Tag Archives: Washington

Has the Sequester Hurt the Economy?

Several weeks ago, Steve Forbes argued that the federal government spending cuts known as the “sequester” are actually having beneficial effects on the US economy, and not slowing growth as many economists and pundits in the media have claimed. Forbes’s statement attracted critics, and many economists have expressed skepticism about the sequester too. One economist even went so far as to say, “The disjunction between textbook economics and the choices being made in Washington is larger than any I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

So have the sequester cuts hurt the economy? One possible answer comes from a new paper by Scott Sumner of Bentley University. Sumner argues that cuts to government spending don’t have serious deleterious macroeconomic effects when the Federal Reserve is targeting inflation. This is because the Fed ensures that prices stay stable under an inflation targeting regime, which keeps demand stable even in the face of government spending cuts. Similarly, when the Fed stabilizes the price level it also offsets any beneficial effects that fiscal stimulus might have, which helps explain the lackluster results from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the “stimulus”).

Implicit in Sumner’s theory is that expansionary austerity, or the idea that the economy can grow even in the face of large government spending cuts, is indeed possible. Some of my colleagues at the Mercatus Center have described other ways in which expansionary austerity is possible.

Luckily, there are still things Congress can do to improve the economic outlook, even as spending cuts take hold. Lawmakers can enact policies that boost the performance of the real economy. By this I mean policies that increase the amount of real goods and services the economy produces, as opposed to policies that affect demand (i.e. spending).

One example is reforming the regulatory system, which discourages production of all sorts. With over 174,000 pages of federal regulations in place, there must be a few obsolete or duplicative rules that can be eliminated to relieve the burden on businesses and entrepreneurs. Congress could also reform the tax code, with its perverse incentives and countless carve outs for special interests.

Starting new government programs isn’t likely to do much to benefit growth. New projects take too long to implement, politicians waste too much money on silly boondoggles, and monetary policy will likely offset any beneficial effects anyway. If Congress wants to do something to improve growth, it should focus on creating a regulatory and tax environment that encourages investment and entrepreneurial risk taking.

Why Regulations Fail

Last week, David Fahrenthold wrote a great article in the Washington Post, in which he described the sheer absurdity of a USDA regulation mandating a small town magician to develop a disaster evacuation plan for his rabbit (the rabbit was an indispensible part of trick that also involved a hat). The article provides a good example of the federal regulatory process’ flaws that can derail even the best-intentioned regulations. I list a few of these flaws below.

  1. Bad regulations often start with bad congressional statutes. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the statute authorizing the regulation, was meant to prevent medical labs from using lost pets for experiments. Over time, the statute expanded to include all warm-blooded animals (pet lizards apparently did not merit congressional protection) and to apply to zoos and circuses in addition to labs (pet stores, dog and cat shows, and several other venues for exhibiting animals were exempt).The statute’s spotty coverage resulted from political bargaining rather than the general public interest in animal welfare. The USDA rule makes the statute’s arbitrariness immediately apparent. Why would a disaster plan benefit circus animals but not the animals in pet stores or farms? (A colleague of mine jokingly suggested eating the rabbit as part of an evacuation plan, since rabbits raised for meat are exempt from the regulation’s requirements).
  2. Regulations face little oversight. When media reported on the regulation’s absurdity, the USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack ordered the regulation to be reviewed. It seems that even the agency’s head was caught off guard by the actions of his agency’s regulators. Beyond internal supervision, only a fraction of regulations face external oversight. Of over 2600 regulations issued in 2012, less than 200 were subject to the OMB review (data from GAO and OMB). Interestingly, the OMB did review the USDA rule but offered only minor revisions.
  3. Agencies often fail to examine the need for regulation. In typical Washington fashion, the agency decided to regulate in response to a crisis – Hurricane Katrina in this case. In fact, the USDA offered little more than Katrina’s example to justify the regulation. It offered little evidence that the lack of disaster evacuation plans was a widespread problem that required the federal government to step in. In this, the USDA is not alone. According to the Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, which evaluates agencies’ economic analysis, few agencies offer substantial evidence justifying the need for promulgated regulations.
  4. Agencies often fail to examine the regulation’s effectiveness. The USDA’s plan to save animals in case of a disaster was to require owners to draw up an evacuation plan. It offered little evidence that having a plan would in fact save the animals. For example, the magician’s evacuation plan called for shoving the rabbit into a plastic bag and getting out. In the USDA’s view, the magician would not have thought of doing the same had he not drawn up the evacuation plan beforehand.
  5. The public has little influence in the process. By law, agencies are required to ask the public for input on proposed regulations. Yet, small businesses and individual consumers rarely have time or resources to keep an eye on federal agencies. In general, organized interests dominate the commenting process. The article describes the magician’s surprise to learn that he was required to have a license and a disaster evacuation plan his rabbit, even though the regulation was in the works for a few years and was open for public comments for several months. Most small businesses, much like this magician, learn about regulations only after they have passed.
  6. Public comments are generally ignored. Most public comments that the USDA received argued against the rule. They pointed out that it would impose substantial costs on smaller businesses. The agency dismissed the comments with little justification. This case is not unique. Research indicates that agencies rarely make substantial changes to regulations in response to public comments.

