MARYLAND WAL - MART BILL TAX INCREASE IN DISGUISE
The Maryland legislature has passed what has become known as, "the Wal-Mart bill." Maryland has determined that Wal-Mart does not pay enough in health care costs for its employees so now with this legislation the state is requiring private companies with more than 10,000 employees to either pay a minimum of 8% of the company payroll in health care or pay the balance between what they currently pay and 8% to the state. Nearly three dozen states are preparing to jump on this band wagon and of course the labor unions are drooling with support for the bill because Wal-Mart has remained a private company that has prevented unionization. Wal-Mart has become the icon for attacks by the left because of their refusing to be unionized since they are the largest private employer in the United States. When members of the Maryland state legislature were asked why they supported this bill the response told very much of the true intent behind it. According to liberal legislators, any money received by Wal-Mart or any other company effected by the bill would go to expand entitlements such as Medicaid and other health care related entities. Now as we all know when it comes to government what is said and what is actually done with money are two different things and why should entitlements be expanded in the first place except to increase the size of government. Why jump on this band wagon ? Health care is a hot topic with the voters and can be made to make large companies such as Wal-Mart to look like Ebenezer Scrooge and the politicians like hero's who have come to the rescue of the common Joe. What this bill actually represents is a cleverly politically designed tax increase to the consumer in order to expand government programs without the appearance of money coming out of the pocket of the tax payer. Most consumers shop or do business with large companies who would be effected by this bill. When the additional costs are calculated into the financial structure of the company whether it is an actual increase in company health care or the balance paid in a tax to the state, it will force a retail price increase to cover the cost. Thus the common Joe consumer who the liberal politicians are supposedly championing will pay more out of their pocket as everyday goods and services will rise. Just who will benefit ? The state coffers and the pork barrel politicians who created the increase in the first place. No matter how it is disguised this is a blatant attempt to attack the business community, favor the unions and expand government all at the expense of the middle and lower classes who do the majority of shopping at stores such as Wal-Mart. Leave it to liberal politicians to find a way to get what they desire, expanded government and tax increases while deceiving the public into thinking they are helping and care for we the people.
Ken Taylor
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 1:57 PM
20 Comments:
Ken, you totally misrepresent and misunderstand the point of the bill. You are listening to Rush and simply do not understand the argument for the Maryland bill.
Wal-Mart makes billions of dollars in profit and receives significant tax breaks for their construction. However their employees do not get health benefits and the overwhelming majority of them must get their health care paid for by Medicaid and state programs costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Here in Maryland, privately owned Giant grocery stores supported the bill and basically told the state's lawmakers that either Wal-Mart (and all large MD employers) put aside 8 percent of payroll for employee health care or they will cut their employee health benefit programs so as to compete with Wal-Mart.
There is a rising tide to do what Maryland did across the country as more than two dozen states are considering following Maryland's lead including many "Red States." Check out the following link to read about "Red State" Utah:
http://wakeupwalmart.com/news/20060206-slt.html
The fact remains that we taxpayers are picking up the tab for employee health insurance for many firms with billions of dollars in profits - Wal-Mart just happens to be the most notorious firm. That is what drove the legislation.
If Wal-Mart does not like it, they are a private entity and can always leave the state. I am curious, what liberal legislators are your referring to who said this was about expanding Medicaid?
I am not saying whether I agree or not, but I want to be sure to correct your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Maryland bill.
Here is a good summary of how Wal-Mart's employees have to get state-run health insurance picked up by taxpayers.
http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/news/20050611-wapo.html
We are on the cusp of a medical revolution, breakthroughs that have previously been impossible to imagine and not a single politician has the integrity to get tough with the pharmaceutical industry. Why give the pharmaceutical companies patent protection and create legislation that encourages the pharmaceutical industry to expend the bulk of their expenditures on goodies for doctors, then advertising and then lastly on research and development if only to milk the consumer for the few years left the industry possibly can. Even the blog community prefers to chase boogie men than actually attempt to solve the problem. Billions of dollars wasted every year by catering to the pharmaceutical industry and HMO's, supported by the media and it's ridiculous circular arguments. The further cannibalization of the american public, a financial genocide inspired by ruthless plutocrats.
