@Bryant Divelbiss...So far the "red herring" is your reference to California and Illinois. You suppositions, assumptions and lack of fact does not support an argument that this is all about hate for the governor. This is the way you and others would like to frame the argument.

In truth it is about a governor who has made unprecedented changes, all with the goal of rendering the political opposition impotent. For nearly a year now he has grabbed more power for the state executive creating conditions that can only be considered tyrannical. I don't care whether it is removing the governor or gaining a majority in one chamber or the other in the state legislature, we need to bring back a balance to government. Many are willing to trade liberty and freedom for political expediency, which allows dictators and tyrants to exist.

The direction that Walker is taking will lead to a libertarian structure, which will prove to be more destructive to the middle and working class. I support the recall not because of Scott Walker but his ideology and manner in which he has chosen to implement it.

Lyle, glad to hear your worried about dictators and Freedom. The best way to prevent dictators and guarantee freedom is a small limited central government. I guess you will be joining the Tea Party. Although the reason the unions would not let the Senators they owned to leave Chicago was to get Mandatory dues, and take away a basic freedom from their own members, the right to control their own money. So this not about Freedom. All he has done, like Mark Belling said on his show, is show leadership. He did not wait for legislature to come up with fix, he proposed it, and took on the most dangerous special interest group that is at the root of the spending and cost issues for the state. In so doing has made all services better since cuts to actual services in this state were minor, especially compared to that of other states. What power has he grabbed that is tyrannical?

@Bryant Divelbiss...Your first supposition about a small central government is addequate to prevent a dictatorship or tyrant is basically false. The smaller the government the more easily an oligarchy can control its makeup and function.

The first thing that any tryant will do is strip the power away from the opposition. Clearly everything Walker and the Republican Legislature has done is to cripple the liberals and Democrats. I really don't care about the Democrats since I am not one, but I do care about the current government overreach. In Walker's power grab, with the Republican legislature's willingness; he has taken key counsels out of the civil service and turned them into political appointees. They have also changed the law to where Agency Secretaries don't have to go back to the full legislature to get approval for changes, but just committee approval. This current state government must be stopped from making anymore fundamental changes or the entire state services will privatized and the state will have lost control over critical programs and services. I cite what Walker's actions did to Milwaukee Mental Health Clinic. Once services become privatized then the Walker Administration can pick and chose which private firms get state contracts. Guaranteed it will be Walker supporters.

Libertarian Lyle? I wish!
We could do a lot better without the Gvt. fingers in everything.
Wisconsin would be open 24 hours for business!

@Steve....What's the big deal about an employee from having a direct payment made to their union or to a charity, like United Way or the Boy Scouts. Once money is paid in compensation to the employee it stops being the state's money and becomes the employee's money. What business is it of yours whether the employee spends it on union dues, lottery tickets or groceries?

This argument you guys are making is nonsense.

@Steve...If it's not tyranny, then why now must a citizen of Wisconsin give 72 hours notice to have a meeting in the State's Capital Building. Seems to me to be a violation of our right of free assembly.

There was no choice, they had to pay the union.

If you guys wouldn't have gone all nuts and basically took the place over the existing policy would still be unknown. It is a place of work, a place of visit and a building for all citizens. Not those that want to take up residence and cry over losing their free ride. Protection needs to be given to all citizens, not let one group take over a building.

You as a citizen do not need to give notice yet the left will spin it that way. After weeding through the lib blogs I found this:
“This is all existing policy,” she said. “We’re just putting it all in one place.”

Under the policy, all displays and activity involving four or more people in the Capitol and other state buildings must be permitted at least 72 hours before the activity or display date, the DOA said.

http://goo.gl/WpU8Q

@Steve..No matter how you spin it, it's a violation of freedom of assembly. Guarantee that it will be challenged in the courts where it will be found to be unconstitutional. As such it verifies my contention of a slow and steady move toward loss of freedom.

Lyle, frankly you're starting to sound a bit hysterical. I'd be willing to bet that, given what happened up at the Capitol earlier this year - something that was very plain for all to see - most rational people aren't going to have a problem with a 72 hour wait period.

