Iowa is Done New Hampshire is Next!

In American history no one who has ever gotten worse then 3rd place in Iowa has won the presidency. SO who is in the top three.

Mitt Romney: who is the perspective front runner, but the only issue is that he hasn't been able to grow his poll numbers. It seems every person has won a huge bump in the polls except Mitt Romney. He also has a lot of money and influence. If he wins New Hampshire it helps him become the inevitable nominee, but can someone stop him?

2nd choice: Rick Santorum: even though he won Iowa without help from big amount of ads his problem is that he doesn't have a lot of money and he is doing very bad in New Hampshire only 10% when Romney is at 47%.  I think that it will be very hard for Rick Santorum to get enough money to push for a national campaign.

Ron Paul: Ron has the money to forward and probably will stay till the end. His problem will be can he frame himself as a Conservative and not a radical in the Republican party. In the polls he has a strong showing so far at 3rd place in the next following contest, and a few good debates and some momentum can defiantly give Ron a win.

So far I have no predictions for New Hampshire

Cains 9-9-9 plan

I decided to refute Cains 9-9-9 plan considering he is apparently now a rising star. Mr Cain has been screaming about 9-9-9 for quite some time , but is it really going to do what he says it does. First let's see the logic behind it. Cain would reduce the Corporate tax rate from 50% to 9%. That's a 41% decrease mostly for multinationals who don't even pay the 50%, because of loopholes, but it will reduce revenue from the Business section. Then he will create a flat Income tax. Meaning everyone pays the same tax no matter how rich or how poor. The income tax bracket is 9%. Biggest winners here will be the Rich who only pay 35% will now get a 26% decrease in taxes while the poor who pay 15% will have a 6%. That sounds fair right! So how will he pay for the loads of cash he is giving to already extremely profitable business, and reduce the tax rates of the rich to the lowest it has ever been. Well Cain suggest a G.S.T will do the fix. A 9% G.S.T! So who will that hurt. Well people who buy things! Consumers the one's that drive the economy. The G.S.T tends to attacks the poor and middle class. The economic policy means. That the middle class pay more in taxes while the rich pay less. So the consumers have less money and the poor have more. Yep that will fix the inequality in pay. The top 500 earners in the U.S make more money then the bottom 50%.Think of it even though the income tax is being reduced the G.S.T is being created and taking any money the middle class would get and take even more. The Rich would pay much less in taxes and the G.S.T would only take some profits away. Cain even admitted that the 9-9-9 plan would make difficulties for people.

 "Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," 


he has that a bit backwards. The top 10% will pay less while the bottom 90% will pay more. The sad part about it is, because of all the money this plan will give to the rich. this plan will actually reduce revenue by 200 billion. How is that going to solve the deficit. How is not taxing the rich going to help reduce the deficit? How is taxing consumers and increasing the deficit going to solve the problem in America.

Sarah Palin Not Running!

What a week in politics. I have to say with the provincial elections and the 5 billion dollar Champlain deal it seems wired talking about U.S politics again. But yes Palin isn't running for president. With months and years of speculation you almost thought for sure she is running, but it seems the rogue governor is beholding to no one. She makes her own decisions all the time. It will be interesting now 10% of the people in the polls still said they would vote for her if they could, But what does this mean? Well Bachman might get a leg up, but the way her campaign is going she if she doesn't get some good weeks she will lose bad. For now at least it seems it's going to be Romney vs. Perry. Bachman is going to really need to catch the Palin vote to get a good chance to win. So now it seems we have the make up for our Republican nomination. All the contenders that we thought would run aren't and the one's that are seem like they're sticking. So Chirstie (the man Republicans are so in love with still want him to run even though he has done everything to say no except buying a posters on every highway saying "I am not running") is out, Palin is out. No more big speculations are left the race for the Republican nomination is on!

It will also be interesting watching who Palin or Chirstie will endorse, and how long it will take. One thing I think will happen is 1 year from now Christie will be speculated to be #1 for the VP spot no matter who wins in this current field with maybe the exception of Ron Paul.

The Scary Republican

In the Debate Last week the Republicans were asked some questions. Some I found slightly interesting, but one question just made me scared! The Question was that if their was a budget deal that for every 10 dollars in cuts their will only be 1 dollar in taxes would you support that? All the Republicans said no they would not be in favor. These Republicans scare me! They are against taxes more than Regan who did increase taxes on some people. They would rather see medicare destroyed then have a billionaire that has millions in safe heavens give one penny.

