Relationship of government to the people, with cheese sandwiches, welfare, probation, and campaign finances.
GoLocal is reporting that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island plans to move a good chunk of its Providence workforce to East Providence:
Despite making promises to the City of Providence in 2007 to centralize its work force in its gleaming $125 million tower, Blue Cross Blue Shield of RI confirmed late Tuesday that it will be moving more than 125 jobs out of Providence to East Providence.
The Blue Cross Tower is assessed at $46 million, but only pays a portion of its tax obligation because of a generous twenty-year tax stabilization.
Average residents tend to get caught up in rhetoric and lose sight of basic realities like incentives. Although individual workers and executives do take morality and personal fulfillment into consideration, private businesses ultimately exist to make money (whether for profit or non-profit). If they don’t do that, they don’t get to do what it is they do. Likewise, politicians’ have to gather votes and political support, otherwise they lose both their livelihoods and ability to accomplish what they want.
So, when a particular arrangement is no longer optimal for a business, given other opportunities, it will walk away from deals. And when a politician comes into office who didn’t make a particular deal and is building a different base of support, the dynamic changes from that direction.
Public policy should therefore build beneficial incentives and then let people work out their deals in a free market. From cutting deals for office buildings to reshaping an entire population for the benefit of a sugar-daddy industries (through, for example, “free tuition”), it is utter folly to accept central planners’ promises that the people can make out in the long run.
The Wall Street Journal’s Jennifer Levitz reports that the GOP-governed state of Maine is looking to add work requirements to the Medicaid program for those enrollees who are able-bodied adults. When the state did the same with the food stamp (SNAP) program, enrollees dropped 90% and analysis suggested that the group of people who had been on food stamps actually saw an increase in wages.
The argument against such reforms shows the completely different starting point of each side:
But Maine’s approach is drawing criticism from advocates for the poor, who say jobs, volunteer positions and transportation to either of them can be hard to come by in rural pocketswith persistent unemployment. They say those losing the assistance turn to charities instead, increasing demand at food banks.
To which I would ask: So? Whether society provides food for the poor through a government program or private charity, we’re still supporting our neighbors.
The implied difference is that private charity has the feel of relying on the goodness of others while government programs have the feel of society’s handing over what it owes — an entitlement, in other words. That difference is critical, and right in line with the work requirement.
What we owe each other is the chance of personal development and fulfillment, which comes from working, including being part of a self-supporting family team, even if not everybody within it works. For those who really can’t work and who aren’t part of family that can address the greater challenges it faces, we should offer help in a way that shows genuine concern and community, not forced entitlement.
The attitudes and mechanics of welfare affect each other. There’s a difference between the obligation to care for other people and a right to be cared for. When a third party — government — asserts the authority to impose the obligation and bestow the right, it harms those who face adversity and deprives those who contribute of the benefits of being charitable.
The strongest argument for legalizing marijuana is based on freedom, particularly among the libertarians with whom I’m generally sympathetic. Reading this article by Jennifer Bogdan and Tom Mooney in the Providence Journal, though, I’m surprised by ways in which this might not be so true:
Birenbaum touted the state’s camera surveillance system, which keeps electric eyes on all the grows, and various other tracking and security measures.
While the attorney general may have legitimate concerns about future recreational use, Birenbaum says, “we want cities and towns to see there’s a difference” with a well-regulated medical marijuana program.
Weeks after the tour, Pawtucket gave local approval for three medical cultivation applicants, noting how impressed they were with the state’s ability to track grows and the pot they produced.
Statewide surveillance of an industry and close government tracking aren’t generally the hallmarks of freedom.
That’s why my view is one of freedom gained through strengthening society. If in general we’re operating under the civic premise that government has to take care of us all and take invasive measure to do so, then expanding the options for incapacitating ourselves and inviting government intervention aren’t likely to increase our total amount of freedom.
On the other hand, in a society in which individuals have strong character and families and communities are geared toward helping each other without the force of the law, our liberties can expand without infringing on our freedom.
You’ll find out what I’m talking about as I do, because I’m just making it up. Probably something about immigration, some drug dealing going on, attacks on Christians, and letters to the editor.
