President Donald Trump holds a rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday, October 10, 2019. (Photo: SS)
President Donald J. Trump will resume holding his large trademark campaign rallies sometime in the next two weeks, People’s Pundit Daily confirmed. It marks a return to one of — if not the most — effective weapons in the president’s campaign arsenal since the pandemic.
“Americans are ready to get back to action and so is President Trump,” campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “The Great American Comeback is real and the rallies will be tremendous. You’ll again see the kind of crowds and enthusiasm that Sleepy Joe Biden can only dream of.”
The decision comes after hundreds of thousands protesting against police — and rioting — did not obey social distancing guidelines. Obedience was demanded of working Americans protesting the lockdowns only days before. But the latest data on coronavirus (COVID-19) offered positive news.
Joe Biden discusses his handling of the allegations leveled by Anita Hill against Justice Clarence Thomas during an interview with PBS News Hour on January 4, 2018. (Photo: SS)
Former Vice President Joe Biden proposed a tax plan that would raise taxes, reduce economic growth and stifle wage growth, an analysis finds. The plan would rollback much of the president’s signature tax reform legislation.
According to the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model, the Biden tax plan would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.51% over the long term. On a conventional basis — more closely associated with static scoring — the plan would raise tax revenue by $3.8 trillion over 10 years.
However, when accounting for macroeconomic feedback effects — more closely associated with dynamic scoring — the plan would only raise about $3.2 trillion over the next decade. There’s further empirical evidence to indicate the campaign’s revenue projections would fall shy, the same empirical evidence that correctly predicted the president’s plan would result in strong wage growth.
In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, his first major legislative victory and the first overhaul to the U.S. tax code in more than 31 years. It provided a tax cut to more than 80% of Americans and slashed the corporate tax rate from the highest in the developed world (35%) to 21%.
Critics incorrectly projected it would lead to billions in deficits, citing static scoring from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Some of those critics have been forced to issue corrections, including The New York Times.
But a recent budget outlook released by the CBO found the TCJA not only did not add to the federal deficit, but resulting revenue increases actually offset deficit gains. The CBO analysis showed rising shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — as well as defense spending — are overwhelmingly the drivers of budget deficits.
People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) previously examined fifty years of data for industrialized nations, which suggest lower corporate tax rates are associated with rising revenue, as noted by Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. Indeed, research shows the long-run revenue-maximizing corporate rate is between 15% and 25%.
Mr. Biden proposes to re-raise the corporate income tax rate from 21% set by the TCJA to 28%, a level above the revenue-maximizing range. The campaign claims Mr. Biden’s plan will raise revenue, but the analysis suggests otherwise.
On a dynamic basis, the Tax Foundation estimates the Biden tax plan would result in about 15% less revenue than on a conventional basis over the next decade. Revenue increases would total roughly $3.2 trillion between 2021 and 2030, as the smaller economy would shrink the tax base for payroll, individual income, and business income taxes.
People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) also previously examined the impact the corporate tax rate has on worker wages. A review of a report from the Council of Economic Advisers coupled with data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showed reducing the corporate tax rate would increase average household income, with this effect growing larger over time.
Even left-leaning multilateral bureaucracies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the OECD have published research showing the relationship. Following the adoption of the TCJA and as a result of it, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) confirmed the greater-than-expected rise in growth for the wages and salaries component.
By the third quarter (Q3) of 2018, wage growth had hit 3% for the first time since before the Great Recession. Wages rose by at least 3% for 22 consecutive months prior to the outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19), though the most recent jobs report for May still indicated a strong annual growth rate.
Mr. Biden’s plan also raises individual income taxes and payroll taxes on individual income taxes and payroll taxes, on high-income individuals with income above $400,000. But on a conventional basis, the Tax Foundation said the plan would lead to 7.8% less after-tax income for the top 1% of taxpayers, 1.1% lower after-tax income for the top 5%, and roughly 0.6% less after-tax income for other income quintiles.
The Tax Foundation analysis also estimated the Biden tax plan would result in the loss of at least 585,000 full-time jobs, shrink capital stock by 3.23% and reduce the overall wage rate by 0.98%.
