Robert Green wrote:

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think
the over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I
was in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting
cops and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34
million. Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

Maybe, maybe not. When people or organizations feel they are
fighting for their lives, they get some serious motivation. The
union business was "sprung" on people without much discussion. After
that much avoided discussion it turned out that not as many voters
were for gutting the unions as were their representatives - a growing
problem in the US.

Remember, too, that unions have access to some pretty large national
fundraising - namely other union workers afraid it will happen to
them. I don't know who would run out of money first, but with
Wisconsin in the miserable financial shape it's in, I'm betting the
unions can outlast them, especially with national support.

Not only that, but unions can impose additional mandatory contributions on
their members to fund these ancillary programs.


As to Wisconsin, local governments are already saving bags of money
because of the new laws on collective bargaining. For example, in
the past, as part of the collective bargaining agreements, teachers
got their health care insurance through a wholly-owned subsidary of
the state's teacher's union. Now that insurance is open for bids,
the premiums are only ONE-THIRD what they were under the
collective-bargain mandated vendor.

What's always surprised me, particularly in this group, is that most
people know that complicated systems often break down or need
periodic maintenance and adjustments - yet they seem to expect
government to run perfectly year after year. When it does break
down, some people now want to just eliminate it instead of fixing it.
Your example shows that we always need to review existing systems and
practices to determine which need improving, which need eliminating
and which new programs need creating.

You're right. But once in place, a system, agency, or department is
virtually impossible to dislodge. I think the last major entity to go
bye-bye was the Interstate Commerce Commission which regulated railroads and
trucking. It didn't completely go away, though. It's duties were transferred
to the Surface Transportation Board of the Department of Transportation.


Sweetheart deals form in almost every corner of the economy and are
not just related to unions or collective bargaining. I noticed the
other day that one of the biggest advocates for not retiring the
dollar bill into a dollar coin is the paper industry and the company
that now supplies the paper for printing US currency. The AfRaq war
was/is riddled with non-compete contracts and sweetheart deals.
Government spending needs serious review - exactly the kind it's NOT
going to get from the partisan supercommittee.

Now there's a conflict worth watching. When the Fed prints a dollar bill,
the federal government earns a couple of pennies for doing the printing.
When the U.S. Mint punches out a dollar coin and puts it into circulation,
the federal government makes about ninety-seven cents profit.


Regarding a possible "October Surprise" by the Obama crew, you may be
overestimating them. Chicago politics has never been known for
subtlety. The "surprise" will be an obviously Photoshopped picture
of the GOP nominee delicately removing a woman's garter belt from a
goat, the spouse eating monkey brains, or him (or her) carrying a
big bag with a big "$" on it away from the Chinese Embassy.

Obama's surprise could be something as simple as eliminating his
health plan in its present incarnation. I seem to recall a lot of
pundits assuring us that a smooth-talker with no particular executive
experience could NEVER win the Whitehouse. I'm not ruling him out
yet, especially against the likes of Romney, a candidate much unloved
by his own party, and Perry, a candidate much unloved by the press.
And then there's Cain.

Yep. Wishful thinking on the part of semi-blind GOP partisans. Those of us
with a more pragmatic and less parochial view were saying: "A smooth-talker
with no executive experience SHOULD [not "could"] never win the White
House".


No, don't look for any finesse from the current White House crew.

We'll see. They got into the job with a completely unknown newcomer.
That took lots of strategy and/or luck and/or bad actions by McCain.
We'll get more feedback on the ratio after 2012.

If they have such elan and sophistication, how come they didn't notice that
all four of their Cain accusers came from Chicago?


As for a mandate, that may be in the eye of the beholder. In 2010,
the GOP picked up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three in the
House. Last Tuesday, the GOP gained control of both houses of the
Virginia Assembly to go along with the governorship.

The 2010 vote was a whiplash vote by people stunned that Obama got
elected. It's a pretty common occurrence and one we've seen in the
past. A Dem state senator, Dave Hansen from Wisconsin, easily
survived a recall election, a clear reaction to a Republican-backed
law that stripped most public workers of their collective bargaining
rights.

Uh, we haven't seen a whiplash of this magnitude since 1948 when the
Democrats picked up 75 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate.


As for Virginia, the outcome wasn't really a win for the Republicans
since the Senate is now split evenly between the two. The race was
more about gun laws than any broad indictment of either political
party. Obviously, Tuesday was not exactly the Democrats' night.
Their biggest victory, repeal of government-worker reform in Ohio,
stands as a warning to pols like Walker who believe a small lead
equals a mandate.

It was a win in Virginia. The Lt. Governor, a Republican, will cast the
tie-breaking vote for organization of the Senate. The subsequent
organization will control who sits or chairs what committees and they, in
turn, control which bills come up for a vote. Should a partisan vote
actually take place, the Lt. Governor will again cast the tie-breaking vote.