Economists For Sale

Economists widely believe themselves to be social scientists.  And gosh-darn rigorous scientists at that – I mean just look at all that esoteric math!  Why, why it looks just like physics!  (well, 19th century physics at least).   As everybody knows, real scientists observe things. They observe nature, experiments, phenomena.Economists are supposed to observe and explain how things get sold and why prices are they way are.

The enterprising economics department at Florida State University has taken it a step further.  Now the economists aren’t just observers of sales anymore.  They are what’s being sold.  Not only that, but the content of what they teach is for sale.  FSU has determined that the price of being able to tell FSU who is allowed to teach economics is apparently $1.5 million.  That’s the price FSU got for selling the soul and integrity of their economics department.  I’ll let the TampBay.com , a unit of  the St.Petersburg Times report:

A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university.

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University’s economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting “political economy and free enterprise.”

Traditionally, university donors have little official input into choosing the person who fills a chair they’ve funded. The power of university faculty and officials to choose professors without outside interference is considered a hallmark of academic freedom.

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it’s not happy with the faculty’s choice or if the hires don’t meet “objectives” set by Koch during annual evaluations.

The Koch Bros, for those who don’t recall or aren’t aware, are the people who funded the Republican effort in Wisconsin to repeal workers’ rights. The Koch Brothers have also basically bankrolled the Tea Party movement. From the same article:

Charles, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries in Wichita, Kan., cofounded the Cato Institute, a policymaking group, in 1977. His brother serves on the board. David, who lives in Manhattan and is Koch Industries’ executive vice president, in 2004 started the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which has worked closely with the tea party movement.

The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, to which he has given as much as $80 million a year, has focused on “advancing social progress and well-being” through grants to about 150 universities. But in the past, most colleges, including Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, received just a few thousand dollars.

The big exception has been George Mason University, a public university in Virginia which has received more than $30 million from Koch over the past 20 years. At George Mason, Koch’s foundation has underwritten the Mercatus Center, whose faculty study “how institutions affect the freedom to prosper.”

When President George W. Bush identified 23 regulations he wanted to eliminate, 14 had been initially suggested by Mercatus scholars. In a New Yorker profile of the Koch brothers in August, Rob Stein, a Democratic strategist, called Mercatus “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.”

As this story has become widespread on the Web the past few days, many people have been commenting to the effect that “all the  Koch brothers are doing is trying to counter the widespread liberal bias in academia”.  There are lots of problems with that point of view.  First, this isn’t just about a point of view. It’s about the corruption of academic freedom and censorship of what people can learn.  It’s censorship by the rich.  Second, regardless of whether there’s a widespread liberal bias in the rest of academia, there clearly isn’t a liberal bias in economics academia.  Instead, academic economists tend to be heavily right-wing and biased towards free markets.  Left-oriented or progressive academic economists have a much harder time getting a job in economic academic departments.

This isn’t really a new phenomenon – the selling of economists.  The documentary Inside Job does a pretty good of describing just how banking money and interests have influenced and corrupted academic economic research and policy advice.  All that FSU has done is raise it to a new level.

I hope you are as appalled at this blatant attempt to impose rich-guy censorship on what research gets done and what students are allowed to hear as I am.  If you are, you might want to keep that in mind when you shop for consumer paper products.  Think twice before buying those Georgia Pacific brands like Dixie Cups, Ultra, Angel Soft and Brawny.  The Kochs own G-P among a lot of other businesses like oil pipelines.

Finally Clarity on Wisconsin’s Real Objective: Bust Unions

Menzie Chinn reports more dispatches from Wisconsin, this time on recent Congressional testimony by Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker.  It’s clear the union-busting efforting in Wisconsin is NOT about the state budget or saving money.  It’s ideological. It’s opposition to unions period.  The budget is and was irrelevant. It was pure propaganda by Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans to cover their real objectives.  This is shock doctrine stuff.  Neo-liberals used to force this kind of undemocratic social change onto third-world and developing nations. Now they do it here.

That is Governor Walker’s answer to the question of how much money rescinding collective bargaining for public unions saves the state government. From the Capital Times:

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.

[Emphasis added — mdc]

Wisconsin Increasingly Looks Like Bizarro World

A couple items from Wisconsin. Menzie Chinn points out how governor Scott Walker, who claims a deficit to be the compelling reason for eliminating collective bargaining rights for public workers, also thinks the way to save money is to have government ignore cost vs. benefit analyses when making decisions.  Actually, Walker doesn’t even want the analysis done in the first place. His mind is made up.  Private contractors will always be cheaper in his eyes, and he doesn’t need any stinkin’ facts or analyses to get in the way.