Welfare lettering, illustration 3d rendering city. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Back in 2016, I shared an image that showed how the welfare state punishes both the poor and rich. Rich people are hurt for obvious reasons.
They get hit with the highest statutory tax rates, and also bear the brunt of the double taxation, the extra layers of tax on saving and investment resulting from capital gains taxes, double taxes on dividends, death taxes, etc.
But I also pointed out that the poor are penalized because they get trapped in dependency.
In large part, this is because they face bad incentives when they work and try to become self sufficient. Not only do they get hit by federal and state taxes, but they also can lose access to various redistribution programs. And the combination of those two factors can produce very high implicit marginal tax rates.
I cited an astounding example of this phenomenon in 2012, showing that a single mother in Pennsylvania would be better off earning $29,000 rather than $57,000. In other words, her implicit marginal tax rate on an extra $28,000 would be 100 percent (thus fulfilling FDR’s odious dream, albeit against a different set of victims).
How pervasive is this problem?
A new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research gives us the answer. Authored by David Altig, Alan J. Auerbach, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Elias Ilin, and Victor Ye, it estimates implicit marginal tax rates for various segments of the population.
A plethora of federal and state tax and benefit policies jointly determine Americans’ incentives to work. …complex and often arcane provisions that condition tax payments and benefit receipts on labor income, asset income, total income, and the level of assets. …The myriad features of our fiscal system raise this paper’s central questions: What are the typical levels of marginal net tax rates facing Americans of different ages and resource levels, taking the entire federal and state fiscal system into account? …How much does one’s choice of the state in which to live impact one’s incentive to work? …We address these questions by running 2016 Survey-of-Consumer-Finances (SCF) data through The Fiscal Analyzer (TFA).
‘Marginal Net Taxation of Americans’ Labor Supply. ‘National Bureau of Economic Research. David Altig, Alan J. Auerbach, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Elias Ilin, and Victor Ye.
The five economists discovered that lower-income people are often hit by very high marginal tax rates on work (τL).
Our main findings, which focus on the fiscal consequences of SCF household heads earning $1,000 more in our base year – 2018, are striking. One in four low-wage workers face lifetime marginal net tax rates above 70 percent, effectively locking them into poverty. Over half face remaining lifetime marginal net tax rates above 45 percent. …marginal net lifetime tax rates are generally higher for those in the lowest quintile than for those in the middle three quintiles… The potential poverty trap arising under our fiscal system is highlighted by the 75th τL-percentile values for the bottom quintiles. Moving from the youngest to the oldest cohorts, these values are 67.4 percent, 75.9 percent, 69.3 percent, 76.5 percent, 74.4 percent, and 73.9 percent. Hence, one in four of our poorest households, regardless of age, make between two and three times as much for the government than they make for themselves in earning an extra $1,000.
This graph from the study shows how poor people can even face marginal tax rates of more than 100 percent, which I’ve highlighted in red. The vertical axis is the tax rate and the horizontal axis is household prosperity.
Subjecting poor people to very high implicit tax rates is horrible economic policy, just like it is horrible policy to hit any other group of people with high marginal tax rates.
Simply stated, when people are punished for engaging in productive economic behavior, they respond by reducing their work, their saving, their investment, and their entrepreneurship.
Interestingly, some states are better (or less worse) than others.
One’s choice of state in which to live can dramatically affect marginal net tax rates. Across all cohorts, the typical bottom-quintile household can lower its remaining lifetime marginal net tax rate by 99.7 percentage points by switching states! …The typical household can raise its total remaining lifetime spending by 8.1 percent by moving from a high-tax to a low-tax state, holding its human wealth, housing expenses, and other characteristics fixed. …To illustrate how τL varies from state to state, we calculate the median τL for households in the 30-39 age cohort in the lowest resource quintile in each state. …Figure 11 shows the cross-state variation in median lifetime marginal tax rates. …median rates varies between a low of 38.8 percent in South Carolina and a high of 55.0 percent in Connecticut. Clearly, where people live can matter a lot for their incentives to work.
