"Fox News Lies" While Covering Pro-Labor Protests In Wisconsin
Fox News has pushed a litany of falsehoods while reporting on pro-labor protests in Wisconsin, thereby proving right the many Wisconsin protesters who have broken out into chants of "Fox News lies."
Pro-Labor Protesters Chant "Fox News Lies"
Protesters Chant "Fox Lies." On February 18, protesters chanted "Fox lies" during Fox News correspondent Jeff Flock's live report on the labor protests from the Wisconsin Capitol building. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 2/18/11]
Protesters Chant "Tell The Truth" During Live Fox Segment. On February 21, protesters chanted "tell the truth" throughout Fox News correspondent Mike Tobin's live report on the protests. [Fox News, The Fox Report, 2/21/11]
Protesters: "Fox News Lies." On February 27, protesters again chanted "Fox News lies" during a Fox News report from the Madison, WI protests. [Fox News, America's News HQ, 2/27/11]
Fox Falsely Claims WI Gov. Walker Is "Actually Doing What He Campaigned On"
Gingrich: Walker Is "Actually Doing What He Campaigned On." During the February 24 edition of On the Record, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich said:
VAN SUSTEREN: Is Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker doing right thing or not? His budget plan is rattling unions and sent Democrats running across state lines to Illinois as protesters continue to swarm Madison and seize the state capitol building. Now, everyone is asking, Did the governor make the right move? Many states across America are broke. So should other states follow the Wisconsin governor's lead, or try something else?
Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joins us. He and his wife, Callista, are authors of the new book "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny."
Good evening, Mr. Speaker. And I know you've written an op-ed piece in support of Governor Walker. But I'm just curious. What should he be doing tonight? Because tomorrow's supposedly a drop-dead date on this bonding, and the Democrats say they're not coming home.
NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), FMR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think he should do whatever he has to technically to pay for the bonding and blame the Democrats for the carnage that that's going to cause. They are forcing this crisis. You got to make sure they own the responsibility.
But you have to put Scott Walker in context. After having been elected three times as county executive of the largest government in the state, Milwaukee County, he campaigned for a year-and-a-half on a very clear program. Nothing he's doing is new. Everything he's doing was in his platform. It's what the people voted on.
The amazing thing is the Republicans gained seats in the senate, gained seats in the house. There are no new elected freshmen Democrats. The governor himself won decisively. And the Democrats, having lost the argument with the people -- this is not Republican-Democrat. The people of Wisconsin elected a 60 percent Republican majority in the house, a virtually 60 percent Republican majority in the senate and a Republican governor. And the governor's now executing -- this seems to be a shock to Democrats. He's actually doing what he campaigned on.
The contrast with President Obama breaking his word this week is startling. I mean, Scott Walker is doing what he said he would do. [Fox News, On the Record, 2/24/11, accessed via Nexis]
Asman: Walker "Did Announce When He Was Running For Governor This Is What He Was Going To Do." During the February 25 edition of America's Nightly Scoreboard, host David Asman said:
ASMAN: The bill strips most public sector unions of collective bargain or at least some of their collective bargaining privileges. Democrats and their supporters yelling "Shame" as you can hear after the vote as Republicans walked out. Now Democrats are investigating whether the vote was legal. The bill goes to the Senate where Democrats have gone AWOL. So how is all of this going to get resolved, Lee?
LEE HAWKINS, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": I don't know, but I think this is indicative of what we're going to see in the future. He's from that young new faction of the Republican base that's been dying to have this ideological debate with the unions probably since he was a teenager watching Ronald Reagan on television.
And he campaigned on the deficit issue. So basically he's actually following through on what he campaigned on, and what he is going to happen as we're going to see a fierce debate on this and many others.
ASMAN: I'm glad you brought that up because he did announce when he was running for governor this is what he was going to do. No surprises. And Mitch Daniels did the same thing in Indiana. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 2/25/11, accessed via Nexis]
PolitiFact: Walker Did Not Campaign On Proposal To "Sharply Curb Collective Bargaining Rights"
PolitiFact: Walker Did Not " 'Campaign On' His Union Bargaining Plan." On February 22, PolitiFact Wisconsin gave a "false" rating to the claim that Walker campaigned on the proposal to sharply curtail collective bargaining rights:
In the turbulent wake of his controversial plan to sharply curtail collective bargaining rights, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has faced criticism that he gave no warning of such a dramatic plan during the long 2010 governor's race.
Walker has forcefully challenged that contention, most bluntly at a Feb. 21, 2011 news conference. A reporter asked if the move to limit union power was payback for pro-union moves made by Democrats in the past.
"It's not a tit for tat," Walker responded. "The simple matter is I campaigned on this all throughout the election. Anybody who says they are shocked on this has been asleep for the past two years."
[...]
Let's sum up our research.
Walker contends he clearly "campaigned on" his union bargaining plan.
But Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either.
While Walker often talked about employees paying more for pensions and health care, in his budget-repair bill he connected it to collective bargaining changes that were far different from his campaign rhetoric in terms of how far his plan goes and the way it would be accomplished.
We rate his statement False. [PolitiFact Wisconsin, 2/22/11]
Fox Airs Cropped Video To Suggest Former NEA Official Said He Does Not "Care About The Children"
Hannity Airs Cropped Video, Suggests Former NEA Official Chanin Does Not "Care About The Children." From the February 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Let me show both of you. This is the former National Education Association General Counsel on why the NEA is so effective. I'm playing this because it is my belief that rank and file are often abused. Rank and file money goes to the unions. Unions support Democratic candidates. Democratic candidates funnel exorbitant benefits to them that they kick the can down the road and can't afford. But do they care about the children? You decide. We will roll this tape.
CHANIN (video clip): It is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them.
HANNITY: Not because we care about children. Not because we have creative ideas. Not because of the merits of our position. Mike, do you find that as offensive as I do?
MIKE LANGYEL, MILWAUKEE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION: Well, you know what, what we're saying is that --
HANNITY: I asked you a question. Is that offensive to you?
LANGYEL: It is not the question that we have to face today. Today, the question is what are we doing to improve education? --
HANNITY: Wait a minute, I find -- This is about unions. Do you find what the head of the NEA said about children, do you find that offensive?
LANGYEL: You took that out of context. You really did --
HANNITY: But I played it in its entirety.
LANGYEL: I know this person. But it is taken out of context. He did not say that we don't care about kids --
HANNITY: It is not about our creative, it is not the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children.
LANGYEL: But we do care about children. We care about children and that is exactly the point he was making. If you just give me a second. He said this that we care about children but it is our collective bargaining rights that gives us the power to represent the children --
HANNITY: He said it's not because we care about children. [Fox News, Hannity, 2/24/11]
In Fact, Chanin Did Not Say NEA Doesn't "Care About Children"
Chanin: Caring For Children And Creative Ideas Are Not Enough To Make NEA An "Effective Advocate." In his closing remarks in his farewell address former NEA General Counsel, Bob Chanin said NEA's creative ideas, vision, and care for children are not enough to ensure that NEA is an "effective advocate." Rather, he said that preserving the power and influence of the NEA will "enable us to achieve our vision of a great public school for every child." Chanin further stated that "closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality" are "the goals that guide the work we do."
From Chanin's July 2009 speech (the portions in bold show the misleadingly cropped quote used by Hannity):
CHANIN: At first glance, some of you may find these attacks troubling. But you would be wrong. They are, in fact, really a good thing. When I first came to NEA in the early '60s it had few enemies, and was almost never criticized, attacked, or even mentioned in the media. This was because no one really gave a damn about what NEA did, or what NEA said. It was the proverbial sleeping giant: a conservative, apolitical, do-nothing organization.
But then, NEA began to change. It embraced collective bargaining. It supported teacher strikes. It established a political action committee. It spoke out for affirmative action, and it defended gay and lesbian rights. What NEA said and did began to matter. And the more we said and did, the more we pissed people off. And, in turn, the more enemies we made.
So the bad news, or depending on your point of view, the good news, is that NEA and its affiliates will continue to be attacked by conservative and right-wing groups as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education, for education employees, and for human and civil rights.
And that brings me to my final, and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.
This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality, and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary, these are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights, and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.
When all is said and done, NEA and its affiliates must never lose sight of the fact that they are unions, and what unions do first and foremost is represent their members. If we do that. If we do that and if we do it well, the rest will fall into place. NEA and its affiliates will remain powerful and that power will in turn enable us to achieve our vision of a great public school for every child.
