 |
| 1955 movie promo for "Lady Godiva of Coventry" featuring Maureen O'Hara as Lady Godiva |
There is a modern festival celebrating this, in the original town where the historic event occurred, Coventry. It is occasionally celebrated with a modern equivalent, a woman riding a motorcycle, naked except for her long hair (it is unclear if this includes wearing a helmet or not). I think it would be hilarious if someone among the Wisconsin protesters picked up the idea, adapting it to the circumstances. Perhaps.... an attractive individual with long hair (it could be either gender) making a protest ride in long thermal underwear, on a horse, or possibly on a cow, or a snowmobile, or better yet - a Wisconsin made Harley Davidson - past the capital and news cameras. Because, if you have ever watched Packer football fans, it IS possible to get people in Wisconsin naked, or near naked, in cold weather, with the right motivation. They're crazy that way. The protesters have certainly tried a variety of other means of attracting the attention of the nation; this would certainly attract their cause a wider (pardon the pun) coverage.
How is this appropriate to the Wisconsin issues?
There was an historic Lady Godiva, who 'flourished' according to historic sources, meaning we don't have more precise dates, approximately between 1040 and 1080. According to the Domesday Book, she shows up in the old English form of her name, as the wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, with the spelling Godgyfu or Godgifu, meaning gift of god; Godiva is the latinised version of her name.
Walker has been seeking not only current tax cuts for corporations, but has stated he hopes eventually to have no taxation on corporations, permanently, in the state of Wisconsin. Lee Shepherd, Forbes Magazine author on taxation and finance, wrote about what Walker is trying to do in "Wisconsin's Cheesey Tax Cuts" in the February 15th, 2011 issue.
What we have in the case of Wisconsin is a modest shortfall made seriously larger by tax cuts, rolling back tax reforms, and refusing to address significant tax loopholes, in order to give breaks to corporations, including major Republican donors. And then to make up for that lost revenue, we have Governor Walker, and the Republicans, shifting the burden for those tax give-aways to the middle class, and using the manufactured budget crisis to hurt unions in the most damaging way possible - also to satisfy their big corporate donors.Is it possible to cut taxes while addressing a state budget deficit—leaving aside misguided folk belief in supply-side economics?
Wisconsin’s new Republican governor, Scott Walker, is cutting small business taxes while trying to reduce essential spending and threatening to prevent public employees from striking. The state has a budgetary shortfall of $3 billion over two years (Wisconsin budgets biennially). But Walker campaigned on creating a business-friendly climate, and called a special legislative session to enact his plans.
Walker just won legislative approval for the centerpiece of his tax cut plan, a supermajority requirement for sales or income tax rate increases. The new law does not prevent property tax rate increases or other tax adjustments like loophole closers. This is a dangerous restriction on legislative action in the long run, if for no other reason than it would be difficult to repeal.
States rely heavily on sales and property taxes to fund their budgets. Some do not have income taxes (Wisconsin does). Corporations pay a tiny percentage of state income taxes—smaller than their share of federal income taxes.
That is, he may ultimately succeed in giving away, to a different set of businesses and individuals, the $187 million of revenue that the 2009 enactment of combined reporting was expected to recoup over its first two years in effect. The entire corporate income tax in Wisconsin raises $630 million annually, accounting for 5 percent of the state’s total general purpose revenue of $12 billion.
States compete for corporate locations by offering income tax and property tax breaks, in a beggar-thy-neighbor competition that free market economists praise as some kind of market competition. Wisconsin’s politicians say they are trying to lure jobs from Illinois, whose new Democratic governor recently pushed through personal and corporate income tax rate increases to address serious budget problems.
Walker won approval of a program that would excuse relocated small businesses from part of their income tax liability by means of credits that can be carried forward to future years (presumably pushing the $67 million revenue cost forward as well).
So it would seem clearly that if there was ever an occasion for a dramatic, even legendary folk hero to come forward to support the ordinary every-day middle class citizens, and union members, of Wisconsin, it is now. What better figure than a modern day Lady Godiva in a cheese bra, or a bare chested masculine version, to fill that role?