Digression: Eliminating Benefit-Cost Analysis?

Here is something that struck me — as someone who teaches in a public affairs school with courses in policy analysis — as odd, particularly in a time when resources are limited. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Gov. Scott Walker’s budget proposal would eliminate a law requiring state agencies to study the costs and benefits of outsourcing work.

That provision and others in the GOP governor’s 2011-’13 budget drew questions from both Republicans and Democrats at a briefing Tuesday before the Legislature’s budget-writing committee.

Current law says agencies must compare the costs of having private contractors do work costing more than $25,000 against what it would cost to have state workers do the job.

Speaking to the Joint Finance Committee, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said that the law was cumbersome and required an analysis of contractor costs to be done even in cases where state workers couldn’t do the work.

“We did a cost-benefit analysis on the cost-benefit analysis and found it was costing us money,” Huebsch told the committee.

That analysis is definitely one I would love to see. (I am hopeful that the “we” in the passage refers to him and staff.) The article continues.

Under Walker’s bill, the cost-benefit analyses would be retained only for engineering services at the state Department of Transportation.

The proposed change drew questions from Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon) and Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee). Olsen said he didn’t want to burden state agencies with red tape but also wanted to make sure that agencies weren’t spending money unwisely in a time of tight budgets.

“Can you explain why, when we’re in a time of serious fiscal trouble, we would not want to do a serious cost-benefit analysis? . . . When you are cutting government and cutting programs, you can’t afford to make mistakes,” Olsen said.

In May 2009, a legislative audit found that the state Department of Transportation outsourced 125 construction engineering projects over 16 months even though it determined each one of them could have been done for less using state workers.

Using state workers instead of outsourced engineers could have saved $1.2 million during that period, the Legislative Audit Bureau report found.

State officials are often reluctant to hire more workers because of concerns that they will have to pay those costs for years into the future. Contractors, while sometimes more expensive, are paid on a project-by-project basis.

For those interested in learning about CBA, see this collection.

It’s a strange way to get more value out of government money. But then this is the same governor who thinks selling off state-owned assets without a competitive bidding process will get the best price for the state.

In the same posting at Econbrowser, Chinn points out that the state government has chosen to defy a court judge, not once but twice, and go ahead with implementation of a law against the judge’s injunction.  The state is preparing to spend thousands of dollars fighting the judge and appealing when all they really need to do is pass the law in the legislature again, only this time conforming to the state’s open meetings law.

It’s not about the state deficit in Wisconsin. It’s about power and cronyism.  It clearly isn’t about the rule of law.

 

Shock Doctrine and Wisconsin and Michigan

Author Naomi Klein wrote a book a few years ago called Shock Doctrine.  It is a powerful antidote to the pro-free markets, pro-globalization stories of authors such as Daniel Yergin and Stanislaw who wrote Commanding Heights.  I wish Shock Doctrine were a full-length video to juxtaposition against Commanding Heights. In the book, Klein documents how repeatedly over a 40 year period various crises have been exploited by right-wing, free-market fundamentalists to implement policies that could not be implemented via ordinary democratic means.  Further, Klein documents how the exploitation of these crises was not accidental. It was intentional. Amy Goodman notes of the book:

In it, she reveals how those in power use times of crisis to push through undemocratic, radical, free market economic policies.

The book, published in early 2008, mostly deals with crises in other countries. Some were political, some economic, some war-related, and some natural disasters. It is a disturbing and yet riveting tale.  The “reforms” forced through in country after country inevitably work to the benefit of the global elite corporations and banks. Yet in the book most of the crises and forced “reforms” are in either poor or developing countries. It’s possible to read the book and think that we in the developed, industrialized countries are immune to such anti-democratic exploitation of either real or contrived crises.  Yes, Klein offers the example of Katrina striking New Orleans to illustrate that it “can happen here”, yet it’s possible to think not. Now it’s time to think again.

Now it’s 2011 and the crises have come to the U.S. and other developed countries. In the U.K., a new conservative government has chosen to whip up a fear of a sovereign debt crisis. “We don’t want to be like Greece”, despite the reality that the U.K., having it’s own currency, can never be in the circumstances Greece is.  They are exploiting the fear of crisis to mount a massive dismantling of public benefits that would not otherwise be possible. A dismantling they didn’t explain prior to the election.