Today, NEA has thanked me for some of the things that I have done. But this is in a sense, backwards. It is I who should thank NEA for giving me the opportunity to spend almost 50 years of my working life for causes that I truly believe in and to be part of an organization that has made a difference in the lives of children and education employees and has led the defense of public education. [NEA, 7/6/09]
Fox Pushes Apples-To-Oranges Comparison Of Public And Private Pay
Kelly: Public Sector Workers Make More That Private Sector Counterparts. During the February 21 edition of Fox News' America Live, host Megyn Kelly stated "A closer look at the salaries of public and private sector employees in Wisconsin reveals quite a gap." A graphic showing "average annual pay" in Wisconsin in 2009 was then aired:
After reading the graphic, Kelly said: "What a difference. It used to be if you went to work for the state government, you would make less, but it was worth it, because you would have good benefits, good health care, nice fat pension, that kind of thing. So your salary would be lower. You can see from that full-screen we just showed you, that graphic, that that's no longer the case." [Fox News, America Live, 2/21/11]
Huckabee: "Public Union Workers [Make] 30% Better Wages [And] 70% Better Benefits Than Their Private Sector Counterparts." Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed that public union workers make "30% better wages" and "70% better benefits than their private sector counterparts." From Fox & Friends. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 02/25/11]
EPI Study: WI Public Employees Earn "4.8% Less ... Per Hour" Than Private Sector Counterparts
EPI: "Wisconsin Public Employees Earn 4.8% Less In Total Compensation Per Hour Than Comparable Full-Time Employees In Wisconsin's Private Sector." A study published February 10 by the think tank Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that when "[c]omparisons controlling for education, experience," and other factors are taken into account, "Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin's private sector." [EPI, "Are Wisconsin Public Employees Over-compensated?" 2/10/11]
EPI: "Workers With A Bachelor's Degree Or More ... Are Compensated Between $20,000 ... To Over $82,000 A Year Less" Than Private Sector Counterparts. The EPI report also included a graphic showing the average compensation for public and private sector employees in Wisconsin by education:
[EPI, 2/18/11]
Fox Had To Correct False Claim That "61 Percent" Of Americans "In Favor Of Taking [Bargaining Rights] Away"
Kilmeade: According To USA Today/Gallup Poll, "61 Percent In Favor Of Taking [Bargaining Rights] Away." On the February 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade discussed the results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll to falsely claim that "61 percent" of those polled are "in favor of taking [collective bargaining rights] away." From the broadcast:
KILMEADE: Wow. But is President Obama out of step with history? Joining us now to debate it, knock it around just a little bit, Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman and Jim Glassman, Director of the Bush Center and author of the book Safety Net. First things first, Robert, do you think the president is taking a big risk here?
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Not at all. I think he's showing respect for history and respect for our history of supporting the rights and safety of workers, but more than that, he's speaking for the mainstream of our country and the main stream of Republican governors that are not siding with Governor Walker in his efforts to overturn right to work -- collective bargaining.
KILMEADE: I think Gallup, a relatively mainstream poll, has a differing view. And here is the question that was posed, should you take away--will you favor or are you in disfavor of taking away collective bargaining when it comes to salaries for government workers? Sixty-one percent in favor of taking it away. Thirty-three percent oppose. Six percent up in the air. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/23/11]
A graphic claiming that "61 percent" responded "favor" to the question "Collective bargaining -- take it away: favor or oppose?" was aired on-screen during the segment:
- Fox Issued An On-Air Correction For Reversing The Results Of The Poll. Kilmeade issued a correction during the final minute of Fox & Friends -- 44 minutes after the error -- saying: "I want to correct a poll that we did about 22 minutes ago from Gallup. Sixty-one percent oppose taking collective bargaining away from those people in Wisconsin; 33 percent in favor. I had it reversed. I apologize." In fact, the poll asked if people would oppose a similar law in their own states. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/23/11]
USA Today/Gallup Poll Found "61% Would Oppose A Law Similar To [The] Proposal In Wisconsin"
USA Today/Gallup: "61% Would Oppose A Law In Their State Similar To [The] Proposal In Wisconsin." In the poll conducted on February 21, USA Today and Gallup found that 61 percent of those polled would oppose a law similar to the one Gov. Walker is proposing in Wisconsin. From the article accompanying the poll results (emphasis added):
Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.
Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin have proposed cutting union rights for most state government workers and making them pay more for benefits. Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Iowa and other states with Republican governors are considering similar laws. [USA Today, 2/22/11]
The article included the following graphic:
Fox Uses Dubious Rasmussen Poll To Claim Public Backs Walker, Not Unions
Hannity: "The People Support The Governor." Citing the Rasmussen poll during the February 22 broadcast of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity revealed the results of a show poll on whether his viewers supported Walker or the unions:
HANNITY: That was tremendous. All right, now, we did this poll, it's time to reveal the results of tomorrow's big question tonight. We asked you about Wisconsin's budget woes and we wanted to know who's side you were on, 94 percent side with Governor Walker. The union's got 6 percent of the vote and zero percent of you are still undecided.
