Ahead of a Wednesday debate with GOP rivals, Scott Walker will announce a major plan to overhaul and reform labor laws in the United States. Reid Epstein at the Wall Street Journal reports:

The Republican presidential candidate’s proposal, which he plans to announce at an afternoon speech in Las Vegas, would eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, prohibit federal employee unions, institute right-to-work laws nationwide and repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which requires the payment of local prevailing wages to workers on federal construction projects, often boosting pay and project costs.

No question, the plan is big and bold.

At Hot Air, Walker explained why the end of federal employee unions will be good for taxpayers.

As president, I will work with Congress to prohibit federal employee unions because it’s the right thing for workers, taxpayers and the future of the American government. I have no illusions that this effort will be easy. Opponents will say that we’re robbing federal workers of their rights and workplace protections. Nothing could be further from the truth. Total compensation for federal employees is already 30 to 40 percent higher than their civilian counterparts and they already enjoy strong workplace protections and high job security rates.

The vast majority of federal workers do an outstanding job and deserve our appreciation and protection, which they will receive under a Walker administration. But taxpayers deserve the same thing. One of the ways I will achieve that is by removing the corrosive influence of federal unions from our government.

This proposal does a couple of things for Walker as his candidacy seeks to find some momentum.

First, it provides more substance to Walker’s candidacy as he seeks to move beyond his reputation as reform governor in the Midwest to a national candidate. With how quick Walker rose in the early part of 2015, he was slow to develop serious proposals to reform federal policy. This, along with his healthcare proposal, are very serious proposals that ought to find favor among conservative pundits, wonks, and the grassroots.

Second, Walker pokes the eye of an old foe. In many ways, big labor made Scott Walker. And he’s hoping they might give him a boost once again. This proposal will draw out big labor into a full-fledged freakout. The reaction will be swift and over the top. In an unsubtle way, Walker is begging for more union protests to bolster the “unintimidated” brand, and he is likely to get exactly what he wants.

Third, this is Scott Walker’s sweet spot. While immigration has been something of a nightmare, and foreign policy has been a work in progress, tackling federal labor policy is right up his alley. This will be framed as an “Act 10” for the federal government. But in many ways, it’s bigger than that. For a candidate who has struggled with driving the agenda, this ought to be a good moment for Walker as he attempts to reset the narrative of his campaign.

What is the one thing all conservatives should agree upon? The excessive scope and cost of government, particularly a government that has managed to generate tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will never be repaid.

Labor costs, both direct (salaries and benefits) and indirect (government projects made more expensive because of Davis-Bacon), have a lot to do with our bloated Govzilla. It remains unclear to me why we overburdened taxpayers should watch our wallets drain further to, ultimately, pad the wallets of government employee union heads, such as anyone who gets a paycheck from the Wisconsin Education Association Council. Government employee unions never have the taxpayer’s interest as a priority.

This also is an issue where Walker stands out from his fellow candidates, because none of them took on unions and won. Ohio Gov. John Kasich tried Act 10-style reforms, only to have them defeated by voters. No one else in the GOP field did what Walker did.

The political problem, though, is whether this will help Walker, who should have introduced union-neutering well before now. Sticking it to a Democratic constituency full of criminals (see Hoffa, James) is well and good, but not probably as important as disassembling the bad effects of Barack Obama in, for instance, his foreign policy of surrender and his other efforts to destroy our country in such areas as crippling environmental-policy idiocy.