Right-to-Work is Good for Business: Wisconsin Beats Minnesota

Does a right-to-work state do better than a forced unionism state?

Some unions, desperate to hold onto what little political might they claim, like to draw comparisons between adjacent states who differ on this labor question.

One of  the most often reported distinctions falls between Minnesota, a forced-unionism state, and Wisconsin, which went right-to-work in 2015.

The Republican Eagle provides further differences:

People love comparing the economic performance of Scott Walker's Wisconsin to Mark Dayton's Minnesota. Both governors were elected in 2010 and took their states in dramatically different policy directions. Walker lowered taxes, ended collective bargaining for public employees and eventually made Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Dayton raised taxes on the rich, raised the minimum wage and worked to expand public unions. Most of these policies were implemented between 2013 and 2015.

The argument went for a long time that Minnesota' economy was still doing better than Wisconsin's. The main reason, however, for the slower recovery in the Dairy State rests on the deeper recession which the state had plunged into.

Besides, states moving into Wisconsin from other states are not going to kick-start into robust growth overnight. The development of a stronger recovery will develop over time.

The news has gotten better for Wisconsin:

But it's also becoming harder to argue Minnesota bests Wisconsin. While economic output and income remain higher in Minnesota, Wisconsin employment numbers are now besting Minnesota. The accompanying chart shows Wisconsin total employment minus Minnesota total employment, which shows employment has been growing far faster in Wisconsin for over four years. Since February 2013, Wisconsin's employment lead over Minnesota nearly doubled, growing from 70,108 jobs to 138,383 jobs in June 2017.

Let's not forget during hard economic times, especially throughout the Rust Belt, whatever savings which households got from tax cuts, they probably kept the money rather than spending it. 

Right-to-work is good for workers, it's good for businesses, it's great for unions, and best of all, the reform helps businesses to expand, hire more workers, and grow the economy. It's also been great for Republicans as a whole, and conservatives in particular because taking away public sector unions near-monopoly on all collective baragaining has facilitate pension and entitlements reforms, both at the local as well as the state level.

Wisconsin has the smallest pension liability of all 50 states:

That is a good thing, folks. More businesses are moving into the state, as well, and the tax burden has decreased considerably for Wisconsites across the board. 

Will Minnesota voters decide on a similar, pro-growth change of pace? Election 2018 will prove pivotal for the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Will Minnesota turn into a red state paradise, including right-to-work reforms? We shall see.

It's looking pretty solid, however, that Republicans will take over the lower chamber, and Republican gubernatorial candidates are looking strong enough to flip the Governor's mansion into their own column, too.

Minnesota a Red State in 2018?

Has a right-to-work bill been introduced in the Minnesota State Legislature? The last attempt occurred in 2012, around the same time that Michigan's right-to-work law passed, despite the most violent attempts to stop its passage. The political momentum rests with the freedom to work movement, and if the Supreme Court does not strike down forced union dues, very likely two or three more states will join the other 28 freedom to work states in the next year.

Donald Trump: Already Better Than Reagan

I was looking over the RNC autopsy from 2012-2013. What a difference four years makes. Republicans were all but written-off after what seemed like a winnable race for Mitt Romney. Then came 2014 and the GOP wipe-out all over the country and in the US Senate particularly.

The RNC "autopsy" actually--foolishly--concluded that caving on immigration and pandering to minorities would make the difference. They even thought that moving left on cultural issues like "gay marriage" would give the Republican Party an aura of "inclusiveness."

What about the Democratic Party? Have they demonstrated any capacity to welcome differences of opinion? Do they even care about the fundamental values of our Judeo-Christian culture?

Ronald Reagan, Official Portrait

Still, was there anything of note worth considering in the RNC report?

One of the most accurate and effective ideas related to the near-fanatical obsession of presidential candidate with President Ronald Reagan. Of course, there is a lot to like about The Gipper, which the Republican phalanx of activists should work hard to reflect:

• He was an outsider
• He connected well with everyday people.
• He cared about their everyday concerns
• He was not afraid to fight
• He showed strength
• He possessed moral acumen, and was not afraid to call evil what it was.
• He was a great communicator

We do not need another Ronald Reagan, as much was we need to seek out candidates who possess those qualities listed above.

But Reagan is dead, and the conservative phalanx in this country needs to do more than just look to the past and say Ronald Reagan 1,000 times. I still remember one of the most contentious debates in 2011, when every candidate on the podium announced that they followed Ronald Reagan's advice and tried to find some kind of hagiographic connection with the former President: "I shook his hand?"  or "He wrote me a letter!" or "I appeared in a photo with him once."

It's time to move on, people!

Now we have Donald Trump. Donald Trump racked up those characteristics and so much more.

He is very much an outsider. He was not a politician in any traditional or recorded sense. Oprah Winfrey asked him if he was thinking about running for President ... in 1988. He toyed with the idea for the 2000 election, but did not run. After all, he was a Reform Party candidate at the time.

He connects will with everyday people. I saw videos of Donald Trump talking with employees in his hotels He put himself in their shoes and did their work, He was really impressed with how hard they worked. The employees were shocked and  moved out how much he cared about their daily tasks.

He didn't hide nor apologize for his wealth, either. He did respect the work of laborers and tradesmen, though. That's important.

Reagan treaded more softly on immigration, which had not broadened into the serious issue which it has become today. He signed off on amnesty in 1986. Trump promised to build the wall which never came up when at the end of the Reagan Administration. Reagan slowed the growth of government, but Trump is already taking a battle ax to spending and bureaucracy.

President Trump (Avatar)

Reagan cut taxes, but did nothing about the massive spending and debt. Trump and his Republican Congress will have no choice this time. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are overburdened. There are more retirees than workers, and the Baby Boomers are getting older but living longer.

While Reagan fought against international communism, Trump must face Islamic Terrorism, in which the rogue fatalists kill themselves in order to destroy as many of their opponents as possible. They have no moral equivalence or self-imposed set of limitations.

Trump has already rescinded the ban on taxpayer dollars for international abortions. He has signed off on the construction of the Dakota and Keystone pipelines. He has negotiated personally with corporations and large firms. He is restoring American prestige after two failed terms from a confirmed anti-American liberal fascist.

Ronald Reagan had to clean up the mess after only one term of the Peanut Farmer from Georgia.

Trump has a coalition of conservative agenda items to advance, and has done more in one week than Obama did in eight years. Trump has undone more of Obama's petty legacy than Reagan did of Carter's failed one term in one week, too.