But what I want to observe is that Shock Doctrine tactics have come to the U.S.  In Congress, Republicans are claiming the government is “broke” despite the evidence that the government can borrow unlimited amounts at near-zero interest rates and despite the fact that the U.S. cannot go “broke”. But they are using this supposed “crisis” to try to reduce or dismantle a fundamentally sound, socially beneficial program like Social Security. Heck, even if there were a budget crisis for the government, Social Security isn’t the cause and cutting isn’t the solution.  Yet the tactic here is pure shock doctrine.

I’ve mentioned before how we’re seeing Shock Doctrine in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states that are attempting to repeal collective bargaining rights for public workers and to bust unions is pure Shock Doctrine. There is now an extensive interview with Naomi Klein where she talks about these events:

we are seeing right-wing ideologues across the country using economic crisis as a pretext to really wage a kind of a final battle in a 50-year war against trade unions, where we’ve seen membership in trade unions drop precipitously. And public sector unions are the last labor stronghold, and they’re going after it. And these governors did not run elections promising to do these radical actions, but they are using the pretext of crisis to do things that they couldn’t get elected promising to do.

And, you know, that’s the core argument of and the thesis of the book, is not that there’s something wrong with responding to a crisis decisively. Crises demand decisive responses. The issue is this backhanded attempt to use a crisis to centralize power, to subvert democracy, to avoid public debate, to say, “We have no time for democracy. It’s just too messy. It doesn’t matter what you want. We have no choice. We just have to ram it through.” And we’re seeing this in 16 states. I mean, it’s impossible to keep track of it. It’s happening on such a huge scale.

Teachers’ unions are getting the worst of it. March 8th was International Women’s Day. This is—you know, as you pointed out on your show, it’s overwhelmingly women who are providing the services that are under attack. It’s not just labor that’s under attack; it’s the services that the labor is providing that’s under attack: it’s healthcare, it’s education, it’s those fundamental care-giving services across the country, which could be profitable if they were privatized.

Later in the interview, Klein touches on what’s happening here in Michigan. In Michigan we have Governor Rick Snyder, a man who won a landslide by specifically not telling anyone what he planned to do other than “re-invent” Michigan.  Yet within days of taking office he announces plans to raise taxes on senior citizens and poor people. He further cuts state funding of local governments and school districts. Then he and the Republican legislature pass a new law to allow the governor to appoint an “emergency financial manager” with dictatorial powers to take over any local government or school district in financial trouble. All of this it is claimed is necessary because of a budget “crisis”.  Yet the budget “crisis” is itself largely the result of Snyder’s own proposal to repeal existing business taxes and replace them with business taxes that collect much less money.  It’s a crisis that Snyder largely creates and then proposes to “solve” by repealing voters rights’ to run their own local governments.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me ask you about Michigan. About a thousand people rallied in Michigan—

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN:—reminiscent of Wisconsin. Talk about the proposal there.

NAOMI KLEIN: … there’s so much going on that these extraordinary measures are just getting lost in the shuffle. But in Michigan, there is a bill that’s already passed the House. It’s on the verge of passing the Senate. And I’ll just read you some excerpts from it. It says that in the case of an economic crisis, that the governor has the authority to authorize the emergency manager—this is somebody who would be appointed—to reject, modify or terminate the terms of an existing contract or collective bargaining agreement, authorize the emergency manager for a municipal government—OK, so we’re not—we’re talking about towns, municipalities across the state—to disincorporate. So, an appointed official with the ability to dissolve an elected body, when they want to.

AMY GOODMAN: A municipal government.

NAOMI KLEIN: A municipal government. And it says specifically, “or dissolve the municipal government.” So we’ve seen this happening with school boards, saying, “OK, this is a failing school board. We’re taking over. We’re dissolving it. We’re canceling the contracts.” You know, what this reminds me of is New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, when the teachers were fired en masse and then it became a laboratory for charter schools. You know, people in New Orleans—and you know this, Amy—warned us. They said, “What’s happening to us is going to happen to you.”

Think of the power now concentrated in the Governor.  If any local government or school district doesn’t do what Governor Snyder wants, if the local voters don’t want their schools run the way Snyder does, then Snyder cuts the funding to the school district/city.  They fall into “financial trouble”.  Snyder appoints a crony as financial manager.  The financial manager can go so far as to privatize the entire city and dissolve the entire existence of the city.  So much for popular will and voters speaking in a democracy.  Meanwhile, Snyder, the Governor becomes a very, very powerful man. And power can always be converted into great wealth.  Welcome to the banana republic and crony capitalism. Outcomes no voter would support if given a choice. Courtesy of the Shock Doctrine.

How Come Conservatives Only Hate Some “Unions”?