Here’s a map showing the marginal tax rate on people in the bottom 20 percent. The obvious takeaway is that you don’t want to be a poor person in Connecticut, Minnesota, or Illinois.
For what it’s worth, tax rates are still too high in the best states — South Carolina, Texas, Indiana, and South Dakota.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The bottom line is that the welfare state is bad news for both taxpayers and recipients. All of which may help to explain why the poverty rate stopped falling once the government declared a “War on Poverty.”
Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in Albany, New York, speaks about response to the coronavirus on TODAY. (Photo: Screenshot)
Should high-tax states such as California and New York get a bailout?
I explained last month why that would be a mistake, in large part because bailouts would reward states for irresponsible fiscal policy, similar to my argument that countries like Austria and the Netherlands shouldn’t be bullied into providing bailouts for Italy and Spain.
And I’ve shared two videos — here and here — for those who want more information about how bailouts encourage “moral hazard.” And this is true for banks as well as governments, consider TARP.
Today, though, I want to focus on some numbers that show what’s really causing fiscal problems in some states.
Adam Michel and David Ditch of the Heritage Foundation have generated some startling data on state government finances.
Instead of waiting on a handout from Washington, states should clear the way for a more robust economic recovery by addressing their unsustainable finances. States and local government spending has increased over the recent past… After adjusting for inflation and increases in population, state and local spending (in constant 2019 dollars) has grown from $5,596 per person in 2000 to $7,268 per person in 2019. That amounts to a 30% increase in the real cost of state and local government over just two decades, even without the thousands of dollars per person the federal government sends to states and localities through a wide variety of programs. …not all states spend equally. As of 2017, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona spent about $5,800 per person on state and local governments, but New York spent more than $11,700 per person.
‘In Charts, How Big Blue States Outspend Red States’ by Adam Michel and David Ditch of the Heritage Foundation
The most important number is the above excerpt is that there’s been a 30 percent increase in per-capita state spending after adjusting for inflation.
That’s a very worrisome trend.
But not all states are created equal. Or, to be more precise, they’re not all equally profligate. Here’s the chart that starkly illustrates why some states are in trouble.
At the risk of understatement, California and New York have not complied with the Golden Rule for fiscal policy.
Needless to say, there’s no justification for the notion that taxpayers in well-run states such as Texas and Florida should be coerced into providing bailouts for politicians in poorly run states.
And now we have a compelling visual that settles the argument.
Washington, D.C. (PPD) — In May, construction employment recovered nearly half of its losses during April, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly jobs report. The U.S. economy added 464,000 construction jobs after losing 995,000 in April as a result of coronavirus (COVID-19).
U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia said the “report shows much higher job creation and lower unemployment than expected, reflecting that the re-opening of the economy in May was earlier, and more robust, than projected.”
Total nonfarm payrolls rose by a record 2.5 million in May, the largest monthly job gain ever recorded. The unemployment rate fell to 13.3 in May.
The forecasts for total nonfarm payrolls ranged from a low of -11,000,000 to a high of -3,500,000. The consensus was -7,725,000. The forecast for the unemployment rate ranged from a low of 17.5% to a high of 20.0%. The consensus forecast was 19.8%.
“Millions of Americans are still out of work, and the Department remains focused on bringing Americans safely back to work and helping States deliver unemployment benefits to those who need them,” Secretary Scalia added. “However, it appears the worst of the coronavirus’s impact on the nation’s job markets is behind us.”
Meanwhile, manufacturing employment rose by an astonishing 225,000 in May, a roughly 17.3% recovery evenly split between the durable and nondurable goods. In April, manufacturing employment fell by 1.3 million, with about two-thirds of the loss occurring in the durable goods component.
NEW YORK, USA – June 10, 2018: The New York City Police Department (NYPD) police officers performing his duties on the streets of Manhattan. (Photo: Bumble Dee/AdobeStock)
Yesterday’s column focused on how police unions protect the bad apples who misbehave and therefore cause some people to resent law enforcement, especially in the minority community.