Tuck - this looks like it was posted by you, (I received an admin copy) but it did not for some reason appear as it should have, so I'm reposting it for you:
ReplyDeletettucker has left a new comment on your post "The Wisconsin Budget, Taxation, and Lady Godiva: W...":
I thought that his legislation about unions was aimed entirely at public employee unions and not even all of those. Seriously public employee unions should not even be allowed.
Unions at private corporations keep the stockholders from taking too much away from the workers in order to make a bigger profit, governments do not make profits. Governments tax people and companies and whatever else they can and they should spend that money on things like police, fire depts, schools, roads and such. When they take in more than they spend the governor and legislature do not make a profit from it, okay, they probably get re-elected and a lot of them make a profit from that but they are totally unlike stockholders. So when the public employees union negotiates for more they do not cause stockholders to make a smaller profit, either the people of the state pay more or some other part of government gets less.
Posted by ttucker to A Penigma - a mystery, under a pseudonym at March 7, 2011 9:13 PM
Ttuck wrote (apparently?):
ReplyDelete"I thought that his legislation about unions was aimed entirely at public employee unions and not even all of those. Seriously public employee unions should not even be allowed. "
Walker excluded those unions which had supported him in the election, but they do not continue to support him in his attacks on union employees. That was attempted political payola that was rejected; there was no other rationale from Walker, and those unions no longer trust Walker not to go after them next.
Your premise on why unions exist is not correct. Unions have NEVER EVER been formed to protect stockholders as their reason for existence. Unions exist to protect labor, and that applies equally to public OR private sector workers. That is why stockholders are not members of unions, and why they don't pay the dues of the union or vote in union elections. (Sorry, no offense - but where did you get that screwy idea?)
Spending money on people who provide services, on the salaries of workers IS as legitimate as spending money on physical things connected to those items. There is nothing less legitimate about paying a teacher, a principle, a janitor, a school nurse, than paying for the building in which they work. It is as legitimate to pay the construction workers and civil engineers who build highways and bridges as it is to buy the concrete and rebar.
Stockholders at corporations used to have control over the salaries of the executives, including the Board of Directors. Now they don't for the most part. THAT takes money away from both labor AND the stockholders - and should be changed BACK.
As to taking in more than they spend? The problem in Wisconsin is they decided to pay off big corporate donors by cutting their taxes drastically, reducing their revenue income. The problem has not really been with workers being overpaid, or even too -costly benefits.
Seriously Tuck - you have to stop getting your information from bogus sources like Fox News or the demented Rush Limbaugh (who is btw, an AFTRA union member, and who has benefited throughout his radio career from that union membership - the collosal hypocrite. As is true of anti-union union members of the right wing media like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.)
Tuck, labor operates in opposition to, and in the balancing of, the power inherent in management.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if that management is part of a privately owned corporation, or a publicly held corporation / stockholders where there are shares of stock and sales provide the money, or a government entity where there are bonds as part of the financial picture and taxes providing the money, for that matter.
They are, for purposes of balancing out the disproportionate power of management in some respects THE SAME in terms of the need for a union for those workers.
Your assumptions about the role of labor and unions is I believe inaccurate.
Given the documentation that quite often the public sector workers earn significantly less than their private sector counterparts, what the union workers have done was to defer the gratification for their work to later, as a kind of long term planning.
Under most circumstances, this is in fact ADMIRABLE behavior.
Government agreed to it, because government thought they had made a clever deal, paying workers LATER than SOONER. Over time, traditionally dollars lose value; the current dollar is worth less than dollars were worth 20 years ago or a hundred years ago.
Except that government made a bad deal and their assumptions didn't work out as they had expected.
But that doesn't mean that the union workers who made that deal are the bad guys, much less somehow over-privileged.
It certainly doesn't justify removing the collective bargaining rights of those union workers either.
As a practical measure, since the government side of the deal screwed up, the unions have to work to solve this problem -- and they have expressed a willingness to alter their original deal to do that.
Removing their collective bargaining right in addition though? HELL no!
