Today is

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Newspaper Wynnbags Slam Hixson For Supporting Family Initiative

It never ceases to amaze me as to what minor issues the Janesville Gazette (and a few select other newspapers) will hold against a candidate or incumbent for government office once they find themselves in a position grasping for straws and making stuff up.

Such was the case when the Janesville newspaper criticized State Rep. Kim Hixson in their endorsement for Republican Evan Wynn.
JG Excerpt:
How else do you explain his proposal to require companies employing 50 or more workers to provide 16 hours of paid time off so employees can be more involved in the lives of their schoolchildren?
I believe the Gazette is referring to 2009 AB116/SB86 - School Conference and Activities Leave. Hixson voted "Yes" when this WMC opposed legislation passed in Assembly (52 - 44). But he was not a sponsor of the bill.
State Of Wisconsin Excerpt:
March 4, 2009 − Introduced by Representatives BLACK, A. OTT, SMITH, ZIGMUNT,SINICKI, BENEDICT, PARISI, POPE−ROBERTS, POCAN, GRIGSBY, A. WILLIAMS, YOUNG, CULLEN, FIELDS, ZEPNICK, PASCH, BERCEAU and SOLETSKI, cosponsored by Senators CARPENTER, LASSA, LEHMAN, PLALE, TAYLOR, ERPENBACH, MILLER and HANSEN.
But let's pretend Hixson sponsored the bill for the sake of Gazette editorial legitimacy. Shall we?

How dare he support working parents taking off an hour or two from their jobs to watch their kid perform in a school play or participate in parent/teacher conferences or character building sessions during school hours and believe they should not be punished with lost wages. Schoolchildren, especially during a poor economy, should know better than to expect to see their working parent share in their once-in-a-lifetime family bonding special events. Those privileges are only afforded to the privileged. The audacity of Hixson. Sheesh!

Even worse, the Gazette's editorial endorsement of the republican also implied that most of our area's unemployment is generated out of spite - out of the spite employees should expect if they vote for a candidate (Hixson) who believes businesses should pay their fair share of taxes. How is that working out for those of you who have lost jobs? is their thoughtfully Palinesque retort.

The newspaper also thinks it's refreshing to hear when a anti-guv health care candidate thinks people (school teachers in this case) should be forced away from their private health care plans and moved into ... you guessed it ... state employee pools if it means saving money.

The working class is in a race to bottom with these compassionate conservatives - they just want to soften the blow by making sure we all hit bottom at the same time.

Related
Republican Candidate Issues "For Sale" Sign To Lobbyist Group

Note: This posting was not authorized by any political party or candidate.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bit confused on this one Lou so please clarify. Think the Gazette is wrong to show support for any candidate over another in any article and as such I don't go to the Gazette for my source of news. But is the exerpt above from an editorial? That is meant to be an opinionated piece and as such I can understand them printing it.

As for School Teachers health care. My whole life growing up my parents received WPS health care as teachers. They received health care that only public sector Wisconsin employees can get (and it was amazing!). My parents and their coworkers would conceed pay increases and other benefits in their union meetings all the time to keep their health care plan.

It would be ridiculous of us to force that to be changed now without acknowledging those concessions of the past. We cry for better education in our schools, but we want our teachers to be given less pay and benefits to get it? Can't have it both ways.

Is WPS a "private" health care plan?

Lou Kaye said...

Of course the excerpt is from an editorial - I too have no qualms about their right to exercise their opinion or endorsements. That's their call. But I will call them out on their inconsistencies - editorial or not.

My main point about the newspaper's school health care positon was that republicans, conservatives and Tea Party folks are advocating for less government, individual accounts and responsibility, yet will support state employee group and/or collective advantages if it means saving money - irregardless of the participants health care quality. I chose the word "private" only to equate with the newspaper's description of "expensive" regarding teachers current insurance. It was a poor word to use for the context.

Post a Comment