Obviously, there are some differences between a city-funded facility for a double-A minor league baseball team and a state-funded stadium for a triple-A team, but Joseph De Avila’s Wall Street Journal article on the Hartford Yard Goats caught my attention yesterday because it illustrates some of the perils:
Hartford, a city of about 124,000 residents that is facing a fiscal crisis and a high poverty rate, is on the hook for $68.6 million in bonds issued to cover most of the construction of Dunkin’ Donuts Park.
Mayor Luke Bronin, a Democrat who opposed the stadium but is now reluctantly dealing with it, said the ballpark alone will never generate enough money to pay back the debt. The original idea was that surrounding development will generate funds to pay off the loans and bring in additional tax revenue for the city.
Given the incentives and structure of government, advocates for some big expenditure have a narrow objective to get a project approved. They just need some authority — whether an elected official or an electorate passing a ballot initiative — to give the go ahead. Then, decision-making enters a weird realm beyond the reach of the people actually paying the bill, but with a those in charge obligated to continue on the public behalf.
So, we start out with promises and grand visions and wind up scrambling just to make something work without loosing too much money.
Mr. Bronin plans to borrow $20 million in bonds in the coming weeks to cover a shortfall in the city’s budget, and next year the city is already projecting a $65 million deficit.
Despite the challenges, Mr. Bronin said: “There is no question it’s better for the city to have a baseball park than a vacant parking lot.”
Why is there “no question”? Hartford is now borrowing money for operating expenses. That’s insane. Unfortunately, many people have a vision of government in which it is a means of doing things that really make no sense at all.
Noting that the Federal Reserve Bank is increasingly guided by academic economists, rather than businesspeople and bankers with practical experience, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts worries about the consequences in the Wall Street Journal:
Central banking, in other words, is now dominated by academics. And while I don’t blame them for it, academics by their nature come to decision-making with a distinctly—you guessed it—academic perspective. The shift described by Mr. Grant has had consequences. For one thing, simplicity based on age-old practice has been replaced by complexity based on econometric theory. Big Data has played an increasingly prominent role in how the Fed operates, even as the Fed’s role in the economy has deepened and widened.
Rather than enlisting business leaders and bankers to fulfill the Fed’s increasingly complex mission, the nation’s political and monetary authorities turned primarily to the world’s most brilliant economists, who can be thought of more and more as monetary scientists. “Central bankers have invited politicians to abdicate leadership authority to an inbred society of PhD academics who are infected to their core with groupthink, or as I prefer to think of it: ‘groupstink,’ ” argues former Dallas Fed analyst Danielle DiMartino Booth in a new book.
Two of the important things that practical experience will tend to teach people are to be humble about one’s ability to plan in a complicated world and to be aware of the real, human consequences of decisions. In contrast, the intellectual challenge of an academic and modeling approach is to push beyond the boundaries of practical experience. There’s certainly a place for that — an important one — but it’s in the private sector, where people invest their own money. A “central” anything ought to be overly staid and cautious.
The role of government in: charity, innovation, waitressing, and grabbing parents off the street and locking them up.
After a year or so of lucrative somehow-related-to-government work in Rhode Island, the state’s “chief innovation officer” Richard Culatta is venturing out into the (probably even more lucrative) Washington, D.C., non-profit sector:
Richard Culatta, Rhode Island’s chief innovation officer announced to NBC 10 Tuesday night that he is leaving for a new job at an educational non-profit in Washington DC.
Despite telling NBC 10’s Bill Rappleye that the move was “in the works for weeks,” Culatta gave no indication that he would be moving on during an appearance under a week ago with WPRO’s Tara Granahan.
The CEO for the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity (a not-nearly-as-lucrative Rhode Island non-profit), Mike Stenhouse, is cited in the article for his doubts about the funding structure of the innovation office. Readers may recall that The Current led the way last January in pointing out how Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo had a tendency of placing key people a few steps removed from accountability, in this case through a Constitutional loophole.
In its design (as opposed to its objective) Stephen Moore doesn’t much like Medicaid:
You’d be hard-pressed to find a more poorly designed program in the federal budget than Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans. The costs are shared between the states and the feds, which means that the more money a state wastes under Medicaid, the bigger the check Washington writes to the state. No wonder the program costs keep spiraling out of control.
Obamacare added nearly 20 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and the left considers that a policy victory. Federal and state budgets are swelling.
Oh, to return to the days when taking people off of welfare — not putting them on the dole — was the goal.
In an unusual experience, for a conservative, Moore cites Rhode Island as an example of a different way, referring back to a block-grant program implemented in the waning days of the President Bush and Governor Carcieri days. Gary Alexander, who ran Health and Human Services in RI back then comments in Moore’s essay:
Alexander has become the Pied Piper for Medicaid waivers. “This is such a terrific solution because in Rhode Island we reduced costs and provided better care. When the state had an incentive to save money rather than spend it, this changed everything.” He added, “State waivers are the way out of the Medicaid crisis.”
Of course, elected officials in Rhode Island moved quickly to give away the budget slack in the Medicaid expansion and other constituent buy-offs, so clearly we have to work on step 2 of the “saving money” process (i.e., not immediately spending it on something else). But it’d be nice to be recognized more often for innovative, smart policies.
Reading up on the matter of the Pawtucket Red Sox and their search for a better stadium, as well as on the new Rhode Island Senate President Dominick Ruggerio (D, North Providence), something jumped out at me. Here’s Ethan Shorey reporting on Ruggerio’s elevation to president in The Valley Breeze:
Given the fact that Providence and North Providence have two of the highest car tax rates in the state, Ruggerio said one of his top priorities is reducing or eliminating the state’s car tax.
As we all know, the person who made elimination of the car tax a major issue this year was Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello (D, Cranston), who — it needn’t be said — has a lot of influence over whether Ruggerio is able to move his own priorities.
Now here’s Patrick Anderson reporting in the Providence Journal on Ruggerio’s support for public funding of some sort of major project benefiting the PawSox:
Ruggerio said [Pawtucket Red Sox Chairman Larry] Lucchino did not present him with a specific request for state funds or identify a stadium site. He said those specifics are being negotiated with representatives of Gov. Gina Raimondo’s administration.
Doesn’t it seem like these multi-million-dollar matters are ultimately decided by a handful of politicians, each of whom has a self-interested agenda….
- Mattiello to make his House seat more secure
- Raimondo to pave the way for reelection and moving up in national politics
- Ruggerio for some other reason, perhaps benefiting the labor union for which he works
… and basically negotiating for those reasons how they should distribute other people’s money?
Such stories as this, in the Providence Journal, should read less like celebrations of newfound revenue and more like lamentations of tyranny:
Volkswagen is paying more than $157 million to 10 states to settle environmental lawsuits over the company’s diesel emissions-cheating scandal. …
Volkswagen has admitted to programming its diesel engines to activate pollution controls during government treadmill tests and turning them off for roadway driving.
So some states imposed harsh restrictions on cars, and one company cheated. (More specifically, one company has been caught cheating.) As a results those states are getting windfall slush money to splash around.
What huge incentive for states to over-regulate everything! Environmental policy is especially ripe for this sort of abuse, and one can see why governments want so badly for there to be a looming environmental catastrophe to justify its confiscation of money and assault on rights.
One problem with President Donald Trump is that he’s like a flashy object in a pile of stuff. Other things may be more significant, but he draws attention. On PowerLine, John Hinderaker connects some dots for one of those things:
So it appears that what happened here is that Democratic Party activists in the Department of Homeland Security either created a bogus document or dug up a poorly-researched draft document that had never been issued, and fed it to Democratic Party activists at the Associated Press. The Democratic Party activists at the AP published a story based on the anonymous document, which two Democratic Party activists on the [judiciary] bench used as a pretext for orders enjoining the president’s travel order.
This is how an ideological and partisan group constructs narratives, with a one-two-three from insider bureaucrats to judges who overstep their offices to undermine the elected president. This stuff is inimical to a free society and the rule of law no matter which political side does it.
Crying out for mercy, Mormons helping Mormons, and a community of suckers
Open post for podcast.
When talking among themselves, environmentalist left-wingers will admit that government money allows them to waste resources.
Policies that have pushed families to seek two incomes have deprived them of time and communities of involvement, leading to a cycle of more government for less benefit.
In a pair of dueling essays in the current Motif magazine, I take up the side of those arguing for the cessation of government funding for the arts:
When government creates funding streams that must go to art, the skills that procure money for an artist move away from the communication of love and toward the soulless description of benefits to bureaucrats and politicians. The people skilled at jumping through the hoops of the grant process and willing to produce the material that the government has defined as “art” — with a message that accords with the interests of government agencies and of politicians — will be the ones who have the opportunity to produce something that they’re able to package as “art.”
Continue reading in Motif.
Well, this is a curious finding, articulated by Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit:
The takeaway here is that people who didn’t go to school at all did as well as or better than people who did. Considering the huge amounts of money, and other social resources, that we invest in K-12 education, that’s kind of a big deal. Of course, you’d want to do a bigger study before taking this too seriously on a policy level, but it ought to spark at least a bit of rethinking.
Of course, an important caveat is that “unschoolers,” as they’re called, are bound to be a self-selecting group, the last paragraph of Reynolds’s source article puts well:
In sum: “The findings of our survey suggest that unschooling can work beautifully if the whole family, including the children, buy into it, if the parents are psychologically healthy and happy, and if the parents are socially connected to the broader world and facilitate their children’s involvement with that world. It can even work well when some of these criteria are not fully met.”
Education is so dependent on individual circumstances that a changing world will inevitably require freedom to adapt. Unfortunately, we’ve built a massive, self-interested education establishment that may be among the most resistant-to-change institutions in our society.
One wonders how we’d be doing, right now, if the progressive sentiments of the last century didn’t put education into such a backwards, bureaucratic model. Parents would have sought the best opportunities for their children — because, if you haven’t noticed, parents tend to love their children and want what’s best for them more reliably than anybody else in the world — and communities would have figured out ways to guide families along, helping where needed — because that’s what communities tend to do.
Sadly, there are always those who think they know better and care more (conspicuously benefiting themselves through the process of dictating to others).
Peter Beinart may not see it, but secularism makes the Left less tolerant, too.
So, while progressive activists make sure anybody who might disagree with them has incentive not to run for public office, progressive Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo attempts to create more dissincentive through the law:
Raimondo’s proposal would bar any candidate with an overdue campaign-finance fine of any amount from running for election. The rule would apply only to new fines; any fines under appeal or on a Board of Elections-approved payment plan would not prevent a candidate from running.
The proposal would also increase the fine for late campaign-finance reports from $25 to $100 while raising the maximum Board of Election violation from $100 to $500.
Rhode Island already as a palpable lack of people running for public office to challenge incumbents. The governor’s proposals — by design, one imagines — would make matters worse, entrenching a powerful elite even more and further reducing the democratic functioning of our state.
We’re reaching the point of crisis on this stuff, and even “good government” people who ought to know better are asking government to take our rights away.
Missing the kiss (and the point), teacher union fantasy, charity for them, and stuff for you
Open post for podcast.
The entitlement mentality in this state will be palpable as the federal government rolls back the Obama Administration’s give-aways. Lynn Arditi writes about the potential cost to Rhode Island if it refuses to change its Medicaid program to reflect federal spending under the Republican health care plan:
Predicting how much it might cost the state to cover the roughly 70,000 adults in the Medicaid expansion population under the Republican plan is especially difficult, health experts say, because people move on and off the rolls. If, for example, the job market weakened and people who had left the Medicaid rolls return, the lower federal cost-sharing rate means they’d be much more expensive to re-enroll.
“While certainly we’d support the state continuing to fund the Medicaid expansion population,” [Linda] Katz [of the Economic Progress Institute (no relation)] said, “the reality is … it would be very difficult to replace with state dollars the federal dollars and keep people insured.”
Rhode Island never should have signed on to the Medicaid expansion if this was possible, and the likes of the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity were ignored when we warned that it was most definitely possible. What everybody can see clearly now is that insiders and bureaucrats padded their budgets at great cost and risk to others.
And it’s not just Medicaid. Dan McGowan reports from Providence for WPRI:
President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate the $3-billion Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program would be a “devastating” blow to Rhode Island’s capital city, Mayor Jorge Elorza said Friday.
Trump’s proposed budget would do away with the 42-year-old CDBG program, which provides local governments across the country with funding for community centers, housing programs and neighborhood improvements.