They forget the history of the U.S deficit. The deficit was first created with, because of the Bush tax cuts. Then with the help of a two wars the deficit ballooned. Then when the bubble burst revenue went down and the stimulus also increased the deficit. Eventually when the stimulus is out of the deficit the deficit will be mostly just be the Bush Tax cuts, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, interest on the debt, medicare and social security which under Clinton had money to fund it for the future, military and pentagon funding and lower revenue because of high unemployment. Spending cuts must be made, but if we want to get back to the Bill Clinton surplus we need to go back to Clinton tax rates. The Republicans will never eliminate the Bush tax cuts even though they were suppose to expire in 2010 now 2012. The Republicans say that loopholes are fine. They are against eliminating loopholes and using that money to actually save Medicare a little. Apparently eliminating loopholes on major corporations who are practically paying negative corporate tax is too harsh, but lowering help for poor and the elderly isn't at all important to them. The Republican say that the cuts will help save Medicare in the long run. I have an idea raise the social security age and the medicare age. You save a lot of money in the long run and you save those services from major cuts, and maybe just maybe make companies pay their full share of taxes so their will be money for the elderly, but the Republicans aren't interested in making as little harm as possible on Medicare. They don't care about losing money allowing Corporations to use loopholes to pay no corporate tax, but they do care about using money that goes helping the poor and the elderly.


The Republicans at that debate I hope lose the election, because not only do they not support tax increases, but they aren't at all open to compromise. Even with a 10:1 deal that completely support their ideas more than the democratic's by a large margin. They aren't open to compromise. electing any Republican in any chamber makes it harder to save any program that helps the most in need.

Cut Defense!!!!!!!!!

The Defense budget in the U.S is 20% of the U.S budget. That is of course double than what it was in 2001. If the U.S wants to get back to the surplus years of the 1990's then they will have too cut into defense heavily. Except a lot of the defense spending is in the two wars one is almost finished except there is 50,000 troops still left in Iraq, and Afghanistan is slowly going to be stopped. Not much savings so far. This means that the U.S should maybe look at the pentagon which is spending over 500 billion dollars a year. Maybe look into massive cuts into the pentagon. Even though most people would agree the pentagon needs a lot of money, and I agree with that, but if the U.S wants to reduce the deficit than they are going to need to cut important aspects of the budget. And to be truthful the pentagon is spending a much more than before. I am not saying kill the pentagon, but cut it by 80 billion minimum this year alone. The U.S should also cut homeland security, and many other security programs that have billion of dollars in the budget that the U.S can't sustain. Here in Canada we have a defense budget of about 7% , and it doesn't need to grow any more in fact with the mission in Afghanistan ending the defense budget should lower in value of the total budget. We don't need a big army. We don't have any country to fear except maybe North Korea and Iran and they have bigger fish to fry, and nevertheless we do have allies with similar defense spending then us who can join in if needed.Our defense funding is fine where it is now we have the 13th highest defense budget in the world. The U.S is of course way on top of the packed and can afford (or really needs to) cut it's military capacity.

By taking a holistic approach, $80 billion could be slashed from the $553 billion the Pentagon has requested for 2012, the authors say. Expensive projects ill-suited for today's wars -- like missile defense and the V-22 Osprey -- would be cut.

Read more here

Up then Down

Gay equality is on a rollercoaster this week. With New York legalizing gay marriage and a poll showing that a majority of Americans support gay marriage one would think that the U.S is heading in the right direction. like all good things it must come to an end or at least an obstacle. A women in Vermont where gay marriage is legal married another women who is living in the U.S on a visa, But wait since she married her wouldn't that mean that she get's a green card to stay in the U.S. Unfortunatly citezenship is a federal issue, and since the federal goverment doesn't fully regocnize the marriage her wife is going to get deported soon. Even in a state that legalized gay marriage there will still be inequality.She should be given a green card, but because the federal goverment is against full equality gay people even in Vermont is still no where near where it needs to be .This proves that we are going to need the federal goverment to start to regocnize gay marriage, but unfortunatly Obama only supports civil unions. Although he has given more benifits to gay copules there are many benifits left out. It seems that on the federal level equality will be deayed for at least 4 years and probably more depending who get's elected in 2016.


see more here

Raise the Debt Ceiling!

