Steve, I find you very offensive lately. I wish you wouldn't criticize cancer so much. It has feelings too.

Bryant: Well done. You left out the specifics on why the Democrats voted the way they did. Care to tell us. It is usually the proper thing to do when positing an opinion. Also, anyone out there who can point to one environmental issue supported by the GOP-Teahadist Party? Better yet an environmental bill of their own design. Not likely. Why is that? It's because the Liberals thought of it first. Bryant that Broad brush you paint with has got to be mighty heavy. Oh my, more environmental protections, what a dastardly thing to care about. I see give companies freedom to extract all the profit they can out of an investment with out concerns for profit squelching petty environmental concerns. That's very nice of you to put profit before the inherent problems which come with mining, problems you failed to include in your biased rant.

William you know why ALL Democrats voted the way they did. Because they are at war with Scott Walker. They could care less about anything but restoring their corrupt funding scheme. Anyone else supporting then is a useful idiot. Some Democrat gave signal to private unions they supported mining, which we all know was bull. If that were true the only so called compromises would not have included contested case hearing that the company stated would be a deal breaker.

No attacks. The mining company failed to comply with operating standards because it decreased their bottom line. This is all about profit margins, nothing else. If you are okay with a mining company, a business that is plagued by operational problems, to come in and have no constraints on how they are going to operate, then you should think about that again. The mining company is killing the jobs, they are putting profit ahead of jobs. Interesting you mentioned forthcoming ripostes (attacks) , if I may, I think that indicates you know you're on shaky ground in you misinformed opinion.

Mr. Hoffa, will you be attending the AFP event before this one? And I see my advice about finding a smaller, indoor venue went unheeded. I am serious that perception of any outdoor event without at least 10,000 people is going to be regarded as low-impact. The last successful event wasn't large enough to be picked up by MSNBC that I recall.

And if you think you'll have that many people you really should go to the State Capitol.

I have to go to Madison next week on business--let me know if you want to me to pick you up a permit to enter the Capitol--you'll need one if you have four or more people in your rally. ; )

@Bren -

I'm not sure what events I'll be attending just yet.

Funny how I missed your criticisms of the sizes / turnouts for the 'Reclaim Wisconsin' tour events. Oh, I know - those comments must have been deleted by the Patch administrators, right?

Personally, I don't have a problem with the Capitol, but Walker supporters aren't made to feel very welcome anywhere within the People's Socialistic Republic of Dane County, so for the time being, I believe that we're sticking to either friendly or neutral turf, building the movement, before diving head first into the belly of the beast, so to say.

Thanks for the offer of getting a permit for my group and I though - I really do appreciate your thoughts and well wishes, but I don't think we'll be needing one just yet! :-)

Walker represents me inside the capitol, standing on the outside throwing a temper tantrum is so 2011.

Give it up. Walker sold out to ALEC and the Koch Brothers, he is not fit to govern and neither are the other sycophants aligned with Walker, The Kochs and ALEC. Your legislation was written by some corporate lawyers then given to Scotty and go home and be a good little boy and get it passed. If you are okay with outsiders writing your legislation then you should pay more attention to who is running your state, it isn't the GOP. You're welcome.

Mr. Hoffa, I understand 60,000 people attended today's Reclaim Wisconsin rally in Madison. I'll be happy to talk about that one! ; )

Steve, rally season 2.0 has just begun with today's event in Madison.

@Bren -

And somehow that's supposed to make up for the rather weak support seen at all the local stops for the 'tour'?

The biggest rally during this season will be Walker's victory rally after he defeats this bogus recall!

@Bren -

Once again, you show your disposition to trust clearly biased sources. WISN actually put the estimate of the Madison rally at a little under 35,000, which is significantly less than your alleged 60,000. Where did that number come from anyway Bren - the Daily Kos? Not to mention that WISN describes the crowd as "thousands of pro-union demonstrators," but you keep insisting that the recall has nothing to do with the public sector union issue.

EPIC FAIL!

http://www.wisn.com/r/30652633/detail.html

Mr. Hoffa, I posted while the event was going on, I will gladly accept WISN's count post-event. I wasn't aware of a tour but I have been very busy the past 2 weeks so accept your statement they weren't well attended.

Oh, oh, looks like someone has been reading his Charlie Sykes.

