Democrats vs. Wal-Mart

Last week a federal judge in Baltimore struck down a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart to spend 8 percent of its payroll on employee health care or hand the difference over to the state. According to the Baltimore Sun, the legislation violated a federal law promoting uniform treatment of employers.

The importance of this decision cannot be overstated, not least because it prevents--for now, anyway--Maryland lawmakers from playing politics with private business. However, despite coming to the correct conclusion, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled in favor of Wal-Mart not because such legislative overreach is a gross abuse of private property rights, but because Wal-Mart would have been forced to maintain employee records differently in Maryland than it does in other states.

Wal-Mart may take comfort in the fact that federal statutes exist to protect employers, inasmuch as the federal government retains so much authority over private business and imposes any number of regulations that potentially increase costs and limit profits. But what does it say about our current climate when a judge must wade through a sea of federal guidelines in order to uphold the right of businesses to freely contract with their employees--a right that should be inherent, not merely graced upon us at any given point in time by our elected officials?

Maryland Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller Jr. (D-Calvert County), who is up for re-election against Ron Miller this year, reacted to the ruling by likening the relationship between Wal-Mart and its employees to a struggle between "good versus evil," pompously stating that "[Maryland Democrats are] not going to let a big Arkansas corporation, protected by their contributions to the Republican party, avoid their basic responsibility to the citizens of Maryland."

I noted this modern liberal "employer vs. employee struggle" mentality in an article in The American Enterprise Online not long after Maryland's Democrat-controlled legislature pushed this anti-growth bill through the General Assembly back in January, despite a veto from Gov. Robert Ehrlich. The governor drew obligatory contempt from Maryland Democrats, who accused him of simply trying to protect small business--a very telling posture indeed considering Wal-Mart is anything but a small business operation.

In reality, Maryland Democrats have become remarkably anti-business, and as Sen. Miller indicated by his recent remarks, they are apparently all too willing to propagate the idea of a class struggle between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots" so long as it allows them to score cheap rhetorical points against their Republican rivals--all at the expense of those supposed downtrodden Marylanders for whom they claim to speak. After all, it is low-skill, low-income workers who ultimately pay the greatest price--in wage cuts, shift reductions, layoffs, and even outright termination--when politicians artificially increase the costs of doing business.

Unfortunately, however, lawmakers are much too infrequently held accountable for bad policy, as they are often sheltered from blame by the electorate's short attention span and its failure to recognize that repercussions bear out over time.

This affords policymakers like House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel County) the opportunity to wax sentimental and launch deceptive claims, such as: "When large employers don't provide health benefits, the rest of us pick up those costs."

To take Mr. Busch at his word, one would think that Wal-Mart doesn't offer a range of medical coverage options, including life, dental, and short- and long-term disability insurance--not to mention the company's profit sharing and 401(k) plans, training and mentoring programs, and discounts for employees and their families.

Moreover, Speaker Busch reflexively assumes that simply because some Wal-Mart employees may be uninsured--or not insured to the extent our benevolent baby-kissers would prefer to see--Maryland taxpayers must ipso facto pick up the tab. This, to paraphrase George Mason economist Walter Williams, is not a problem of Wal-Mart or capitalism, but of socialism.

With this in mind, here is a novel idea for Maryland Democrats: How about letting Marylanders decide whether or not a job at Wal-Mart is worth their while? To be sure, it would be peculiar indeed that Wal-Mart could have achieved its status as the world's preeminent retailer if the conglomerate couldn't attract employees who wanted to work for it--as exhibited by the fact that Wal-Mart job applicants often exceed by a factor of ten the number of positions available.

Let's hope Judge J. Frederick Motz's recent ruling helps encourage Marylanders to understand that individuals retain the right to contract freely with private business, absent persistent meddling on the part of the state. Not only for the benefit of Maryland's less fortunate, but for us all.