Are High Taxes on Smokeless Tobacco Encouraging People to Smoke?

President Obama’s recent budget proposal to pay for pre-school programs by increasing cigarette taxes highlights the confusion both on federal and state levels over taxing tobacco products. A recent Mercatus working paper questions the efficiency and utility of sin taxes in general. But even more fundamentally, tobacco tax policy may fail in its primary goal, which is to reduce the health risks of consuming tobacco.

Since the goal of tobacco taxes is to reduce tobacco’s harms by discouraging its use, the tax rates on various tobacco products should be commensurate with their health risks. If smoking carries four times higher cancer risks than using smokeless tobacco, then the tax rates on cigarettes should be four times higher than taxes on, for example, smokeless tobacco. Yet if cigarettes are taxed at a lower rate than this ratio, the policy may in fact encourage tobacco users to smoke as opposed to using less harmful smokeless tobacco.

A health policy that does not encourage riskier tobacco products should set the ratio of smokeless tobacco and cigarette taxes similar to their health risk ratios. According to a recent review of medical studies, snus (a common type of smokeless tobacco) users face considerably lower oral cancer, gastric cancer and cardiovascular disease risks compared to smokers (see Table 1). In addition, other studies found that, unlike smoking, snus does not lead to lung cancer (the table shows the lung cancer risk for nonsmokers compared to smokers). Importantly, snus users do not expose those around them to second hand smoking, further limiting its negative health impacts. Based on the relative health risks, snus taxes should be considerably lower than cigarette taxes.

Table 1. Comparative Health Risks

Health Risk Risk Ratio (Snus users vs. Smokers)
Oral Cancer 0.43
Gastric Cancer 0.60
Cardiovascular Diseases 0.55
Lung Cancer 0.14

So how do states fare? Table 2 shows the tax rates for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco for select states, which are calculated based on the data are from Tobacco Free Kids campaign (in the source, the tax rates are per ounce of snus and per pack of cigarettes). To make sure that we compare apples to apples, I account for the varying nicotine content in these products. According to a recent study, consuming one gram of snus delivers nicotine content equal to smoking a cigarette. That works out to about a can of snus (typically 1.2 oz) replacing approximately 35 cigarettes (almost two packs). So I convert state taxes to show rates per equivalent nicotine amounts. For simplicity, I focus only on the states that tax smokeless tobacco by ounce. Other states tax smokeless tobacco based on either wholesale or manufacturing prices rather than retail, making calculations trickier.

The relative cancer and cardiovascular disease risks of snus are lower than the risks of smoking, ranging between 0.14 and 0.6 (see Table 1). States with a high snus to cigarette tax ratio are essentially pushing tobacco users towards smoking, which carries higher health risks (coded red in the table). States with a moderate tax ratio are somewhat neutral (coded yellow). Their tax ratio is commensurate with relative health risks for some but not all risk sources. Finally, states with a low tax ratio generally encourage tobacco consumers to use a safer product (coded green).

Table 2. State Tobacco Taxes for Equivalent Nicotine Content

State Snus Tax (gram) Cigarette Tax (cigarette) Tax Ratio (Snus/Cigarette)
Arizona $0.01 $0.10 7.88%
Connecticut $0.04 $0.17 20.75%
Delaware $0.02 $0.08 23.81%
District of Columbia $0.03 $0.13 21.16%
Illinois $0.01 $0.10 10.69%
Iowa $0.04 $0.07 61.73%
Maine $0.07 $0.10 71.25%
Montana $0.03 $0.09 35.27%
Nebraska $0.02 $0.03 48.50%
New Jersey $0.03 $0.14 19.60%
New York $0.07 $0.22 32.44%
North Dakota $0.02 $0.02 96.20%
Oregon $0.06 $0.06 106.42%
Rhode Island $0.04 $0.17 20.39%
Texas $0.04 $0.07 59.54%
Vermont $0.07 $0.13 50.35%
Washington $0.09 $0.15 58.91%
Wyoming $0.02 $0.03 70.55%

Note: snus and cigarette taxes are rounded to nearest cent. The tax ratio is based on actual tax values.

