You Can't Have It Both Ways, Part N+N

Three months ago, few outside of Wisconsin knew of Scott Walker, the state's Republican governor. But now that he shepherded to approval the strongest anti-union legislation since Ronald Reagan busted the air traffic controllers' union, Walker may be one of the most important people in American labor history, which is remarkable.

While it's difficult to side with public sector unions' intractability on removing clearly subpar employees or implementing new proposals for operating governments, the idea that a union's collective bargaining rights should be shattered is ridiculous. Sure, states' unfunded pension mandates cast a gigantic shadow over their fiscal health, which creates the possibility of higher taxes at some point, abstractly dissuading businesses from investing. However, the idea that states' precarious fiscal positions stem from the $70,000 that Sandra in accounting earns annually in salary and benefits is also ridiculous. (Instead, this highlights that a painful debate is needed about the way government operates and collects money -- one that probably won't happen because it's too painful for politicians on two-year election cycles and the general public, including me. See, most recently, the fate of the Bowles-Simpson commission.) Furthermore, if corporate tax policy dictated business decisions, everyone would've left Boston and Cambridge a long time ago; somehow, they keep coming.

Gov. Walker said as often as he could that his bill was necessary to save Wisconsin's finances. Yet, if prudent budgets and long-term fiscal health were truly his chief concerns, he wouldn't have pushed this bill only a few weeks after approving large tax cuts for businesses. The two measures aren't worth the exact same dollar amount, so the state probably saves some money in the end, but if there were any further proof needed that Republican policy favors well-off executives over the middle class, Walker's policies are a perfect example. As some money arrives in the state's coffers from tackling union expenses, it heads right back out.

The track record of using taxes to induce companies to hire new employees is dubious. Just this week, Fidelity decided to close its offices in Marlborough, a Boston suburb, where 1,100 employees work, and move the jobs elsewhere in the country. Fidelity, though, gets to keep the tax breaks provided when it added those workers. The Globe has also reported that over their life span, Massachusetts' corporate tax breaks have often yielded very few of their promised jobs and migrated to wealthy municipalities from the struggling ones for which they were intended. For Wisconsin's sake, hopefully Walker's program doesn't suffer the same fate -- though given his politics, he would more likely believe that his administration won't be able to manage the program successfully because government isn't good at anything.

Finally, as Gail Collins pointed out in a recent op-ed column, the new chief of Wisconsin's state patrol is the father of the Legislature's House speaker and Senate majority leader. (Both are Republicans; the party controls both chambers.) Walker appointed him after he lost his most recent election and now he earns about $105,000 per year. You can be for fiscal stringency, but you can't also be for corporate favoritism and patronage. You have to choose one or the other.