I'm going to set this all down now to reduce the chance of my head exploding. Hey reader, if I can hear the blood rushing around in my brain, is that a bad sign?
My very first post, way back in January, was about Wal-Mart, applauding that Maryland finally stuck it back to the company that was sticking it to the taxpayers. MD decided it had had enough of paying the additional healthcare costs WM wouldn't cover. The law there is now that if you're a company over a particular size, 8% of your payroll has to be spent on healthcare. There are exactly four companies in Maryland that this new legislation affects.
So today when I read that W-M is actually fighting the law, I saw that the rationale by Eugene Scalia, attorney for W-M, is that W-M is the only company impacted by this. (Sound of hand smacking forehead) Do you know why that is? Because the other three companies comply with the law's requirements, and had done so even before the legislation went through.
Beyond that, the rationale is that this law was determined by the state of Maryland, but "only the federal government may dictate health spending by private companies." First of all, I'm not even sure that's true--it seems like the state would have more say in a scene like that--but more importantly, Wal-Mart is not a private company. It's publicly traded on the NYSE (WMT).
There was also some bizarro commentary designed to kick up a little fear about how if Wal-Mart had to pony up, it would (cue ominous music) pass on its increased costs to the consumer, even if they didn't live in Maryland.--What? A company passing on its costs to the end user? Holy mackerel. Can they really do that?
Eugene, Eugene. Here's my advice, bubbeleh. Take your dad out for a cup of coffee. Ask him what he thinks. He's no friend of mine, but he's a brilliant jurist. Hopefully he can make you see that you're fighting a really stupid and ignoble case.
Bottom line: Wal-Mart stands to lose more than any other corporation b/c 8% of its payroll is a hell of a lot of money. W-M did a good job of schmoozing the governor toward its view and thought they had this in the bag, but the gov got steamrolled by a veto so now W-M's gotta take it up a notch. If you think there's more to it than that, you're wrong.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-06-23-walmart-healthcare_x.htm?csp=26
Friday, June 23, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Benefits of Fairness
It’s my understanding that The Man will be promoting an amendment to ban gay marriage. Apparently, Unca Dub believes “marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women” and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage. Well, that doesn’t fly for this hetero mom, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their view—I mean, except for all the gay would-be marrieds, of course.
But this is the same guy who’s willing to grant what amounts to an amnesty to millions of illegal aliens on the theory of fairness. Who was talking up a guestworker program before anyone in Congress had ever even heard Si se puede. In fact, a lot of what goes on under Uncle Dub concerns itself with fairness. In a nationally televised evening press conference at the end of April, for example, the word “fair” came up in his speech and responses to the press no less than 11 times. I don't think I've ever heard him say that he loves one daughter more than the other. So I know fairness is constantly on his mind. And I also know that if everyone can’t join our President and that scrog Santorum and every other gay-basher who wields power in this country in their narrow-minded views, everyone still wants fairness nonetheless.
So how to rectify our apparent ideological divide with our beloved fairness? How about this: Since we can’t make our gay friends married b/c that would somehow make it a sinstitution (trademark pending), let’s execute the only other choice: take away all the benefits that all married people get, so it can be fair. (TrogNote: We used to call this “the mountains coming to Mohammed,” until it became dangerous to say “Mohammed.” Now we have to say “the foothills coming to Frank.” It’s clunky, but Fellow Trogs know my view—anything for The Leader.)
Since we want to be fair, all we have to do is make all the married heteros living in this country lose all the health, life, dental, and car insurance benefits that they currently enjoy. (Really, who could enjoy it knowing so many others are having to unfairly go without?) And all the retirement benefits. And all the tax benefits. Whoops, almost forgot automatic guardianship over a spouse. And to be really au courant, let’s make it difficult for my family to prove we’re a family so we can do exotic things like join a swim club.
I know once we all have to endure this kind of humiliation and hassle and untold expense, we’ll all stand behind Unca Dub and the decision he made. Once again, the guy has made me so proud.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-01-bush-gay-marriage_x.htm?csp=24
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html
But this is the same guy who’s willing to grant what amounts to an amnesty to millions of illegal aliens on the theory of fairness. Who was talking up a guestworker program before anyone in Congress had ever even heard Si se puede. In fact, a lot of what goes on under Uncle Dub concerns itself with fairness. In a nationally televised evening press conference at the end of April, for example, the word “fair” came up in his speech and responses to the press no less than 11 times. I don't think I've ever heard him say that he loves one daughter more than the other. So I know fairness is constantly on his mind. And I also know that if everyone can’t join our President and that scrog Santorum and every other gay-basher who wields power in this country in their narrow-minded views, everyone still wants fairness nonetheless.
So how to rectify our apparent ideological divide with our beloved fairness? How about this: Since we can’t make our gay friends married b/c that would somehow make it a sinstitution (trademark pending), let’s execute the only other choice: take away all the benefits that all married people get, so it can be fair. (TrogNote: We used to call this “the mountains coming to Mohammed,” until it became dangerous to say “Mohammed.” Now we have to say “the foothills coming to Frank.” It’s clunky, but Fellow Trogs know my view—anything for The Leader.)
Since we want to be fair, all we have to do is make all the married heteros living in this country lose all the health, life, dental, and car insurance benefits that they currently enjoy. (Really, who could enjoy it knowing so many others are having to unfairly go without?) And all the retirement benefits. And all the tax benefits. Whoops, almost forgot automatic guardianship over a spouse. And to be really au courant, let’s make it difficult for my family to prove we’re a family so we can do exotic things like join a swim club.
I know once we all have to endure this kind of humiliation and hassle and untold expense, we’ll all stand behind Unca Dub and the decision he made. Once again, the guy has made me so proud.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-01-bush-gay-marriage_x.htm?csp=24
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)