The picture that emerges from the table is that of a confused health policy pursued by the states. Only two states in the list set the snus and cigarette tax rates at the level that does not steer consumer towards riskier tobacco products. Most states set the tax rates at levels that are commensurate with some risks but not the others. Specifically, most states do not account for the fact that snus does not cause lung cancer, which is one of the greatest risks of smoking. Finally, a few states may be steering tobacco users towards cigarettes by setting snus taxes too high (or cigarette taxes too low).

I am not claiming that smokeless tobacco is harmless or that states should promote smokeless tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes. As the National Cancer Institute points out, smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking. It still carries increased health risks, including certain types of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. But current policy on tobacco taxes may result in the unintended consequence of pushing tobacco users away from less risky forms of tobacco towards riskier ones.

WMATA’s failures are institutional, not personal

Chris Barnes who writes the DC blog FixWMATA  is supporting a petition to replace the Board of Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Frustration with the transit agency is growing among Washington-area residents as ongoing system repairs have made the system’s weekend service increasingly unusable. The situation has led to the birth of multiple blogs documenting WMATA’s failures. As an intern in DC from the Czech Republic recently summed up the situation, “Metro is both terrible and expensive.”

While the need for reforms at WMATA is clear, replacing the Board of Directors is unlikely to lead to significant improvements in the system. Rather, WMATA’s problems are institutional, and new actors facing the same incentives as the current WMATA Board are unlikely to produce better results. Some of the institutions preventing a Metro of reasonable quality and cost include:

1) Union work rules. Stephen Smith, my co-blogger at Market Urbanism, has done an excellent job of explaining how union work rules make transit needlessly expensive. One of the biggest culprits is requiring shifts to be at least eight hours and preventing the hiring of part-time workers. WMATA rationally runs trains and buses more often during morning and evening rush hours, but it is not permitted to staff these time periods at levels above mid-day staffing because of the eight-hour shift requirement. Combined with the above-market wages and benefits that WMATA employees make, these bloated employee costs prevent WMATA from achieving a higher farebox recovery rate and having more resources to dedicate to needed capital improvements.

2) Intergovernmental transfers. Over half of WMATA’s current capital improvement budget comes from the federal government, meaning that while the benefits of the system are narrowly bestowed on riders, a large share of the capital improvement costs are spread across U.S. taxpayers. This large dispersal of costs permits much more expensive transit than would be tolerated if all funding came from the localities that benefit from the system. Furthermore, with funds coming from the District, Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government, the flypaper effect comes into play. This means that a $100 million infusion from the federal government to WMATA will not reduce the cost born by local taxpayers by $100 million; rather, total spending on the project will increase with grants from higher level of government. Absent incentives to spend this money well, WMATA demonstrates that high levels of federal funding will not necessarily result efficiently carried out capital improvements.

At Pedestrian Observations, Alon Levy provides a comparison of transit construction costs across countries, and finds that U.S. construction costs are exorbitant. The reasons for these cost disparities are many and not well-understood. One reason for high costs in the U.S., though, may be that the prevalence of  federal funding comes with the strings of costly federal regulations.

3) Accountability. While all U.S. transit systems suffer inefficiencies from intergovernmental transfers and union work rules, DC’s Metro has a unique governance structure that seems to produce particularly bad and costly service. WMATA has the blessing and the curse of being multijurisdictional. On the one hand, the Washington region is not plagued with the agency turf wars that New York City transit sees. Several of the system’s rail lines run through Virginia, DC, and Maryland, providing many infrastructure efficiencies and service improvements over requiring transfers between jurisdictions.

Despite these opportunities to provide improved service at a lower cost, WMATA’s lack of jurisdictional control seems to do more harm than good. No politician can take full credit for running WMATA efficiently, so none prioritize the agency’s performance. It’s a tragedy of the political commons.

Josh Barro has recommended directly electing the Board of Directors of WMATA to create elected officials with an incentive to improve service. This institutional change would be more likely to improve outcomes than replacing the current Board with new members who would face the same incentives. Clearly, WMATA’s Board of Directors is failing in its job to oversee quality and cost-effective transit for the region; however, replacing the board members without changing the institutions that they work under will not likely improve outcomes. Intergovernmental transfers and union work rules limit transit efficiency across the country, but WMATA’s interjurisdictional status exacerbates inefficiencies and waste.