Michael Perelman writes an excellent post on the roots of the current conservative efforts to roll-back collective bargaining rights for public workers. (See the Michael’s full post after the ‘more” button). Namely, the target right now is public sector workers but the effort is the same effort that traces back to the 1960’s as concerted effort of the right-wing.  The idea pushed was that by eliminating workers’ rights and increasing business (particularly financial industry) profits, everybody would benefit. It didn’t work out that way, though.

One very interesting observation that he makes is that not all “unions” are targets of the right-wing.  Technically in economic terms, a “union” is any combination, cartel, or trust that aims to reduce horizontal competition and negotiate or set prices/wages/output as one group.  Any such “union” is in essence anti-competitive. But in some cases it may be justified as increasing overall social welfare. For example, labor unions are justified when there is only one or a very few, very large employers negotiating with a very large number of employees. The employers have monopsony power (a monopoly on the buy side). The union balances the scales. (See my post here for more.) The right-wing though is apparently only opposed to labor unions, not all unions:

One union stood out by its successes.  It is not generally called a union, but so long as we can abuse reality by calling corporations people, we can call the Chamber of Commerce a union.  This union is so powerful that the present United States must come before as a humble supplicant.  This union was at the forefront of the deconstruction of the New Deal.

The time has come to stop blaming the victim.  Somehow, we have to learn to fight back in this one-sided class warfare.  We have to learn to explain that more of the same medicine that made us sick is not going to cure us.  We have to learn to identify the architects of this disaster — the political manipulators, the right wing foundations and their benefactors, and if we want to begin a legitimate fight against unions, let’s start with the Chamber of Commerce.

He highlights the Chamber of Commerce (particularly at the national level), but I can name others.  For example, the American Medical Assoc is effectively a union of high-paid physicians yet the right-wing actually promotes them. The American Bar Assoc. and other professional associations are likewise unions. Yet they don’t get criticized despite doctors fees and lawsuits being a very significant part of our long-term budget difficulties (healthcare costs).

Continue reading

Shock Doctrine, Neo-liberalism, and Current Events

Primarily for my Comp Systems and Political Economy students (this is part one):

As previously noted here, the events in Madison, Wisconsin are not unique.  There appears to be a concerted effort to roll-back collective bargaining rights for many workers and roll-back social programs all because of a supposed  “fiscal crisis”- the idea that government budgets are out-of-control in spending.  Yet, this “fiscal crisis” is largely contrived and to the extent it exists at all, it is due not to increased spending but from reduced tax collections resulting from the Great Financial Crisis Wall St. created and repeated tax cuts, especially for the wealthy.

So what we have is a “crisis” that supposedly justifies drastic cut-backs in social support, increased privatization, and reduced tax burden on the wealthy.  If it sounds familiar, that’s because it is.  It sounds a lot like the way neo-liberal “global capitalism” was forced onto much of the world over the last 40 years.  Naomi Klein, in her book Shock Doctrine explains the strategy used, including the fact that leading neo-liberal ideologues (in the U.S. they are called “conservatives” or “libertarians” but not with much accuracy) intentionally do so.  They idea is to use any crisis, be it a natural disaster (Haiti earthquake?), or invasion (Iraq?), or revolution to force political economy changes that people might not otherwise accept.

Paul Krugman at the New York Times observes how the pattern is being applied here at home now in Wisconsin and other states:

Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Here’s a thought: maybe Madison, Wis., isn’t Cairo after all. Maybe it’s Baghdad — specifically, Baghdad in 2003, when the Bush administration put Iraq under the rule of officials chosen for loyalty and political reliability rather than experience and competence.

As many readers may recall, the results were spectacular — in a bad way. Instead of focusing on the urgent problems of a shattered economy and society, which would soon descend into a murderous civil war, those Bush appointees were obsessed with imposing a conservative ideological vision. Indeed, with looters still prowling the streets of Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy, told a Washington Post reporter that one of his top priorities was to “corporatize and privatize state-owned enterprises” — Mr. Bremer’s words, not the reporter’s — and to “wean people from the idea the state supports everything.”

The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein’s best-selling book “The Shock Doctrine,” which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society.

Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.

In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor’s budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

What’s happening in Wisconsin is, instead, a power grab — an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy. And the power grab goes beyond union-busting. The bill in question is 144 pages long, and there are some extraordinary things hidden deep inside.

For example, the bill includes language that would allow officials appointed by the governor to make sweeping cuts in health coverage for low-income families without having to go through the normal legislative process.