None of these programs should ever be built into state government budgets or the local economy. They should be treated as gravy on a healthy, independent economy. Instead, we’ve allowed our elected officials to suffocate real industry and substitute a government plantation model premised on being able to bill the federal government and local taxpayers for government services for others.
Eventually, when you turn toward an obvious dead end, you reach it.
This is a great idea that Rhode Island should pursue, as reported by Michelle Hackman in the Wall Street Journal:
Ms. Verma, a health policy consultant, made a name for herself as the architect of Indiana’s Medicaid expansion program under then-Gov. Mike Pence, which that state administered through a federal waiver. Ms. Verma struck a deal with the Obama administration allowing Indiana to charge enrollees under the expansion monthly premiums.
There is no reason childless, able-bodied adults relying on a government welfare-insurance program can’t pay something to give them a stake in their coverage. From the beginning, we’ve seen examples of people who were willing to pay for private insurance, but who discovered their eligibility for a free plan through Medicaid.
Moreover, the state of Rhode Island never should have leaped into the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion with so little thought. Some of us warned at the time that the state shouldn’t count on the federal government holding the share it would pay at 90%, particularly as part of an unpopular and entirely partisan bill. Since the state government conducted absolutely zero public debate over whether to accept the expansion, we can only surmise that elected officials and bureaucrats in Rhode Island either didn’t care to look that far ahead or counted on their ability to do what they’re trying to do now: get political mileage out of the federal government’s predictable move and attempt to transfer the burden to state-level taxpayers.
Its being Monday morning, I couldn’t quite manage the double entendre with the title to this post, but Ian Donnis’s weekly TGIF column for Rhode Island Public Radio had another point worth highlighting:
Rhode Island Public Radio gets 93 percent of its funding from people and organizations in Rhode Island. So you don’t need to worry about us going anywhere if President Trump is successful in eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Here’s part of a comment on the subject by our esteemed general manager, Torey Malatia: “Were it to suddenly disappear, the $200,000 CPB grant to RIPR would need to be replaced. We would do this by encouraging our community to help support us. We would hope that more listeners would become donors and sustainers, or would increase their gifts. We have a broad base of community support, and if every listener helped a little more, we could offset the grant. It will be work, but it can be done. In our view, though, the loss of CPB funding hurts our culture overall. Many local radio stations in very small markets rely of the annual CPB grant heavily, representing in some cases 25%-35% of their annual budgets. Losing this funding may severely damage these smaller stations. And since local public television stations receive three-quarters of the targeted congressional funds, small public television stations may become insolvent.”
So, to emphasize, RIPR doesn’t need the government money, and Rhode Island can afford to let the left-wing radio audience pay for left-wing radio. There’s no reason whatsoever that all Rhode Islanders should be forced to contribute, and certainly no reason a more-conservative-than-Rhode-Island country ought to pay for it.
That reasoning applies, as well, to the smaller stations that Malatia cites as justification for keeping the grant alive.* If there’s no market for left-wing radio in a particular area, the federal government shouldn’t be the mechanism for ensuring that it gets its space on the dial nonetheless, anymore than the federal government should ensure that there’s a right-wing station in markets where there’s no audience for conservatives.
* The initial version of this post erroneously attributed the citation to Donnis rather than Malatia.
In June, I noted how familiar and predictable Venezuela’s deterioration has been, citing Manzoni’s classic novel The Betrothed. Seventeenth Century government meddling in the Italian economy created starvation-level problems, and naturally, the government looked for scapegoats.
Venezuela has continued along this predictable path. As Jim Wyss reports in the Miami Herald:
Facing a bread shortage that is spawning massive lines and souring the national mood, the Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.
In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.
Yeah… detain bakers and seize their establishments. That’ll fix the bread shortage!
Watch this short Ami Horowitz report from Venezuela for more Manzoni parallel’s, particularly the part about how the powerful insiders continue to do just fine. Please, please, folks, could we start learning from history and ignoring those whose main purpose is to deceive us into giving them more money?
It seems to me that politicians (particularly those on the right) should take data points like this, from Austin Yack on NRO, as justification for further experimentation going against the common wisdom of their Washington–New York social set:
The Republican-majority Congress also polled well. Americans trust Republicans to legislate on issues pertaining to the economy, jobs, immigration, energy, and health care — and, astonishingly, these responses were recorded during the days in which the Congressional Budget Office found that 24 million people will be uninsured by 2026 under the Republican-majority Congress’s health-care plan. Forty-six percent of registered voters approved of the health-care plan; 35 percent disapproved, and 19 percent had no opinion.