Does Washington, D.C. create value?

In recent remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) contended:

There is a reason that six of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States are suburbs of Washington, D.C.–a city that produces almost nothing of actual economic value.

This assertion prompted a fact check from the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler. Kessler grants that Lee is correct in that “six of the 10 wealthiest counties are suburbs of Washington, D.C.” But he goes on to contend:

There’s not really an economic concept that equates to “tangible economic value,” at least as Lee seems to be suggesting. Thus it is hard to disaggregate activity ultimately benefiting from the federal government.

I think most economists would disagree. There is, indeed, an economic concept that distinguishes between “tangible economic value” and the lack thereof. The idea is called rent-seeking.

First, consider how people profit from voluntary exchange. If two parties voluntarily exchange, both expect to gain from the interaction. The consumer expects to gain some value from the product that is in excess of what he pays (otherwise he wouldn’t part with his money). And the producer expects to receive some price in excess of her costs, including the opportunity cost of doing something else with the product (otherwise, she wouldn’t part with the product). The sum of this consumer and producer surplus is called “economic surplus” and it is at the heart of economics. Indeed, it is at the heart of human progress.

Sometimes, however, the producer is the exclusive producer of the particular product. Her exclusivity could be natural (only Michael Jordan could do what he could do), or it could be contrived (by law, only the USPS is allowed to deliver non-urgent mail). Whether natural or contrived, exclusivity permits a producer to capture a larger share of economic surplus than she otherwise would. This above-normal producer surplus is a payment in excess of what would be necessary to bring the good to market. Economists call it an economic rent (and it has nothing to do with apartments).

Significant problems arise when exclusivity is contrived. One problem is that people will invest valuable resources–time, money, effort–into convincing those with political power to grant them an exclusivity. People will lobby. They will donate to campaigns. They will make products that politicians like instead of products that consumers like. All of this is potentially wasteful and it is called rent seeking.

It isn’t easy to measure the losses from rent seeking (though a few have tried). But I suspect this is exactly what Senator Lee had in mind. After all, Washington, D.C. Is the place people go to seek rent. Want to force people to buy your product? Go to Washington and seek an individual mandate. Want to make your competitors’ product more expensive than your own? Go to Washington and seek tariffs of up to 250 percent on foreign producers. Want to raise the production costs of your competitors? Go to Washington and seek a production standard that plays to your competitive advantage.

Rent seeking is hardly a fringe concept. Professors Roger Congleton, Arye Hillman and Kai Konrad have just released a two-volume anthology of rent seeking research called 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking (I know; not cheap). They report that the EconLit database has over 401 academic journals and books with “rent seeking” in the title and that a Google Scholar search produces 1,500 papers include the term.

Mr. Kessler is right that much of what happens in D.C. is not rent seeking. But his assertion that only 40 percent of the region’s gross product came from government spending is hardly convincing. That isn’t just a “big chunk.” It’s a mammoth chunk. Moreover, it misses the fact that a lot of “private” economic activity in the region is still related to rent-seeking. See, for example, the K-Street corridor.

These critiques aside, the fact check missed a nice opportunity to educate the public on an important concept at the core of modern economics.

A government that hands out privileges can expect corruption

According to the Washington Post, the mafia is heavily involved in Italy’s renewable energy market. This is not particularly surprising given that firms in that market compete on a manifestly uneven playing field.

The Godfather Movie in TextIn a market characterized by a genuinely level playing field—one in which no firm or industry benefits from government-granted privilege—the only way to profit is to offer something of value to customers. If you fail to create value for voluntarily paying customers, they won’t volunteer their money. It’s that simple.

But things are different when the playing field can be tilted through government-granted privileges. This is because when the playing field can be tilted, firms have an incentive to find some way to persuade the government to tilt it their way. And the most persuasive techniques aren’t always above board.

The problem is that objective standards for playing favorites are hard to come by. This can corrupt even well-intentioned programs that privilege particular behavior in the name of serving the general good.

Imagine you are a politician and you want to reward firms that specialize in renewable energy. How do you determine who makes the cut? What if you want to reward companies that securitize mortgages for low-income households. How do you decide whom to reward? Or say you want to bailout “systemically important” banks. Where do you draw the line between systemically important and systemically unimportant?

Without objective guideposts, subjective factors loom large: whom do you interact with the most? Whom have you known the longest? Which firms share your ideological perspective? Which are headquartered in your hometown?

