Everyone has priorities. During the past week, Barack Obama has found no time to condemn the attacks that Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi has launched on the Libyan people.
But he did find time to be interviewed by a Wisconsin television station and weigh in on the dispute between Republican governor Scott Walker and the state’s public-employee unions. Walker was staging “an assault on unions,” he said, and added that “public employee unions make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens.”
Advertisement
Enormous contributions, yes — to the Democratic party and the Obama campaign. Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the biggest public-employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.
“Follow the money,” Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public-employee unions — who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic party.
So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.
And, according to the Washington Post, he had time enough to get the Democratic National Committee to organize protests against the proposed Wisconsin law — protests that showed contempt for the law, with teachers abandoning classrooms, doctors writing phony medical excuses, Democratic legislators fleeing the state and holing up in a motel. The lawmakers played hooky without losing any salary, which is protected by the state constitution.
It’s true that Walker’s proposals would strike hard at the power of the public-employee unions. They would no longer have the right to bargain for fringe benefits, which are threatening to bankrupt the state government, and they would no longer be able to count on government withholding dues money and passing it along to them.
But what are the contributions that public-employee unions make to our states and our citizens? Their incentives are to increase the cost of government and reduce toward zero the accountability of public employees — both contrary to the interests of taxpaying citizens.
An argument can be made that higher pay, generous benefits, and lavish pensions will attract better people to public employment. But where are the studies that show that citizens of states with strong public-employee unions get better services than citizens in states without them?
What citizens of states with strong public-employee unions do get are higher taxes and enormous pension burdens that threaten to squeeze out funds for ongoing services, as even Democratic governors like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jerry Brown of California have figured out.
That’s why one of the great 20th-century presidents was against unions for public employees who have civil-service protections. No, not Ronald Reagan. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, “Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”
So while the Wisconsin unions are defying the law, Scott Walker is in effect following FDR’s lead — and if he’s successful, others may follow. That would be an enormous blow to the money-power of the public-employee union bosses. Public opinion seems to be with the Republicans. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 48 percent of voters support Walker, while only 38 percent support the unions.
This seems to be a sharp reversal of opinion over the last five years. Back in 2005, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger sponsored a series of ballot propositions that would have reduced the power of the state’s public-employee unions. The unions spent something like $100 million — all of it derived from taxpayers — on TV ads, and all the propositions were defeated.
Now hard economic times have left voters wondering why public employees pay practically zero toward their health insurance and pensions when private-sector workers have to pay plenty themselves. Wisconsin, which led the nation on civil-service reform a century ago and on welfare reform in the 1990s, may be showing the nation the way ahead once again.
In my opinion, this commentary by Michael Barone is an excellent explanation of the situation in Wisconsin, as well as a warning for the rest of the nation not to get victimized by the bad guys like Wisconsin has been victimized.
When we could afford to be so generous, we did what Americans typically do - we shared the wealth.
Ya know, in some ways, I really wish we could still afford to be so generous!
As the proverb goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the taxpayer's money is gone.
It's really not the union members and their changing benefits or situation I feel for; they have skills and can continue to function. I feel for those Americans who we have trapped in dependency. Those who rely on taxpayer dollars to exist. The money is just as gone for them as they will discover soon, but will they have the opportunity to succeed? Have we squelched that opportunity, and isn't it that opportunity that was The American Dream?
But then, the cynic in me, thinks that many in the government knew what it was doing all along.
Each generation must teach the population of the theivery and treachery concocted by Public Unions and their leaders. It's just another devious spin of Socialism. The American people should be ashamed to join such a Union, ashamed that such is "lawful," ashamed that we don't like talking about how we rob our neighbors when we so participate. Shame, America, Shame on us!!!
My job requires that I join a union so I recieve mailings from both CSEA and AFSCME. The latest from AFSCME, in bold headlines on the cover said, "Expose the Lies". My immediate thought was, "when are YOU going to expose YOUR lies", at which point I placed the mailing in the appropriate trash receptacle.
@jprev40 Of course you're correct that once the money is paid to public employees it no longer belongs to the taxpayers. But public employees are forced to pay dues to the union. The dues are often automatically deducted and they cannot opt out. In a sense, the employees never even see the money that goes to the unions. So Barone's argument is sound: taxpayers are forced to fund the Democratic Party through public employee unions.
It's sick and pathetic that a person who performs honest work for a living is not deemed to "own" the wages paid to him.
Barone and others like him should be ashamed of themselves.
For those who purport to see a difference because of the automatic deduction, you'd have to similarly conclude that taxes withheld from you and paid over to the government are therefore not your property either, requiring you to shut up once and for all about government "taking" anything of yours.