We have a very -- there are a lot of equivocation out there. It fits with Rasmussen's poll. The people support the governor. We had this guy on tonight saying no -- they are out of touch. What do you think the unions are missing here in this debate? [Fox News, Hannity, 2/22/11, accessed via Nexis]
O'Reilly Uses Rasmussen Poll To Discredit Gallup Poll. During the February 23 edition of his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly cited the Rasmussen poll in order to discredit a Gallup poll on the same topic:
O'REILLY: But "The New York Times" continues to spin the Wisconsin situation in favor of the union and other media are doing the same thing. A new Gallup poll out today says that most Americans do not want unions to be destroyed. Dick Morris will react to that in just a few moments. However, a Rasmussen Poll released earlier this week says that most Americans who have an opinion side with Governor Walker in his quest to diminish union power. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 2/23/11, accessed via Nexis]
Polling Experts Say Rasmussen's Poll "Biased Responses"
Silver: "Because Of The Problems With Question Design ... Disregard The Rasmussen Reports Poll." Polling expert Nate Silver analyzed the Rasmussen poll and concluded that "[t]he poll, which included people that Rasmussen deemed to be 'likely voters' from across the country, found that 48 percent of respondents agreed more with Mr. Walker in the dispute, while 38 percent agreed more with 'the union for teachers and other state employees.' That question, though, was the fourth one Rasmussen asked in the survey -- and the questions that came before it may have biased the responses." Silver explained:
The issue is clearest with the third question, which asked respondents whether "teachers, firemen and policemen" should be allowed to go on strike. By invoking the prospect of such strikes, which are illegal in many places (especially for the uniformed services) and which many people quite naturally object to, the poll could potentially engender a less sympathetic reaction toward the protesters in Wisconsin. It is widely recognized in the scholarship on the subject, and I have noted before, that earlier questions in a survey can bias the response to later ones by framing an issue in a particular way and by casting one side of the argument in a less favorable light.
The Rasmussen example is more blatant than most. While many teachers have been among the protesters at the State Capitol in Madison, obliging the city to close its schools for days, there have been no reports of reductions in police or fire services, and in fact, uniformed services are specifically exempted from the proposals that the teachers and other public-sector employees are protesting. So bringing in the uniformed services essentially makes No. 3 a talking point posed as a question.
[...]
The second question in the Rasmussen poll found that 36 percent of respondents believe that public-sector employees earn more than private-sector workers in their state, while 21 percent thought public sector workers earned less, and 20 percent thought they earned about the same amount.
In fact, according to an analysis by USA Today, state employees earn about 5 percent less than comparable employees in the private sector, on average, although federal employees receive significantly (20 percent) more.
A poll is not a pop quiz, and the respondents in the survey are not to blame for giving the "wrong" response. Also, the question posed by Rasmussen, which did not consider the type of work performed and asked simply about average salaries in the respondent's home state, was not exactly the same as the one studied by USA Today, which covered the whole country and took account of the the type of work done. Still, to the extent that this misperception about pay levels is widely held and casts public employees in a less favorable light, a survey question that reminds respondents of it could bias responses to later questions.
[...]
Because of the problems with question design, my advice would be simply to disregard the Rasmussen Reports poll, and to view their work with extreme skepticism going forward. [The New York Times, 2/21/11]
Blumenthal: "Rasmussen's Results Raise More Questions Than They Answer." Pollster Mark Blumenthal's analysis of Rasmussen's poll similarly argued that the order in which the questions were asked of respondents could have biased the response. He further argued: "The more typical approach would involve asking a more general version of question one ('how closely have you been following the dispute between the Governor of Wisconsin and the public employee unions in Wisconsin?') and then go immediately to something like question four." [The Huffington Post, 2/21/11]
Other Polls Show Widespread Support For Collective Bargaining Rights
NYT/CBS Poll Shows Overwhelming Support For Public Worker Bargaining Rights. In the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, results show that "Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them." [The New York Times, 2/28/11]
USA Today/Gallup Poll Shows Majority Support For Union Workers. In a USA Today/Gallup Poll from February 22, results show that while Republicans supported limiting the rights of union workers by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin, 79 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents polled were against the limitation of union bargaining rights, representing the majority of total persons polled. As USA Today reported, overall, "[t]he poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law." [USA Today, 2/22/11]
Fox Falsely Suggests State Budget Shortfalls Are Result Of Public Union Collective Bargaining
Kilmeade Suggests That "Union Bargaining Should Be Abolished All Together" Because It's "Breaking The Public Piggy Bank." On the February 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked, "If union bargaining is breaking the public piggy bank, should it be abolished all together?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/28/11]
Liz Cheney: Collective Bargaining "Reduces [Local Officials'] Ability To Actually Manage Their Own Budget." On the February 20 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney stated that "when you've got collective bargaining in place and when you've got the benefits that are basically sealed in, and no ability by those local officials to touch those or affect them, it reduces their ability to actually manage their own budget." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 2/20/11, accessed via Nexis]
Wallace Lets Walker Suggest That Collective Bargaining Is Preventing States From Balancing Budgets. On the February 20 edition of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace hosted Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to claim that state governments are facing budget crises because of collective bargaining. From Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Yes, but I don't understand. If it's a money issue and balancing the budget and they are willing to concede on the money issues, why isn't that enough? Why do you also have to take back some of their collective bargaining rights?
WALKER: Well, they aren't because, in the end, they can say that, but that's really a red herring. The same groups back in December, after election, before I was sworn in, tried to ram through literally in a lame duck session employee contracts that would have locked things in before I got there. So, they're not really interested. But more critically, I was a county executive, an elected official in Milwaukee County, a county that's never elected Republicans before -- I was there for three different elections because we tried to tackle these very same issues.