Keith you are a professional moocher, come on, give us some pointers.

Alfred: Bravo, a declarative statement with no substantive content. So, FOX-BECK-FATTY of you. Just toss it out there and hope some other ill informed person buys it and passes it along. Good foot soldier in FOX and the Teahadist Party's WAR ON AMERICA. . Think up some fictional information declare it as fact. Take no responsibility for the negative effect it has on people. That's propaganda, not information. No content, just sloganeering and talking point regurgitation.

@P -

What is so wrong with this statutory provision - it provides that a public interest balancing test be completed by the WDNR before issuing the mine a water withdrawal permit.

It doesn't guarantee the permit, does it?

Again, nothing but fear mongering. Don't you have anything factually substantive to offer instead of mere negative conjecture, speculation, supposition, and inference?

Good grief!

Mining companies are notorious in agreeing to the law, then spend tons of money on buying politicians to eliminate the responsibilities. We have been down this road back East, where entire mountains disappear, lives become dependent on the mining company, the local environment goes to hell, drinking water gets contaminated, property values go down, health hazards prevail. People leave and the town becomes a ghetto of empty houses with soot covering everything. A ghost town. And we should just sit back and let this happen again. Okay.

P All your posts miss the point. The only options offered by those who opposed the bill included the contested case hearings which the company stated would be a deal breaker meaning no mine. Thus Schultz and the Democrats never seriously tried allow mining. Worse yet they sent a message to all business that Democrats in this State will be openly hostile to business trying to create jobs.

It's unbelievable that any member of the Republican Party, which used to stand for land/resource conservation, would actually accept this. So interesting that GTAC pulled up stakes when the real facts of the situation began to emerge and the questions began

Again, this is nothing more than irrational fear mongering.

The statutory language appears to pertain to the size of the mining operation being conducted.

There is nothing in the cited statutory language that would permit the mining operation from contaminating anything outside the mining property, is there?

Not to mention that all private property tort liabilities such as trespass, not to mention federal CWA liability, continue to remain fully intact under the bill as it was proposed.

Let's get real here, shall we?

Reading this bill is more frightening with each read. It basically would have allowed GTAC carte blanche.

It is bigger than just the mining jobs. The Democrats have sent the message to employers they are openly hostile to any business until they get control of the state. This vote will be devastating to job growth until either the Democrats are voted out or some Democrats decide to care about something other than just restoring their corrupt funding scheme.

A reprehensible bill.

That's a bit of a stretch from the cited statutory language, isn't it?

Where does the bill eliminate regulatory authority from the DNR exactly? The cited language merely creates a presumption of necessity, not an absolute authority to act.

More fear mongering from the left!

B(itch)Bren

The DNR had no qualms whatsoever about the environmental impact of the proposed mine.

Please stop your weak pathetic fear mongering. It really shows how pathetic and scared you are of any good news or progress that may result from Walker's ideas.

oak creek, the new head of the WI DNR is Cathy Stepp, a former Republican state senator who criticized the agency. Crony appointment. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/article_59520726-1440-11e0-b7f3-001cc4c03286.html

(And yes, Democrats make crony appointments too.)

@oak creek resident -

Your vulgar name-calling is not doing our side any favors. Please, conduct yourself civilly on the Patch boards or Hoffa will have to send some Teamsters with concrete over to your house tonight!

Agreed,
I am having a hard time supporting this mine knowing the facts. I wish we could just leave them out.

$$andSense -

What else are we supposed to do on Patch?

My state senator (Van Wanggaard) voted appropriately - what more can I do?

BTW - It's not in our playbook to send death threats to non-constituent legislators, that's the left that does that sort of thing, as well as banging on drums and blowing on plastic horns!

Ive contacted Larson several times.... even tried posting on his fb page but he keeps deleting my posts and only responded to one of my emails.

Mr. Hoffa

I am not talking about death threats nor would I even suggest such extremism. Those people deserve to go prison. If you agree with the legislatures outcome, fine.

Hoffa

What else can you do on Patch?

Post your letters to your reps. Or post your emails and responses. Share what you know that the rest of us can build on. It isn’t that hard.

Proof's in the pudding, Lyle. If they open up an operation in another state, then we'll know that, as least as far as their analysis goes, the restrictions here prevented them from doing so here. If nobody jumps in to fill the void here while expansion continues elsewhere, then that's a pretty good indication that we've boxed ourselves out of the market. Which is what you folks on the left want, anyways.

