However, I haven’t heard anyone explain how the budget shortage can go from the current $137 million to $3.6 billion in two years; that is an enormous increase in the deficit and I have yet to hear anyone say exactly what accounts for such a huge number.

The information I could find on how much the cuts to worker’s pensions go to reducing the deficit is $300 million over the next two years:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-bc-us–wisconsinbudget-glance,0,1842309.story

Obviously, the proposed cuts don’t balance the budget. Furthermore, the state worker’s have actually agreed to the cuts. Therefore, by examing what facts I could gather, I can’t conclude that the main issue is really balancing the budget. As far as that’s concerned, the numbers just don’t add up. It appears that the issue really being contested is collective bargaining rights for workers.

Yesterday I wrote about the irony of Walker and Christie turning down money for rail or rail related construction, again citing the “BROKE” mantra. I could have named more pound-foolish governors, because there a many. I’d like to point to a NY Times editorial in today’s paper, which addresses this. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21mon2.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Also in trying to be brief, I cut out a final paragraph I had written about another great irony. Paul Krugman, also in today’s Times, said it a whole lot better than I ever could. Referring to the dismantling of unions, public or private (noting that public is almost all that’s left), and the detriment to democracy that’s causing, he writes,”There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Finally, yesterday I mistakenly thought that firefighters were being given the same treatment as the teachers union by Governor Walker. Apparently they are being spared their bargaining rights, but that’s also ironic, since perhaps what makes them special is that they tended to vote for him. However, I did notice that firefighters are marching along with the teachers, so perhaps Walker won’t be able to count on their votes in the future.

At times like this, there is an opportunity to shift from being a participant towards being an observer to capture understandings that might otherwise be lost. Bourdieu suggested the use of “participant objectification” to avoid the contradictions he saw in the concept of “participant observation.” The distancing he suggests is ironic in the sense that it distances us from what may have initially attracted us. Bourdieu cautions that the improper objectification of the “truth of the objectifying” may result in an unwanted projection. Habermas explains that there is a fundamental difference between the way an interpreter approaches understanding symbolic expressions, and the coordinated interactions used by participants to reach understandings. The situation in Wisconsin is a fantastic opportunity for someone to do research, especially as a participant observer.

Professor Goldberg objected to my pointing out that different views on the situation in Wisconsin exist without an attempt by me to investigate the substance of the claims. I am aware of the claims made by all sides, and I did not opine on which claims appear to be factually correct.

Understanding and the explaining the processes that are taking place are sociologically important in my opinion. I would like to see someone address them. Professor Goldberg offered his interpretation and explanation for what is transpiring: in summary, propaganda from right-wing propagandists; giveaways to special interest groups; income redistribution in the wrong direction; and a desire by Republicans to cripple public sector unions. Perhaps Professor Goldberg is right. Are there other credible interpretations and explanations? If so, what are they, and how can legitimate differences be bridged?

I suggested that there appear to be people who are concerned about public sector unions, including people who are supportive of private unions. This is not a new issue. Many of these concerns were raised by Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 16, 1937 in his letter to letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15445).

I’m somewhat surprised that Professor Goldberg perceives that our differences are due to my background in corporate management as opposed to legitimate concerns about theory, research, and conflict resolution. I grew up in a union family (my mother was a garment worker and my father was an electrician); and during my business career, I have been in leader in developing participative management; and empowering employees through team concepts, work redesign approaches and alternative compensation systems in both union and non-union facilities. I found it ironic that it was much more difficult to empower employees in union facilities. I also established a process whereby union and other employee representatives attended operating and strategic planning sessions with their facility managers; and corporate management including the Chairman and CEO, President; Executive Vice Presidents; and others. This was a remarkable achievement in terms of developing mutual understandings and respect.

Professor Goldberg seems to think that my conception of democracy is narrow and anemic. Based upon my remarks, I’m not sure how Professor Goldberg can know what my conception of democracy is. I mentioned that Wisconsin’s government was elected and appears to be functioning legally. I mentioned that people on all sides of the issues have the right to demonstrate, and posters can be an effective tool. I also noted that questions have been raised about: state employees calling in sick to demonstrate; some signs which were used during rallies which are inconsistent with President Obama’s call for civility; and the complexities caused by Democratic and independent Senators hiding in another state to prevent deliberations and a vote. Are any of these observations incorrect?

Professor Goldberg concludes by citing a veteran’s comment which was made at one of the rallies, and asking for support for his advocacy position. I concluded my informal remarks by asking, “Is withdrawing from deliberations on a bill consistent with democratic processes?” I think that Professor Goldberg answered that it is. I’m not so sure.

What is happening in Wisconsin is not an isolated case. Variations of it are happening or will happen in other states and in Washington. It is important that we understand what is happening.