BCT Editorial – 3/8/06

This page was last updated on March 9, 2006.

Work ethic; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 8, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Government must do more than penalize companies to help the working poor

[RWC] Why does government need to “penalize companies to help the working poor?” When did penalizing business ever “help the working poor?”

“It’s the health-care system, stupid.”

[RWC] The author fails to recognize that government programs (Medicaid, Medicare, et cetera) and government policies (tax free employer-based healthcare benefits) toward healthcare themselves are largely responsible for the runaway healthcare prices. These programs and policies cause their damage by short-circuiting the free market’s ability to settle on fair prices.

“The Associated Press reports almost one in six Wal-Mart employees in Pennsylvania was enrolled in the state’s health-care program for the poor and disabled last year.

“The company, which is Pennsylvania’s largest private-sector employer, had 7,577 of its 48,000 employees, or nearly 16 percent, on Medicaid, according to the figures. The annual cost to the state was $15 million.”

[RWC] The state doesn’t pay for Medicaid, taxpayers do.

“Wal-Mart had the highest percentage of employees on Medicaid out of the state’s 10 largest private-sector employers, and the data reflect both full- and part-time workers receiving the assistance between July and September of 2005.

“The report immediately brought out the critics. They wanted to know why the state’s taxpayers should be subsidizing the world’s largest retailer. A spokeswoman for Gov. Ed Rendell said his administration is looking into ways to require large employers that cannot cover the health-care costs for all their employees to pay an assessment to the state, and state Rep. Frank LaGrotta, D-10, Ellwood City, announced plans to introduce legislation that would require large, profitable companies in Pennsylvania to help pay for health insurance coverage for employees and their families.”

[RWC] Taxpayers don’t subsidize Wal-Mart. Whether or not Medicaid existed, Wal-Mart would be compensating their employees the same.

“They’re not seeing the bigger picture. Wal-Mart employees are only a small percentage of the growing ranks of the working poor in the United States. These men and women work in jobs that force them to live payday to payday, jobs that come with no health-care coverage, pensions and other perquisites.”

[RWC] The jobs don’t force people “to live payday to payday.” No one is hold a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to work for any employer. People make choices and they need to live with the consequences of those choices. Of course, that’s a foreign concept to those on the socialist end of the spectrum. Socialists believe in equal outcome, not equal opportunity.

“Instead of focusing on Wal-Mart, our elected officials should be looking into ways to improve the lives of the working poor and their families.

“As Philadelphia Inquirer business columnist Andrew Cassel wrote on Sunday, the purpose of the reforms of the mid-1990s was to, in President Clinton’s words, ‘end welfare as we know it.’

“‘Fixing welfare, in the view of Clinton and other reformers, meant reforming public assistance programs so they no longer discouraged poor people from taking jobs - even low-paying ones,’ Cassel wrote.”

[RWC] “Clinton and other reformers?” More revisionist history from the Times. Though President Clinton spoke like he wanted welfare reform, he also said he would implement tax cuts. Not surprisingly, after his election President Clinton not only didn’t cut taxes, he increased them. I believe Mr. Clinton was no more serious about welfare reform than he was about tax cuts. That’s why nothing happened as long as Democrats held majorities in Congress. It’s not a coincidence the welfare reform didn’t take place until Republicans became the majority party. The Republican majority Congress dragged President Clinton kicking and screaming into welfare reform. I have to give President Clinton credit for signing the bill, but implying he was a driving force is just wrong.

“‘The idea was that work helps build skills, self-esteem and better lives. Thus, it was better for government not to abruptly cut off benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps when people took jobs, but rather offer them as supplements to entry-level wages.’

“This is not a defense of Wal-Mart. However, instead of focusing on one company, especially when many low-income employees work for small companies, state and federal officials should look for ways to continue the ‘a hand up, not a handout’ approach that was embodied in the welfare reform in the 1990s.”

[RWC] Wal-Mart doesn’t need a defense. It compensates employees based on the economic value of their jobs.

“A good work ethic should be rewarded, not penalized as it is so often in the United States today. People who work hard, play by the rules and set a good example for their children deserve better than they are getting now.”

[RWC] “A good work ethic” is rewarded, but liberals don’t see it. People in the U.S. are paid according to the economic benefit of their labor and that’s fair. It’s socialist propaganda that people with a good work ethic are penalized. The problem isn’t that people with a good work ethic are penalized; the problem is socialist programs like Medicaid reward people without a good work ethic.

“A good work ethic” may not be enough, however. If you have a good work ethic but no drive to acquire the skills required to improve your economic lot, you will always reside toward the bottom of the totem pole. The rest of us should not have to pay for someone’s lack of drive to do better.