Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Walker Proves Unions Can't Win On The Facts

If you were watching the Wisconsin election results last night, you’ve no doubt heard that taxpayer rights won against union scare tactics. Governor Scott Walker beat back a union-funded attempt at a recall with 53% of the vote.

Of course, that brought liberals to wonder how this could happen, with one brainwashed union member proclaiming democracy was dead:

But even if you buy the argument that individuals supported Barrett and only the rich voted for Walker, census data shows you’re out of your mind. If the top 53% of Wisconsin residents were the only ones who voted for Walker, then those making a median family income of roughly $40,000 or more cast their ballots for the incumbent.

Not exactly a “rich” salary. Then again, with Walker defending taxpayer rights, that 53% looks like another number we’ve seen.

On top of such obvious hysterics, many liberals attacked the money. Ed Schultz—a man whose lack of journalistic balance would make Keith Olbermann look impartial—lambasted the disparity between the two campaigns, claiming that the only reason Barrett lost was because he was outspent by $27 million.

So a $27 million gap is what it takes to “buy” an election, huh? Perhaps Mr. Schultz, or any other liberal with a short memory, would like to recount for us exactly how much unions and interest groups outspent their opposition on Issue 2 just a few short months ago…

Oh, right. That was a $30 million disparity.

By Ed Schultz’s own logic, unions bought the election last year. But, of course, liberals still cry foul. You see, it’s the interest groups that funded Scott Walker, while individuals funded the anti-Issue 2 campaign.

Wrong again.

Walker raised an astounding 91% of his donations from individuals. The union-front group “We Are Ohio” raised an abysmal 1.2% of their donations from individuals.

In other words, attacking the money isn’t going to work unless liberals are willing to admit they bought Issue 2. Any takers? Didn’t think so.

So what really was the difference for Walker that gave him the edge in Wisconsin, while Senate Bill 5 was defeated here in Ohio? Bytor3BP answered that pretty succinctly last night on Twitter:

The cold, hard truth of the matter is that Senate Bill 5 was never given a chance to show what it could have done for Ohio’s communities and schools. Unions attacked it right and left, saying it would lead to death and destruction; however, our fact checking—and PolitiFact’s as well—showed they were lying at every turn.

The facts bore out that Issue 2 would have put Ohio in a better position. Just look at the amazing things Walker has done in Wisconsin, with the Badger State saving over $1 billion and another 6500 teachers from being laid off.

Given the opportunity to work, Senate Bill 5 would have made Ohio a safer place to live and work, better place to send our children to school, and a more attractive place for businesses to locate. Just like Wisconsin is today.

But that’s not where we’re at. Instead, if you picked up the Cincinnati Enquirer today, you found that the city is in debt, and potentially facing more layoffs.

Apply the reasonable reforms of Senate Bill 5 to the situation? By looking at just the AFSCME contract on file with the State Employment Relations Board—a contract that covers less than half of Cincinnati’s city workers—Senate Bill 5 would have saved taxpayers an estimated $13.7 million.

Simple pension and healthcare reforms would have put Cincinnati in a better position than it is today. Attacking that makes for an awfully tough sell to voters.

But in the end, that’s why unions spent so much in Ohio—they couldn’t afford to let taxpayers see the benefits that Senate Bill 5 would have brought to their communities. Because if voters had real-life examples of government reforms saving jobs and tax dollars, well, unions lose that fight every day, and twice on Tuesdays.

Actually, if you count those two California cities, that makes three.

Either way, union scare tactics don’t stand a chance against an educated electorate.

Cross-posted on GOHP Blog.


  1. +1000

    Absolutely nailed it. Great post.

  2. So what you're saying is... A bunch of commercials turned Ohioans into a bunch of braindead, uneducated voters? And since wisconsin didn't recall walker that makes them an educated electorate?

    1. Well if it looks like and it smells like then maybe. They wern't commericals in Ohio they were lies and more lies. Not a single one of their commericals was factual.

    2. That's not the point we're making at all. What we're saying is, had SB5 taken effect, and voters seen all the good it would have done, then unions wouldn't have been able to lie about it.

    3. @GOHP Yes exactly. I will NEVER understand the decision to approve and sign SB5 early enough to allow it to be subject to 2011 referendum. What it the hell were Kasich his team thinking? It seemed drop dead obvious that they should have forced it into 2012 and allowed voters a chance to see the wisdom of it. It was also as serious mistake to include law enforcement and other safety personnel in it. IMO.

    4. @Fargo44 Unfortunately, that's not how a referendum works. Once the bill was signed, it had 90 days to take effect. If petitions were submitted for referendum within that 90 days (and they would have been regardless of when the bill was signed), then the bill doesn't go into effect regardless of when it's signed.

      As for Kasich, I, personally, hold him fairly harmless and place the blame squarely on the Senate. If given the chance for a do-over, I think Kasich & his team would have gone about it a lot differently. There were just a few folks in the Senate that thought they were smarter. IMO anyway.

    5. I certainly agree on the sentiments about how SB5 was handled in the Ohio Senate -- amateurish and clumsy. I fault my own senator for biting off more than could be chewed -- but in contrast there were some RINO's in the senate and a back-stabbing ORP Central Committee working against it.
      I think they should have forced aggressive concessions on health insurance and retirement contributions and made public union dues voluntary in Ohio. Those would have been a big fist step that everyone could have supported.

  3. Kind of like the great-grandmother being portrayed as supporting issue 2? The unions would have agreed to concessions. They were under agreed-upon concessions from the Strickland administration when BS5 was passed. It was an unneccesary power grab and voters saw through it. I have to disagree with the assertion that almost 70% of Ohio voters are "brainwashed." If you think the people in this state are so stupid, why are you still here? Your boy Kasich threw around a bunch of lies. Oh here's one:

    1. The argument made by the great-grandmother was only applicable the other way around. Was the ad in poor taste? Maybe. But that doesn't make it any less true.

      Unlike nearly everything that came from the mouth of "We are Ohio."


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.