Some Republicans are living in a fantasy world thinking that there is way to continue business as usual even though the debt is above the debt ceiling. Even if the Government cuts hundreds of billion today the debt would still get above the debt ceiling, meaning one of two things must happen. Either the government will shut down and the U.S credit rating will lower or what is more likely to happen raising the debt ceiling. It's like someone telling a bank "I may or may not pay my payment in the end of the month." That sort of fiscal idea's are stupid and will make it harder to get out of a deficit. We all know that eventually (probably the day before) they will come to a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Both sides are just making a bit of political drama now. I blame many people for this problem, but the #1 person I blame is the Democrats who knew they would have to raise the debt ceiling again when they first raised it a year ago. Why didn't they raise it more so there would not be this mess. Did they really think they would keep the senate and the house in 2010 to raise the debt ceiling no problem. They controlled the house and the senate they should have risen it by at least a 2 trillion to give a lot of leg room for the future.

6 Down 44 to Go.

And now the major state of New York will join the 4 other new England states and the lonely Midwestern state in the equality of all people. Gay people can now marry freely (In a month if you want to technical). This again a very important step in full equality, and I hope I can soon says "All 50 down, No left to go". I want full marriage not just civil unions that make Gay people continue to seem inferior to straight people. When i was going throw NY to come back to Montreal I saw a sign that said "If you Don't like Gay marriage don't get gay married." How true if you don't like it don't do it. I have no doubt all 50 states will legalize full Gay rights it is truly just a matter of time, and people have got to get with the times. the truth is people there are Gay people and if you don't like why would they care? Because apparently unlike straight marriage you need to vote on whether it may be allowed. let's stop the stupidity and just allow Gay marriage to be legal fully.

The Pawlenty Plan Part 1

Republicans talk about how the government is broke and we can't afford to continue to spend the way are spending. In the video Pawlenty sent to declare his candidacy he said "Are country is in big trouble we have far too much debt" (watch here). In Pawlenty economic and budget plan he stated that he would like to reduce taxes. Nothing new of course in the Republican Party, but Pawlenty is taking it to a whole new level. The Bush Tax cuts are worth about 3 Trillion over 10 years. Expensive enough, but Pawlenty thinks the Bush tax cuts don't go far enough. He would reduce income tax Corporate tax and

Under Pawlenty's plan, taxes on capital gains, interest income, dividends and estates would all be eliminated.

A non-partisan policy center said the Government would lose 7.6 Trillion in revenue over ten years. That is about 760 billion a year. The deficit this year will be 1.6 trillion. So how is reducing revenue going to balance the budget Pawlenty? His plan says that he would make up the difference in spending cuts, and economic growth.

Pawlenty's plan claims that the economy of the U.S will grow by 5% every year. And therefore he thinks he will increase revenue by 380 billion every year for ten years making up only half the difference. In Canada we have faced the recession relatively okay and we don't have 5% growth rate are growth rate is 3% roughly, and we went on a spending spree. If pawlenty cut all these taxes you think that it would increase the growth rate to 5%, but you haven't taken in to account the spending cuts.

First Real Debate!

The race for Obama's opponent is now almost at the beginning. It's not quite there to say many candidates are still not fully in. Candidate's like Bachman, Palin and Giuliani all major factors at this point at least according to the polls aren't even in the exploratory phase, but currently we have 10 candidates in the race for sure and 3 in exploratory phase. Here's something interesting. there is going to be a debate in New Hampshire and 7 candidates are coming 5 of which are fully declared candidates 1 is in exploratory and Banchman the one who isn't officially looking interested in the White House is going to the debate. This will be the first real debate as major candidates Like Gingrich, Banchman, Mitt Romney will be attending a debate. This debate will be interesting. I can see most Republicans attack Romney on Health care (because in Massachusetts Romney passed a law that forced all people to get health care insurance like Obama health care bill) I can see Paul and Banchman attack each other on who will best represent the Tea party. This debate will be fun and if you think seven is crowded then just wait for the debate's in the Fall with possibly 14-15 people tops. The front runner now for me is Mitt Romney.