An estimated 4 million Americans have hepatitis c. Recent statistics indicated one third of the recipients of blood were women during childbirth. The current prescribed therapy is a piggyback combination of, interferon and ribavirin, two pharmaceuticals whose patents have expired but as a new ccombination therapy they are prepackaged together and around twelve times as expensive than when purchased independently. To treat these Americans once every seven years would cost ( 4 million ) ( $ 1500.00 average pharmaceutical cost per month ) ( 12 months of therapy ) 72 Billion dollars. To purchase them independently the cost was around 6 Billion dollars. This regimen of therapy has been in use for around six years already and the media buries the news.
An estimated 4 million Americans have hepatitis c. Recent statistics indicated one third of the recipients of blood were women during childbirth. The current prescribed therapy is a piggyback combination of, interferon and ribavirin, two pharmaceuticals whose patents have expired but as a new ccombination therapy they are prepackaged together and around twelve times as expensive than when purchased independently. To treat these Americans once every seven years would cost ( 4 million ) ( $ 1500.00 average pharmaceutical cost per month ) ( 12 months of therapy ) 72 Billion dollars. To purchase them independently the cost was around 6 Billion dollars. This regimen of therapy has been in use for around six years already and the media buries the news.
The interview that I read was from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal and the Legislator quoted was
James Hubbard, a Democrat from Prince George's County. He went on to detail that the Wal-Mart bill was just the beginning. Now that it is in force, the next step is to mandate employers wuth 1000 employees to spend 4.5% on health care or give the balance to the state with similar mandates for companies with less than 1000 at a rate of 3%. It is a plan to control private business and regardless of the reason governmental control of the private busines sector is wrong. Where will the increase in cost go ? As with any business a cost increase is passed on to the consumer and that does equate to a form of tax increase since monies will go to the state for government expansion through entitlements. As I said in my post I NEVER trust government to spend additional money in the way that is stated. It almost always goes in other dirrections which sparks greed for more revenue and thus increases the burden on John Q. Public. By the way, why is it that when we conservatives state an opinion or write our thoughts that the automatic assumption is that we are all falling in line with Rush or Hannity. Yes I listen to both but I research and form my own opinion. Much of the time I am in agreement with both as I am a conservative first and then a Republican. I disagree with Rush on the ports deal as an example.
Ken
Wal-Mart is notorious for stiffing suppliers by sending back unsold inventory, forcing workers to work overtime off the clock, busting union organizing efforts in direct violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, hiring undocumented workers, sexual discrimination against female workers, etc. It is not like they are a paragon of corporate America at its best.
However, that is beside the point. More directly with respect to health insurance, there are estimates that several hundred thousand Wal-Mart workers must rely on state and federal health care like Medicaid. This costs taxpayers over $1 billion per year. Here in Maryland, lawmakers have looked at the costs and decided that large employers should build health care into their overhead structure. If it means higher cost goods so be it.
If Wal-Mart does not like it they can raise prices or they can leave the state. If the voters don't like higher prices or they don't like the bill that was passed they can vote the legislature out. Why you care about Maryland politics I am not sure, but what is clear is that there are more than 2 dozen states that are looking into doing what Maryland did because of skyrocketing health care costs.
At least it is a solution to the health insurance crisis. We will have to see if it is a good one or not. But, to say that taxpayers are getting stiffed by this bill is simply wrong. We are getting stiffed right now because we have to pay for the uninsured working poor.
In your very first post, I am glad you brought up Giant's support. Will Giant be affected by this bill? Nope. Well only in the positive way in the fact that they are using the State Government for private use.
Do you think Giant will continue its support when Annapolis decides ALL companies should pay the 8%?
Why he cares is exactly what you have noted, other states now want to follow. I hope Maryland follows the path of other states in banning abortion.
When you start using the Government to bring other companies to a "level playing field" for one company... there is a name for that. When you have the Government being used to force people to pay for healthcare... there is a name for that.
I personally don't want to live in the Marxist/communist, socialized healthcare state of Maryland. And I don't plan on moving.
Leave it to liberal politicians to find a way to get what they desire, expanded government and tax increases while deceiving the public into thinking they are helping and care for we the people.
You mean like Bush giving $500 MILLION to faith-based initiatives (as part of a "deficit reduction" bill) to proselytize opposite-sex marriages, and giving it in such a way that they won't have to alter their hiring practices to qualify for federal funding?
