Elections Have Consequences

Note to union members protesting in Madison: Elections have consequences.

Read "Unions want to overturn election result," by Patrick McIlheran.

Say you generally liked Gov. Scott Walker's move to rein in government labor costs but had a few doubts on his method. The last few days should have cleared that up nicely.

The public-sector union tantrums, meant to make lawmakers wobble, have an inadvertent message for the rest of us: Voters can vote all they want. We can elect a cheapskate governor and a Legislature to match. But come the moment, unions will have the last, loudest word.

They'll have it if takes marches. They'll have it if it takes what amounts to an illegal strike, with so many Madison teachers calling in sick Wednesday that the district closed schools. If it takes showing up for a we-know-where-your-family-is protest on Walker's Wauwatosa lawn while he was at work, the unions are sure they can outshout any election result.

This is exactly why Walker is right to limit the unions' power over government spending.

We are taxed enough already.

The union members can't simply throw a hissy fit and demand that my family and others in the private sector, struggling with cuts in our own benefits, subsidize their wants.

The people of Wisconsin spoke on November 2, 2010. We elected Scott Walker, knowing his intentions to rein in government spending.

McIlheran writes:

Union activists in Madison Tuesday spoke apocalyptically of "class war," hinting wildly at general strikes and takeovers of the Capitol. They correctly see their control of the state slipping and must figure that if they bring 13,000 shouting people to Madison, they can overrule the election.

Any worried legislators should keep in mind that Walker drew about five times that many votes in Dane County alone in November.

That really puts it in perspective.

The army of union activists is greatly outnumbered by supporters of Walker's plan for Wisconsin.