In the wake of Republicans enacting right-to-work legislation, there has been a lot of talk about recalls. Most of the speculation involves unions attempting to recall GOP lawmakers who voted for the law.

However, recall efforts are expensive. And that could force the unions to focus their efforts. That could bring Republicans who voted against right to work in the picture.

There were six in the House: Reps. Anthony Forlini, R-Harrison Township; Ken Goike, R-Ray Township; Ken Horn, R-Frankenmuth; Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan; Pat Somerville, R-New Boston;and Dale Zorn, R-Ida. Four Republicans in the Senate voted against right to work: Sens. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba; Mike Green, R-Mayville; Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek, and Tory Rocca, R-Sterling Heights.

Some of these lawmakers are among the most vulnerable to recall. First, some represent marginal districts, with bases that are close to 50-50 in terms of party affiliations. Second, conservatives might be less likely to turnout in a recall election to defend a lawmaker who voted “no” on right-to-work legislation.

People involved with recall efforts in the past said it was possible that recall efforts against Republicans could be targeted toward those who voted 'no' on right-to-work legislation.

Leon Drolet, director of the Michigan Taxpayer Alliance, headed the unsuccessful effort to recall former House Speaker Andy Dillon in 2008. Drolet said the unions could try to recall Republicans who opposed the law, but they would need to be careful doing so.

"If they run a recall the way they usually try to run a campaign, what they're looking at is gaining political power," he said. "They don't just decide — let's go after this person or let's go after that one. They try to determine which districts they'll have the best chance of succeeding in. It would be ludicrous to do anything else.

"So, yeah, I think there is a possibility the unions could go after some lawmakers who didn't vote in favor of right to work," Drolet said. "But I also think it would be a very tough decision to make. Most voters in recall elections aren't going to get encouraged or excited about a recall that's just an attempt to grab more political power. And when it's a recall, you're out in the open. You really can't hide your motives."

Lansing election attorney Eric Doster said he thinks unions potentially attempting to recall some lawmakers who voted “no” on right to work is a real possibility.

"That idea is not at all unrealistic," Doster said. "The recalls would not be limited to a universe of lawmakers who voted for freedom to work. Look at the recalls the unions attempted back in 2011. They didn't just go after lawmakers over the emergency manager law. They went after Republican lawmakers for anything they thought they might be vulnerable on.

"Recalls are nothing more than attempted election re-dos," Doster said. "The unions wouldn't feel restrained to just the freedom to work issue. But if they do it again in 2013, they could find out that the Republicans might get serious about trying to recall Democrats as well."

Mark Grebner, president of Practical Political Consulting, a Democratic political consultant, said his firm played the major role in coordinating the signature gathering for the successful recall of former House Education Chairman Paul Scott in 2011. Grebner said that recall efforts against GOP lawmakers who opposed right to work could happen.

"Maybe they would do that. Anything is possible," Grebner said. "They could always find some other issue to use as a reason if they wanted to."

However, Grebner also said he doubts recalls against any of the Republicans would be worth it.

"It's not easy to recall a lawmaker in Michigan," Grebner said. "It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of work. I think the Paul Scott recall showed that you can recall someone, but the idea that you can do a bunch of successful recalls is unrealistic."

Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation recently that changes the rules for legislative recalls. Petition signature gatherers now have 60 days to get signatures instead of 90 days and recall petition language must be factual, among other changes.

Affecting the balance of power in the Legislature would require four successful recalls of Republican House members. This could bring the House to a 55-55 balance between Democrats and Republicans, but only if Democrats managed to win all of the replacement races.

“I just don't think it can be done,” Grebner said. ”You might successfully do one – maybe two at the most. But look at all the money and time spent on the Paul Scott recall. And what did the Democrats really get for it? They removed one state representative who was really ripe fruit for the picking. Then, even with all of his vulnerabilities, Scott only lost by a few hundred votes.”

H.L. Mencken famously coined the term “boobeoisie” to characterize the gullibility of American voters. That’s probably unfair to regular people who — at least in our Founder’s vision — shouldn’t be required to focus very much on politics and government.

But the term may capture the attitude of many politicians who are all too willing the exploit the “rational ignorance” of the average voter.

A prime example is legislation to exempt from sales tax the value of a used car that is traded in on a new car purchase. Like daisies in the spring, this measure is introduced in every new Legislature, and having gone nowhere, expires with the final adjournment of each. But that doesn't prevent the politicians from boasting about how admirable they are for just having the notion.

This year, however, they took the cynicism to new heights. Five weeks before the re-election rendezvous of all Michigan House members not being involuntarily retired by term limits, the body passed the latest iteration of a false promise that has been introduced around 25 times over the past decade. By an amazing coincidence, last May the Senate had passed their own version of the same proposal. The bills offered the prospect of a substantial tax cut — around $220 million annually according to the House Fiscal Agency.

And yet, despite all the political speeches and legislator newsletters describing how great this would be — and what a fine fellow the particular politician was for supporting it — somehow the two bodies never quite got around to passing the other's bill.

In fact, final passage was extremely unlikely for the same reason this proposal has gone nowhere in previous Legislatures: It would require a correspondingly large budget cut, which would anger the particular special interests whose spending-ox would have been gored.

Most politicians of both parties hate inciting special interests almost as much as they fear angering voters with tax hikes, so all these bills have been essentially stillborn from the day they were hatched.

In most years, the "sales tax on the difference" measure never even gets a committee hearing, but when it does the same scene is replayed: Agents of the Department of Treasury testify that lawmakers better start looking for $220 million in spending cuts to offset the foregone revenue. That shuts up the pols right quick, and puts the kibosh on the bill's further advancement.

Indeed, just once before during the past 12 years has one of these bills received a floor vote (it passed 30-7), and that time it was the Republican Senate cooking up the candy, relying on a Democratic governor and House majority to play goalkeeper. They did, saving the Senators from having to identify which special interests to anger.

Of course I can’t prove that the politicians are acting in such a cynical, manipulative fashion — a bipartisan rule of omerta (silence) prohibits members of the political class from revealing their tricks. Ask almost any of the 106 bipartisan House "yes" voters (out of 110), or the 37 in the Senate (out of 38), and he or she will swear on a stack of State Constitutions that this vote was perfectly sincere. Perhaps some even were sincere.

So CapCon asked some experienced Senate staffers. Our "it's just a game" thesis was regarded as essentially correct, but Senate staffers can't prove it either. Who knows what cynicism lurks in the hearts of politicians?

To his credit, one former Democratic Senator, Mickey Swiatalski, did commit something close to candor the last time this proposal got a vote, in 2009. You can read his "no vote explanation" on MichiganVotes.org, here.

All this isn’t (just) a snark, it’s also a warning: Watch what they do  (in CapCon and MichiganVotes.org), not what they say. In almost every case, when a politician boasts about a bill he has introduced, he’s just serving-up “candy,” knowing full well the measure isn’t going anywhere.