You mean like that?
MDConservative you are clearly uninformed about the issue. Giant, Northrup Grumman, and Lockheed are the only other Maryland employers who have more than 10,000 workers - they all put 8% toward health care of their workers. Giant will be just fine with the law because they already meet the requirements. In fact, had the law not been passed, Giant would have been forced to cut their health benefits in order to compete against Wal-Mart on price. That would have meant taxpayers would have had to pay for health expenses for another 12,000 working poor in Maryland.
Assuming you pay taxes in Maryland and have health insurance - you are paying for the uninsured with your taxes, higher premiums, and cuts in health benefits. One in 6 Americans don't have health insurance - about 5 million more than when Bush took office - is your solution to just let them die?
What is your solution? Maryland has made a choice - we will see if it helps. Other states are clearly following suit.
Let's put this discussion in financial context. Assuming Wal-Mart has 400,000 employees making $10/hour (about $20,000/year). The total cost to Wal-Mart of providing 8% of salary to health care would be $640 million. Wal-Mart's profit will come in above $11 billion. It is not like this is really going to hurt the company. But if they don't like it they can always choose to leave - somehow I don't think they will.
“Giant, Northrup Grumman, and Lockheed are the only other Maryland employers who have more than 10,000 workers”
-- I apologize let me rephrase, this bill was written to solely impact Walmart at this point. (There semantics, met.)
“Giant would have been forced to cut their health benefits in order to compete against Wal-Mart on price. That would have meant taxpayers would have had to pay for health expenses for another 12,000 working poor in Maryland.”
-- That is called capitalism. As for having to pay for the expenses, no we do not if liberals would take a moment to demand people to have some self responsibility. Work, buy health insurance. Stop buying Cadillac Escalades, take the bus or get a used Toyota. Get a 20” TV as opposed to the 3’ plasma. Essentially, stop wasting your money and invest it in your family.
“…is your solution to just let them die?”
-- What if your neighbor has a much better diet than you? Can we force you to eat that same diet so we don’t have to pay more medical expenses on you? Where does the control stop? I am a fairly big believer in Natural Selection, that theory is one well out the window but I think some lessons could be learned. I do pay taxes in MD, and my insurance in provided by the DoD.
“What is your solution? Maryland has made a choice - we will see if it helps. Other states are clearly following suit.”
-- We will see, I personally hope WalMart would up and leave. They won’t and I don’t have any problem with them, I want them to do it as a smack in the face to Annapolis. If they do leave and those jobs are lost then you and the Assembly will be forced to embrace that issue. My biggest question remains that if abortion banning starts to spread from sea to shining sea, is that as fair as states copying anti-Walmart MD?
Good for you, taxpayers are paying for your health insurance. If you weren't on the government dime and had to pay out of pocket you would see how expensive it really is and how rapidly it is rising.
You blame working poor for not buying their own health insurance. If you are making $7/hour without company health benefits (Wal-Mart pays less), and you are working full-time, your annual salary is about $15,000 (2100 hours/year). Now let's say that you work two jobs and work about 70 hours per week instead of 40 - that puts you just over $25,000/year. I'm sorry, but the working poor do not have enough to buy health insurance, let alone plasma TVs, Escalades, etc. (I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to these items.)
Don't worry, Wal-Mart is not going to leave because they will still earn a significant profit. But, Maryland voters can decide if the legislature was wrong or if the governor was wrong to veto the bill. We'll see in November.
I was able to afford a car, private college, and top of the line insurance from BC/BS. I could still afford to do so.
Of course WalMart is not going to leave. Although I have been so busy I forget if they made a final decision to place their warehouse here or move it as they were considering.
I love Maryland. I am here because it is where I grew up and I work.. I am not here for the politics. Expecting the MD voters to gather additional common sense, electing more republicans, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I am happy for you, but your situation does not address the $7.00/hour example I gave. I shot down your utterly ridiculous comment about working poor not getting health insurance because they are buying plasma TVs and driving Escalades. You on the other hand, come back by saying that you went to private school and bought a car - so what?
