Thursday, March 16, 2006
Unshocking!
Did I mention Carole Migden is a woman? Yes, yes I did.
But she has more. For those of you who aren't up to date with all the idiocies induced by bleeding hearts without any recognition of the requirement for some kind of philosophy of government (i.e. by women), Migden is sponsoring a bill that requires Wal-Mart to pay more for health care because some of their employees still use government assistance.
All told, 37,000 Wal-Mart employees are without basic health-care coverage and insurance. The resultant cost to California taxpayers is a staggering $86 million: $32 million in medical services and health-care insurance, and an additional $54 million in public-subsidy programs, such as food stamps, earned income tax credits, subsidized-school lunches and subsidized housing, according to the Labor Center studies.
This is a fascinating counting method. Normally, when talking about the cost of something, you would say "this something, if it wasn't here, would mean we'd have $X more dollars. But because this something is here, we have to spend it." But if you're a woman like Carole Migden, this is the wrong way to count. We aren't going to compare the cost on the government for Wal-Mart employees and the unemployed, as would make sense. Instead, we'll say "Hey, Wal-Mart, if you're going to hire people, we'll hold you responsible for the costs that we would've incurred anyway had you not hired them."
A few business groups claim that SB1414 is "picking on Wal-Mart," that SB1414 does not go far enough because it does not require employer-mandated health care for all Californians; others claim it's a form of government intrusion. To the first, I say, everything of consequence that I have sought in 15 years of elective life has come from incremental achievements that lead to broad gains.
Incremental enforcement! Why, I think we should raise smoking taxes. But only for black people. Increments, dude. Increments.
To the second, I say, that Wal-Mart has elected to be a target (no pun intended); SB1414 does not single out Wal-Mart, in concept. It sets forth a legal requirement that any company with a workforce of 10,000 or more must reimburse the state for health-care costs of its employees or dedicate 8 percent of its payroll toward employee health coverage.
Oh, well, that's okay, then. You know that smoking tax? It's not only for black people. It's actually only for people for whom the amount of light reflecting off of their skin makes it look dark. When you pick your number specifically so that the specific target of your wrath is the only one affected, you are singling it out.
"No, officer, I wasn't trying to punch him in the face. I merely punched the space that his face occupied, specifically because that space was occupied by his face. He really elected to get punched in the face by having his face there, even though, had his face been somewhere else, the space I would've punched would've been that same somewhere else."
Wal-Mart's prominence and profits are unchallenged in America, and in years ahead Wal-Mart will spread throughout the world. Legislators are not picking on Wal-Mart: Was David looking for a fight with Goliath?
Just so we're clear: The government of California is claiming to be a David, compared to the Goliath of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employs 52,000 dudes in California. How many dudes does the government of California employ?
Wal-Mart has the power and the wherewithal to stop the legislative revolt against its practices. Wal-Mart has a choice to set up and do the right thing for its employees, its customers, the families and shoppers.
Wal-Mart can introduce a real employee health plan, step up and stop legislators from resorting to legislative solutions to problems that can be solved with Wal-Mart's resolve.
Hmm... interesting concept. Let's see how else we can apply it.
"We wouldn't have to make it illegal for you to criticize the government if you would simply never try."
"If you would just give me your money voluntarily, I wouldn't have to mug you. You really only have yourself to blame."
. . .
|
. . .
|
