From the Capital Times (hat tip Menzie Chinn):
Kucinich said he could not understand how Walker’s bill to strip most collective bargaining rights from nearly all public workers saved the state any money and therefore was relevant to the topic before the committee, which was state and municipal debt.
When Walker failed to address how repealing collective bargaining rights for state workers is related to state debt or how requiring unions to recertify annually saves money — one of the provisions in Walker’s amended budget repair bill — Kucinich tried one more time.
“How much money does it save Gov. Walker?” Kucinich demanded. “Just answer the question.”
“It doesn’t save any,” Walker said.
“That’s right. It obviously had no effect on the state budget,” Kucinich replied.
Case closed.
65 comments
Comments are closed.
Boy, Mish Shedlock is going to be less than gruntled with his golden boy.
Fat Cat here, so listen up, little peasants! As I have already specified under prior occasions (and I hate to repeat myself), this is not about money. I already have all the money. I already own this country and the world. I already own your minds and lives. This was never about the money.
So let me spell it out for you: this is about humiliating you, dehumanizing you, stripping you of every shred of human dignity. This is why I want to take you unions away. I want to see you naked, powerless, homeless, hungry, and defeated before me. And I want to see you like that forever.
So far I am winning. Losers!
Fart Cat
Shameful.
In case you don`t understand I`ll make it clearer.
I am the top primate and I am dong these things because I can. It IS all about my ego and proving to you how worthless & gutless you are.
GET IT ????
Top primate. HA! You forgot what matters in life so long ago, you’ll never catch up. You’ll drown in your own diarrhetic dung heap with all the poor desperate stooges you suckered in to your senseless ego trip. The rest of us will pity your foul ignorance and laugh at your folly as we piss celebratory beer on your unmarked grave.
(BTW, cats aren’t even primates, doofus)
Cock Roach:
Don’t make me crush you like a bug. I prefer crushing down-trodden human beings such as single unemployed mothers and sick elderly without health insurance, but if you continue to irritate me, I will make an exception in your case.
Fat Cat
Hey Fat Cat II,
I like the way you think.
You know what gives me the most pleasure? Sending my friends at Blackwater to evict some pathetic single mother from one of MY freshly foreclosed properties. I often have my limo parked across the street so I can sip on Dom Perignon watching the slob sob, crawl, and bed my thugs for one more chance. They never get another chance. I am not a god of second chance.
And I get even more pleasure knowing that most of MY foreclosures are completed with forged paperwork by judges I personally bribe on a monthly basis.
Hey, capitalism really works for us, bro, don’t it?!
Fat Cat
Jai Guru Deva
Ommmmmm
Nothing’s going to change my world
Nothing’s going to change my world
Per Omnia Saecula Saeculorum
Reducing the scope and scale of government will unquestionably save the taxpayers considerable money. Eliminating public worker unions is an essential step to achieve this. And getting rid of government workers’ ability to hold the taxpayers hostage through collective bargaining is necessary to get rid of their unions. This is a small step in the correct direction.
“Unquestionably?” Yes, Holy Father.
Since Walker can’t even honestly say so, that suggests your claim is mere belief rather than factual.
Eliminating big government and big business are essential steps toward eliminating big unions. Let the leaders take the lead.
If you don’t like the union/government or union/business interaction, then lessen the importance of Competition altogether. Not as hard as you may think. Cooperation is way more efficient anyway.
Cock Roach:
Which part of “I am king of the world don’t you understand?!”
Let me explain this to you: I, Fat Cat of Wall Street am not interested in eliminating big government. I will replace ALL government big and small with MY corporation. Get it??? I will run your city, country, state, and federal government.
Let me illustrate: I and my friends at Blackwater will be the Department of Defense and I will send YOUR sons and daughters to fight in MY wars for MY financial gain and MY global empire. I and my friends at Bechtel will own and run ALL freeways and water utilities in this country and I will decide the fees you pay ME to drink MY water and drive on MY roads. I and my friends at Corrections Corporation of America will own and run ALL courts, jails and prisons in this country, and I will decide how many years YOUR sons and daughters spend in MY prisons making license plates for MY Department of Motor Vehicle. And I can go on and on. ALL these are MY corporations. I own them ALL. I own the country. I own YOU.
As far as competition and other such nonsense, I will clarify this too: I am EVERYTHING. There is NO competition there. I am it. Get it???
