or "services" if you prefer
Cut payroll and benefit expenses
Creative accounting, ie, cooking the books, kicking the can down the road, selling assets, etc.

Or, some combination.

There was an election.

Walker said he would not raise taxes as Wisconsin is already a high tax state, nor would he play games with the books or kick the can down the road. He said he would cut "uneeded and wasteful" programs and cut personnel expenses rather than firing a huge chunk of the state staff, so service levels could be maintained.

The Dem candidate (Barrett), said he would raise taxes and (essentially) play accounting games to balance. He said nothing about high salaries and benefits costs.

One side lost the election.

Chaos and hilarity ensues.

Sometimes, when a candidate wins, they try to follow through with their plan. Some people are shocked when that happens and act surprised when a pol doesn't want to be everybody's Sugar Daddy.

I think there were some lazy voters that didn't think it mattered the first election. Now they see their folly and wish to attempt to change it.

 

[Masbee]

I think there were some lazy voters that didn't think it mattered the first election. Now they see their folly and wish to attempt to change it.

Think.

The folks behind the recall never voted for Walker. They didn't "change" their mind. They are using the protests (which they were behind) as a jumping stone to launch the campaign.

In other words, they refuse to accept that they lost a scheduled election.

Heads I win. Tails I lose, but refuse to accept the outcome - play again.

 

[Eastoff]

Think.

The folks behind the recall never voted for Walker. They didn't "change" their mind. They are using the protests (which they were behind) as a jumping stone to launch the campaign.

In other words, they refuse to accept that they lost a scheduled election.

Heads I win. Tails I lose, but refuse to accept the outcome - play again.

Or I am referring to people who did not vote the first election.

 

[Eastoff]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/14/1091564/-DNC-refusing-to-send-money-to-defeat-Scott-Walker

this is also relevant.

 

[Ed O]

Or I am referring to people who did not vote the first election.

1,004,303 voted for Barrett the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election,_2010), but only 670,288 voted for a Democrat in the recall primary (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/149767225.html).

It's totally true that general elections are sexier, and the "Vote Out Walker!" crowd might not be mobilized to vote in a primary, but the evidence doesn't support your assertion that people are suddenly motivated to change the status quo.

Ed O.

 

[Eastoff]

1,004,303 voted for Barrett the first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election,_2010), but only 670,288 voted for a Democrat in the recall primary (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/149767225.html).

It's totally true that general elections are sexier, and the "Vote Out Walker!" crowd might not be mobilized to vote in a primary, but the evidence doesn't support your assertion that people are suddenly motivated to change the status quo.

Ed O.

well then, I guess I'm wrong again.

 

[Denny Crane]

October surprise.

 

[jlprk]

with Clinton?

Walker's going to prison. If Blako got 14 years, Walker should get the same.

As for someone here saying "there was an election," that didn't stop Republicans from recalling Gray Davis immediately after his reelection and installing mental midget Schwartzenbeggar.

The purpose of an election campaign is to inform voters of which issues the candidate considers important, and then to advocate them. The cowardly Wisconsin Republican strategy was to conspire to keep a secret agenda to destroy the tradition of unions. Had they disclosed their secret agenda during the campaign, they would have lost the election resoundingly.

It was yet another stolen election by the crooks. So enough of "there was an election."

 

[STOMP]

Think.

The folks behind the recall never voted for Walker. They didn't "change" their mind. They are using the protests (which they were behind) as a jumping stone to launch the campaign.

In other words, they refuse to accept that they lost a scheduled election.

Heads I win. Tails I lose, but refuse to accept the outcome - play again.

yeah, no voter has ever voted for a politician in one election and then against them the next time around. Laughable that you're being condescending about such a ridiculous view

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

Walker's going to prison. If Blako got 14 years, Walker should get the same.

As for someone here saying "there was an election," that didn't stop Republicans from recalling Gray Davis immediately after his reelection and installing mental midget Schwartzenbeggar.

The purpose of an election campaign is to inform voters of which issues the candidate considers important, and then to advocate them. The cowardly Wisconsin Republican strategy was to conspire to keep a secret agenda to destroy the tradition of unions. Had they disclosed their secret agenda during the campaign, they would have lost the election resoundingly.

It was yet another stolen election by the crooks. So enough of "there was an election."

Gray Davis bought pork bellies with the peoples' money. He deserved to be canned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2003

On December 18, 2002, just over a month after being reelected, Davis announced that California would face a record budget deficit possibly as high as $35 billion, a forecast $13.7 billion higher than one a month earlier. The number was finally estimated to be $38.2 billion, more than all 49 other states' deficits combined. Already suffering from low approval ratings, Davis's numbers hit historic lows in April 2003 with 24% approval and 65% disapproval, according to a California Field Poll. Davis was almost universally disliked by both Republicans and Democrats in the state and a recall push was high.

But at least he didn't kill millions of Pakistani civilians with bombs from drones like Obama has.

 

[jlprk]

Your article doesn't insinuate pork bellies or any other corruption by Davis. It does say that like Walker, Davis became less popular soon after reelection. But Walker caused it himself by disclosing his secret radical agenda, while Davis was at the mercy of deficit estimates and do-nothing Republicans in his legislature.

As for the millions, there's a cool guy on this forum who says we should believe quasi-official propaganda masquerading as independent estimates, so no prob.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your article doesn't insinuate pork bellies or any other corruption by Davis. It does say that like Walker, Davis became less popular soon after reelection. But Walker caused it himself by disclosing his secret radical agenda, while Davis was at the mercy of deficit estimates and do-nothing Republicans in his legislature.

As for the millions, there's a cool guy on this forum who says we should believe quasi-official propaganda masquerading as independent estimates, so no prob.

As for the millions, it only matters what you believe.

As for Davis, the guy was a crooked thief. He was voted out by the people. He was unpopular among people of his own party when it came time to vote.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_25/b3788097.htm

Now, the $149 billion fund may need a dose of its own medicine. CalPERS, which has 1.3 million beneficiaries among current or former state employees, has developed a rash of governance problems. Revelations that the fund knew about--but never blew the whistle on--Enron Corp. Chief Financial Officer Andrew S. Fastow's self-dealing partnerships were a big embarrassment. The board is increasingly pushing social and political criteria in investment decisions. And there has been a spate of high-level resignations. All this caps a more-than-two-year period when CalPERS' investment performance has trailed that of other large pension funds.

Just as troubling, CalPERS' board seems to have developed a blind spot for potential conflicts of interest. In March, CalPERS put $100 million into Premier Pacific Vineyards Inc., which buys land for growing grapes. The co-CEO of that firm, Richard Wollack, is a major fund-raiser for California Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, who names three CalPERS' board members.

CalPERS also committed more than $760 million in the past year to two funds created by Los Angeles billionaire Ronald Burkle, who, with his wife, has contributed to the campaigns for state office of two CalPERS board members, Treasurer Philip Angelides and Controller Kathleen Connell, according to the California Secretary of State's office. He previously employed two other board members, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and actuary Sidney L. Abrams, both have confirmed. Burkle is also a big contributor to Davis, whose wife, Sharon, earned $37,500 last year as a board member at a Burkle company, according to Jordan Rasmussen, her spokeswoman.

 

[jlprk]

Irrelevant. You showed no connection between Davis and CalPers investment decisions; you didn't even try.

 

[Denny Crane]

Irrelevant. You showed no connection between Davis and CalPers investment decisions; you didn't even try.

You must think he was a prince among men and adored by the people. It was a devious plot to connect his donors to CalPERS and to drive public opinion against him to the point he was thrown out in a vote of landslide proportions.

LOL.