"But does it mean taking on the unions? The paper assures its readers, in the most self-contradictory statement of the editorial, that stating this is 'is not to be anti- union, or anti-worker.' Of course not. As we have seen in Wisconsin, the union is ready from the beginning to make all the necessary concessions that a state has to have to produce a fiscally sound budget. In Wisconsin, that awful Republican governor and his cronies, the editorial tells us, instead of having a serious discussion about the budget shortfall, have used the facts 'as a pretext to crush unions.'
"That is not what they are proposing. Of course not. Cuomo’s course is 'reasonable,' since he 'expects public unions to make sacrifices.' Didn’t Scott Walker expect the same in his state? Sure, I bet he did. But somehow, the unions did not want to work on a compromise with him. Instead, they have started a win or die movement, calling in all the troops from out of state, from Michael Moore (who doesn’t allow unions in his own production company) to rock stars and others of the comfortably rich who have to be on the 'progressive' side.
"As if they did not read their own previous sentence, the editorial next says — I had to read it twice — that negotiations are set to begin, but 'so far union leaders have publicly resisted Mr. Cuomo’s proposals.' Oh — wait a minute — I thought that Cuomo had expected them to make sacrifices? Guess his expectations were wrong. So what can he do if the unions do not play ball? The paper’s answer: 'He will have to lay off up to 9,800 workers.' Didn’t Scott Walker tell his unions the very same thing? And isn’t this what has led to him being portrayed as a monster?"