On nuance.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (via jsonline):

Out of respect for the institution of the Legislature and the democratic process, I am calling on Senate Democrats to show up to work today, debate legislation and cast their vote. Their actions by leaving the state and hiding from voting are disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of public employees who showed up to work today and the millions of taxpayers they represent.

Commenter Peter Rock:

The democrats are like little children that take their ball and go home when they don't get their way.

 Commenter saveusfromsocialism:

Rotten cowards these liberals and Democrats!

Thank God for Scott Walker; save our state from financial disaster and the regime of Obama and Herb Kohl; our future is at risk!

Commetner WIHoo:

What a shame that these democrats refuse to do their job. It doesn't seem right that they accept a pay check from the state and then run away when the going gets tuff.

If this bill is such a bad idea then the democrats should have no problem showing everyonoe that it is a bad idea.

Democrats: Give democracy a chance!

The above encapsulates the popular narrative thrown out and regurgitated from those on the right: that Senate Democrats are whiny, petulant, cowardly, paycheck-stealing children.

To address the claims, allow this author to propose a rhetorical situation within Any State, USA:

There exists two dominant political parties in said state: Party A and Party B.

Party A occupies the Governor's office and owns a majority of State Senators (19 to 14).

Party B does not.

Party A introduces and successfully passes legislation reducing the state's tax income by $140 million.

Party B sits in chambers, twiddling their thumbs and other appendages.

Not two months later, the state of this exercise finds itself with a budget shortfall of $137 million through the current fiscal year.  And an upcoming shortfall for the next two years projected at $3.6 billion.  The Governor then introduces a bill aimed to reduce these budget problem.

In this bill, does the Governor:

A)  Raise taxes
B)  Think better of his previous legislation.  While it won't fix this year's budget, it won't add unnecessary debt to the upcoming fiscal periods, making the eventual fix easier
C)  Blame state-employee unions

Obviously, the Governor selects 'C'.

In this bill, the Governor looks to eliminate collective bargaining for state-employee unions except for negotiations on wages.  In turn, the Governor will force state-employees to pay half their pension costs (they pay none now) and pay 12.6% of their health-care costs (twice their current obligation).  The Governor, however, does not make this demand of all state-employee unions and only demands this of those who aren't policeman, firefighters and troopers.  This, of course, has nothing to do with those unions being the only state-employee unions who supported the Governor in his election bid.

This bill will save $30 million for the state this fiscal year, and $300 million in the following two fiscal years.

This proposal makes the local newspapers on a Friday.  And on the next Thursday, the Party A Senators will look to pass said bill, having the votes necessary to do so.

What follows is an actual transcription of dialogue between the State Senators of Party A and Party B.

Senator 1A: Hey guys.

Party B Senators: Hey.

Senator 1A: Here's this bill we're passing next week.

Senator 1B: Oh?

**The Party A Senators hand out the bill**

**The Party B Senators read the bill**

Senator 1A: Do you guys have any questions?

Senator 2B: I have one.

Senator 1A: Yes?

Senator 2B: This eradication of state-employee union collective bargaining rights for matters other than wages, this is permanent?

Senator 1A: Yes.

Senator 3B: And these eradications don't apply to the state-employee unions that endorsed the Governor?

Senator 1A: That's right.

Senator 4B: For clarity's sake, you're removing the collective bargaining rights of all state-employee unions--for matters other than wages--that didn't endorse the Governor?

Seantor 1A: Yes.

Senator 5B: And you're serious about this being permanent?

Senator 1A: Yes.

Senator 6B:  A permanent solution to a temporary problem?

Senator 1A: Y-

Senator 2A: I'll take this one.

Senator 1A: Okay.

Senator 2A: Yes, it is permanent.

Senator 6B: Huh.

Senator 7B: So, okay, no more collective bargaining EVER except for wages except for the Governor's endorsers, and this only addresses $300 million out of the upcoming $3.6 billion shortfall?

Senator 2A:  Right.

Senator 8B:  And this doesn't even address a quarter of the current shortfall?

Senator 2A:  Also right.

Senator 9B:  And you're not just doing this to bust unions?

Senator 2A:  We're doing this to balance the budget.

Senator 8B:  Didn't you just say this won't balance the budget?

Senator 2A:  Right.

Senator 3A:  I feel like we're not explaining this well enough.  The benefits that state-employees make are far out of line with the current benefits their private-sector neighbors receive.  As a result of this-

Senator 10B:  But the state-employees gave up higher wages for better bene-

Senator 3A:  As a result of this disparity, we feel it is only fair for the state-employees to pay their fair share.  This isn't punitive in any way-

Senator 11B:  I would've went with 'ideologically hating unions for having the audacity to not want individual laborers tread upon in the name of profit or service', but 'punitive' works too, I guess.

Senator 3A: This isn't punitive, this is just about getting out-of-control spending under control by making things more fair for everyone.

**The Party B Senators huddle and discuss this before addressing Party A again**

Senator 1B:  We don't like this.  We don't like sacrificing more than forty years of union history and the future of these unions just to make a drop in a bucket difference in the current and upcoming shortfalls.  We would like to negotiate on this bill, maybe add a few amendments, maybe do some rewriting... just general changing of the bill to make it more palatable.  I mean, it is silly that blame is being put on state-employee unions for a problem not of their doing.

Senator 3A:  As I said before, this isn't punitive.

Senator 12B:  I'm not sure you know what 'punitive' means.

Senator 1B: That's not helping, 12B.

Senator 12B: I'm sorry.

Senator 1B:  Regardless of the bill being punitive or not, we'd like to negotiate.

Senator 1A:  No.

Senator 1B:  No?

Senator 1A:  No.

Senator 1B:  No?

Senator 1A:  No.

Senator 2B:  No?

Senator 2A:  No.

**THE NEXT WEDNESDAY, A DAY BEFORE THE VOTE IS SCHEDULED**

Senator 14B:  No?

Senator 19A:  No.

Senator 14B:  No?

Senator 19A:  Nah.

At this point, the Party B Senators meet in private to discuss options.  Knowing that 20 members of the State Senate must be present at quorum for voting, they subtract 19 from 20 and see that Party A is 1 short of being able to move on this piece of legislation on their own.

Party B Senators, against a Party A that won't negotiate or propose any new amendments or back any Party B amendments, face a dilemma.  Do they:

A)  Show up to vote, allowing a bill (which everything about and around is totalitarian in nature) to pass 19-14
B)  Answer the call to quorum but not vote, a sign-of-protest which results in the bill passing 19-0
C)  Don't show up, thereby halting the bill in its tracks in an attempt to open up some actual discourse

The Party B Senators choose 'C'.  And this makes them whiny, petulant, cowardly, paycheck-stealing children.