I might care and find your comment to be relevant if you were earning $7.00/hour and working 70 hours a week. But the fact is that you are a federal employee who is making money and enjoying benefits paid for by taxpayers. Without knowing exactly what you do, I assume that you enjoy significant civil service protections such as protection from firing/layoffs and a pension that people in the private sector are losing. You benefit from socialized protections and cast stones from inside your glass house.
Don't worry, Wal-Mart is not going to take away their distribution center. The cost of the bill is too little and there is too much money to be made in Maryland - it was always an idle threat to pull the center. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/NEWS/60208007/1006/NEWS
"You on the other hand, come back by saying that you went to private school and bought a car - so what?"
And health insurance! That was the point. I was doing all that while going through college, so how anyone gets a Govt. job while being in school is an interesting point for you to make. I no longer remember how much I made but minimum wage was not $7 when I was able to do all that.
You "pay" for the insurance of Government workers because they are working for you, whether you like them, their ideas, or policies.
A private company should not be told how to run their business. And I agree the public should not have to pay for the healthcare of all. You don't do that by screwing around with a private company. You don't give them socialized healthcare. They should work, make them pay for it.
I worked my ass off to get where I am. Every time this country moves closer and closer to rewarding those that just don't make enough to pay for themselves, it makes me sick.
I would suggest families having children when they cannot afford them, is irresponsible. The taxpayer ends up paying for it. If that can happen why can't we demand parents to surrender their children up for mandatory adoption? If you can punish a private company for "not providing" I say we take a vast policy change to do the same to private families. I want a number figured out. If it is 8% required for companies, do the math. I say you remove a child from a household that has less than $X income automatically.
Why is it ok to impose such stringent rules on companies but not households? Anytime a child is removed it is do to much more subjective means, I say make it objective! Is there anything wrong with that?
I worked my ass off to get where I am, my dad worked his ass to get where he did, entrepreneurs work their asses off to get where they do. So what?
Yet again, you bore me with your reference to yourself. You have not addressed the issue of the working poor. These people are working and cannot afford health care. In my example the person is making more than minimum wage and working 70 hours per week. This person is "working their ass off" also.
Taxpayers pay for the health insurance of government employees because they have government union protections, civil service contracts, and collective bargaining agreements. It is not because they "work for me." Socialist principles were used to set up the federal bureaucracy, of which you are a part. I am happy for you but you do not "work for me" - I have not control over your responsibilities and actions.
Your opinion that people who don't make enough money should have their kids taken away from them is a perverted form of socialism. These kids would become wards of the state. So you are a socialist/big government guy who believes in taking away the rights of individuals - or you are just a hypocrite.
FYI, the federal minimum wage has been largely falling (in constant dollars) since 1968. Currently, it is at its lowest point in terms of real purchasing power in 50 years.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html
No, I believe in people having their rights, while being held accountable. I do not want to pay for anyone else’s life.
The way I do that is through charities. Yanking the bills from my wallet to give to others is quite annoying.
My reference to myself is the fact that I worked hard, I afforded insurance. Period. Why is it that I was able to and others aren't? Obviously they are not for some reason, but why am I supposed to cover for them?
Work hard and live within your means. The more people do that, the less problems with Government. I will never jump on the "take from the rich and hard working to give to the poor" train. Call me a bad person, but I have larger concerns for our country than making sure everyone has amazing healthcare.
Again, you do not address my example. You keep talking about yourself. I was able to work and afford stuff too when I was in high school and college, but that is irrelevant because that was years ago. We live in 2006 - the economy is different.
There are literally millions of Americans who work full time but fall below the poverty line. Here are a couple of government reports that may help enlighten you on the problem:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2002.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm
converse pas cher, true religion jeans, vans pas cher, air jordan pas cher, timberland, nike blazer, air max, hollister, nike air max, louboutin pas cher, michael kors, mulberry, air force, sac longchamp, ray ban uk, michael kors, michael kors, burberry, hermes, ralph lauren pas cher, ralph lauren uk, nike free, ray ban pas cher, nike roshe run, true religion jeans, north face, tn pas cher, hogan, sac guess, new balance pas cher, coach purses, oakley pas cher, longchamp pas cher, vanessa bruno, true religion outlet, lacoste pas cher, true religion jeans, north face, lululemon, hollister pas cher
Post a Comment
<< Home