And what stood in the way time and time again was collective bargaining. We've got over 1,000 municipalities, 424 school districts, about 72 counties in the state, all of which need to have the power to be able to offset what's going to happen in Wisconsin next week, just like New York, in California, wherever else, has been doing, and that's cutting billions of dollars from local governments.
The difference is, unlike those other states, I want to give those local governments the tools they need to balance the budget now and in the future. They can't do that with the current collective bargaining laws in the state. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 2/20/11]
ABC: "No Correlation" Between Budget Shortfalls And Collective Bargaining Rights
McCartin: Contention That "We Can No Longer Afford Collective Bargaining" Is "Bogus." In a February 19 New Republic article, Joseph McCartin, an associate professor of history and director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, wrote that the contention that "[w]e can no longer afford collective bargaining" is "bogus":
[I]n the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, conservative, anti-labor politicians like Governor Walker are trying out a new and potentially more potent anti-union argument: We can no longer afford collective bargaining. The wages, health benefits, and pensions of government workers, these opponents say, are driving states into deep and dangerous deficits.
Yet this contention is every bit as bogus as the alarmist arguments put forth by the anti-union crusaders of the 1970s. Contrary to Walker's assertion, there is no direct correlation between public-sector collective bargaining and yawning state budget deficits. According to data gathered by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, while Wisconsin projects a state budget deficit of 12.8 percent for FY 2012, North Carolina, which does not allow government workers to bargain, faces a significantly higher deficit: 20 percent. Ohio, whose Republican governor John Kasich has also made clear his desire to roll back collective bargaining, has a deficit that is only about half the size of non-union North Carolina's. Clearly, then, state budget deficits we are now witnessing are not the product of collective bargaining, but rather reflect the differential impact of the current recession on individual states, as well as the integrity of state fiscal practices (such as whether they raise enough in taxes to pay for the essential services they provide). [The New Republic, 2/19/11, italics in original]
Tapper: "There Is No Correlation" Between Collective Bargaining Rights And State Deficits. On the February 27 edition of ABC's This Week, guest-host Jake Tapper stated: "There is no correlation, according to statistics, between a state's ability to collectively bargain with its public employees and whether or not they have a budget deficit." Tapper also cited McCartin's New Republic article. [ABC, This Week, 2/27/11]
Toledo Law Professor: "There's No Correlation Between Collective Bargaining And The State Budget Crises." A February 28 Fortune article quoted University of Toledo College Of Law professor Joseph Slater as saying: "It's easy to paint a portrait of public workers as overpaid, not working very hard and being fat cats on the tax dollar. But there's no correlation between collective bargaining and the state budget crises." He further rebutted the claim that state pension obligations are the result of collective bargaining:
Union critics, such as James Sherk, a labor economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, call union benefits "gold-plated" and far more generous than what other workers receive -- using money, he maintains, that should be spent on services or returned to taxpayers.
Public unions, he says, "don't negotiate over how to divide profits, they negotiate for the government to spend more on their members."
[...]
Despite what are viewed as steep overruns generated by public benefits programs, are unions and public employee benefits really to blame for the enormous budget crises throughout the nation?
"Unionized workers didn't sow the seeds of the economic downturn, deregulation of the financial industry did," says Robert Bruno, a University of Illinois professor of labor and employment relations. "We've suffered billions in losses because of greed, gross mismanagement and illegal activity in the financial industry."
"Unions are an easy target because the largest cost in a state budget is always labor," says Bruno, who studies employee and union issues. "Why are we scapegoating teachers? Is the American love affair with capitalism so irrational that it knows no bounds?"
Joseph Slater at Toledo's law school agrees: "It's easy to paint a portrait of public workers as overpaid, not working very hard and being fat cats on the tax dollar. But there's no correlation between collective bargaining and the state budget crises."
For example, huge state pension obligations - which have grabbed headlines because of state underfunding, and which Sherk points to as a major deficit-maker for states, are not the result of collective bargaining.
"The vast majority of states have pensions set by law, not by collective bargaining," Slater says. "So it's a common misperception that these costs are a result of collective bargaining." [Fortune, 2/28/11]
Fox Repeatedly Conceals Key Details About Guests Criticizing Wisconsin Protesters
Fox Bills GOP Senate Candidate, Local GOP Officeholder As Concerned Parents. Fox News hosted Dave Westlake and Amber Hahn, who were both identified as "Wisconsin parent[s]." Fox did not disclose that Westlake was a 2010 Republican Senate candidate and Han was the treasurer for the Columbia County, Wisconsin, Republican Party. [Media Matters, 3/1/11]
Fox Suggests CEO Of Multinational Company Represents "Small Businesses." Fox hosted Gary Reynolds, CEO of GMR Marketing to criticize protesters for "attacking small businesses who supported and support Governor Scott Walker," in the words of Fox co-host Brian Kilmeade. However, GMR Marketing says it has 24 offices in 12 countries and that it is "the world's largest engagement marketing agency." The company lists Sony, Microsoft, Bank of America and Visa among its clients. [Media Matters, 3/1/11]
<\snark>
Why oh why did my fellow Ohioans elect this corporate slug!!!???