And finally, regarding cooperation, let me explain: as long as you and your family cooperate with ME and MY corporations, I may leave you alone. Or I may not. I may still send you or your loved ones to MY prisons if I need more license plates, or I may still send you and your loved ones to die in MY patriotic wars. I decide that. So you better cooperate.
Fat Cat
he he he, you’re such a has-been.
Fat Cat,
If you’re point is to suggest that the only way to deal with a tyrant like yourself and their sycophants is to KILL them [tyrannicide] then this peasant, and I suspect a few others, got your message.
Unlike some of them though I’m not so thoroughly indoctrinated by the doctrine of nonviolence. Nor am I convinced that it is really as effective as you would like us to believe. After all, it is your historians who have written the history books, right? And even they acknowledge that Gandhi and MLK were assassinated, right? History is replete with examples of tyrants killed by their subjects…
It’s really quite simple: You must be taught to fear US. Whether that can be achieved nonviolently or not remains to be seen.
But agent provocateurs like yourself have worked for the secret police – FBI and/or Homeland Security – since its inception. If you have to spy on the “peasants” in an effort to incite them to violence it suggests that you’re already afraid… or really frustrated. Good luck…
Should read: If your point…
My apologies to your school system.
Oh Steve. Ending government/corporate incest will save the taxpayers money. Ending collective bargaining for public sector workers will drive down wages for most if not all workers thereby negating any supposed tax savings. You are kicking the ball the wrong direction and you don’t even know it.
Steve:
eliminating public worker’s rights has little to do with the budget, and likely also little to do with shrinking government.
Instead, it is the corporate interest whose goal is to PRIVATIZE as much as they can, leading to more profits for themselves.
For instance, why pay a government person $50k/year with very nice benefits when you can pay a “private” contractor $40k/year with no benefits and also give $150,000,000 to the owners of the company, probably the Koch brothers?
Yes, that is the real game that is afoot.
Just like not “wasting” money on those lazy overpaid American government employees in Iraq called soldiers when instead Halliburton et al can set us up with Private Security at $200k/year or more a pop, with a nice roll going to Dick Cheney.
Bonus: the contracted aren’t subject to those pesky UCMJ or other laws so you save quite a bit on administrative hassles regarding the “few bad apples” whose atrocities are too gross to cover up.
Why is it absolutely necessary to prevent public workers from collective bargaining to save government money. Wouldn’t a simple ‘no’ suffice?
If collective bargaining doesn’t increase wages, who does it help? Are you saying that the only beneficiaries are the unions and politicians?
If collective bargaining does increase wages, then doesn’t the state have in interest in managing its costs?
The supposition that collective bargaining increases wages does not lead to the necessary conclusion that ending collective bargaining will save the govt money.
really?
Ever heard of false economies? Penny-wise pound foolish? Those who only see money never understand notions like pride in a job done well, getting fair money for fair work, doing work well because you feel valued. Kicking workers helps to ensure that work is not done well. Of course all the metrics ignore job performance and outcomes because they are hard to measure. Or perhaps you think the govt should just outsource it all because we all know how much “savings” govt can get from that? The notion that there is a direct savings to be attributed to ending collective bargaining is utterly false. Tell me why, when the USA had the strongest unions in the 50s and 60s, we also dominated manufacturing worldwide. We were known as the best manufacturers of the most reliable products. Frankly, the only reason the “American” appliance manufacturers like Frigidaire etc. are still around is they are running on the fumes of their prior reputations. Do you really not get that workers need to be paid a living wage with retirement security and medical care in order to do a proper good job?
Speaking for myself I’m quite glad the people who put rivets in airplane wings are well paid members of the machinists union. I want them thinking about that rivet, not how they are going to cover their kids college. Every time I get on a plane.
You are arguing that collective bargaining has value, which does nothing to support your claim that collective bargaining does not increase government outlays. If you pay government workers more, then the government pays more.
“Then the mechanic who was servicing the Governor’s limo (and who used to be in a union, until the Governor closed down the union, jailed its leaders and stole the union’s funds) noticed the brake fluid leaking onto the floor, and the sticky accelerator, and the leaky fuel tank.
He stood up and looked at these things. Then he looked at his watch, looked at the limo, looked at his watch again. Then, under his breath, he muttered: “Naw, f@ck it!” and went for a beer. And everyone but the ex-Governor lived happily ever after.