That is simply using a ginned up crisis created in large part BY Walker and the Republicans to abuse their elected positions.
Which they might not have for full terms, if this keeps up. That recall could get serious.
In the meantime, every day the Democratic 14 delay works in their favor.
Guess they learned a few lessons from the republican obstructionists after all...
Tuck didn't say unions were in place to protect the stockholders, he said they kept the stockholders from taking too much money from labor.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
In another comment you asserted that governmental "negotiators" might be willing to pay the union membership more in order to get more in donations (presumably political donations), here you assert it's because the person will "keep her/his job".
Both of these assertions are specious. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever of this occuring? Second, elected officials aren't the people negotiating with unions, that's a non-political position, always, unless we're talking about approving an overall budget, but that never EVER has anything to with union negotiations. Certainly a school board may approve a pay raise, but that's not the union contract, but rather an agreement under that contract to provide a certain increase. At best you can claim it has an indirect effect - and candidly - having worked with members of my city council and school board, they are pretty damned reluctant to agree to ANY increase because it costs SOOO much when they do. Your assertion implies collusion and corruption, and frankly, that's both not proved and worse, it's an ugly smear. I know you well enough to know you don't intend to insult anyone, but I'd ask you to be careful about implying something that's never been proved (in my memory), by and large isn't the case (there are professional negotiators for most union contracts), and says something very broadly is corrupt in public union contracting.
Public unions make more than their private counterparts for ONE reason, the government never had the same profit motive to SCREW workers which private industry has engaged in over the past 30 years or so. Unions have been busted, wages flat-lined and beneftis shredded at factories which USED to use unions. I applaud the public unions, it may be we have to change because states are bankrupt, but they are bankrupt because they gave huge tax cuts to the rich, destroying their coffers AND because they helped attack the wages of the middle class (again, destroying the tax base). Public employees for DECADES took less pay compared to their private sector counterparts all for the promise of pensions and retirement health care protection - now, because we won't ask the rich to pay their fair share, we're going to break our promises. My reaction is shame on US, not shame on them.
Tuck, Pen, you are both correct. I was mistaken in reading that unions v stockholders section.
ReplyDeleteThe rest though, I stand by - and what Pen wrote!
We have to look at both sides of the books - outgo of spending and the income of revenue. The ntoion that we are fixing anything by the cuts to spending is specious. Cutting revenue is a disaster. We should have allowed the damn Bush tax cuts that got this country into so much trouble to expire; no, actually, they should have been repealed 5 seconds after they passed.
Pen, the proof is right in front of us. The fire and police unions supported Walker and are exempt from his law about collective bargaining. Unions donated heavily to Obama and 26% of the exemptions from the health care bill have gone to unions even though only about 16% of the workforce is Unionized. Money buys influence whichever party you are from and for govt employees to be giving donations to the people who have control over the budget is improper to say the least.
ReplyDeleteA couple things that were in a comment last night that I erased by accident (I think I hit preview instead of publish). The whole thing about the rich paying their "fair share" is a bunch of crap. Over half the total revenues collected by the government comes from the top 10% by income. So how is it fair that 10% of the people pony up 50% of the money but they should pay more to be fair?
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I want to be clear on is I have no problem with the UAW or GM donating to a candidate they think would be good for workers, or the auto industry, or their stockholders. I do have a problem with a police union (for example) donating to a mayor who promises to raise police wages. To me there is a difference between someone who might pass favorable laws and someone who draws up the budget that includes the wage increase you are hoping for.
Not sure what is up but another comment before the one just posted got eaten. It seems like when it originally logs me in it wipes the comment I had. Anyway
ReplyDeleteWhat I said was the proof is in front of us. The fire and police unions in Wisconsin supported Walker and are exempt from the collective bargaining law he is trying to get passed. Unions gave heavily to Obama and 26% of the exemptions to the health care bill have gone to unions even though they make up 16% of the workforce. Money buys influence from either party.
