GOP gubernatorial campaign in Michigan highlights an issue - right to work - that would have been suicidal a few years ago

Oakland County Sherriff Mike Bouchard, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, called for making Michigan a right to work State in a press release and commercial Wednesday. He pointed out that average right to work states have an 8 percent unemployment rate, compared with Michigan's rate of 13.8 percent.

Attorney General Mike Cox, who is also seeking the GOP nomination for governor, indicated support for right to work in a Tuesday Gubernatorial debate. "Fourteen right-to-work states have passed us by," in per-capita personal income, he said. "That's where our children are going." He ought to know. As he noted, his oldest daughter moved to right-to-work Tennessee.

So, now that right to work has entered the policy debate for this year's gubernatorial race, it's worth asking: What is it and what does it do?

Right to work generally refers to section 14b of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which allows states to bar union shop collective bargaining agreements in which paying union dues is required for many jobs. In non-right to work states, workers can be forced to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment. To date, 22 states have adopted right to work laws since Taft-Hartley went into effect in 1947, mostly in the South and West.

(snip)

On average, right to work states have fared better than their closed shop neighbors. People know this, and are voting with their feet. According to a recent Cato Institute study, since 1970 the population of right to work states has more than doubled, while the population of closed shop states has increased by only 25.7 percent. And Census data show that 4.7 million Americans moved from closed shop states to right to work states between April 1, 2000, and July 1, 2008.

A 2009 Census estimate has Michigan's population dwindling below 10 million for the first time since 2001. Michigan was third out of 23 states experiencing outmigration, according to the estimate. Only California and New York, both closed shop states, came out ahead of Michigan.

Obama administration shoveled out cash and got no result while Reagan cut taxes and slowed spending, stimulating recovery

The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.

But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.

The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.

Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.