Even the most well-intentioned of politicians are susceptible to these considerations because all humans are susceptible to these considerations. That’s why a slew of research has found government-granted privileges are often associated with corruption. For example, in an examination of 450 firms in 35 countries, economists Mara Faccio, Ronald Masulis, and John McConnell found that politically connected firms are more likely to be bailed out than non-connected firms. It’s possible that more deserving firms just happen to be politically connected, but this strains credulity. A more plausible explanation is that in the absence of an objective standard for dispensing privileges, politicians reward those they know.

And when that is the case, firms make it their business to get to know politicians. Just ask Angelo Mozilo, the politically ensconced former head of Countrywide Financial. Countrywide supplied the loans that were repackaged by the federally backed Fannie Mae. And since Countrywide’s business model depended on the favor of politicians, Mozilo made sure he was in good standing with his benefactors. Under a program known internally as the “Friends of Angelo” program, Countrywide offered favorable mortgage financing to the likes of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad.

The conventional route to profit is to please one’s customers. But when firms are able to profit by pleasing politicians, they will do whatever it takes to please politicians. Which brings us back to Italy and renewables. The current investigation (known as operation Eolo after the Greek god of wind) first bore fruit in 2010 when eight people were arrested for bribing officials with cash and luxury cars. Armed with more evidence, officials have now arrested another dozen crime bosses.

It is good, of course, to have police who investigate these matters. But a far simpler, equitable, and efficient solution is to create a truly level playing field for business. When politicians cannot tilt the playing field in favor of particular firms or industries, businesses have nothing to gain from bribery and connections.

Put away the honey jar and you won’t have an ant problem.

This Week in Economic Freedom

It’s been a promising week for supporters of freer markets as several states and municipalities have taken steps toward deregulation and consumer choice. Here’s a roundup of some new developments:

1. Washington state is making headlines by being the first state (and first place globally) to legalize recreational marijuana. This policy change comes after recent polls indicate that most Americans favor legalizing marijuana. Of course what remains to be seen  is how the federal government will respond to this change in state law. The U.S. Attorney General’s office has issued a letter stating that marijuana remains illegal under federal law in these states and under the Obama administration the office has aggressively prosecuted medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal under states’ laws.

2. In Michigan right to work legislation looks poised to pass. The change would make it legal for employers to pay workers who choose not to be union members. James Sherck explains the political calculus behind this potential policy change:

Republicans have large majorities in both houses of the state legislature. Until now, however, Governor Rick Snyder has insisted right to work was not on his agenda. But today he changed his tune and called for the legislature to pass the bill — Snyder’s support removes the last obstacle to right to work passing in Michigan.

How did this happen? For one, unions badly miscalculated. They tried to amend the state constitution to preemptively ban right to work and attempted to elevate union contracts above state law. Michigan voters roundly rejected the proposal, but the debate put the issue on the public’s agenda.

Unsurprisingly, Michigan unions strongly oppose this change and are currently rallying against this potential change.

3. In Washington, DC City Council took two steps toward greater economic freedom. On Tuesday, the DC Council passed legislation allowing Uber, a popular sedan service which customers use their cell phones to book, to continue operating in the city. The new legislation legalizes “digital dispatch” and permits this new type of service that fits between taxis and traditional car services. Uber still faces legal challenges in San Francisco, Boston, Toronto, New York, and Chicago. Also on Tuesday, DC joined its neighbors Maryland and Virginia with legal Sunday liquor sales. As is so often the case with regulation,  many liquor store owners supported the status quo of mandatory Sunday closings. Store owners testified that they appreciated the mandatory day off and worried that the policy change would allow competitors to cut into the profits of stores that choose to close on Sunday.

State Revenue Uncertainty

Yesterday the National Conference of State Legislatures released its State Budget Update for 2012, projecting that states’ revenues are approaching levels not seen since before the recession. This means that the budget deficits that have been common in most states over the past few years will hopefully be rare this fiscal year. As Reuters reports:

The situation is now turning around. Only California and the state of Washington currently are projecting deficits for fiscal 2012, according to NCSL. At the same time, resource-rich states like Alaska, Wyoming and North Dakota expect big balances for fiscal 2012, which ended on June 30 for most states.

For fiscal 2013, none of the states are projecting deficits, with 10 states and Washington, D.C., eyeing balances equal to 10 percent or more of general fund spending, the NCSL reported. However, year-end balances of just 0.1 percent to 4.9 percent are projected in nearly a quarter of the states.