Illinois Has a Lot More to Go

As of today homosexual couples will now have some of the rights as a heterosexual couple does, but it is no were near enough. It may be a step in the right direction, but nowhere near full equality. I think that Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. I don't think Civil Unions are the way to go, because civil unions first of all give the impression that Homosexuals aren't equal to heterosexual when it comes to marriage or even rights of married people. Many countries in the world have already legalized Gay Marriage and guess what the sky didn't fall down. Countries like Canada have had Gay marriage for years nothing significant and detrimental happened except maybe that Gay people in Canada feel more like equals and less afraid of being judged. Harper actually promised to make Gay marriage illegal. Now Illinois seems to be moving in the right direction, but the governor can't call civil unions as full equality. apparently some in the U.S appose to civil unions

Illinois Family Institute, a nonprofit group that says it wants to reaffirm marriage in the state, called the law "divisive."

"Gov. Quinn should reject this anti-family bill and reject the efforts of the homosexual lobby to impose this highly contentious and controversial policy on the people of Illinois," David E. Smith, executive director of the group, said earlier.

First how is giving some rights to people who should be given all marriage rights imposing on the people of Illinois. Second this bill would still  make gay marriage look inferior to heterosexual marriage

The Ron Paul Risk?

Ron Paul was a Libertarian for a long time now even ran for president as a Libertarian. Ron Paul surprised many skeptics last election getting a lot of money in a short amount of time , and getting more than expected support in many area's of the country. Although he didn't win a single state he got close in a few. Now that the tea party is coming in with many Libertarian ideals Ron Paul is getting on the Tea party band wagon. He is currently polling just 4% behind Giuliani with 12% which could make him now a real contender by all accounts. There is no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul will do well this coming election, But he may not win, because a few other people are stealing his thunder. Palin is just 1% ahead of Paul and she is a clear Tea Party favorite. If she runs Ron Paul and Palin will fight over those votes, and might give Romney the edge. Bachmann is getting 7% and could also stop Paul chances of getting the full support of the tea party, but in a poll without Sarah Palin or Rudy Giuliani, Paul hits second with 15%, Romney 21%. Not ideal figures, but if the health care plan in Romney's state comes back to haunt him Paul could lead. This may sound all circumstantial, but there is no doubt that Paul right now is defiantly somthing to watch out for considering his track record in the 2008 election.

President Giuliani!

The latest poll in the republican party is that the leader of the pact is Rudy Giuliani (the guy who isn't running just yet). Romney is second and he is due to make it official in one week. Another guy who is going to be in the race is Rick Santorum he is only polling at 2%. Now this again means nothing for two reasons. Rudy Giuliani ran for president in 2008 and was the front runner and ended up losing big. The second reason is that in this poll Rudy is only leading  by 1%. I still think currently the front runner is Romney, because he still is leading New Hampshire,  he should have an easy time in Nevada, Since Huckabee isn't running Iowa could be all but his, he is well known, and still on the top of the list in the Republican party. The only thing that is going for Rudy Giuliani is that he is well known and his 9/11 experience. Which I don't get. If Osama is dead why would Rudy be more popular I thought he would be less. Rudy if he runs should be able to fundraising a good amount which could help him in getting support, but I think the Rudy Giuliani lead isn't going to last. 

Huckabee Won't Run.

One of the most like able and most suggestion as the solution to beat Obama in 2012 was Huckabee, But this Saturday Huckabee said that he wouldn't run. Now the Question becomes where is Hucabee's supporters going to go. In the latest polls it has him leading Iowa the first state to vote in the primaries. Now Romney who is currently in the exploratory committee mode seems to be the front runner. Romney in 2008 had a problem winning states in the beginning. In Iowa he lost to Huckcabee who won the rural areas very well, Then the next state New Hamshire went to McCain by a very slim margin. Now that Huckcabee isn't running and McCain won't run Romney should be the clear target of many Republicans. Romney might still have a problem in the south, but Huckabee was the southern favorite in 2008, so Romney might want to try and grab those voters, but another southerner might be Romney's clear enemy in 2012. Gingrinch! Now that Huckcabee is no longer in the race the whole election map is now turned upside down, and any guess is right were the polls are going to go. But right now the only major candidate according to the polls who has declared there candidacy is Gingrinch

I Agree With A Libratarian!

