"And I come back to you now, at the turn of the tide"
Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund. Similar laws may be coming elsewhere.Cost the state jobs? Somehow, I have my doubts that Wal Mart will be closing any stores over this.
The measure approved Thursday requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state-supported Medicaid program. Of the state's large employers, only Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care.
Labor unions, who heavily pushed for the bill, said they would pursue similar legislation in at least 30 other states, focusing first on Colorado, Connecticut and Washington.
"The tide is turning because working people are not just fed up — they are ready to get active to set our country in a different direction, one state at a time," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement.
Maryland's Democratic-controlled Legislature overrode a veto by Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
Critics of the legislation called it a dangerous precedent that ultimately would cost Maryland jobs.
The company employs about 17,000 Maryland residents at more than 40 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, and about 1.3 million people nationwide.
A Wal-Mart executive called the bill a poorly worded mandate for a single company. Mia Masten, a director of corporate affairs, said the bill "could be the beginning of a slippery slope."
"We believe everyone should have access to affordable health insurance, although this legislation does nothing to accomplish that," said Masten, who said the retailing giant may partially pull out of the state if the bill becomes law.
She said Wal-Mart was unfairly singled out because of "partisan politics" and that Medicaid's problems go beyond the behavior of one company.
A Democrat gets up to ask questions and says, "Judge, i'm very disturbed by this opinion so-and-so, which you wrote in year so-and-so, because it suggests to me that you don't believe in principle X, which is important to me (e.g. the constitution, limits on executive power, civil rights, women’s rights)."Heh. We're lucky if we get even those responses from Alito, as he can always pull out the old John Roberts Special: "I'm not going to answer that, because that issue could come before the court and my answering it here at the hearing my place some prejudice on my future opinions", or something. Then again, in the logic department, I file that one right next to "revealing our warrant-free spying program aids the enemy."
Alito says, "Oh, no. I do care about principle X. That case was N years ago, so i don't remember it that well, but — you misunderstood the case, you see — the case was not about principle X, it was about principle Y. And let me explain how my decision in that case was a perfectly reasonable judgement about principle Y. ..."
Then a Republican gets up to ask questions and says, "Judge, i am very impressed by you, and it upsets me that some people here are trying to distort your record. I think you are extremely well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and while i'm at it, let me quote aloud these N other important people who have also said that you are an absolutely fantastic person. ..."
Alito says, "Thank you."
...Or, the Republican gets up and says, "I want to know how you feel about X. And by the way, before you answer, let me tell you my opinion — i feel very strongly such-and-such, and i hope you do too."
Alito says, "Oh yes. I agree with you."
The obsession with abortion in American politics has had an anaerobic effect on past confirmation hearings, sucking the air out of other issues. For Alito, this may have the welcomed effect of obscuring a more troubling question from his past writings and cases: Alito's extreme views of government authority over citizens' rights.I agree... halfway. In the hearing room, this is simply not true; it really wasn't until Senator Feinstein's 30 minutes earlier this afternoon that any Democratic or pro-choice Senator really went after Alito on the issue (though Specter tiptoed through Griswold for a moment this morning, and Schumer went after him a little bit). The media, as well as the rest of the peripheral debate on the nominee, including the efforts of issue advocacy groups, are the factors that make the abortion debate seem like the center of every Supreme Court confirmation process.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,003 adults found that 50 percent of those polled believe it's OK to forego warrants when ordering electronic surveillance of people suspected of having ties to terrorists abroad."Forego warrants". Argh, what will it take for a poll question to mention directly that warrantless surveillance is illegal? When you phrase it as "forego warrants", your average poll respondent, who's probably seen one too many episodes of 24, will think that time is of the essence! We need info on potential terrorists! We can't wait for some bureaucratic process when lives are at stake! ...Of course, there's no mention in the poll that FISA warrants can be obtained legally after the fact, up to 72 hours later, if the need for surveillance is that vital. The media failed to properly inform the public on the non-existent Iraqi "threat", and they continue to fail us now.
Another 46 percent said the policy is wrong, and 4 percent said they had no opinion.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]