Because they want to try and save the state. So simple , even a liberal can understand it.
But for the record, Walker did address collective bargaining in his campaign, so it should be no surprise that he is now attempting to pull back on some union benifits.
Video off Fox of riot police beating the protesters back, graffiti covered building and palm trees in the bachground. That video was edited for one purpose. Yes Fox lies.
http://www.facebook.com/kdlmac?ref=ts#!/video/video.php?v=10150420660215398&oid=31709165325&comments
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/no-fox-news-did-not-lie-with-wisconsin-palm-tree-violent-protest-video/
I'm tired of lies from people like you and Colbert who also ran with this story. He should rename his show, "the Grayson Report"
But you are right about one thing, that video was indeed edited for one purpose and that purpose is to distort it to fit the liberal agenda and libel Fox .
i'd love someone to post the salaries of the talking heads...that would be great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4
The clip purports to be about protests in Wisconsin. What's with the palm trees in the background at 0:15? Also, when did they move the sculpture that is in front of the Thompson Center in Chicago to Madison (see about 0:30 thru 0:35)?
"Well, I know that footage was of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, but the graphic said 'Government' so I don't see what the fuss is by using it in a story about the United States President, right?"
Give me a break!
Are you telling me that after weeks of these protests being in the national spotlight, and every major news organization and wire service having a crew out there covering the story, that the number one rated TV cable news service doesn't have adequate B-roll of the event?
Or is it that they don't have the type of footage they WANT to push their slanted coverage?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/no-fox-news-did-not-lie-with-wisconsin-palm-tree-violent-protest-video/
crickets......... no libs in sight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4
The clip purports to be about protests in Wisconsin. What's with the palm trees in the background at 0:15? Also, when did they move the sculpture that is in front of the Thompson Center in Chicago to Madison (see about 0:30 thru 0:35)?
Just embrace what these people say instead of trying to mold it into something more palatable. Jeesh.
Upon reading his comment, I can't really claim that RightON is misrepresenting what Chanin said in the same way that Hannity did. And to be fair, Chanin is claiming that the union process and NEA is the most important thing. He's not saying he doesn't care about children. He's claiming that he has things that he places above the education and the kids and etc, etc, etc.
As well, to be fair, RightON isn't claiming Hannity's spin as his own. He's simply pointing out that Chanin is most concerned with power and that MMFA or other 'liberals' are doing spinning of their own. I don't necessarily agree on that, but it's somewhat important to make the distinction of what Hannity is saying and what RightON is saying here, and not to lump them both together.
What does "His entire speech and the tone of it was about the power and the muscle of the NEA union and how that is their greatest achievement. Not the students, the union" mean?
And you agree that Chanin "has things that he places above the education and the kids"? What are these things and what do you mean by "above"?
Please, help me see through all the intricacies and lay out your position regarding this thread or Chanin or the NEA or one of MMFA's several points or whatever your point might be if you have one.
I've also asked for your position below, so anywhere on this thread would be great.
Right ON's expression is not even black and white, just muddy. The closest I could describe it from what I see here is self-assured. Won't back it up, but self-assured, pretending to call it like it is while conveniently avoiding defense.
I'm not trying to scare right ON away, appealing for thought, for reasoning, for goodness sake. You think--I see you express that in your posts. Wouldn't it be great to see whoever-it-is actually debate with you from that (possibly opposing, we don't know) point of view?
So, if my position is that unclear to you, then I'd suggest removing the thorn from under your skin and move on. If not, enjoy.
Here's my position: right ON 2 is a coward.
You make vague statements, unwilling to back up what you say. When you get called on it, you respond with one of two things: nothing, or more vague and maybe unrelated statements. When asked for clarification, this thread is an example of what happens: either no response, or, for example, "Why don't you read dyklep's recap above about my position, that is about as clear as it gets. If it's not enough for you, well, too bad." That's the best you can do? The best answer you came up with regarding a position here on anything was to refer to somebody else's post. I think you have no intention of stating your position, because you don't want to get caught having to defend it.
If you would like to debate, that would be fantastic. The reason for debate is to gain clarity on a topic and that clarity can steer everybody toward a solution. Discussion with you involves the gain of no clarity and is solution-less--it doesn't even rate for a poor solution.
Maybe your overall position is indeed to avoid debate and avoid solution, to be vaguely contrarian and maybe that satisfies your goal. If so, it's sometimes good exercise to refute some of your statements regarding your non-position, because it stimulates research, and that can provide clarity. It would shed no light on your non-position, but helps others with the critical-thinking process.
You are a coward. You never explain your position. That is my position.
