Marathon Pundit: Good news: Public-sector unions on the defensive

The public has finally figured out that public-sector unions such as SEIU and AFSCME are the fiends of the taxpayer. Some politicians, such as Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, still don't get it. SEIU has contributed generously to the campaign of Rod Blagojevich's former running mate. Quinn's Republican opponent, Bill Brady, leads Quinn by 11 points in the latest Rasmussen poll. To his credit, Quinn has signed public employee pension reform into law, but the unions obviously see something they like in him.

Government unions used to promote such issues as open meetings laws. Then they got greedy, as the San Francisco Chronicle tells us:

But the unions switched strategies. Although the change was gradual, by the 1990s, California's government unions had decided that, rather than cultivate voter support for their objectives, they could exert more influence in the Legislature, and in the political process generally, by lavishing campaign contributions on lawmakers. Adopting the tactics of other special-interest groups, government unions paid lip service to democratic principles while excelling at the fundamentally anti-democratic strategy of writing checks to legislators, their election committees and political action committees.

While not illegal (in fact, such contributions are constitutionally protected), the unions' aggressive spending on candidates put them on the same moral low ground as casino-owning tribes, insurance companies and other special interests that have concluded that the best way to influence the legislative process is to, well, buy it.

Public unions' distrust of voters, and abandonment of government transparency as a union objective, could be seen in their successful push, in the mid-1990s, for a change to the Brown Act, California's open-meeting law. The new provision ensured that the public would have no access to collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by cities and counties - often representing 70 percent or more of their total operating budgets - until after the agreements were signed.

What happens when voters and the press have no opportunity to question elected officials about how they propose to pay for a lower retirement age, better health benefits for retirees' dependents, richer pension formulas and the like? The officials make contractual promises that are unaffordable, unsustainable and, in general, don't come due until after those elected officials have left office. In the case of Vallejo, this veil of secrecy and the symbiotic relationship it fosters led to municipal bankruptcy.

The public-sector unions are still squawking while opinion turns against them. When government officials suggest cutbacks, public servants reply that it's about, for instance, "saving the schools," not about "protect my pension," which they get too much of at a too early age, 50, and are often unnaturally inflated by "pension spikes."

My prediction is that by this fall, SEIU and AFSCME will be viewed as pariah organizations by the majority of electorate.

I have a suggestion: If you want to know who to vote for in November, forget party labels. Find out which candidate has received the most public-sector union cash--then vote for the opponent.

The best candidate of all is the one who swears off contributions from government unions.

Technorati tags: