Public Sector Unions, Liberals, and Shared Sacrifice

Every time governments run into budget crises and cuts have to be made, liberals start talking about the need for shared sacrifice.  The idea is instead of cutting every government worker necessary to balance the budget, you cut some people to make up some of the shortfall, asking the remaining workers to take a cut to make up some of the shortfall, and raising taxes to make up the remainder.  The theory is that everyone shares in the pain.  This is all well and good, but when public sector unions get involved, one of those options is taken off the table.  The current situation in Wisconsin is emblematic of this.  Governor Scott Walker has a plan where no public sector workers would have to be laid off, and no taxes would have to be raised, if state and local workers just agree to contribute a reasonable amount to their generous pensions and healthcare.  If these reasonable cuts are not made, 6000 state and local workers will have to be laid off.  The unions have said that they would prefer the layoffs to having to take any cuts.  In states like California, where Governor Gray Davis was strongly supported by public sector unions, the budget gaps are almost all going to be made up layoffs.  Shared sacrifice be damned.

The Most Important Victory in 2008, From California?

Believe it or not, the most important conservative victory of this election cycle came from California. The media and Republicans concentrated on Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, but a much, much more important proposition also passed, and it got little support from Republicans and little media attention. That is Proposition 11, which removes redistricting power from the legislature and gives it to an independent panel. The 14-member panel will consist of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 4 consistent voters who are members of neither party. There are other rules to ensure that the panel has regular citizens instead of political insiders.

One of the things that they are charged with is making districts more competitive. In California, in 2002, 2004, and 2006, no senate or assembly districts changed parties, and 99% of incumbents have won this decade. State Senators and Assemblymen have gerrymandered their districts to make sure that their re-election is ensured, and when they are term-limited, they get to pick their replacement. The idea that communities should be represented by the same person, or that minority political opinions should have a voice haven't even been considerations. This has destroyed any accountability legislators should have had to their constituents.

Now with Prop. 11, a panel will draw the lines every decade, with the following considerations (from the San Francisco Chronicle):

Commission members would not be allowed to consider incumbent residences or impact on political parties when drawing the lines. Instead, they would be required to follow these criteria, in this order: Adherence with the U.S. Constitution, including equal population requirements; compliance with the Voting Rights Act, to protect the interest of minority voters; geographic contiguity of districts; respect for the need to keep cities, counties and "communities of interest" in the same district; compactness of districts; "nesting" of districts so that the 80 Assembly districts are aligned with the 40 Senate districts to the extent possible.

Prop. 11 passed 50.6% to 49.4%, with support by many interest groups and the Governator (and oddly, Michael Bloomberg), despite strong opposition by Nancy Pelosi and the state Democratic Party. Although it's unlikely that California will elect a lot more Republicans in the next few years, it will create more legislative turnover, and accountability. Texas and other states would do well to follow California's lead in enacting similar measures and make the democratic process distinctly more democratic. A healthy turnover in power tends to restrain politicians and preserve liberty.