And then there’s this: “Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

What’s that about? The state of Wisconsin owns a number of plants supplying heating, cooling, and electricity to state-run facilities (like the University of Wisconsin). The language in the budget bill would, in effect, let the governor privatize any or all of these facilities at whim. Not only that, he could sell them, without taking bids, to anyone he chooses. And note that any such sale would, by definition, be “considered to be in the public interest.”

If this sounds to you like a perfect setup for cronyism and profiteering — remember those missing billions in Iraq? — you’re not alone. Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who are playing such a large role in Mr. Walker’s anti-union push, felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants. Are you reassured?

The good news from Wisconsin is that the upsurge of public outrage — aided by the maneuvering of Democrats in the State Senate, who absented themselves to deny Republicans a quorum — has slowed the bum’s rush. If Mr. Walker’s plan was to push his bill through before anyone had a chance to realize his true goals, that plan has been foiled. And events in Wisconsin may have given pause to other Republican governors, who seem to be backing off similar moves.

But don’t expect either Mr. Walker or the rest of his party to change those goals. Union-busting and privatization remain G.O.P. priorities, and the party will continue its efforts to smuggle those priorities through in the name of balanced budgets.

Michigan IS Wisconsin – Just Different Tactics

Rick Snyder, Michigan governor, claims “Michigan is not Wisconsin”.  People take this to mean Snyder doesn’t want to bust unions. That’s wrong. What Snyder means is he’s going to use a different strategy than Walker in Wisconsin.  Walker is a bare-knuckle street fighter. Snyder hires a hit-man. Snyder smiles, tells you what you want to hear, lies about his priorities, and then has his hit-men crush you. Snyder claims he wants to negotiate with unions and isn’t out to “bust the unions”.  So far, Rick Snyder has largely gotten a free pass compared to Scott Walker in Wisconsin. The national news media concentrates on Wisconsin and the protests are largest there. But part of the attention in Wisconsin is because in Wisconsin the power grab to end collective bargaining rights has been so blatant, so clear.  It’s made great theater. And the media love theater.

In Michigan, the effort to end bargaining rights and to bust unions is apparently just as strong, but it’s more subtle, more sophisticated. In Wisconsin, you only have to read a single proposed bill to see that they want to end collective bargaining rights. In Michigan, you have to connect the dots to see the pattern.

First off, there are over 40 anti-union bills that have been introduced in the Michigan legislature since January 1 that have consequences for unions.  In some cases, it’s not just public employee unions under assault, it’s private unions too. In Michigan there isn’t one bill that does the big repeal of rights. It’s lots of bills each chipping away at one right or another. In one case, the bill doesn’t repeal collective bargaining rights for the private sector in all Michigan, just in to-be-named-later “zones”. In another bill, a specific work rule bargaining right is over-ruled for teachers. It’s the death of collective bargaining by a million cuts.

If all these bills pass, and there’s no indication from Snyder that he would veto any of them, they mark a significant roll-back of collective bargaining rights in Michigan.  But there’s a hidden strategy that’s even bigger.  Many of the bills are about increasing the autocratic powers of “emergency financial managers”.  In Michigan “emergency financial managers” are appointed by the Governor and state Treasurer. These emergency financial managers are appointed to take-over the management of local school boards, cities, counties, or townships that encounter financial difficulties. Emergency financial managers are not accountable to local residents or voters at all. They report only to the governor. Further, emergency financial managers have the powers to unilaterally revoke all union contracts and negotiations. Snyder and the Republicans are moving swiftly to increase the already hefty power of these emergency financial managers. A spokesman for the Republican majority leader in the legislature claims these bills are not about busting unions but about “protecting municipalities from bankruptcy.  From The Detroit News:

“We’re not out to destroy anything, we’re out to help everybody,” Marsden said.

“That plan is aimed at keeping municipalities from falling into bankruptcies that will cost people jobs.

But if the objective is to protect municipalities from bankruptcy, why are the biggest budget cuts aimed at revenue sharing and schools?  Right now “emergency financial managers” seem only like a hypothetical to most residents and voters. After all there are only 4-5 such financial managers in the state.  Detroit Public Schools and the cities of Pontiac, Ecorse, and Highland Park have them (there maybe another one or two, I’m not sure). But after the budget is implemented there will be a LOT of cities and school districts in serious financial trouble. Then the governor appoints his emergency financial managers. Then the union contracts can be nullified.  All without legislation.

Wisconsin gets the attention and Walker takes the heat.  Meanwhile, Snyder moves quietly, counting on people not connecting the dots until it’s too late and it’s done.  It’s important to maintain collective bargaining.