[lbo-talk] Re: WSJ editpage: "fair share" a flop

[Robert Naiman]

I think the WSJ overstates its case a little. Shocking, I know. It's
not surprising that other states, which might be perfectly delighted
to have such a law, would figure that they might as well hang back a
bit and see what happens with the legal wrangle over the Maryland law.
It's quite possible that Wal-mart will win in court with the legal
argument that this is pre-empted by federal law. Sweeney could be
faulted for excessive rhetorical flourish, I suppose. The political
argument that this is not the health reform we need is another matter
(I agree.) But my sense is that as a pressure tactic it may have had
some good effect -- it helped put the issue of Wal-mart's crappy
benefits in the media and keep it there for a while.


> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:19:44 -0400
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] WSJ editpage: "fair share" a flop
> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID: <32B506F9-BE3E-480D-929F-B2339AD8618C at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Wall Street Journal - July 6, 2006
>
> Wal-Mart Tax Fizzle
>
> For anyone keeping score, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has been
> striking out in a surprising number of state capitals. Mr. Sweeney
> launched a campaign in 33 states several months ago to force Wal-Mart
> and other retailers either to spend more on health care or pay more
> in taxes. His legislation was intended as a first step in mandating
> employer-provided health care, and his campaign began as Maryland
> enacted the first "Wal-Mart tax."
>
> Well, the early results are in, and the Sweeney tax has been a
> political flop. Not a single state has followed Maryland's lead, even
> liberal Rhode Island. In 26 states from Maine to New Mexico, so-
> called "fair share" legislation has either stalled or, in the case of
> Kansas, Louisiana and Missouri, been withdrawn. With many state
> legislatures wrapping up their work or already adjourned for the
> year, it's clear the anti-Wal-Mart groundswell isn't coming.
>
> New York was one of the last holdouts, and Long Island's Suffolk
> County has enacted its own version of the law. But for a state in
> which unions enjoy broad political influence, the bill found few
> friends in Albany and failed. Even Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
> opposed it, telling the New York Post that the Wal-Mart bill is not
> the "comprehensive reform" of health care the state needs. A
> candidate for Governor such as Mr. Spitzer has to worry about job
> creation, especially in a state from which young people and jobs are
> both fleeing.
>
> This isn't what Mr. Sweeney hoped when he vowed at the National Press
> Club in January that, "If they don't give us a fair health plan
> covering all families in all 50 states, we will give them hell in all
> 50 states." The AFL-CIO had twisted enough arms in Maryland to enact
> a law requiring employers with 10,000 or more employees to spend at
> least 8% of their payroll on health care or pay the state the
> difference. That law applies to only one company, Wal-Mart.
>
> The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group, is suing to
> overturn Maryland's Wal-Mart tax on the grounds that it violates the
> Constitution's equal protection clause and is pre-empted by federal
> law regulating health benefits. Oral arguments in the case were heard
> recently in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. And arguments will be
> heard in a separate case challenging Suffolk County's law later this
> year in Brooklyn. Win or lose in court, the Wal-Mart tax has already
> fizzled as a political cause.

--
Robert Naiman