My Blogger friend the "Libertarian" (lilatomic) has an opinion that's a bit controversial, but quite frankly I "somewhat" agree with what he is saying. Now somewhat is very vague so let me explain. First I don't think rich people are bad people. I mean some of them could be, but just because someone is rich doesn't mean that they are bad people. Now I agree increasing taxes on the rich isn't going to fully balance the budget. But it has to be done! I think all the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated. Now that isn't enough to balance the budget. What will have to happen is to not only eliminate the Bush Tax cuts, but also to raise the retirement age and think about either a sales tax, cut military funding and cut medicare (which I don't suggest). If the U.S eliminates the Bush tax cuts, makes a sales tax and cuts the military they will be able to balance the budget. I don't think Rich people have no role in the economy I think (lilatomic) is right in what he says that rich people put money in the bank. Although that helps the economy as it gives money for the bank to invest in order for banks to actually give money to people to make small business there needs to be people who aren't rich (or they would have the money themseleves) that are finicially liable in order to take a loan, because if they are dead poor the bank won't give them a loan. The idea that giving rich people money to put in the bank helps create small business isn't 100% true. There needs to be people who are middle class to be loaned that money by the bank. We can't have these middle class people start a business if they don't make money. So the easier way to start a business is to have a middle class. But with the Bush tax cuts the average income of the middle class and the poor has shrank so the tax cuts didn't even work! The top 400 Americans make more money then the bottom 50% of the U.S. The rich are doing fine in the U.S they should be taxed 50% not the low 35% they are currently taxed. Because it is either taxing the rich or cutting programs for the middle class and poor which won't help the economy. Now I think in order to balance the budget the poor and middle class need to give up a few things too, but the Rich should be the first to pay then we work are way down. The middle class are the people who work the economy. If we continue with Bush policy that shrank average income the main driving force of the U.S the middle class (the small business people) then the economy can't grow and yes if no one takes a loan in the U.S the money will stay in a vault. I am sure people who are rich worked hard to get there, bur many patrotic millinaires told Obama last year to raise there taxes so that they could help reduce the deficit. I agree with lilatomic that eliminating the tax cuts to the rich won't balance the budget, and I believe that the rich have a role to play in the economy, but what I disagree with is that just giving money to the rich won't help the economy. What helps the economy is having a strong middle class and the way to achieve a strong middle class the U.S needs to raise the minimum wage encourage unions not discourage. The problem in the U.S is that the rich are getting too much at th expense of the poor, although money for the rich helps banks have money to loan out. If instead of that money going to one rich person the economy would do much better going to a poorer person. Because buying products helps the economy more than putting money in the bank that won't be loaned out, because the middle class is getting poorer in the U.S. And unless the rich pay there fair share then the economy can't grow.

U.S Goverment Nearly Falls!

While we talk about our government falling, right under us below the U.S government is just inches away from closing. In the U.S there is a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is how high the U.S debt can be, and if it goes to the limit the government shutdown. The solutions are currently band-aid solution were the government cuts little tiny pieces here and there to delay the day when the debt reaches it's limit. The thing is discretionary spending only makes up 12% of the budget so just cutting here and there isn't good enough. An easy solution would of course be to raise the debt ceiling. Which means you raise the debt limit. The Republicans don't want to do it so it can't happen. Here is a solution how about finally take back the Bush tax cuts. Or at least the rich. The Republicans are quite happy to cut spending on the poor and food stamps, but the rich billionaires are the one's who are really in need. It is sick twisted way of looking at things. The Republicans are almost saying that it is the poor people's fault they are in a deficit. The U.S needs to reform. By ending the Bush tax cuts, raise the retirement age, and you already made significant cuts. The l;longer the U.S remains in deficit the higher the interest on the debt will be. In 2020 the U.S main expenditure could be the interest on the debt. Yeah not Medicare or social security, but the number #1 thing Republicans love to talk about. The Republicans need to look in the mirror. They are the one's who cause the deficit and now they want to fix it, by cutting help for the poor, because the rich are in so much need!

Hate Grandmothers, Love Billianaires !