I really think you overestimate the general public's willingness to tolerate a very loud, vocal minority's insistence that they be allowed to display and disrupt not only the peace, but functions having nothing whatsoever to do with their endless complaints, aside from the fact that the guy they hate happens to be in attendance. But by all means, keep up the complaining, keep up the overblown predictions of what's going to happen should Walker stay in office, keep up the nonsensical public displays that do the opposite of creating sympathy for your cause. The crazier, the more hate-filled, the more entitled, the more tone deaf to what the rest of the public has been going through for years you folks appear, the better for our side of the equation.

@Bob McBride...I know you don't like public demonstrations. However, what you see as a problem I see it as democracy at work. We'll see how it works out once it goes through the courts.

It is my understanding that the 72 hour rule is if you want to assemble in the building. So you are free to assemble outside. They have to control building to ensure security, prevent vandalism as we saw last winter, and the right of others to use the building. But I am not a Lawyer so if I am wrong they should sue and the Supreme Court can eventually decide. In any case calling it tyrannical is overstating your case.

I love public demonstrations when it's your side using them to push the limits of rational behavior. Only thing better at this point would be a noisy, indignant court challenge to this rule. Keep up the good work - you're making your version of democracy at work look like a day pass from the looney bin.

@Bob McBride...Looney Bin...:-D, I've had plenty experience.

@KiepKyl...I don't think you realize that state employees have always had the right to refuse joining the union. Most chose to join because of the collective bargaining and the work rules from the contract. The union would represent them in grievances and provided attorneys to protect the worker's rights.

@Bryant Divelbiss...You are making a common mistake about the public unions. There wasn't a problem with the state public employees unions. Local and teachers unions were the ones not willing to negoiate. The governor and legislature took the opportunity to limit all public unions, cutting off contributions to Democrats. That's what this is all about.

I don't think the state employees union agreed to accept concessions until after the Budget Repair Bill was proposed. Look at statement from about January from Marty Beils on paying for their own healthcare. He also stated publicly that it war if they were going to be asked to make concessions.

Down on Marty Beil's plantation, some live better than others -By Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel Feb. 10, 2011

Marty Beil, who heads the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees branch that represents state employees, complained that Walker, who talked of getting unionized state employees to pay 12% of their health care premiums, was “like a plantation owner talking to slaves.”

@KiepKyl...Of course the money is their money. Once it is in the union funds the members have a voice how the money is used. You join any organization and they require dues for membership, if you want to belong, then you pay your dues.If I want to belong to a synagogue I must pay my dues as a member. How is that any different than paying dues to a union?

@Lyle... Kind of strange to see you in the weeds, comparing union dues payments to synagogue membership dues and (above)united way donation v. union dues payments, performed via paycheck deduction.
With the ability to make regular automatic payments (union dues)via one's own personal checking account, your point/issue is a non-starter/near irrelevant, on any level;it may have had some merit 10+ years ago, before the use of personal auto-draft checks was widely adopted.

@Jay Sykes...Granted it has been a number of years ago, but my employer offered a service to make auto payments for me. This included professional dues, etc. However, this whole issue is nothing more than to make it harder to continue union membership. These actions has nothing to do with balancing the budget, but political manuvering to limit the unions:
1. Restrict collective bargaining rights.
2. Eliminate the automatic pay deductions.
3. Require the unions to re-certify each year.

I think if we won't allow automatic deductions for union dues, then the state shouldn't do it for anything, including charitable deductions.

Lyle, You cant be serious that restricting Collective Bargaining privileges had nothing to do with budget fix. Until that was proposed they were getting no cooperation from the unions on cuts. Also without those changes cutting aid to schools and localities would have forced massive layoffs and drop in services, then Recall Walker claims about effect of budget cuts would have been honest. Even Democrats like Barrett saved millions due to being unshackled. Elections just give more rights to members to decide and is only fair since before they were paying unions to buy off Democrats to get better deals now they should have choice to decide if they still want to be member now scam is limited. Probably good not collect dues for union to make it harder to pressure minority that do not want to pay dues. As we have seen many public unions have applied heavy pressure to dissenting members. Easy to do when 80%-95% support the union.

