Calif. governor won't target collective bargaining

[Joanne98]

Source: AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Gov. Jerry Brown, who approved collective bargaining for California government workers during his first gubernatorial term in 1976, said Friday that he will not challenge employees' bargaining rights as the Republican governor in Wisconsin is doing.

Brown said he will not follow the lead of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who wants to strip most non-safety public employees of most collective bargaining rights. Walker says his proposal, which prompted massive protests and a walkout by Democratic lawmakers, is intended to reduce state spending.

Brown, a Democrat, said California's $26.6 billion deficit will give unions a chance to show they can help the state make tough choices.

"I hope in California we can demonstrate that both management and representatives of the working people in the public sector can rise to the occasion and do what's in the public interest," Brown said during a Capitol news conference on the budget.



Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17426294?nclick_check=1

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Nor would I expect Jerry Brown to attempt such a thing

Next time someone insists that there's no difference between the two parties, throw THIS back in their face.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. You're talking 2 extremes here.

Most of the pols are in the mushy middle and there IS no difference.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. The time to deal with THAT problem

is Primary Season, when we have the opportunity to work toward getting the most progressive candidate into the general election. My patience has reached the saturation point with DLCers, blue dogs, DINOs & all their corporate ilk.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. You mean the primary season in which

all progressive contenders are choked/starved out of the process by the Machine and all that we end up with is a "choice" between Corporate Whore A or Corporate Whore B? Or if one gets too close to activate the Dirty Tricks portion of the machine to make sure he/she disappears (politically)? The party is AFRAID of the progressive competition. They're AFRAID because the Party Bosses don't want the Democratic Party to be too closely associated with "libruls" which became a dirty word in the 1980's and to which the Clinton-sponsored DLC used to move the Party to the right.

The old rules don't apply anymore and haven't since the 1980's.

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Well, I guess we should just roll over and take it!

We're all hopelessly screwed, so why even bother? FUCK THAT!

[Le Taz Hot]

7. THAT'S what you got

out of my post? LOL! Such binary thinking. No, there are lots of options, most of which I can't discuss on this board. What I can discuss is to have an uprising within the Democratic party and the first step is to get the Party Machine out of the primary process so we get REAL choices. If the progressive candidate(s) get the nomination and lose in the General then at least it was an honest, open process and not the current system of backroom pre-arranged candidates that, ironically, the primary system was originally supposed to eliminate. Start there.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. Glad I afforded you an opportunity to get some insults out of your system

Have a great day.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. . . .

:wtf: And I thought this was the beginning of a good debate. :shrug:

[Cirque du So-What]

12. Sorry, but you lost me at 'one-dimensional thinking'

I'm not the world's greatest political thinker, and I sure as heck don't proclaim to have all the answers, but I subscribe to the philosophy of FDR that we need to try something - ANYthing - as it beats the alternative of doing nothing. I know the political system is screwed, blued & tattooed, but I'm not going to give up without trying something different. I thought we were onto something with Dean's 50-state strategy, but you see how that was quashed in no time flat. It could be revived, however, if the right people are persistent enough and dedicated enough to get it implemented...IMO.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. See . . . ????

I'm glad you came back. Believe it or not we essentially agree. For some reason you interpreted my original response as giving up. I'll do that when I'm dead. My response had to do with righting a system that is currently and undeniably rigged. Address the problems in the system, starting from the bottom and working up so that the system is, once again, representative of We The People. The model already exists, thank you, FDR.

Dean is the prime example of the Dirty Tricks Machine in action. I watched this up close and personal. It was disgusting and THAT can never be allowed to happen again. The Machine got their man who then managed to LOSE to the worst. president. ever.

[Cirque du So-What]

17. Sorry for overreacting

It's just that I've reached the saturation point where apathy is concerned, so it's possible that I see it even where it doesn't exist. It wasn't so much an accusation against you but an expression of my frustration with the general public.

I agree with the concept of building a movement from the bottom up, but I caution against allowing a grassroots organization to get co-opted into a corporate entity. The only way I can envision a true grassroots movement to remain true to their values is to absolutely eschew corporate money...but that instantly puts the movement at a distinct disadvantage in our money-driven system.

As I said before, I'm not the best political strategist, but I'm open to suggestions how to overcome the obstacles inherent to living in a corpo-centric society.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. The argument that

money always wins political races was disproved in California's last gubernatorial election. Meg outspent Brown by 4:1 and she STILL lost. The same thing happened with Huffington. I think it is VERY possible to eschew corporate money, especially in California.

[Cirque du So-What]

21. Jerry Brown had name recognition & a track record working in his favor

Still, he spent most of the $36M he raised. Any unknown candidate faces an uphill battle to raise the kind of scratch necessary to compete in today's political arena. That's not to say it can't be accomplished, but it's an indicator of the type of obstacles in the way of progressive candidates - moreso in areas with no modern history of representation from progressives.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. You'd be surprised about areas

"with no modern history of representation from progressives." NO representation? None? Not a progressive in sight? Maybe you can offer an example where this exists. I've been in California 55-1/2 years, traveled up and down and across this state and I don't know of any such place.