If another company does come along that's willing to take a shot at it given the current constraints, I fully expect that those on your side will do whatever it takes to toughen those enough to make sure they ultimately move elsewhere as well.

You guys just really don't want mining here, period.

@Bob McBride...The only problem that I see is that taconite needs are declining overall. As you state we'll see how this plays out. However, if taconite mining would return to be viable, then we will have to address the issues to allow safe mining.

Lyle, you don't want taconite mining here. Just admit it. Why hedge the issue with "if it comes back "we will have to address the issues to allow safe mining"? Be straightforward about it.

You think WI can pick and choose the kinds of businesses it allows to operate here based primarily on a social agenda. If they're unwilling to operate under your criteria, the hell with them.

If you guys regain control, we'll see how well that strategy plays out. I'm guessing not so well, based on it not playing out so well in the past. That's what's at issue here, not the current demand for taconite.

Ya those prices sure tanked didn't they Lyle

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/iron-ore-pellets/5-years/

If Scott Walker wants credit for this disturbing mining bill and risk of environmental disaster, he is most welcome to it... ; )

700 permanent jobs, for as long as the ore was available. The rest were temporary, with no guarantee that Wisconsinites would have received hiring preference over the out-of-state contractors with prior history with GTAC's out-of-state mining lead team.

B(itch)Bren

Ok you want to tax the shit out of them, you want to guarantee that all the jobs will go to wisconsin workers, you want to add additional taxes as well.

At the same time, you WON'T give them a reasonable timeline for acceptance and building of the mine. So the company walks away - surprised?

It's because of idiots like you that businesses HATE LIBERALS.

@oak creek resident -

Your vulgar name-calling and now use of profanity is not doing our side any favors. Please, conduct yourself civilly on the Patch boards or Hoffa will have to send some Teamsters with concrete over to your house tonight!

Bren, it's thousands of jobs for decades. 700 mine jobs plus all the job creation that happens when you drop 1.5 billion+ in an area. Stop lying

Steve, I pulled the number from GTAC's website. Perhaps you should call the company and tell them to stop lying.

You continue to ignore and lie that a mine will not have other positive effects on the surrounding economy and mining economy as a whole. Do I need to explain to you again how this mine will create thousands of jobs? Or is it too hard to understand because it isn't a public funded career or project?

@William -

As I explained above, I'm merely analyzing the confines of the statutory language contained in the excerpts posted by P.

If you prefer empty conjecture, speculation, supposition, inference, and unsupported comparative analysis taken out of context, so be it, but I'll stick with the cold hard facts, thank your very much.

In case you forgot, the mine would still have to comply with federal CWA provisions, would it not? And if they cheated or violated such provisions to increase their bottom line, you guys would have a team of toxic tort attorneys ready to go to effectively eat up any increased profits that would be realized from such deception and dishonesty.

Sorry, but I like to live in the real world!

Any industry has lawsuits, don't fool yourself. With MSHA needing to stay alive with revenue it goes hand and hand and has for years and years. Cracked windshield, $600 fine. Burnt out light bulb, $300.

@Steve...Enough of this nonsense. Have you ever been through an MSHA investigation or have you ever been called as a material witness by MSHA? I have and MSHA is the only thing standing between life and death for a number of miners. I've been deep inside of coal mines and just about every other kind of mining operation you can think of inside and outside the US. You pass yourself off as someone who knows something about mining, but with the blather you have been putting out, you know nothing. Ouit putting out misinformation.

What misinformation?

I just wish you guys would be honest and admit you don't want mining in this state under any conditions. For that matter, you'd probably be pleased to see what's left of the paper mills in this state shut down, along with the nuclear power plant, the coal burning electric plants. You'd just as soon see gas go to 8-9.00 euros/liter, outlaw any kind of fossil fuel burning vehicle that wasn't a hybrid, confiscate land most conducive to wind farms, fine factory farms out of existence....have I missed anything?

@Lyle -

Have you ever been in a salt mine?

Bob,
I just wish you guys would be honest and admit you want mining in this state regardless of the conditions.

If it means jobs, bring it on. We need them and you folks aren't offering up any alternatives, other than plumping up the ranks of an already overburdened public sector.

