The Los Angeles Times has an opinion column that slams Wisconsin Governor Walker for his decision to take on public unions in his state. The column is an illustration of how the "wise men and women" who run the editorial boards of many newspapers can tie themselves up in knots to support liberal policies - sometimes, as in this case, failing to follow their own logic.

The column states that "it's no fault of Wisconsin's teachers and other state workers that past administrations have awarded overly generous contracts;" but then contradicts its own statement when it later admits that "all too often union representatives are negotiating with politicians who owe their jobs to union backing and who are spending money that isn't theirs."

State workers elect their union leaders; state workers are free to join a union. State workers are responsible for the actions their leaders take when they leverage union campaign money to influence politicians to reward state workers overly generous contracts that are bankrupting states across the nation.

The editorial board than suggests that instead of responding the way Walker did there might be another way that "labor union influence over elections could be curbed". The paper never mentions any ways to reduce labor union influence.

How could "labor influence over elections be curbed" without violating the Supreme Court decision regarding free speech and political campaigns.

In fact, Governor Walker is trying to reduce the influence of unions in politics by requiring unions be certified annually and by ending the practice of the state automatically taking union dues out of the paychecks of state workers and sending them into the union coffers. These are monies that union leaders then direct -at their own discretion - to politicians who support a big state agenda and big benefit packages for state workers.