Punishing Success
--N.
H.
House Bill 1704, patterned after similar legislation in Maryland, would force companies with 1,500 or more employees to spend on employee health insurance an amount equal to at least 10.
5 percent of their payroll.
If they don't, they would have to pay the difference into a state health insurance fund.
A recent editorial in the Union Leader states: "the legislation really is about three things: 1) hurting the left's favorite bogeyman; 2) moving closer to universal health care; and 3) creating 'living' wages.
" Organizations in support predictably include the N.
H.
AFL-CIO, state chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, N.
H.
Citizens Alliance, and New Hampshire for Health Care, a project of the SEIU, but lobbyists for the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire and the Retail Merchants Association testified against what has become known as the Wal-Mart bill.
Maryland lawmakers have now overturned the state's Republican governor's veto, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care.
This undoubtedly will generate similar activity throughout the country.
Punishing Wal-Mart has become a popular anti-business activity in states like New York, Maryland and California.
No big surprise there, but such actions have no place in the Live Free or Die State.
Anti-corporate groups are trying to use laws such as HB 1704 to accomplish what they have not been able to accomplish by getting enough votes for creating universal state health care.
They have also concentrated on crippling Wal-Mart by turning local planning and zoning boards against it.
The New York City Council's Economic Development Committee held a hearing that basically opposed the plans of Wal-Mart to open its first-ever NYC store in Rego Park, Queens.
"They have to make big changes if they want to come into New York," threatened a councilwoman echoing the familiar objections raised by organized labor against Wal-Mart.
How would you like to be penalized or handicapped because you do your work too well--for running your business so efficiently that it attracts millions of satisfied patrons? This is what is happening to Wal-Mart.
Recently, the city council in West Covina, Calif.
, voted to deny the sale of land to developers who were going to build a Wal-Mart store on the site.
The council was concerned that the Wal-Mart store would "threaten" other businesses and replace higher paying jobs in the area with lower-paying ones.
The banning of Wal-Mart is being considered by the Los Angeles city council and has occurred in some other California cities as well.
How can a state government tell free men and women where they may or may not shop, or to keep out stores in which consumers want to shop? In my view, there is only one morally proper way to keep Wal-Mart out of any community: don't shop there.
No one has a right to business success; they must earn it.
Nor does anyone have a right to be protected from competitors through government and socialist type intervention.
If Wal-Mart cannot make money in a given location, it will either not move there or will close the store.
So far, however, it makes money just about everywhere it goes--and it does this for one simple reason: customers want to shop there.
If I want utensils for my grill, I'll stop at Ocean State Lots in Ossipee to get them because I know I'll get the best value for my dollar.
If I want a range of affordable items that will leave change in my pocket, I may also shop at Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is one of history's most impressive business success stories.
It was founded in 1962 as a 5 and 10 store in Rogers, Ark.
, and has grown into a worldwide giant under the leadership of the brilliant Sam Walton and his successors.
It is now the largest corporation in America with sales of $245 billion, has over 4,000 stores worldwide, employs 1.
3 million people (all of whom sought their jobs voluntarily), and serves 100 million customers per week many of whom are shoppers who cannot afford the prices of the more upscale stores.
Sure, it has put other stores out of business, but that's the way capitalism works.
The TV replaced the radio, automobiles replaced the horse and buggy, dry photo copiers replaced wet ones, CDs replaced tapes and DVD's replaced tapes.
In a freely working economy, businesses that offer the best value for the dollar win.
Given that if Wal-Mart refrains from using eminent domain, as it sometimes does to force property owners to sell their land, we should welcome every store Wal-Mart builds, for by giving customers what they want, they make huge profits which in turn enables them to build more stores, hire more people, provide more profit opportunities to suppliers and create even more satisfied customers.
In a very real sense, the low prices Wal-Mart offers make people wealthier since they can buy a range of quality goods that they could not otherwise afford and they can then use the money saved for other purposes.
Wal-Mart should be admired as the quintessential rags-to-riches story.
Handicapping this company through back-door intervention with HB 1704 is political arrogance at its outrageous worst and is morally wrong.
It makes the egregious mistake of discounting the impact of variables in the marketplace for the judgment of state lawmakers, many of whom have no corporate business experience or related academic training whatsoever, and who have no business deciding what is a fair amount of money for an employer to contribute to employee health care.
As the Union Leader stated, "that is rarely a good idea...
" Indeed, rather than be punished, Wal-Mart should be admired as the quintessential rags to riches story.
This deplorable bill is a weapon to penalize this successful company for being successful.
Period.
"There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs.
But there's no one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft.
" --Bill Gates
H.