Perhaps people are learning that the news media hypes stories from a point of view benefiting a particular political party, not the country, and perhaps people understand that when a country (like a person) has let itself go, getting back on track involves some discomfort.
It seems that the special interests who rely on federal money for their income in Rhode Island (in and out of state and local government) have been working to keep stories like this in the news every week:
Potential cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put forward by the Trump administration could have devastating effects in Rhode Island.
The Coastal Resources Management Council, the state agency that oversees development along the state’s 400 miles of coastline, would lose nearly 60 percent of its funding.
This is the problem with the government plantation/company state model. When you’ve built your economy around the government’s ability to make other people pay for services that the government insists on providing, local taxpayers will move away and people in other states may decide to cut funding. It’s a risky dead end of an economic development approach.
Our goal as a state (similar to our goal in our cities and towns) should be to react to news of changes at the federal level by expressing relief that we don’t rely on the federal government for much of anything. That would be a state of both freedom and stability.
For your Saturday-afternoon unsettling reading, turn to the thoughts of Instapundit reader, security expert Eric Cowperthwaite, regarding the WikiLeaks release of CIA files:
The CIA has built a capability to hack pretty much anything, anywhere. It turns out that they, potentially, have more ability to intrude into servers, computers, smartphones and electronic communications than even the NSA. This capability is now in the hands of people other than the CIA. All the things you’ve read, that seem like science fiction movie plots, are really true. Other people can listen to you via your smart TV, can read your email, turn on the webcam on your laptop, without you ever knowing.
On the same topic, Roger Simon of PJMedia takes up some of the media and political ramifications. This paragraph in particularly caught my eye:
Whatever the case, we all have to do some serious thinking — way beyond the general superficiality and contrived drama of congressional hearings or indeed the quick in-and-out of an op-ed. What is being revealed here is a sea change in the human condition that is almost evolutionary in its implications. What are our lives like without the presumption of privacy? What kind of creatures will we become in this brave new world that appears already to have arrived? It’s not fun to contemplate. Even the medieval peasantry had moments of escape from their feudal lords.
Rather than “evolutionary,” I think I’d go straight to “existential.” As a Christian, the notion of never being entirely alone is not exactly a new one (and not inherently a frightening one). The key question becomes who is listening and why.
There is nothing an omnipotent God needs to sneak from us and no worldly advantage for Him to gain by knowing our secrets. Whatever you’ve thought or done, worse has been thought and done by millions of others. That is not true when the listeners are other people, with their own schemes and selfish interests.
Whatever new technological twists we put on the old plot, the central struggle remains the same for the individual: It’s them versus Him.
Governing under the influence… of progressivism, the persecuted Godfather, sexist perspectives, and opposition to empathy
Open post for podcast.
The American Interest offers what might be termed a labor thought for today if it hadn’t been sitting in my bookmarks for a week:
It’s significant that ground zero for public sector union reform is the upper-Midwest, once the capital of organized labor. Democrats try to cast such reforms as a betrayal of workers, but in a post-industrial age when half of union members are public employees whose demands for fatter benefits packages come at direct expense of the taxpayers, many voters don’t see it that way. As James Sherk noted in our pages last year, “A movement formed to defend blue-collar laborers now fights primarily to help white-collar workers expand government.”
That point cannot be sufficiently emphasized: labor unions, overall, are now dominated by the public-sector subsegment, which has a very different model.
In the private sector, the union negotiates with management for the share of profits from sales to customers that goes to the workers. In the public sector, the union helps elect management with whom it can conspire to take more money from taxpayers, who must either leave the area or pay up once the unions achieve political dominance, as they have in Rhode Island. That is, in the public sector, it’s a process more resembling theft than negotiation.
Of course, one should note that the strength of unions in the private sector, such as it is, often comes with their ability to manipulate the law to force clients — mainly governments — to use union labor or to box competitors out of big markets — like government projects. In that regard, even more of organized labor should properly be seen as existing in the public sector.