A Stitch in Haste

A must-read post over at The Commons Blog about another (essentially unreported) conflict of interest regarding government payouts and advocacy:

[E]very year the government dishes out several hundred million dollars to nonprofit advocacy groups -- groups that have as their primary aim influencing federal government policy. Such grants and contracts are particularly widespread in environmental policy. Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and World Wildlife Fund receive millions from the EPA and other government sources -- a fact that is rarely disclosed or discussed. In other words, the EPA is giving money to groups that then turn around and advocate greater EPA authority.

Read the whole thing, or Adler's companion piece at NRO.

I'll add another government-related conflict of interest that is also generally ignored: public employee labor unions. Is it really appropriate for unions such as AFSCME, the National Education Association or the Fraternal Order of Police to take positions on public policy that may affect the size of government payrolls, and therefore union memberships and dues collections?

Here's a great example, courtesy of Government Bytes: The NEA, which represents elementary and secondary school teachers, is publicly opposing any and all calls for Social Security reform.

Perhaps nothing surprising there at first glance, but dig a little deeper and you learn that many NEA members don't participate in Social Security at all -- which is exactly the way the NEA want to keep it:

Mandatory Social Security coverage for all employees, which NEA opposes, is another option being discussed. About a million NEA members currently work in uncovered states and would be adversely impacted by mandatory coverage.

Mandatory coverage of public employees would increase the tax burden on public-sector employers. Ultimately, these increased tax obligations would lead to difficult choices, including reducing the number of new hires, limiting employee wage increases, reducing cost-of-living increases for retirees, and reducing other benefits such as health care.

"It's a great system -- and we want no part of it!" Tell me there's no conflict of interest there!

If you think Social Security in general is complicated, then try figuring out this pretzel-twisting NEA maneuver-- the answer lies in the fact that many teachers who do not pay Social Security still get spousal benefits on top of their own teacher pension. If they were brought into Social Security -- and paid FICA taxes -- then they would no longer be able to free-ride off the Social Security system. They're getting something for nothing and they don't want that to end. Paradox resolved. (As a footnote, I wonder how the NEA feels about its gay teachers, who, under DOMA, don't get to participate in this fiscal bloodsucking. The NEA website is eerily silent on the subject.)

As for AFSCME, they too are of course opposed -- quite hysterically -- to any Social Security reform proposal. Why? Well, 200,000 dues-paying retirees constitute quite a cash cow that might, just might, not be so beholden to their union if they had more financial independence in retirement. For the union, "Til death do us part..." is far more attractive.

The idea that "Wall Street" is biased in favor of privatized Social Security accounts in order to grab "all those management fees" is about as pot-kettle-black an argument as labor unions can possibly concoct. How sad that they are so greedy and dishonest as to so blatantly lie to their own members, just for the sake of "all those union dues."

Related Posts:
Why Swat at the Gnat that is Maggie Gallagher?
Why Doesn't Antitrust Apply to Labor Unions?
In Honor of Labor Day: Where the Heck is Beck?
Fly the Friendly Skies, Damnit!
Union Endorsements Are Wrong (Even When They're for Bush)