Old news http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business

The survey is from this past summer and I do not have source but here is similar one showing similar results. http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business

I only mentioned CA and IL because they were at the top of the October jobs report cited by people claiming Walker has hurt job creation. Also a good comparison as they are being destroyed financially by their refusal to deal Collective Bargaining costs. The point is no rational person would suggest those states are not deep trouble and it is clear they are going in the wrong direction. Our biggest threat to improving as a place to do business is the fact that it is unclear if we will be dumb enough to roll back positive changes. The recall people can talk about reports on jobs but if they are put in charge it will be worse for the number of private and public sector jobs.

Any result showing CA that high is flawed, given it is still it is still unclear if they will avoid a fiscal disaster. This report puts them at 50 where one would think they would be.

@Bryant Divelbiss...Again Bryant your citing California and Illinois is a red herring. The economic forces at play in Wisconsin is much different than either CA or IL. For one thing the ETF is fully funded and the State of WI is not having to stop in to meet current pension obligations and actuarially the system is projected to remain solvent for as long as anyone can project. Wisconsin's approach to public employment has always been conservative and there isn't any part of the state's workforce that could be considered overstaffed. CA and IL both have been known for overstaffing.

As far as your comment about reversing positive changes; that is purely a judgement of perspective. With all the legislation that has been passed, it will take years if not decades to sort through it all and make the corrections necessary to bring things back in balance. It matters little to me whether the governor is recalled or the Senate picks up an additional seat through recall, all I want to do is stop the governor's steam roller.

The main point we can all agree on is that CA & IL are not places to copy for job creation or budgets the states that were at the top of the report cited by recall people. That was my point using one jobs report to say jobs plan is not working is nonsense. It will take time, particularly with the uncertainty constant elections provide, to measure actual job growth. All we can do is see that opinion of job creators is clear, they see massive improvement with Walker changes. It is different than than balancing the budget where the successful results are easy to see now.

@Bryant Divelbiss...I can't believe you are not holding the governor accountable on his jobs promise. Let me use this scenerio:

You are on a corporate board and you hired a CEO to accomplish goals including cutting costs and capturing new markets. After one year the CEO is giving a report on goal progress. He or she outlines the cost cutting, which meets the goal, but puts at risk production. He or she next reports that increasing market share is behind goal. Not only behind goal but getting worse. He or she states it isn't his/her fault because of a slow market. As a member of the board, do you buy the excuses and allow them to continue their program or do you challenge them? They say, give me more time and the slow market will change and then we'll acheive goal. The boards I have set on wouldn't buy this argument in a "New York minute". Why should we buy it for our state? A good CEO wouldn't have promised something that had so many unseen variables. Walker is a failed CEO! From my years in business cost cutting was always the easiest thing to do, growing markets the hardest. Anyone who thinks other states are just going to sit still and allow Wisconsin's sweet heart deals attract and steal business, is not dealing with the current reality.

Government has been very unsuccessful at making things better with regulations. Many times just making the next problem worse like Mark-to-Market rules put into prevent Enron made recent bank crisis more severe. or CRA changes to get more loans to minorities created by creating subprime market with FNM &FRE. There is a need for some regulations but the more the government does the less freedom we have.

@Bryant Divelbiss...The failure of Walker and the Republicans to create jobs is that they don't fully understand what is considered when searching for a new location to either set up a new production facility or start a production facility. In my working career I was tasked with that many times. Higher on the list of considerations were the important issues of infrastructure, public schools, post secondary education, economic vitality of given areas and then tax structures, business and personal. If I were looking to relocate one of my businesses, the current climate in Wisconsin would give me a definite pause.

A change of direction is needed, not to steal business, but to create new business focused on the future needs. Look at the success in the Madison area with the creation of all the bio-tech industries. Utilizing the resources available here what is the program? How are we using our homegrown talent? Walker doesn't know how to do it and neither do those around him. They want to maintain archaic industries that are vulnerable and can easily fing themselves obsolete. As a member of the ulitmate board of directors of the state, the electorate; my view is that Walker has jeopardized the future of the state to attempt to return to a past that wasn't all that good to begin with. The recall is a moratorium on his perfomance and direction.

@Steve,,,Hate? I don't see hate, I see civil protest against a potential tyrant. If it's hate then it is the hate of tyranny and loss of rights.

Must be the new adgitive of the week for Walker, Tyrant. What rights have you lost to Heir Walker?