Please visit the world of debate, right ON 2, it is so much more valuable and satisfying than whatever it is you do.
That's....something?
"right ON" said
Once again liberals have to run from their own words. This NEA guy Chanin's remarks back in 2009. Oh no, no, no, that's not what he meant at all.
He clearly stated that we liberals were trying to run from Chanin's words. That's why I wrote
If one embraces what Chanin says, one comes away with the original meaning. If one strips Chanin's comments of their context, one comes away with Hannity's and your spin.
Cool! So you support the unions?
*Gasp!* The horror!
Not only that but it's inconceivable that helping the teachers might be the best way to help the kids, right?
Let the teachers teach the kids, let the union officials fight for the teachers. Why does this get so complicated for right wingers? Aren't there other parts of the economy and middle class workers the Wall Street corporate investor class can pillage and destroy in the meantime?
Greyson lost by the way. Kind of irrelevant to be chiding people for supporting someone who isn't even in power anymore.
Also, feel free to explain how you could possibly defend Fox News showing footage of other protests while talking about the Wisconsin protests.
You're a little slow on the draw today, almost an hour late with your first post. MMFA made 13 other points on this thread that you haven't yet addressed. Catch up!
But then liberals always default to the hate Fox bone in their body instead of looking at what they, and MMfA, are actually trying to defend.
Please, explain what you mean by "pump up the union's power" and the milestones reached. What does "and how far that has come" mean? What is relevant about Chanin's early days in the 60's?
I LOVE Hannity! He's hilarious!
I don't care what "they" are defending, I'm just trying to get clarification from you.
"He's simply pointing out that Chanin is most concerned with power"--dkylep
Is that where you're at? That's a thousand miles wide. Please explain. Personal power? Union power? Power over whom? He's simply ambitious? What is the power for?
It seems like you want to explain Chanin's position, but never quite get there.
Oh, by the way, what's your position on Chanin and the NEA and the children? I get something about power and muscle.
What's your position on:
and their fourteen or so points they make?
He laid out his priorities and what he views as the prideful gains to achieving more power, I only said that people who agree with him should embrace what he said, not try and spin it otherwise.
It wasn't the meaning that you assigned to it or are still giving it, and I clearly pointed that out hours ago.
You're the one spinning it here. That's been made clear by 4 different posters. You've devolved into a liar.
Do you contend in your second sentence that the NEA wants to accumulate power for power's sake, to savor this nebulous entity, to taste something that has influence over the whole planet or some little part? I don't understand. What is this "power" and what is it used to accomplish? Is power the goal in itself?
Here's where it's at: Your use of the word "power," used both in the quote above and here, is to make it a pejorative, as Jose4 did below with the word "group." You associate Chanin and the NEA with this [power is the priority, power = bad] interpretation. You try to color "power" as bad in this case to color Chanin and the NEA as bad.
The problem for your argument is that you have to leave the term non-specific, even undefined at this point in time, because the pejorative use is not what Chanin was talking about. You went after semantics instead of what he said, because you have nothing. Well, maybe you have anti-union sentiment (of course we don't really know), but you have nothing to counter with but word usage.
The power Chanin speaks of is the the instrument that supports their goals, stated up and down this thread and within his quote, such as supporting labor rights and closing the educational achievement gap among different demographics. And the power is the power to negotiate from a position of respect and to communicate broadly due to being populous, decently-funded, and well-organized, with clearly-stated, transparent goals, backed up by a decent morality. The power supports their goals, it does not supersede them. Calling the power or the goals primary or secondary is irrelevant; they are integral.
That's good power.
The bad power that you refer to lies elsewhere. That is power used differently, isn't it? How? Maybe an example of it is elsewhere in this topic regarding Fox News and the Wisconsin budget debate. A little help here?
What does that even mean? What right wing political hack has opened this whole new can of conveniently timed and fact free instant outrage?
You right wingers are just like robots, push a button and you just run through the program without question. There are always these vague weird stories about stuff that happened decades ago whenever someone enters the corporate conservative movement's cross hairs, and you guys ALWAYS fall for it. Doesn't matter if it's true, because they know the robots will run through the program and do the damage needed on command.
I personally think that ANY type of information should be inspected and should be subject to scrutiny, but this fetish with Soros is just unclean.
"If Media Matters had integrity they would have an equal amount if not more topics from MSNBC."
True, if they wanted to be, dare I say, Fair, and somewhat Balanced, they would attack FOX News and MSNBC somewhat equally, (as comedy outlets the Daily Show and the Colbert Report do, as well as small-time journalists for sites like the Christian Science Monitor) but that is not this site's purpose or claim. They are not news, they are not opinion, they are strictly anti-FOX. Media Matters was created to be a watchdog for anything FOX does wrong, and while they do tend to overdo it on several topics, it does seem that they try to expose what they honestly believe to be the truth. Whether being self-proclaimed FOXhunters is noble or not is up for individual debate.