The end.” (Then I woke up – sigh.)
Another thing. Pretending government is nothing but a corporation that needs to manage its costs is another falsehood. Government exists to make the lives of the citizens better, not to make a profit. Therefore, the goals of government are diametrically opposed to the goals of private corporations. Think about it if you can get outside your box.
I find it stunning that you have to explain things like this to people. Why do people who obviously have no idea about human resource management (and management in general) feel the need to explain to everyone else their simplistic and clearly incorrect theories of how the world works?
Please, you ignorant ones, be quiet and educate yourselves.
The government is quite different than corporations. Government extracts its income by coersion. The only limit on governments power comes at the ballot box. Governments frequently choose winners and losers. Public unions are rent seeking. That his why there is a backlash at the ballot box.
Well said Yankee and Anonymous!
Of course! The debts have already been incurred.
Yves,
You have to do better than this! I need more context and I need more work. This post leaves way to much up in the air. How can passing a bill that gives the state the authority to lower wages not affect the state budget? It doesn’t make any sense. Is this in the context of a certain time frame? Is it because the money will be spent somewhere else? Is it because more people will be hired with the money from lowering wages? Or was this simply a ploy to move collective bargaining rights away from the private sector? I thought this bill only concerned public unions? Please, find the context before more people with their own view on the “truth” distort this anymore.
And with all due respect, I can’t give context on every post, I’d spend all day recounting history and never write anything new.
The unions already acceded to the budget demands. And Walker has been giving tax breaks to businesses (ones related to sales of businesses, for instance, so they have nada to do with economic investment). Walker can’t even make a case this is good on a prospective basis.
Just because you don’t like what Walker says, the fact that he can’t say otherwise in sworn testimony is very revealing.
The video of Kucinch shows Gov Walker replying to the provision to require annual recertification “does not save any money”, not the broader collective bargaining of public workers to fleece taxpayers.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/04/14/video-wi-gov-scott-walker-admits-that-stripping-collective-bargaining-rights-of-workers-%E2%80%9Cnot-a-fiscal-issue%E2%80%9D-does-not-save-taxpayers-%E2%80%9Cany%E2%80%9D-money/
But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good lefty talking point.
You neglect to mention that Walker answered in terms of the entire bill. To the extent that his response was muddy, You should watch the entire video.
IMHO, it doesn’t really matter what Gov. Walker says. For many reasons, ranging from being snookered by a blogger posing as a billionaire (http://host.madison.com/wsj/article_531276b6-3f6a-11e0-b288-001cc4c002e0.html) to his many mistatements (e.g., http://www.politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/statements/byruling/pants-fire/), Gov. Walker’s credibility is shot.
You need to rub the sleep from your eyes.
I live in Madison and have been following this closely.
Walker’s concession lines up with the changed Republican strategy. The Republican-controlled Senate was able to pass the collective bargaining law despite the absence of the 14 Democratic Senators (and the lack of the quorum needed to enact budgetary matters) by taking the collective bargaining provisions out of the budget act and voting on them as a stand-alone, non-budgetary bill.
As an aside, the Senate vote on collective bargaining took place on extremely short notice and appears to have violated Wisconsin’s open meeting law. That issue is now working its way through the courts. In the meantime, the act stripping public workers’ collective bargaining rights is in limbo.
Gov. Walker had previously insisted that the collective bargaining provisions were budgetary in nature.
Walker’s changed story is consistent with the Legislature’s tactic. It also underscores Walker’s willingness to lie, and the sorry lack of foresite and critical thinking in the rush to ram through the Republican agenda.
Dear Fat Cat and Fat Cat II,
Did you miss the history lesson? Perhaps you would be well advised to go read the fate of other such unequal societies. They all fail, so enjoy your money and have fun being sadists, but your time will end. You either die or it crashes. But like I said have fun and eat all the catfood you can.
It was never about the money … but stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights.
As others have already noted the debt has been incurred over the course of the past 30 years, if not longer. Balancing the budget on the backs of anyone but the wealthy or corporations WITHOUT RAISING TAXES is the whole point. Of course, the fiscal shortfall was a direct result of “lower taxes and less regulation”. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
People in general have become so thoroughly indoctrinated with the mantra of “lower taxes and less government” that the suggestion of raising taxes to address budgetary shortfalls is a nonstarter.
