The Wisconsin recall election is a defeat for public-sector unions, but a win for everyone else – taxpayers, Republican and Democrat, who have been footing the bill for special interests that play by a different set of rules. In restoring fiscal solvency and preserving public services, Gov. Scott Walker’s win strikes a blow for effective and vigorous government, putting to rest the frequent charge that conservatives hate government and want it to fail.
On the contrary. Thanks to Walker, government might now succeed in Wisconsin.
Walker scored a victory in a struggle that extends far beyond Wisconsin. States across the nation are seeking to restore the social contract between public workers and taxpayers.
Until now, public workers – organized into massive bargaining units through their taxpayer-funded unions – have essentially dictated the terms of their employment to the taxpayers whom they were supposed to serve. Wisconsin’s collective-bargaining process allowed generations of public workers to extort unsustainable pension and retiree health benefits, arcane work rules and other carve-outs that a private-sector worker couldn’t even imagine.
Tuesday, Wisconsin voters said enough. The urgent need to resolve the state’s fiscal crisis, tied to unsustainable public-employee costs, united citizens, regardless of party affiliation. Of course, Walker’s opponents – led by the state’s public-sector unions and affiliated national groups – didn’t see it that way. They tried to portray the governor’s actions, like restricting collective bargaining and requiring public workers to contribute more to their pensions, as a right-wing assault on unions and government services. But we now see that Wisconsin voters didn’t buy it.
For one thing, they understood Walker’s key point. The state’s $3.6 billion budget deficit, Walker insisted, posed a mortal danger to continuing public services. Either the state’s public employees could agree to make substantial changes to the way that they negotiated future labor contracts, bringing their terms of employment more in line with those of private-sector employees, or the state would have to cut vital services—likely accompanied by tax increases.
))
