Where Obama's supporters and Scott Walker's agree

This week, Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker defeated an effort by Democrats and organized labor to remove him from the office he was elected to two years ago. The enmity toward Walker was triggered by his 2011 bill to fix the state budget, which increased government employees' contributions to their pension and health-care plans, eliminated most of their unions' collective bargaining rights, and ended the automatic deduction of union dues from workers' paychecks.

When he was elected in 2010, Walker defeated his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by a margin of 5.8 percentage points. In this week's recall election, Walker increased his margin of victory over the same opponent to 6.9 percentage points. So despite all the controversy over the budget bill, Walker's popularity actually increased amid higher turnout.

Exit polls conducted for the New York Times showed that Wisconsin's recall voters nevertheless favored President Obama over Republican challenger Mitt Romney 51 percent to 44 percent. But of those favoring Obama, fully 18 percent reported voting for Walker. Thus, about 9 percent of all recall voters were Obama supporters who voted to retain Walker. That's more than enough to account for the governor's margin of victory.

This suggests that a significant number of Obama's supporters share Republican voters' concerns about elected officials' trading of underfunded pension and health-care benefits for support from unions representing government employees.

Most elected officials just want to be reelected. They don't worry about budget problems that future elected officials will have to face because of insufficiently funded pension and health-care promises they make in exchange for union votes and other support.

But the ticking time bomb of underfunded pension and health-care obligations to government retirees is going off as the economy contracts, government revenues decline, the needs of the poor and unemployed increase, health care expenses and life expectancies exceed projections, and returns on investments miss targets.

Meanwhile, critics are pointing out that the benefits of government retirees greatly exceed those of the private-sector taxpayers who are paying for them. Most private-sector workers — if they have retirement plans at all — now have defined-contribution plans, receiving only what they and their employers have set aside for them, subject to market risks. In contrast, most state and local government employees qualify for defined-benefit plans, which entitle them to certain benefits regardless of market fluctuations. And private-sector workers typically make larger contributions to their health-care coverage.

The same budget crisis felt in Wisconsin is being felt across America, including in Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia in particular. Elected officials in most jurisdictions try to kick the problem down the road, to be addressed only after they are out of office. But perhaps Gov. Walker's recall victory will encourage more of them to take the political risks inherent in trying to limit future government obligations now.

Coincidentally, on the day Wisconsin voters decided to stick with the governor who took those risks, voters in the California cities of San Jose and San Diego voted by large margins for ballot initiatives to reduce retirement benefits for city workers. The mayors of both cities described those reductions as essential.