But isn’t it about time that “we” begin to ask if, after 30 years of lower taxes and less regulation, whether this country – its people – are better off? I’m not talking about myself or you as individuals but asking if “we” are better off?
And if the answer is “YES” then continue down the road to serfdom. If the answer is “NO’ then a change of course would be appropriate, signaled by a repudiation of the policies/proponents of lower taxes/less regulation. That’s the first step, assuming we can change course via the electoral process/traditional institutional framework.
Envision that in digging this hole, the dirt removed was piled up next to it, creating a huge mountain in the process. To refill the hole the dirt has to come from that mountain… But much of it has already been carted off. So where do we begin?
Mickey – You cannot argue with the irrational sadists. Don’t try to be reasonable that is not how they learn. Talk to people who want change or change yourself. The true believers have had their beliefs beaten, threatened, bullied and force fed to them, they live on fear and creating fear. Really being nice and thoughtful does not work with them.
Jennifer,
If the “fatcats” really believe what this FATCAT purports they do, then being “reasonable” with him or them is appeasement. And the more you give them, the more they want.
We must “educate” all fatcats – real, their wannabes, and/or imaginary – that their rapacious behavior is not acceptable. If that requires an occasional bully beat down to remind them, then so be it.
But to pretend that some degree of coercion is not involved in the formulation of the social contract is naive – if not dangerous. Organization and collective strength are the only forms of coercion that may preclude physical violence. When confronted with such overwhelming persuasive force even a bully knows when to back down.
As you stated: “Really being nice and thoughtful does not work with them”. Then what’s a poor boy to do?
Mickey – I have been advocating for alternative economic policies based on reason and fact for many years. Unfortunately those are not the things that decisions are being made on. If you read more about Neuro Lingual programming you would know that their brains are different – I referenced that before, they have been indoctrinated through fear and intimidation and act that way. This is a religion for them, and well that should explain it all. And remember the Fat Cats who post on pages like this are simply trolls who like a fight. Isn’t your time important to someone who could really benefit from your insight and presence? I’ve given up debating with Trolls or believing that enlightenment thinking will save us. Mostly now I’m working with folks to make our values relevant from small to large scale. Besides history tells us the demise of the authoritarian is eminent, but I just can’t give you a precise time. Those are facts that cannot be refuted.
Jennifer,
You state: “Besides history tells us the demise of the authoritarian is eminent, but I just can’t give you a precise time. Those are facts that cannot be refuted.”
Imminent – not eminent – is what I think you meant.
In any case, what history and what facts that cannot be refuted are you referring to? History is not linear. The Wheel of Progress can be rolled backwards.
The drift toward “authoritarianism” in this country over the course of the past 40 years in undeniable – most of my adult life. And its imminent demise is debatable, undermining your thesis.
As for “democracy” breaking out elsewhere, that too is wishful thinking for which a precise time cannot be specified.
I sympathize with your position but subjectivist wishful thinking in the face of counterfactual evidence suggesting an altogether different outcome is where I find myself. The authoritarian beast is amongst us and its imminent demise is NOT an irrefutable fact. It’s going to take more than hope to cage this beast.
Warm regards,
Mickey
“And remember the Fat Cats who post on pages like this are simply trolls who like a fight.”
I think the fatcats and the cockroaches are just indulging their sense of humor at the expense of the earnest.
Agree with FatCat. This is not, and never was, about the money. This is about fearlessly probing the depths of depravity. It’s about how your balls tingle as you commit wanton acts of cruelty — and obviously, the more wanton; the more tingle.
Note: What, exactly, wanton acts titillate in depraved ladies, I cannot say. But I can say, gals don’t seem to be participating.
What are you, members of the opposite gender, noble gentlewomen all? Ha! Come on, ladies, join us! Climb on the board our Depravity Train!
Walker stripped the union busting provision out of the budget bill which meant he didn’t need the state Dem senators who’d fled to IL for a quorum.
I may be wrong, but this may explain why he didn’t argue with Kucinich over the fiscal implications of this action. There are currently several lawsuits pending and my guess is he’ll submit his testimony yesterday to bolster his case(s).
Possibly. The open meeting law will get the whole thing overturned. I don’t see why they voted on it without the 24hr notice. If they simply separated the union rights reduction from the budget and gave 24hr notice, the Democrats returning or not would have made no difference.
All they accomplished was giving tons of time to Democrats and union leaders to pass around recall petitions. Very confusing.
