Yesterday, on June 25th, 2011, Scott Walker signed his budget bill into law, solidifying the curtailment of collective bargaining as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to public education, all in the name of fixing a four billion dollar budget shortfall. Even as Walker signed the bill, the same divisiveness and controversy that defined the initial proceedings continued, as protesters streamed to Green Bay where the bill was signed, and as conservative state supreme court justice David Prosser allegedly choke slammed anyone that did not share his emphatic support of Walker's ultra-conservative ideals (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26judge.html). Clearly, this entire budget proceeding has left a trail of frustration, disillusionment, and in many cases, confusion.
But it could have been different. In fact, Walker likely could have passed a similar budget, with similar curtailments to collective bargaining, with a political strategy based on openness and honesty as opposed to closed door proceedings and circumvention of traditional procedure (although in all fairness, neither side on this issue was particularly keen on traditional political etiquette...). Walker's biggest failure was and is his lack of political transparency. And when a government takes such bold measures, transparency, accountability, and prudence are absolute essentials.
As an active of observer of the budgetary proceedings from February to the present, I have noticed that just about all of those who oppose the plan over collective bargaining are frustrated because they feel a basic civic right has been taken from them. And while the discussion on whether or not collective bargaining truly is a civic right is a necessary conversation to have, let us just assume for the sake of argument that collective bargaining truly is a civic right.
Conversely, let us assume, again for the sake of argument, that taking away the civic right of collective bargaining will in fact be a long term economic fix for the state of Wisconsin- that it will save the state money, cut down on bureaucracy, and make room for new jobs.
The question we must discuss is this: When is it ethical and proper for a government to remove a right for the purposes of economic gain?
There is no clear answer to this question. But it is a question that needs to be addressed in discussions by public workers, government officials, fiscal conservatives and liberal Democrats.
I am convinced that had Walker been more transparent about his plans to curtail collective bargaining in his campaign that we would be in a different position as a state- one with less name calling and fewer bruised necks in the Supreme Court chambers.
In times of economic hardship, sacrifices will need to be made on all ends of the political spectrum. Controversy will arise as budgets are tightened, as programs are cut, as some programs are funded more fully. But in situations wherein a right is taken away for a forecasted economic gain, we must have more discussion to determine the truly ethical path to take.
With the budget passed, my frustrations over the last few months can be set aside. We cannot change what has transpired- but what we can certainly bring about is a more open and honest discourse in future situations when it becomes necessary to weigh the importance of economic gain versus the presence of long established rights and privileges.