As with yesterday, I am reposting this for Tuck. So sorry Tuck for this delay in your comment here.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone else is having problems with comments appearing, please let us know at penigma2@hotmail.com. This is a technical glitch of some kind (not sure what yet) for which we apologize; please be patient, we're working on it.
ttucker has left a new comment on your post "The Wisconsin Budget, Taxation, and Lady Godiva: W...":
Pen, the proof is right in front of us. The fire and police unions supported Walker and are exempt from his law about collective bargaining. Unions donated heavily to Obama and 26% of the exemptions from the health care bill have gone to unions even though only about 16% of the workforce is Unionized. Money buys influence whichever party you are from and for govt employees to be giving donations to the people who have control over the budget is improper to say the least.
and
ttucker has left a new comment on your post "The Wisconsin Budget, Taxation, and Lady Godiva: W...":
A couple things that were in a comment last night that I erased by accident (I think I hit preview instead of publish). The whole thing about the rich paying their "fair share" is a bunch of crap. Over half the total revenues collected by the government comes from the top 10% by income. So how is it fair that 10% of the people pony up 50% of the money but they should pay more to be fair?
The other thing I want to be clear on is I have no problem with the UAW or GM donating to a candidate they think would be good for workers, or the auto industry, or their stockholders. I do have a problem with a police union (for example) donating to a mayor who promises to raise police wages. To me there is a difference between someone who might pass favorable laws and someone who draws up the budget that includes the wage increase you are hoping for.
Tuck, as Pen pointed out, I don't think you perhaps appreciate who does the negotiating and who does the budgeting. It is not one person.
ReplyDeleteFurther, while the specific unions you mentioned were excluded by Walker, they emphatically did not request that and don't want it, and no longer support Walker (or the GOP senators either) - despite that exclusion.
One prominent theory is that this was intended by Walker only to create division among the different unions as part of his union busting.
I would put it to you that you are looking at the wrong data. This is NOT so far as I can see, the unions trying to buy influence with Walker. This is Walker trying to buy influence with a segment of the unions. And it is NOT working.
You have completely bass ackwards who is trying to buy whom. Emphasis on trying to buy, not buying.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteThat there is influence for sale in Washington is not new (or in state houses for that matter), but that's not what your point originally suggested. You suggested that contract negotiators were giving out cherry contracts to public unions to generate political donations. The fact that Scott Walker didnt' go after the police unions is doubtless in PART because they voted for him, but also in part because he wants to appear to be "strong on crime" and didn't want to face the political heat. The point is, it's a correlation, but it's not anything close to proven causation. This is true with much of your point. People do things because they are politically affiliated, but that doesnt' mean they are corrupt. Perhaps Democrats simply believe paying people a living wage is ethical, and because they do, people in unions vote for them AND because they do, they support reasonable wages and benefits.
Again, the issue I have here is that people are demonizing public unions when they absolutely should not be doing so. People have a RIGHT to assemble and if they CHOOSE to enter into a contract to allow a certain set of people to speak on their behalf, they have that right as well. The state is a large employer with VAST reach, including having near total control over certain sectors of jobs (pollution control). Consequently, they have vast power. To gain leverage in negotiation with such a vastly powerful entity, people banded together to ensure they had good wages and benefits. Good for them.
The real culprits are US, WE alloweed unions to be shattered, to have their membership gutted over the past 30 years while buying goods from China or Mexico manufactured using labor rates 1/5th to 60% of the us rate. Now we have a nation of have nots, and a smaller number of haves, and because we were stupid with a captial S, and we can't keep our promises and WON'T ask the rich to pay what they did in 1999, NOW we have to blame the poor and middle class who did nothing other than agree to allow the money to flow upward based on false promises of better paying jobs? Instead it's attack the few remaining better paying jobs, apparently, and more importantly, rather than dealing with health care COSTS to curb the actual issue with union retirement benefits, we CLAIM we have the best health care (only true if you're rich) and REFUSE to fix anything. Talk about shirking responsbility. I grow weary of hearing folks talk about personal responsibility who simply blame the government and unions for their problems. Government is a tool and unions are your last, best protection against a return to the days of teh Robber Barons - and they are fading quickly.