Curtailing the role of those unions would be an important step to create better bonds between the police and the citizenry.
Today’s column will explain the need to repeal or substantially curtail the doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which was created by courts to protect cops who trample on people’s rights.
It’s not a complete answer, just as fixing the union problem isn’t a complete answer. But getting rid of the doctrine at least will give citizens the opportunity to bring lawsuits when cops disregard their civil liberties. This tweet is a good summary for those who don’t have time to dig into the topic.
To avoid confusion, Qualified Immunity does not apply to the criminal prosecution of a cop.
It has nothing to do with the firing of a cop.
QI precludes a civil suit for damages against a cop, which the municipality will almost certainly defend and pay for via taxes.
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) June 1, 2020
But hopefully you do have time to investigate this issue. Here are excerpts from four articles about problems with qualified immunity.
This is not a new issue for libertarians and principled conservatives. Glenn Reynolds pointed out the injustice of the doctrine back in 2013 in a column for USA Today.
David French condemned the practice in a piece for National Review in 2018.
Judges created qualified immunity, and they can end it. It’s past time to impose true accountability on public servants who violate citizens’ constitutional rights. First, some background. Since 1871, federal law has permitted Americans to file lawsuits against public officials who violate their constitutional rights. It’s a powerful tool that essentially deputizes members of the public to defend their own liberties.
…However, after generations of judges have interpreted the statute, the phrase “shall be liable” has come to mean “may occasionally be liable.” …In 1982, …the law changed. In a case called Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court concocted the modern doctrine of qualified immunity. …As the doctrine developed, to prove that a right is clearly established, the plaintiff generally had to find and cite a remarkably similar case, with nearly identical facts, decided by a court of controlling jurisdiction. …the entire notion of “clearly established law” rests on a series of absurd, fantastical premises. Are we really to believe that a police officer doesn’t know he shouldn’t pound on the wrong door and blow away the innocent occupant unless a court said so in a case, say, five years before?
‘End Qualified Immunity’ by David French, National Review, September 2018
Writing for Reason, Professor Ilya Somin explains how fixing this bad bit of judge-made law could improve policing.
…there is much that can be done to curb police abuses. …The problem is not that police officers are unusually bad people. It’s that they have bad incentives, under which they are rarely held accountable for abuses. Those incentives can and should be altered. An important first step would be to get rid of the legal doctrine of “qualified immunity,” under which law enforcement officers are immune from suits for violating citizens’ constitutional rights…
The Supreme Court interprets the term “clearly established” so narrowly that officers routinely get away with horrendous abuses… Qualified immunity is not required by the Constitution or even by a federal statute. It is a purely judge-made doctrine made up by the Supreme Court itself in a misguided effort to protect law enforcement officers from excessive litigation. …Both Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court’s most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most liberal, have been severely critical of qualified immunity. There is a real chance they can persuade at least three of their colleagues to take the same view. …state and local governments might respond by indemnifying police officers for the damages they have to pay in such cases. But even if that happens, it would still be a step in the right direction. Indemnification costs money that many local governments will be loathe to pay. They will therefore have an incentive to crack down on abusive officers, particularly repeat offenders who routinely force authorities to pay out large sums…
‘How to Curb Police Abuses—And How Not to’ by Professor Ilya Somin, Reason, May 2020
Writing for the Bulwark, Clark Neilly adds his two cents to the discussion.
In determining the relationship between government and governed, one of the most important decisions a society can make is how accountable those who wield official power must be to those against whom that power is wielded. Congress made a clear choice in that regard when it passed the Enforcement Act of 1871, which we now call “Section 1983”… Simply put, Section 1983 creates a standard of strict liability by providing that state actors “shall be liable to the party injured” for “the deprivation of any rights.” Thus, if a police officer walks up to your house and peeks inside one of your windows without a warrant—a clear violation of your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches—he is liable to you for the violation of that right. …many conservatives…abandon their stated commitment to textualism and embrace an “interpretation” of Section 1983 that is utterly divorced from its text. The vehicle for this…“living statutory interpretivism” is the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity doctrine, which judicially amends Section 1983 to provide that the standard for liability will no longer be the deprivation of “any rights”—as Congress expressly provided—but rather the deprivation of any “clearly established” rights. …the only avenue of accountability for most victims of police misconduct is a civil rights lawsuit that they themselves can initiate without the largesse of some prosecutor or citizen review board.
