|
Wannabe Governors, Answer Me December 24, 2009 With a plethora of pols looking to replace Jodi Rell -- as many as three Republicans, perhaps five Democrats, and a couple of minor-party candidates -- it’s possible that you’ll find yourself in the company of at least one gubernatorial wannabe in 2010. Your first urge will be a smart one: Run! But if you can fight the instinct, there are three questions worth posing. They illuminate the extent to which candidates understand Connecticut’s systemic problems. Bold, cogent answers suggest that the guy or gal trolling for your vote has the guts to confront powerful, entrenched lobbies in a last-ditch effort to restore the state’s once-enviable quality of life. Vague, “well, you see, it’s complicated” responses indicate a desire to maintain policies that have demonstrably failed to hoist Connecticut out of its economic and fiscal miseries. Is forced unionism for state- and local-government employees a good idea? “Collective bargaining” is the name used by its supporters for a system of mandatory and byzantine third-party “representation” of workers in nearly all dealings with employers. It’s a fundamentally anti-individual approach to a dubious problem (i.e., “exploitation” of labor), and fortunately, it’s dying in the private sector. Just 8.3 percent of Connecticut’s non-government employees are unionized, a share a bit above the national average. But for those on the state payroll, the figure is nearly 90 percent. (The portion is probably similar for cities and towns.) The Municipal Employee Relations Act, Teacher Negotiation Act, and State Employee Relations Act empowered public-sector unions to build a massive political machine that legally spends tens of millions of dollars each election cycle. The laws also set in motion a process that boosted the pay and benefits of government employees to wildly unrealistic levels. Voices from the state’s fiscally conservative community often stress the need for reforms of forced unionism, such as pro-taxpayer tweaks to binding arbitration at the municipal level. But modifications aren’t enough. It’s time for repeals. The mandates that public-sector managers “negotiate” with politically powerful union bosses must be lifted. A candidate who pledges to balance Connecticut’s books and provide property-tax relief while maintaining forced unionism in the public sector has a fatal credibility problem. Does government planning or a free market produce economic growth? If there’s any issue on which all politicians agree, it’s the “need” for government to foster “economic development.” Once, that meant a corruption-free judicial system, low taxes, and regulations aimed solely at protecting health and safety. But pols -- and bureaucrats -- got greedy. They decided to play a much bigger role in the economy. Connecticut has what is arguably the most aggressive economic-development architecture in the nation. It subsidizes everything from grants to low-interest loans, urban “revitalizations” to job-training programs. A curious thing happened as the economic planners intensified their activities. Economic growth stopped. Connecticut is the only state that has fewer private-sector jobs in 2009 than it did in 1989. And median household income is falling. In the words of State Senator Tony Guglielmo, “We pick winners and losers in Hartford, and we’re not that smart.” No kidding. This decade’s lowlight: Mortgage Lenders Network (MLN). In 2006, the company broke ground on a government-incentivized campus in Wallingford. Clueless as ever, Rell declared that MLN represented “the new financial-services industry. These are high-paying jobs -- career jobs. These are the jobs we want for the future.” Eight months later, MLN filed for bankruptcy. Candidates who think all that Connecticut’s economy needs is another “forward-thinking strategy” or “visionary” bureaucracy should be scratched off your list. Is education about learning or schooling? For decades, Connecticut has increased spending on its unionized, government-monopoly K-12 schools at a rate far in excess of enrollment growth and inflation. Starting in the 1990s, taxpayers were dunned for billions of dollars in new debt in a scheme to enhance the state’s government universities. The results have been abysmal. Assessments regularly reveal serious student deficiencies. Employers report that job seekers are rampantly unqualified for entry-level positions. Real education is about learning, not doing time in a government-run classroom. But the political system insists that more exposure to its broken system -- e.g., preschool -- is the answer. It’s a preposterous claim, one swallowed whole by Rell, whose slavish devotion to government schools has produced nothing but higher taxes. Education choice (including homeschooling) holds much promise, but it needs an advocate in the governor’s office. Find a candidate with common-sense, politics-be-damned answers to three simple questions, and you’ve found the person Connecticut needs to oversee the state’s desperately needed revival. D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com. # # # # #
|