@JRH...Yes I have been in salt mines. I have been in the salt mines under Detroit and several mines in Poland. Why do you ask?

Bob,
Lets just run a scenario for the sake of argument. Wouldn't it be smarter to deal with the issue using trade tariff's rather than allowing our environment to succumb to the downfall that has hit those that we are competing with?

In the area of my second job, we call this the race to zero. When your competitors race to the lowest possible price (which is usually unsustainable but is done to bring in business, in this case its not price but limiting environmental protections.), you can chase the disaster and try to make money elsewhere, or you can adapt and provide some other product or service and sell you "overpriced wares" as a collateral to what you do well. At my second job, we do not race to zero and we are amazingly competitive and business is in constant growth. Sure, this can't be applied to mining, but the theory of non-sustainability holds.

What are you offering up as an alternative product/industry that's going to provide jobs, since you theory essentially doesn't apply to mining? Theories are great, what have you got in terms of a viable, verifiable alternative that someone's willing to invest in and begin the process of bringing it to production today?

@Lyle -

Just curious, as I too have been in a few salt mines :-)

Bob,
My thought is that we don't race to zero. If we rectify any trade tariff inequalities as well as provide less of an advantageous atmosphere for American businesses to export work just to bring the product back, we could see some corrections to our economy. It is my understanding that the savings of manufacturing in China are not equal to the pay disparity by any means. I also understand that making a product overseas to import back to the US (although US companies aren't "importing" by certain measures) leaves the citizens here less likely to afford the stuff the businesses are trying to sell. I know it is quite convoluted and much more difficult to rectify than that. But, as I understand, the jobs numbered 700. I know that there is argument that there would be more jobs at CAT because of it. But, the truth is this. They will dig a hole somewhere, and they will need CAT to do so, so the trucks and machines will sell mindless of the mine here or there. So, for 700 jobs and pollution, I would like to take a pass at this time.

So we're right back where we started. You basically don't want mining in this state, but you can't really point to anything solid as an alternative. You've got some thoughts on tariffs, which I don't really think you've thought through completely, but other than that, it's pretty much pie in the sky stuff. I understand the race to the bottom stuff - I'm in an industry populated by the idiot savants of racing to the bottom, which is one reason we've yet to be totally obliterated by foreign competition.

Here's what I'd like to see. I'd like to see those who are ardently dead-set against this industry and any other that doesn't suit their sensibilities as regards the environment, unions, a "living wage", energy efficiency, and all the rest of the PC "progressive" agenda and who aren't a bit shy about making a big public stink about it stop carping about the fact that we're lagging behind areas of the country that haven't decided to be as proudly anti-business as we are. I know this may be hard to believe, but people who invest the money to create the jobs tend to develop one gigantic case of cognizant dissonance when they see the kinds of things we've seen across this state, out in the streets, surrounding the Capitol and elsewhere over the past year in a state claiming to be "open for business".

well, how about this. I am absolutely for mining, but not at all costs. But, I am sure that you will say that this is ardently against mining. That is you dissonance. You are living in a dichotomous world where they are either with you or against you. You can give that up. I would love to have a mine, where the industry is completely responsible and liable for any problems that they cause over a reasonable threshold which is to be held accountable by at least one agency. Sound good to you?

It's hard to say since you're essentially speaking in abstracts here. It would be fine with me if the parameters set actually are achievable and realistic from the standpoint of mining companies actually being able to meet them and still operate here profitably. If not, then you're essentially saying you don't want mining here.

Pick an industry - any industry. I can say I welcome them here and then insist on restrictions regarding the way they operate that makes it impossible for them to operate here, then state that it's their fault for not relocating here because they're greedy. That's essentially what's going on here.

So, Bob,
If I can't say that I would allow them to come here and mine at all costs, then I must be against them. I am for reasonableness. I don't think that is what has happened here with the way the law was written. Obviously this is where we will disagree, but once again its an all or none for you, in which case I am absolutely your enemy in this. Glad we could meet in the middle of your black/white definition of mining.

No. Reread what I said above. I said that if they restrictions you wish to impose upon them are reasonable and achievable, then that's fine - that doesn't mean open-ended, no restrictions whatsoever. However, if you set restrictions that are purposely higher than those in areas where taconite is mined and those restrictions make mining it here untenable, you are effectively saying you don't want it mined here. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to digest. Try looking at it for what it is, rather than placing a value judgement on it.