"This is simply an attempt by the leftist fringe to spin their own agenda on people who have little in their heads."
Allow me to make your statement correct:
"This is an attempt by fringe individuals with left-leaning ideals to spin their own agenda of anti-FOX propaganda on the public."
Now I will similarly assess your post:
"This is an attempt by a brainwashed conservative-leaning individual to insult the left wing of American politics simply because no one on either side is big enough to agree with one another. He calls the vast public "people who have little in their heads" because it is easier to insult someone and write them off than it is to try to understand them. His username itself belies his ignorance, as commiesoros is doubtlessly unknowing of how much businessman George Soros has done to further the cause of democracy and the capitalist system that made him such a wealthy individual."
I am not attacking you, my friend (in fact this next section is in NO WAY aimed specifically at you), everyone here simply needs to think before we all post. This site is quickly becoming s ignorant and sometimes violent as the FOX News, MSNBC, and HuffPo comment boards. We need to remember that this site was supposed to fight ignorance in the form of one 24-hour news/opinion station's misconceptions or, in some instances, blatant lies and inexcusable deception or vitriol. I encourage those who cannot argue a point validly not to argue it at all.
If it's not repeating what Fox News, Limbaugh, and the Heritage foundation are saying verbatim, it's "liberal".
If they cover a story without a clear, overwhelming conservative bias, it's "liberal".
If they don't go out of their way to bring up every false meme crazy conspiracy or unproven scandal that anyone on any right wing show has ever uttered about a particular liberal or democrat, it's "liberal".
If they are anything but full blown, ultra conservative, screeching reactionary right wing, it's "liberal".
Keep those fun facts in mind.
You do know who he is, don't you? His dad, Malcolm Forbes, was gay, but closeted and not liberal.
In a previous career I bought full page ads for a rather large computer company in Forbes. I can assure you that the ad sales guys would have been insulted if I suggested they were within a few percent on the conservative side of liberal.
If the union doesn't want what an individual employee wants, the union will never pass it on to the employer.
Unions destroy individual freedom in favor of the group. This is contrary to the core of our Constitution. I see no other outcome than to completely rid ourselves of compulsory collective bargaining.
Are you an anarchist?
Collective bargaining is for the group/collective/commune and there was a grand experiment to make Communism work, it didn't work.
I am an individual who believes in individual freedom.
Unions establish democracy amongst workers if a majority of them favor the benefits of organization.
The potential members vote on whether or not to organize a union. The members vote to elect fellow members to positions of leadership. The members vote on the contract proposal that leadership was able to negotiate with management. The members vote on whether or not to strike (unless strike/lockout is forbidden by the contract). The members vote on concessions.
The public employees in Wisconsin have a deferred compensation plan for their pensions. In other words, instead of pay, they have a portion of their salary put into a state pension fund for the State to hold until they retire. It's THE WORKER'S MONEY, not the State's or the taxpayers. If the State diverts the funds they are required to make up the shortfall, but that's not the worker's fault. It's the State's fault.
Meanwhile the Mainstream Media is just repeating what Walker and other Republicans are saying as if it were fact.
John
No, but are you one of them? I get that you "believe in individual freedom," but I'm trying to figure out how far you take it. The phrase is appealing on its face, but "destroy individual freedom in favor of the group" makes a pejorative out of the word "group," so you have disdain for "the group." So, what groups do you not like? Unions? All governments--state, local, and federal? Anything centralized at all? Are you an anarchist? But the Constitution provides for lots of different "groups." Maybe you would tell us which are the good groups in America.
I like that
["collective bargaining" > group > collective > Communism > didn't work]
association string. I think that puts you only two degrees from Kevin Bacon.
Ah here we go again with that very dull-minded, black and white thinking. Either you are a total Machiavellian believer in every man for himself, or you are a disciple of Karl Marx. No reasonable middle ground, and no boundaries of logic apply.
I couldn't imagine being so utterly limited in my thought process.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law. Elected union represntatives negotiating on behalf of the membership has nothing to do with the first amendment.
I wonder how well the anti-union fervor of the FOX NEWS personalities (and their paid "commentators") would match up with their answers to the following:
1 - Okay, <name of FOX NEWS employee>, are you willing to work for FOX NEWS without a contract?
2 - Are you willing to allow FOX NEWS to change the terms of your contract without notice?
3 - Are you willing to allow FOX NEWS to summarily void your contract without notice?
4 - Are you willing to let FOX NEWS prohibit you from using an agent to negotiate your contract?
5 - Will your agent work for the same percentage of your salary that the average union worker pays for union representation?
BTW, to all the anti-union posters above who're ranting about the evils of unions, please take some time and learn a little history of unions in America.
I know, I know, it might tweak your paradigms a bit, but you'll sound a lot less stupid once you learn the facts, which is not what you're hearing from the babblers at FOX NEWS.