One of the major reasons I moved my blog to a site I built was that I really wanted more than one blog. I blog about family, computers/programming, prose, and politics. I feel having all this in one area creates a blog very few would follow - most of my friends would only be interested in an area or two, but not all. On ViNull I've split up these areas into sections, so someone who actually wants to read more of my prose can easily find it without wading though... well, posts like these.
The politics blog could over take my site if I let it. I've been holding back ideas because I don't want to just comment on issue as they come up. So in these posts I want to take an issue and relate it back to the fundamental conservative view. I feel that this view is lost today, and real conservatives are drowning in a sea of religious extremists who are masking themselves as one of us. I also feel, that most people would agree with a conservative view on the majority of issue - though I respect though that don't, and welcome their comments in my posts.
Today's topic come from a story on the AP wire: Judge Overturns Wal-Mart Health Care Law. In a nutshell (Gabe, going to use for trademark dilution?), Maryland passed a law that requires large companies to spend at least 8% of payroll on health care - the reason is that companies like Wal-Mart don't provide coverage their employees can afford, and Maryland (i.e. the taxpayers) ends up footing the bill though Medicare. the law was overturned because the judge said that the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act trumps any state laws on employee benefits. This is being appealed by Maryland, and on the merits of the case I hope they win. The merits of the case though is a topic for another post. I want to address this:
[Retail Industry Leaders Association] President Sandy Kennedy said the ruling sent a message that employer health plans are governed by federal law and "not a patchwork of state and local laws."
Sandy should know this is exactly what the founding fathers intended. It's been a while since the phase has been used, but State's Rights are core to being a conservative. The Federal government should avoid passing laws that the States themselves can pass and enforce. To allow the federal government to standardize all laws on an issue is saying one size fits all. Our country is too large and diverse to assume this; farmers in Iowa have different issue than programmers in California. Immigration means more to a person in Florida and New York than Utah. Even within a state there can be differences. A good example is Texas - Galveston has a large concern over hurricanes and Lubbock is more worried over tornadoes.
So the idea of local government having more control over their region was intended to take care of this issue. Companies such as Wal-Mart should have to consider each state's laws separately, because each state has different concerns. Cable companies have had to work with local governments for years (though they are fighting this too). The feds don't have a great track record either - the cost of living is higher in New York than Knoxville, yet we have the same minimum wage.
Every man's nature is a sufficient advertisement to him of the character of his fellows. My right and my wrong, is their right and their wrong. Whilst I do what is fit for me, and abstain from what is unfit, my neighbor and I shall often agree in our means, and work together for a time to one end. But whenever I find my dominion over myself not sufficient for me, and undertake the direction of him also, I overstep the truth, and come into false relations to him. I may have so much more skill or strength than he, that he cannot express adequately his sense of wrong, but it is a lie, and hurts like a lie both him and me.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posted By Mike On Thursday, July 20, 2006
Filed under politics walmart |
No Comments