Most of the CEOs of large corporations are crooks, most politicians are crooks, that mooned eyed moron in Wisconsin is definitely a crook. He wants to get rid of the union so there won’t be anyone to push an investigation into where all the pension money went. These crooks have stolen SS and pension money from nearly every American and are doing their best to cover their tracks. They’ll try to make us believe it went to help the poor, but the truth is it was party down baby for a select few. Corporate welfare for the CEOs and kick backs to the politicians. Welcome to the brave new world and we don’t have the balls to make these crooks pay. We just want to play the democrat/republican game. What a bunch of boobs. I guess the big shots are right when they say the common guy gets what he deserves.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/losing-84-cents-on-dollar-reveals-runaway-u-s-public-pension-shortfalls.html
Wow. Big F’ing Deal. He admitted it doesn’t save money. So what? All the bankers and Greenspans all stated before Congress that they blew up the financial system but not one was ever convicted or even lost their jobs. Same here. This is all theatrics. We need to realize this is what’s gonna happen. All jobs are returning to subsistences living standards.
Let us invoke the money is fungible line of argument, for the sake of example. Since money is the vocabulary of power, the state budget that the Gov is charged with passing on an annual basis in his state, is more than the sum total of its income and expenses. It is the plan for organized economic behavior of the state and there fore the actions against the unions in and of themselves may not save money, but they are part of the political struggle for power. The final amount of dollars spent and who benefits from those expenses is the plot that is outlined in the budget. Denying money to the unionized workers, that they have come to expect in the form of medical benefits, pensions and living wages, has been agreed to by the workers to contribute to solving the budget crunch in tough times. Politically diminishing their democratic capacity to influence public institutions does not save money, but it does increase the ability to save money in future budgets. The less power you have, the fewer public dollars will come your way. The interchangeable nature of money and power is revealed as neo-con political algorithm, the new program the republicans are instituting as fast as they can, before the demographics of Hispanics, Blacks, and 65 year old baby boomers swamps them at the ballot for decades.
All of the discussion about collective bargaining in Wisconsin, pro and con, misses the bigger issue. The financial condition of most states is worse than it’s been since the Great Depression. Many are broke, and if they had to use GAAP rather than accrual accounting, they would be known to be bankrupt. However, federal law prohibits states from declaring bankruptcy.
What could happen if Wisconsin runs out of money? I see three possibilities: 1) Wisconsin defaults on payments to some people, e.g., workers, vendors, citizens. 2) Wisconsin is rescued by Washington via a bailout and all of Wisconsin’s worker and creditors get paid, but much later than they expected. However, if Wisconsin received a bailout, 49 other states would be screaming “me too!” regardless of their financial condition. 3) Federal law could be changed to allow states to declare bankruptcy.
I see a change to bankruptcy law as the most likely, as Congress can throw the problem to the bankruptcy court but otherwise avoid having to deal with it. Bankruptcy would allow Wisconsin to stiff creditors and void contracts, such as labor contracts with state workers.
It may be a “half-a-loaf-is-better-than-none” situation for the unions. Giving the state concessions to avoid having the state go bankrupt would be better than having the state go bankrupt and thereby having their contracts voided. If the unions give concessions and the state still goes bankrupt, they’re no worse off.
Tom, the unions already conceded to all the financial provisions in the budget. They only resisted losing their right to collective bargaining. As our buddy Scooter admitted, the right to collective bargaining costs the state nothing directly.
It’s a cynical move to cut mandatory union dues, which typically go to Democratic candidates. You can debate the wisdom of unions giving money to Democrats, but that’s what it’s all about. Period. End of story.
Wisconsin is not “most states” and is not bankrupt. It has been conservative in managing its pension fund. So your argument is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Yves,
You’re bias on this topic makes you no longer helpful in this debate….unless readers after reading your analysis are then willing to go to several other sources to get the rest of the story. I’m willing to do that…..most aren’t, unfortunately. The quality of your analysis and level of your bias on this topic compared to some of your other writing, makes me believe you are pursing some other agenda in this case.
Are you familiar with the source you cite, “The Capital Times”? I am, personally. They provide cherry picked, biased analysis to an audience that already believes in the views of the Cap Times before the Cap Times says it……wouldn’t this be the definition of inconsequential work?!