Last but not least, in a new column for USA Today, Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell of the Institute for Justice explain some of the legal issues.
The Supreme Court created qualified immunity in 1982. With that novel invention, the court granted all government officials immunity for violating constitutional and civil rights… Although innocuous sounding, the clearly established test is a legal obstacle nearly impossible to overcome. It requires a victim to identify an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, or a federal appeals court in the same jurisdiction holding that precisely the same conduct under the same circumstances is illegal or unconstitutional. If none exists, the official is immune. …When the Supreme Court conceived qualified immunity, it promised that the rule would not provide a “license to lawless conduct” for government officials. Plainly, it has.
‘Police act like laws don’t apply to them because of ‘qualified immunity.’ They’re right.’ by Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell, USA Today, May 2020
Washington, D.C. (PPD) — The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the U.S. economy added 2.5 million jobs, the largest gain ever recorded and the unemployment rate fell to 13.3 in May. The historic gain in jobs and decrease in the rate come after historic declines due to the mitigation efforts to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19).
The forecasts for total nonfarm payrolls ranged from a low of -11,000,000 to a high of -3,500,000. The consensus was -7,725,000. The forecast for the unemployment rate ranged from a low of 17.5% to a high of 20.0%. The consensus forecast was 19.8%.
The labor force participation rate increased by 0.6 percentage point in May to 60.8%, following a decrease of 2.5 percentage points in April. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, rose by 3.8 million in May to 137.2 million, following a large decline in April.
The forecast for the labor force participation rate ranged from a low of 59.9% to a high of 60.4%. The consensus forecast was 60.0%. After an 8.7 percentage point decline in April, the less cited but equally important employment-population ratio gained 1.5 percentage points to 52.8%.
Construction employment recovered nearly half of its losses in April (-995,000), rising 464,000 jobs in May. Much of the gain occurred in specialty trade contractors (+325,000), with gains roughly evenly split between the residential and nonresidential. Job gains also occurred in construction of buildings (+105,000), largely in residential building.
Manufacturing employment rose by 225,000, evenly split between the durable and nondurable goods. In April, manufacturing employment fell by 1.3 million, with about two-thirds of the loss occurring in the durable goods component.
Within durable goods, employment gains in May were led by motor vehicles and parts (+28,000), fabricated metal products (+25,000), and machinery (+23,000). Within nondurable goods, job gains occurred in plastics and rubber products (+30,000) and food manufacturing (+25,000).
In May, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 29 cents to $29.75, following a gain of $1.35 in April. For workers, or private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees, AHEs fell by 14 cents to $25.00 in May.
The decreases in average hourly earnings largely reflect job gains among lower-paid workers, which naturally resulted in downward pressure. Year-over-year, wages grew 6.7% and fell 1.0% monthly.
NEW YORK, USA – June 10, 2018: The New York City Police Department (NYPD) police officers performing his duties on the streets of Manhattan. (Photo: Bumble Dee/AdobeStock)
Since I’m a “right libertarian” according to the political compass test, it’s no surprise that I’m generally sympathetic to cops, notwithstanding my undesired encounters.
I want fewer foolish laws so police can concentrate on protecting life, liberty, and property.
I favor oversight so that good cops aren’t tarnished by the behavior of bad cops.
I want local governments to control budgets so cops aren’t pressured to generate revenue.
I favor civil disobedience and jury nullification as safety valves to guard against bad behavior.
I want to get rid of horrific policies such as asset forfeiture that incentivize bad behavior.
And it goes without saying that I want a range of reactions – from scorn to punishment – when individual police officers make dumb choices.
But there’s one issue that I haven’t addressed, and it’s very relevant considering the civil unrest and rioting caused by George Floyd’s death in Minnesota – and that issues is the degree to which overly powerful police unions enable bad behavior.