I refuse to put up barriers to a good candidate because fear of one thing or another. You GIVE UP before you get started. Btw, there's a GREAT series that Deutsy put up: http://buildingapowerfulleft.org/category/radio-archive/
"Building A Powerful Left in the United States." It addresses exactly what we've been discussing.

[Cirque du So-What]

23. I'm referring to areas outside California

and I'm not going to go off on a 'regional chauvinism' tangent and start slamming specific areas of the country, but there are districts that haven't voted for a progressive - much less a run-of-the-mill corporate-owned Democrat - in generations.

[Tx4obama]

34. And Murkowski won in Alaska and she wasn't even on the ballot.

All the money that outside sources sent in to teabagger Miller didn't win that election for him :)

[No Elephants]

18. The primary season, which is stacked in favor of the likes of Blanche Lincoln?

The DLC style (inluding those known as DLC, New Dems, Conservadems and Blue Dogs--all variations on a theme) now control the DNC (read campaign dollars) and the WH and therefore our Party. Party stars campaign for incumbents in primaries. Most Dem Senators and House members are center right. Even when we controlled the House, the {badly named} Progressive Caucus had only about 100 members.

Sorry, but you'll have to work on patience bc the deck is stacked (a) against third parties and (b) against Dems who are left of center right. We slept too long as the Nixon and Reagan landslides plus loss of the Solid South had our Party racing Rethugs for the right--as though a loss in the Oval Office now and again were more important than holding Congress.

Then again, maybe it is, given how polarized and activist the Supremes have become.

Reality bites sometimes.

[No Elephants]

13. Bingo!

[earcandle]

2. Gracias, Monsieur! You rock.

a gift!
Picking a fight

[last_texas_dem]

8. I'd be pretty terrified if Brown was even to consider a shit move like that.

California was one of the rare tea-abstaining (tea-totaling? hehe) bright spots of the midterm elections.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Brown would be dead politically if he ever did.

He's a Party Baby and was suckled on this stuff. Unions are HUGELY powerful in this state. I'm hoping they've got something in the works to show solidarity with Wisconsin.

[JI7]

28. one of the reasons Brown won was because California elected the idiot ARnold who was a disaster

it's not like people here are that much more liberal. people still get fooled into voting for idiots like ARnold who just because they aren't as wingnut crazy like Palin and support abortion rights they consider them to be moderate.

but there is still a big difference between someone like ARnold and if we had Davis still or if Angelides had won. Angelides would have been great for California.

[fittosurvive]

11. $26.6 billion...someone is going to feel the pain.

[Tempest]

24. At least under Brown everyone will feel the pain

Not just the middle class and poor like the GOP governors are doing.

[fittosurvive]

35. You are right, everyone is going to feel a great deal of pain.

Living beyond your means is a sure way to guarantee financial ruin.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Of course not

Jerry is not some Walker or Obama type. He's an actual Democrat with actual abilities to govern. He is not busy making sports 'picks' or stopping smoking, not taking a survey of 'experts' to find out what he thinks, and he is most certainly not wasting time stressing out about defending Sacraments while Rome burns, like some who are more tied up on old time religious delusion.

[hollowdweller]

20. Labor and Gun Control

Gun owners, a lot of them are against even what others would consider "common sense" gun restrictions on the theory that it's a "slippery slope" and one concession leads to total gun ban.

I don't believe this has facts behind it in the US.

Unions don't want to give up benefits for the same reason, but they actually have seen the slippery slope.

In the 80's when companies were shutting their doors a LOT of employees in unions voted to give up pay raises and other things in order for their companies to remain economically viable.

What did they get for it? Either laid off anyway a few years later while their bosses still had their good salaries to thend one, or two when the really good times came in the 90's and the economy was booming they either got none or very little of that money back and sometimes even lost their pensions. This while profits and management pay went up.

If the state or a company expects employees to make concessions in hard times, then there should be an agreement that when good times come their benefits or restored or their pay rises to compensate for the loss.

[roamer65]

25. Jerry wouldn't do that.

He just wouldn't.

[alp227]

26. Good. Talk the conflict out first before making it worse.

--from a Californian who voted for Brown in his first time voting in a gubernatorial election

[Kingofalldems]

27. A real Democrat

K and R

[YvonneCa]

29. Of course not. But he will work...

...with them...effectively...to improve the horrible financial mess in California. We're lucky to have him here. :)

[lunatica]

30. Jerry Brown marches to a different drummer

He's strict, but he's fair and he stands up for what he believes in.

[shanti]

31. of course he won't

he's honorable, and one of ours, and besides, he's the one who STARTED collective bargaining for state workers when he was governor in the 70's.

[grahamhgreen]

32. But will he target the ultra- rich, and return us to the tax rates of grandma Millie?

[andym]

37. he can't target the ultra rich

The 2/3 supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes, means that the legislature can not raise taxes on anyone without GOP help. They won't help.


He can't even get his own ballot measures to take before the people without a 2/3 vote of the legislature.
The ultra rich are quite safe.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[andym]

36. But he's obviously hinting that he's going to ask them to take big pay and benefit cuts in the

"public interest."

We'll see if the state workers are buying that. And how things work out.