Not everyone is as optimistic about state budgets in the coming year. This new report contrasts sharply with a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which earlier this summer found that 31 states faced budget gaps in 2012, and that states face a combined $55 billion shortfall for 2013. However, if the NCSL findings are correct, this is very good news for states that have had to resort to midyear cuts and tax increases to balance budgets in the post-recession years.

If states can more easily meet their constitutionally required balanced budgets this year, policymakers should take this opportunity to look at their long-run debt challenges. As I wrote in a USA Today op ed last week, state debt levels are headed to levels that will threaten economic growth. Mounting interest costs will also mean that tax dollars increasingly go to pay for past services, rather than current services.

Whether or not states are in a better position for avoiding deficits in the current year, they need to address their debt levels for long run economic growth. Outspending current revenues is a constant temptation for elected officials who want to stay in office through public support of state programs. However, voters should demand responsible fiscal policy to address debt problems now, before this becomes even more difficult to do down the road.

Daycare unionization debate in Minnesota

A debate has been taking place in Minnesota over whether in-home day care providers should be able to unionize. Unionization of self-employed individuals raises a few questions. With whom do they negotiate? In other words, “How can you be the employer [the business owner] and a union employee?” According to the pro-unionization providers their complaint is not with the parent-client but with the state (and county) and its regulations. A provider may be cited for any number of small infractions such as not having a cover on a trash cash. When cited, in the case of Minnesota, such a blemish doesn’t just stay on the provider’s record, it must be posted on the owner’s front door for two years.

But is unionization the answer?

Daycare providers already have a state association to represent their interests. Few owners have actually been cited under these regulations. And unionization will result in dues that will raise prices for parents, as well as more state involvement in the owner’s business. An effort to stop unionization is also underway.

Since 2005, 15 states have organized childcare providers. The main fiscal outcome of daycare unionization is higher state-provided subsidies.

Washington state child care providers are represented by the SEIU which negotiates with Olympia over subsidy rates for providers as well as health insurance plans.

In 2009, providers in Washington received a state subsidy between $18 and $40 a day, per child, depending on the county. According to the SEIU’s 2009-2011 agreement with the state, both parents and providers are affected. Daycare providers who refuse to join the union for religious reasons must still pay dues. Rates are set for different age groups of children, (e.g. Infants are 15% higher than the Toddler/Preschool rate). After ten hours of childcare any additional hour is equal to one half day of child care.

The agreement also affects all taxpayers in the state. The state pays monthly contributions to provider’s health care plan ($588.8 per month per provider in 2010) for a total of $366,894 per month for all daycare providers. A further $175,000 is set aside by the state for training classes for providers. The result of unionization is not what advocates suggest. Instead flexibility is decreased for owners and clients to come to terms over hours, rates and arrangements while the ever-increasing costs are passed to everyone.

Mischievious Factions: The New Unionism

There are two Executive actions to remember when considering the fiscal straits of many state and municipal governments.

E.O. 10988, signed by President Kennedy in 1962 allowedpublic sector workers to unionize. Since 1962  public sector unionism has swelled, creating what Rutgers economist Leo Troy calls, “The New Unionism.” Today 36.8 percent  of public sector workers belong to a union. (Union participation is most dense on the local level at 42 percent.)

In 1993, President Clinton signed the Hatch Act Reform Amendments, allowing government workers to engage in political activities, such as fundraising.

Put them together and watch the near-bankrupting of California and New York, with New Jersey not far behind.

Unlike private sector unions which must negotiate with private owners, as Fred Siegel and Dan DiSavlo writing in The Weekly Standard point out…” public sector unions have no such counterweight. They are a classic case of client politics…with influence on both sides of the bargaining table.”

Public sector union workers campaign and vote for politicians who then control pay and benefit negotiations.

Seigel and DiSalvo recount how this worked in Washington State. In 2002 the Association of Federal, State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) got collective bargaining rules lifted. By 2005, their numbers doubled. More dues means more political influence. In 2004, Christine Gregorie was elected governor in a close race that was decided after AFSCME donated $250,000 for a recount. She quickly repaid the favor, negotiating salary contracts with double-digit increases.

The New Unionism is the faction politics that James Madison warns of in Federalist 10 – the only, “method for curing the mischeifs of the faction: the one by removing its causes, the other by controlling its effects.”

With the interests of politicians and their clients in such symbiosis, the extent to which such corrosive lobbying can be reversed depends on how much fiscal pain those ultimately paying for public services are willing to bear.