Professor Alex Tabarrok explains how police officers who misbehave get special privileges not available to the rest of us.
…union contracts and Law Officer “Bill of Rights” give police legal privileges that regular people don’t get. In 50 cities and 13 states, for example, union contracts “restrict interrogations by limiting how long an officer can be interrogated, who can interrogate them, the types of questions that can be asked, and when an interrogation can take place.” In Virginia police officers have a right to at least a five-day delay before being interrogated. In Louisiana police officers have up to 30 days during which no questioning is allowed and they cannot be questioned for sustained periods of time or without breaks. In some cities, police officers can only be interrogated during work hours. Regular people do not get these privileges. …how do you think complainants feel knowing that the police officer they are complaining about “must be informed of the names of all complainants.” I respect and admire police officers but frankly I think this rule is dangerous. …In the United States if you are arrested–even for a misdemeanor or minor crime, even if the charges are dropped, even if you are found not guilty–you will likely be burdened with an arrest record that can increase the difficulty of getting a job, an occupational license, or housing. But even in the unlikely event that a police officer is officially reprimanded many states and cities require that such information is automatically erased after a year or two. The automatic erasure of complaints makes it difficult to identify problem officers or a pattern of abuse.
‘Police Union Privileges’, By Professor Alex Tabarrok for Marginal Revolution
In an article for National Review, Theodore Kupfer has a searing indictment of police unions.
Public-sector employees who belong to unions are used to special treatment, and police officers, apparently, are no different. There are little or no private alternatives to the services schoolteachers, air-traffic controllers, police officers, and prison guards provide. Their unions negotiate directly with politicians, and can demand policies that benefit them — if not the taxpayers who foot the bill — because no elected official wants to risk a catastrophic strike. The result is a tacit, unsavory bargain in which politicians and civil servants join together to direct public funding and exclusive privileges to the most favored of all interest groups: politicians and civil servants. …This is a shame. Law-enforcement unions shape our criminal-justice policies for the worse and encourage irresponsible public spending to achieve their own ends. …police unions…insist that their members have special “bills of rights” that shield them from accountability for misconduct. With a voting base that traditionally respects first responders, such concessions can be a political winner for Republicans. But they also have pernicious effects which ought to worry conservatives not comfortable with increasing the power of the state at the expense of the citizenry. …Researchers at the University of Chicago have even found that allowing law-enforcement officials collective-bargaining rights increases the risk of misconduct.
‘Law-Enforcement Unions Have Too Much Power’, By Theodore Kupfer for National Review
Let’s look at an astounding example of how powerful police unions generate absurd results.
If you want more information about that tragic debacle, Robby Soave is a must-read writer for Reason, and here’s some of what he wrote about the reactions of law enforcement.
It’s the story of catastrophic failure at every level of law enforcement, beginning with a corrupt and incompetent sheriff’s office warned on multiple occasions about the specific threat posed by Cruz. The Broward County sheriff’s office received at least 18 tips between 2008 and 2017 concerning Cruz. A November 2017 caller described him as a “school shooter in the making.” Despite knowing that Cruz was in possession of a cache of weapons, the sheriff’s office passed the buck… On the day of the shooting, …Officer Scot Peterson, an employee of the sheriff’s office, refused to enter the school and confront Cruz, as did three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies who had arrived on scene. These were stunning indictments of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, a man who responded to accusations of corruption by comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. …law enforcement’s spectacular failure before, during, and after the Parkland shooting should be a more pressing topic of discussion. …many of these agencies prove themselves to be wildly incompetent for reasons ranging from arrogant leadership and individual cowardice, to toxic workplace culture and shoddy internal systems.
‘One Year Later, Parkland Remains a Stunning Example of Police Incompetence’, By Robby Soave for Reason
In other words, the problem was government, not a lack of gun control. But I’m digressing. Let’s close with a final observation about the perverse effect of collective bargaining for cops.
But it’s presumably far worse for society when police officers use excessive force against citizens like George Floyd and Eric Garner because unions shield them from adverse consequences.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
