When a near-certain Presidential candidate starts talking about getting rid of public unions, it’s time to start thinking about becoming an optimist.
Government Unions vs. Taxpayers. (TIM PAWLENTY, 12/12/10, WSJ)
Reformers would be wise to adopt three overriding principles.
First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama’s proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.
Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.
Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars.
The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.
He sounds tougher than Stephen Malanga or Jay Greene. How cool is that? All Pawlenty needs to do is go one step further and call for the abolition of public employee unions. It may take 5-10 years to accomplish, but it can be done.