My wife is a teacher, I have children, I know the costs, I know what impacts teacher effectiveness and what doesn’t, etc. I’m familiar with this debate. Try to be a little more thoughtful and balanced in the future…..try to truly educate your audience to both sides of this issue rather than cherry picking the talking points of one side. Be more consequential, and avoid becoming too much like “The Capital Times”. krb
If indeed “you’re” wife is a teacher, could you ask her to help you learn to spell?
krb,
What bias does Yves have? Or is it, as the old saw goes, that reality has a liberal bias?
So you’re aware that what impacts teacher effectiveness most is community poverty?
http://www.schoolfunding.info/resource_center/research/NCLR07-Levin.pdf
Scott, Lambert,
Thanks for the catch lambert…..my apologies. Both of you need to get out and read more. There are many sides to each of these debates. Yves usually provides a cross section…..she’s been one sided on this one since first discussing it back in Jan/Feb. Thanks, krb
Sorry Lambert…..I guess you weren’t questioning the post, just my reckless writing.
Scott, A quick, opposed view can be found at Mike Shedlock’s site….he’s more vitriolic, sarcastic than Yves…..but you’ll get information you won’t get from Yve’s on this topic. There are others….I follow 6 sites a day, 2 liberal, 2 conservative, 2 switch hitters……I know, I know, I have a problem….but at least I’m informed! No thanks to our mainstream or blogoshpere media!
The answer here, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle. My frustration is with media generally……the public now needs to spend several hours a day reading multiple sources to ever become educated on a topic. If you want to believe Yve’s writing as the whole story on this topic you’re as guilty of group-think as NASA, Dane County, Wisconsin or the readership of The Capital Times that Yve’s cited. Have a nice day! krb
If it all comes down to bias, reading one biased account does not nullify reading another biased account. It comes down to facts. Mish is hardly factual and unbiased on the topic of unions.
If you don’t like the study I highlighted, you are obligated to tell me why or concede the point. Don’t tell me to “balance” my bias by reading Mish. As if reality is simply the arithmetic mean between left and right.
And statistical surveys show that community affluence dominates education outcomes. More than race, more than any pedagogical technique, more than teacher incentives, more than teacher disincentives, more than standardized testing brow-beating.
It’s easy to see why. Watch Stand And Deliver. What happens in the movie? One of the brightest students is pulled out of the AP Calculus class to waitress in her father’s restaurant. Think that happens in wealthy areas? The results of the students’ tests are questioned because they come from a poor area. It’s tough to even have an AP class because the administration feels it’s a waste to teach future low-level employees anything more than how to count.
And in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Achievement_gap :
Tell me poverty isn’t the limiting factor.
Corollaries to the idea that affluence begets education:
o De-funding low performing schools seems to about the most bass-ackwards thing I’ve ever heard of.
o Hammering teachers socially and financially is the worst way to attract quality people to education, even if you believe the BS about teacher performance.
That would be “Yves,” and not “Yve’s.”
To be clear, in a world where comment sections are infested with paid trolls — many of whom take the line that there are two sides two a question when there are in fact none (see under creationism) — spelling errors can be a “tell.”
Nothing personal; just caveat lector.
Ha ha! Hoist by my own petard — “to a question”!
Aren’t you making my point? In other words, no matter what your leanings, if you take the time to read both sides….which ought to be considered an admirable pursuit…..you will be characterized as a “plant” by one side or the other.
In an earlier post, Yves defended her neutrality, or unbiased nature of her “facts”…..”facts” I knew to be cherry picked because I provided other data and resources she chose to ignore, by saying the NY Times fact checkers agreed with her. Now come on….if one of the conservative blogs I read were to cite Fox news to back their position I and every liberal reader of Yves blog would howl.
Thanks for the reply though, I appreciate it. krb
PS I wish I WAS getting paid to do this. The extra income would help in this middle class, teacher-pay household! :)
If you claim to be unable to tell the credibility difference between the NYT and Fox News, that says all anyone else needs to know.
Not sure if you are painting with a broad brush here, but the NYT does have some credible reporting, even if their editorials have a slant.
It’s hard, I know.
It’s especially, really hard after his Daily Show straight-man routine.
But it’s always been really hard to admit that Dennis Kucinich is the smartest and most courageous gentleman on the Hill, leaving Bernie in his dust.
Read this, Bernie, and understand it, if you can.
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NEED_ACT.pdf
The Money System Common