Union Dues Buy Politicians in Old Cities

Joel Kotkin and Harry Siegel write in the New Republic:

During the past 30 years, public-employee unions have largely won the battle for urban political power by default. Other traditional power centers--neighborhood associations, small business organizations, reform groups--have over time receded from urban politics. Businesses, after all, can always go elsewhere, either to the suburbs or overseas; frustrated individuals often get worn down, electing to move on or give up. Public sector unions, by contrast, have remained powerful, withstanding occasional assaults by reformist mayors of both parties.

Democrats are usually seen as the beneficiaries of this situation, since they often receive cash and organizational backing from unions. But there is a downside to this support, which the current strike illustrates. City councils in New York, Los Angeles, and most other major cities are dominated by Democrats. Most council elections in New York, for example, are determined in the Democratic primary, which consistently sees low voter turnout. (In 2003, turnout in the city council primaries was 11 percent.) This magnifies the power of unions--since a handful of highly organized voters can easily sway an election--and makes Democratic politicians more or less beholden to the wishes of public employees. New York, where several prominent council members have already expressed support for the transit workers' union, may be the most obvious example of this problem; but it is hardly the only city afflicted.

A truly great piece.You'll want to read it twice.This is rent-seeking on a grand scale.Many of these old cities are headed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.We'll see cries of "federalism".We'll even see calls for "strict readings of the constitution" in New York and Illinois where government workers' pensions are protected in the state constitution.Is the loose and "every changing" constitution the "gift" modern day jurisprudence gives to those who believe in limited government and low taxes who want to void generous public pensions??? That would be ironic.