The GOP will soon give a proposal that will include deep cuts into medicare! I would be happy that they are finally be realistic, But it's the GOP! There propasal would only start in 2021 in ten years! By 2020 the intrest on the debt will be 28% of the budget. About the same amount in 2020 that the U.S would spend on social security.Even more important by 2020 Interest on the debt will cost billions more than medicare. We need to change things now! not ten years when it is already too late. But even ignoring that the cuts would still be deep about 1 trillion! This cut to medicare is insane! But of course is neccesary, but of course the GOP don't care about the poor. Although this cut is very neccesary it still insane in the fact that the GOP wants to keep the Bush tax cuts to all americans. I say put the taxes back to where they were under Bill Clinton now. Then increase the tax on rich by even another 5% on the tax rate. Then raise the retierment age. make a national sales tax at 5%. Then end the wars. You can then balance the budget. attaking the poor, and giving the rich is backwards economics. The U.S must take action now not 10 years from now. The U.S must not live off the poor and make sure the rich pay

Donald Trump a "birther"

It is sometimes very sad to see someone who is so well connected and so wealthy that he could probably afford to do a full back round check to see if Obama was really born in the U.S unfortunately he said that he doesn't know and really questions wether Obama was really born in the U.S. I hope that this doesn't become the issue of the 2012 campaign there are so many more important issue's. We need to talk about the deficit and the taxes that must rise to eliminate it. It is a shame to see the great democracy of the U.S talk about something so silly and so untrue. I hope Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination so Obama will have an easy candidate to beat. The fact is a poll before these comments had Trump just a few points below Obama. This may just prove how the Tea Party is pushing all right wing candidates more to the right that it will be very hard for a Republican to get elected. You can say the Right is pushing themselves so far to the right no one wants to vote for them. While Obama is moving to the center. Obama could have a very easy win, but I am making no predictions just yet, because no major candidate is saying if he or she is going to run. So far the republican maybe circle is so large that candidates are going to have to push themselves to one part of the party and hold on to it till the other candidates leave the race. The good thing about this is that most of them are trying to hold on to the Tea party vote which means the candidates are pushing themselves to the extreme to win there parties nominations. By doing that they will alienate the center and give Obama another 4 years.

Stop Biofuel! feed people!

In the U.S because of the spike in Oil prices, and of extreme weather Food prices are rising. This has caused many people to go hungry even in the U.S as food stamps stays the same and prices increase.

Madison says her food stamp benefits have not increased despite rising food prices.

In fact millions of Americans are currently on food stamps. My suggestion curve corn based bio-fuel production. I have stated before that Bio-fuel can't be tomorrow's fuel as it is inefficient and also isn't at all environmentally friendly. So countries including Canada, U.S and many other countries should eliminate the bio fuel subsidy that are given to farmers who plant corn for bio fuel and gradually increase a subsidy for farmers to make corn for food. In fact corn is the base product of most of the products we buy. Including batteries, Coke Ca-cola and many others. By stopping useless corn based bio-fuel production and making more corn for eating and other products Corn prices could see a gradual decline and so many other important products we buy. Many might say that since we need oil to ship goods and with less bio-fuel production  there will be an increase in oil prices , and this increase would be enough to make any reduction in products prices, because of surplus corn look minimal. But if we also gradually use more renewable energy and eliminate the subsidy of fossil fuels and gradually increase the subsidy on renewable energy then oil prices would not spike as much and in future might go down.

Keystone food commodities like corn, soybeans and wheat have already increased 149% this past decade, according to the New America Foundation's Smart Strategy Initiative Director Patrick Doherty.

"With persistent high unemployment, oil fueling more than 95% of America's transportation system, and transportation costs running 24% of income in suburbia and in exurbia, 35%, America's middle class is extraordinarily exposed," writes Doherty.

Read more here

Governor of Wisconsin Killed Unions.

The Wisconsin Governor has signed a bill that would diminish the collective bargaining rights of the unions in Wisconsin, and making the state workers pay more for there retirement . The right to collective bargaining has been granted to the unions for years. The governor say's it is for balancing the budget, but The state workers are okay with giving up some benefits and pay cuts, but they just want the governor to come to the table. I am pro cuts to balance a budget, but collective bargaining won't help reduce the shortfall. The governor is signing a bill that will reduce the rights a state worker. Unions are there to protect the employee, but Mr Walker see's unions as a problem. Unions are not a problem they are the body that protects the worker from abuse of the employer.

Walker consistently defended the bill, which allows the state to avoid property tax increases and public-sector layoffs while trying to balance the budget.

 The governor thinks that the economy can't work with unions, but unions are open to discussions on cuts and benefit reduction. I support reducing benefits to state workers when there is a deficit. I agree to cuts in general when  there is a deficit. Even important parts of the budget I would support being cut only if  there is a deficit that can't be solved other way. It is the exact same thing Chretien did he cut the budget then when he had a surplus he started spending more and cutting taxes.


Read more here