What's this got to do with anything?

I don't need to read a book to know all that. I'm in the middle of it every day.

We're not competing with China anymore. We lost that battle many years ago. We're competing with other states. While we're in the process of coming up with "new ideas" (ones that, ultimately, will end up over in China anyways, unless something changes over there to make it less attractive as a place for sourcing everything) we still need to put people to work here, now.

Wisconsin has been losing jobs for years. It's not an attractive place to do business in the first place and, with, technology being what it is, even those companies who are still here no longer have to actually do the business of business here.

As far as attracting new business goes, we've been making a strong statement for a year now about how interested we are in being business friendly. We made another one yesterday up in Madison. No company in their right mind would locate here and even the very few who have expressed an interest and have gone so far to invest money here in anticipation of doing so have met the kind of resistance that has caused them to change their minds (see: GTAC),

Businesses don't care about our fine, "progressive" tradition and the lengths to which those who really don't operate in the business world are willing to go to protect it. They want to make money. They're not willing to absorb a loss just for the privilege of doing business here - greedy bastards that they are.

I'd suggest we stop shooting ourselves in the foot by presenting an anti-business image at every opportunity. Until we do that, there's not really a lot to suggest beyond that.

I think nostalgia drives a lot of it. Some people buy hairpieces and a Corvette or vintage muscle car in an attempt to recapture their youth, others bust out the fringe jackets, floppy hats and bell bottoms and squeeze their pear-shaped bodies into them in spirit if not in actuality.

It's hard for me to reconcile the use of the words "progressive" and "flashback" in a description of what is essentially the same event. I'm going to have to stop referring to those on the left as "progressives" and revert to "liberal". I don't see much that to my mind that can be categorized as forward thinking coming from that side of the equation, currently. Reverting to the methodology of the '60s and looking back fondly to the social and economic order of that time certainly isn't moving forward in my book.

But that's just me I guess.

What do you gain by standing your ground instead of negotiating? This is perfect example of what happens. This state has stood it's ground as a rule, and it's suffered the consequences of doing so. Maybe if we weren't so resolutely anti-business here on so many levels we wouldn't be left with so few offers like this one and we could actually afford to pick and choose where it counts. That's not the case. The liberals in this state seem to think we can go back to the days of high-paying union jobs, yearly summertime job actions, a strong heavy equipment manufacturing base. Those days are gone, and they're not coming back - as you, yourself, have noted. It's a different world now. The ability to move jobs virtually anywhere and to manage business from virtually anywhere means that we will continue to have this position of weakness until changes occur elsewhere.

Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we can legislate it away.

Try this. It applies to both sides. "Desperate times call for desperate measures".

It's not easy money at all. It's that money is anything but easy right now. When things are going good, as they were in the '90s, everything's wonderful. The same things we go ape-poopy about right now were fine with everyone, as long as we were all making money - which we were. Once it became apparent that tech boom was a shell game, that we couldn't all be dot com millionaires and that we dropped the ball by letting manufacturing and lower level support slip off-shores (facilitated by that very same tech boom, which also drastically reduced manpower needs in all areas) along with the money that followed it, we began eating our own and we've been doing so ever since.

What's the solution? Right now it's out of our hands. Until then, unfortunately, we still eat our own, which means we have to compete with other states for jobs and not create situations that drive even more jobs overseas. That means not increasing the cost of doing business in this country.

We also have to keep in mind that we're not destined to be the number 1 consumer market for much longer. Some experts believe we already aren't. So we can't create a situation whereby we take actions here to try to control imports into this country that cause other markets to react accordingly, or that make what goods we do produce here for export so expensive as to be uncompetitive. There is no easy solution.

Same thing happened to with the real estate boom, with the same result. When house prices were going up, while at the same time people who had never been able to buy houses were able to get financing, everything was great. It wasn't until the bottom fell out of that that the finger pointing started happening.

We can end up with a third round of this...a sort of "green boom"...if we're not careful. If the government decides to favor and promote "green" certain industries via tax and/or regulatory policy and they falsely become investment darlings as a result, that's very much what could happen. Whether or not we can absorb yet another hit like the last two is debatable. We just barely survived this last one and we're still not out of the water.