Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
They were elected by a section of people to represent them in the state senate, presumably the same folk that are protesting against the proposed bill, in that respect aren't the absent Democrats truly representing the people who voted for them?
With all due respect, your presumption is only that....a presumption, unless you have a way to prove that their voters are the ones protesting and want the bill overturned. There could be many who voted for them who work in the private sector and are for the bill. The congressmen are not doing it for the people they represent. They are doing it for the unions and Obama, who is also for the unions. if we are going with presumptions, then I will presume that they could care less about the people of Wisconsin (those not union members). Besides there are thousands of protestors there who are not even a part of it, having being bussed in by the DNC, which is sleaziness to the nth degree.
They are not congressmen to represent only the people who voted them in. As soon as they are elected as congressmen, they are supposed to represent ALL citizens ofthe state.
. If fiscal responsibility and fairness were the main aim they'd have included all of the emergency service workers in the proposed bill
Not necessarily. There is a reason why they are called "emergency" services.
if it wasn't an attack on the unions they wouldn't be trying to remove the collective bargaining rights of the union members when it came to non-fiscal areas like working conditions.
The unions are definitely targeted simply because the unions are the ones to employ collective bargaining. The protestor are not screaming about no collective bargaining for safe working conditions. They are screaming about money. There are two interesting facts here.
First collective bargaining for salaries are exempt from the bill. Second, as far as the teachers are concerned, the average teacher in Wisconsin earns $89,000 per year in salary and benefits. The average non-union employee nation-wide is $61,000.00, salary and benefits. The bill would require the group making the 89,000 to contribute part of their earnings to help pay a small of their pension and 12% of their health coverage. Those against the bill argue that those making the 61,000 should continue to pay for the pensions of those making 89,000. Is there any wonder the non-union workers are against it? I know personally I have no one paying into my pension. If I don't save for it, that's my problem and yet union members claim they have the right to have others pay for their pensions.
They don't ask where the money is coming from. They just expect it. If the state is broke, they don't care about that, either. They just want it, presumably by just wanting it is sufficient enough to make it magically appear.
Obama made his speech last week saying "We must live within our means." Realistically he should be supporting this bill. His actions, along wiht the DNC's, show that his words are meaningless and false. He only talks the talk. The reason is obvious....he wants to do anything to appease unions. Anyone doing anything that could hurt unions is his enemy and he will go after them, as he is doing now. He is showing how two-faced he really is and where his actual priorities lie.
He also made a speech after the Tucson shooting how we must not engage in hateful rhetoric which can fuel violence. Apparently the folks in the video didn't get that message.
What did you think of the video, by the way?