I see the point you are trying to make with your statement about an honest worker owning his wages, but I ask you to honestly alter your perspective a tad and see how that is exactly the same argument we have been making whenever the topic of "taxing the rich" comes up.
Why would a portion of earned wages over a certain dollar amount rightfully belong any less to the earner? Where as the converse must also be true. It becomes arbitrary if any or all wages can be classified as not "rightfully" belonging to an earner.
Nobody said that a rich man does not own all that he earns (although I can certainly make that case if you wish to hear it).
On the front of the IRS Building, there is engraved the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote: "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."
In an appeal of a tax case before Clement Haynsworth,* that judge noted something to the effect of: "The issue in this case is how much civilization the taxpayer shall be required to purchase."
So, how much civilization must a rich man purchase? A poor man? The same amount? What if one benefits a great deal more than the other? What if one never uses a court, or a road, or a regulated utility? What if one has lots of property protected by land and sea and air, and the other is homeless?
So the simplest argument is, "You get what you pay for." If rich people get more, they ought to pay more.
You get the point.
* I hope you know about Haynsworth. Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, but he was rejected in large part because of some really nasty pro-segregation rulings. Nixon then nominated G. Harrold Carswell. The rap on Carswell was that he was "mediocre." That prompted Senator Roman Hruska to utter this famous quote which is more than a bit anti-semitic:
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."
MikeB: Taxes paid to the government are no longer the property of the original owner, who can still complain about the government taking his property. It's like being forced to sell something for nothing; title passes to the recipient even if you get nothing in exchange.
On the other hand, I think Mr. Barone's observations on where the taxpayer money goes don't show any justification for considering it taxpayer money. After all, taxpayers receive money, often as wages, so perhaps it should be considered the businesses' money. Or the customers money. Money is truly fungible. Why not stop with the last hands to touch it, and call it the union members' money?
Most clubs allow you not to join, and it doesn't affect where you can work. Unions are like clubs that you have to join or you have to get another job. Maybe this is all the unions think they have to provide, i.e. permission to work in a given place. Do the union members think they are getting services they want for the dues money? Can they change or control the leadership when it doesn't provide what they expect? Otherwise, it seems like the members are being extorted for protection money.
Now as to the point that government employees wage/benefit packages have to be gilded to attract the best talent, I submit that most of the positions can be done more than adequately by the most mediocre people you can find. Do you expect Steven Hawking to wait on you at a government office? Don't you think there are far better applications for superior intellectual capability than to do the office grunt work?
I believe there are some positions that benefit from having unusually bright or well-educated individuals, though none come to mind. Why pay more so you can brag about how smart the office staff is? They'll be quite bored, too.
I think unions are pointless these days, no matter how many time Bill O'Reilly says one helped him when an employer was going to cheat him and some co-workers. There are lawyers and courts for such things, as well as social mechanisms like publicizing what happened. Unions were good things at one time, but there are plenty of laws now to take care of things.
As a taxpayer, I expect to pay money for receiving government services. When my state representative (Indiana) runs to Illinois to avoid a vote, I am not getting that service and I don't think I can sue to get my money back. Pity.
Barone is a little too smart to make such a dumb statement:
"In effect, public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic party."
The comment by MikeB regarding who owns the money once it is received as wages, is correct.
How about this example: most all defense contractors' primary customers are the US government. That's revenue received from taxes we all pay. The salaries received by these employees are funded by the government. See what I mean Barone?
All of these companies have PACs that give to both major parties, but primarily Republican. The employees have no say in the matter.
Mr. Barone, are you still willing to follow the money that goes to the Republicans?
You get what you pay for?
Is that really the argument you want to run with?
You start from a mistaken position. For that argument to ring true, there must be no minimum standard of care or a "least common denominator" of service in place.
Then the rich man would not be required to pay for the poor man's "whatever", or to pay for some level of consumption over what the poor man can supply for himself.
This is also why a growing and intrusive government is a problem. The government was given very limited obligations to fulfill. As it acquired responsibility for a growing number of obligations - it dictated the redistribution of wealth from citizen to citizen. This is in direct conflict with voluntary support for charity.
The IRS may claim taxes are used to purchase civilization. I tend to be of the mind that nothing can be truly "bought" ( or established as it appears to be used here ) when extortion is the basis for it's implementation. All you end up establishing is an environment for distrust and resentment.
But now I think we have strayed from this article's topic.
Sorry, Geoph, I don't buy your argument. To the extent that there's some rough correlation between what people pay and what they get, it's hard to quibble with the concept.
Here is a question that I have yet to see NRO discuss.
If Governor Walker gets his budget passed and weakens the unions, would the Democrats be able to undo the changes the next time they are in the majority?
Or does this bill have safeguards to make sure the Democrats and unions can't undo all the changes if they regain control of the legislature?
