Wisconsin Gov. Walker Threatens To Deploy National Guard As ‘Intimidation Force’ Against Workers’ Unions

Paul Breer | ThinkProgress.org | Feb. 14, 2011

Last month, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said that if employees strike, “they should be fired,” and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) wrote in an op-ed that the moral case for unions “does not apply to public employment.” Now, facing a $137 million budget deficit, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a “budget repair bill” that would severely limit collective bargaining, eliminate the right of unions to negotiate pensions, retirement and benefits.


Walker is facing fierce criticism for this all-out assault against state workers, especially after he insisted that the “National Guard” will be used against a walkout:

When asked by a reporter what will happen if workers resist, Walker replied that he would call out the National Guard. He said that the National Guard is “prepared…for whatever the governor, their commander-in-chief, might call for. … I am fully prepared for whatever may happen.”

Traditionally, the National Guard is called to assist Americans in times of crisis; so Walker’s attempt to use the National Guard as a tool to suppress dissent is particularly deplorable. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, more than 50,000 Guard members were called to help, and following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, more than 50,000 Guards were deployed. Veterans have strongly objected to Walker’s recent intent to use the National Guard as a vessel to intimidate state workers. VoteVet released a statement today that says Walker shouldn’t use the National Guard as an “intimidation force“:

“Maybe the new governor doesn’t understand yet – but the National Guard is not his own personal intimidation force to be mobilized to quash political dissent,” said Robin Eckstein, a former Wisconsin National Guard member, Iraq War Veteran from Appleton, WI, and member of VoteVets.org. “The Guard is to be used in case of true emergencies and disasters, to help the people of Wisconsin, not to bully political opponents. Considering many veterans and Guard members are union members, it’s even more inappropriate to use the Guard in this way. This is a very dangerous line the Governor is about to cross.”

Wisconsin state employee unions already made $100 million in concessions last December. Now, under Walker’s new proposal, state workers would have to make further sacrifices by doubling their contributions to health insurance premiums and increasing allocations to their pensions. Walker’s bill would effectively take away the right of state employees to collectively bargain for everything from vacation, sick hours, and even the hours they work. But, smacking of political favoritism for the unions that supported Walker’s campaign, the State Patrol, local police, and fire departments would stay absolutely unchanged.

In response to Walker’s assault, the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO launched a major advertising campaign, in which they say Walker and other politicians plan to “take away rights of thousands of nurses, teachers and other trusted public employees” with almost no public debate.

A pattern is emerging, where Republican dominated governments across the country are shaping up to strip workers’ rights. In addition to Walker’s new proposal, last week, Ohio Gov. Kasich said that if lawmakers don’t pass a collective bargaining bill that he approves, Kasich will impose his own changes in the Ohio budget next month. Following in lockstep, Indiana, Idaho, and Tennessee all have legislation in the works to strip teachers’ ability to collectively bargain.

National Guard Troops Invading Neighborhoods to “Fight Drugs”

Police State
07-08-2010

Fox News 23 out of Albany, NY is airing a story at ten covering National Guard troops being sent to local neighborhoods to fight the ongoing “War on Drugs”.

It’s funny that the National Guard is in Afghanistan right now admittedly helping them grow the very opium that ends up on the streets of US cities. If the military wants to stop the mass distribution of opium in the US, the fight could be better served at the source we control and safeguard rather than our own neighborhoods.



vidlinks

Prolonging the Failed War on Drugs

Just the other day, the US drugs chief told top Irish drug officials the War on Drugs was over. I didn't believe it.

###

Obama prolongs a failed war
By RHONDA SWAN
Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Forty years. One trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of lives. That's the cost of the U.S. war on drugs. And the tab continues to rise.

Last week, President Barack Obama announced that he will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border. He also will request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement. That's a lot of Benjamins for a failed policy.

Like President George W. Bush before him, Obama is sending in the troops to secure the border against illegal immigration. And, like Bush, he's trying to steer cautiously through the election year minefield that is immigration reform.

He's not likely to get comprehensive reform done this year. The troops are the backup plan. He has to show that he's doing something about the problem. In 2006, Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border. He, too, wanted comprehensive immigration reform. But it was an election year.

Beyond the immigration issue, however, is the drug issue. As in 2006, a major role of the National Guard is to support efforts to block drug trafficking. In fact, the Mexican government issued a statement saying it hoped the troops would be used to fight drug cartels and not enforce immigration laws.

The troops sent under Bush, however, didn't quell the drug-trafficking violence. There's no reason to believe that the outcome will be any different under Obama.

Mexican drug cartels wouldn't exist if the U.S. decriminalized drugs. There would be no drug wars. And far less drug violence. Sure, it sounds radical. But isn't it insane to keep doing what we've been doing and expect different results?

Consider that in the 1920s, prohibition of alcohol simply created a huge illegal market for alcohol. Drug prohibition has created the same illegal market for marijuana, heroin and cocaine, the majority of which comes from Mexico. By the end of the 1920s, there were more alcoholics and illegal juke joints than before Prohibition. There also was more crime.

Prohibition was repealed because the paradise envisioned by a country without alcohol didn't materialize. And during the Great Depression, the government realized that it needed the money from taxing alcohol.

The war on drugs also has not produced a crime-free society. The U.S. has the highest rate of marijuana and cocaine use in the world. And as history repeats itself, the Great Recession has states such as California eyeing the money it could get from taxing marijuana.

In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, replacing jail time with the offer of therapy.

In the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens declined; rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing dirty needles dropped; the number of people seeking treatment more than doubled.

Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new policy that, like Portugal's, treats drug use more as a public health issue than a criminal justice one. It's also been a stated priority of Gil Kerlikowske, a former Port St. Lucie, Fla., police chief who heads the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to get the country to focus more on treatment than incarceration.

"We must be smarter about our nation's drug problem," Kerlikowske said at last year's conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "It's time to recognize drug abuse and addiction for what it is -- not just a law enforcement and criminal justice issue but also a complex and dynamic public health challenge."

The Obama administration, however, has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels -- $10 billion of the $15.5 billion drug control budget. Where is the change Obama promised? I don't expect him to call for the decriminalization of drugs. That would be too bold and politically risky. I do expect him to put our money where his mouth is.