House Bill 1704, patterned after similar legislation in Maryland, would force companies with 1,500 or more employees to spend on employee health insurance an amount equal to at least 10.
5 percent of their payroll.
If they don't, they would have to pay the difference into a state health insurance fund.
A recent editorial in the Union Leader states: "the legislation really is about three things: 1) hurting the left's favorite bogeyman; 2) moving closer to universal health care; and 3) creating 'living' wages.
" Organizations in support predictably include the N.
H.
AFL-CIO, state chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, N.
H.
Citizens Alliance, and New Hampshire for Health Care, a project of the SEIU, but lobbyists for the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire and the Retail Merchants Association testified against what has become known as the Wal-Mart bill.
Maryland lawmakers have now overturned the state's Republican governor's veto, voting to become the first state to effectively require that Wal-Mart spend more on employee health care.
This undoubtedly will generate similar activity throughout the country.
Punishing Wal-Mart has become a popular anti-business activity in states like New York, Maryland and California.
No big surprise there, but such actions have no place in the Live Free or Die State.
Anti-corporate groups are trying to use laws such as HB 1704 to accomplish what they have not been able to accomplish by getting enough votes for creating universal state health care.
They have also concentrated on crippling Wal-Mart by turning local planning and zoning boards against it.
The New York City Council's Economic Development Committee held a hearing that basically opposed the plans of Wal-Mart to open its first-ever NYC store in Rego Park, Queens.
"They have to make big changes if they want to come into New York," threatened a councilwoman echoing the familiar objections raised by organized labor against Wal-Mart.
How would you like to be penalized or handicapped because you do your work too well--for running your business so efficiently that it attracts millions of satisfied patrons? This is what is happening to Wal-Mart.
Recently, the city council in West Covina, Calif.
, voted to deny the sale of land to developers who were going to build a Wal-Mart store on the site.
The council was concerned that the Wal-Mart store would "threaten" other businesses and replace higher paying jobs in the area with lower-paying ones.
The banning of Wal-Mart is being considered by the Los Angeles city council and has occurred in some other California cities as well.
How can a state government tell free men and women where they may or may not shop, or to keep out stores in which consumers want to shop? In my view, there is only one morally proper way to keep Wal-Mart out of any community: don't shop there.
No one has a right to business success; they must earn it.
Nor does anyone have a right to be protected from competitors through government and socialist type intervention.
If Wal-Mart cannot make money in a given location, it will either not move there or will close the store.
So far, however, it makes money just about everywhere it goes--and it does this for one simple reason: customers want to shop there.
If I want utensils for my grill, I'll stop at Ocean State Lots in Ossipee to get them because I know I'll get the best value for my dollar.
If I want a range of affordable items that will leave change in my pocket, I may also shop at Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is one of history's most impressive business success stories.
It was founded in 1962 as a 5 and 10 store in Rogers, Ark.
, and has grown into a worldwide giant under the leadership of the brilliant Sam Walton and his successors.
It is now the largest corporation in America with sales of $245 billion, has over 4,000 stores worldwide, employs 1.
3 million people (all of whom sought their jobs voluntarily), and serves 100 million customers per week many of whom are shoppers who cannot afford the prices of the more upscale stores.
Sure, it has put other stores out of business, but that's the way capitalism works.
The TV replaced the radio, automobiles replaced the horse and buggy, dry photo copiers replaced wet ones, CDs replaced tapes and DVD's replaced tapes.
In a freely working economy, businesses that offer the best value for the dollar win.
Given that if Wal-Mart refrains from using eminent domain, as it sometimes does to force property owners to sell their land, we should welcome every store Wal-Mart builds, for by giving customers what they want, they make huge profits which in turn enables them to build more stores, hire more people, provide more profit opportunities to suppliers and create even more satisfied customers.
In a very real sense, the low prices Wal-Mart offers make people wealthier since they can buy a range of quality goods that they could not otherwise afford and they can then use the money saved for other purposes.
Wal-Mart should be admired as the quintessential rags-to-riches story.
Handicapping this company through back-door intervention with HB 1704 is political arrogance at its outrageous worst and is morally wrong.
It makes the egregious mistake of discounting the impact of variables in the marketplace for the judgment of state lawmakers, many of whom have no corporate business experience or related academic training whatsoever, and who have no business deciding what is a fair amount of money for an employer to contribute to employee health care.
As the Union Leader stated, "that is rarely a good idea...
" Indeed, rather than be punished, Wal-Mart should be admired as the quintessential rags to riches story.
This deplorable bill is a weapon to penalize this successful company for being successful.
Period.
"There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs.
But there's no one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft.
" --Bill Gates
Source...