So, I’ve done a little thinking on the Wal-Mart situation in Maryland, especially as the legislators here in Washington State are now thinking about following suit. Instead of re-hashing a great article, I’ll just quote this from the Miami Herald’s George F. Will:
This is part of the tawdry drama of state politics as governments grasp for novel sources of money. Forty-eight states are to varying degrees dependent on revenues from gambling. Forty-six states are addicted to their cut, to be paid out over decades, from the $246 billion coerced from the tobacco industry by using the specious argument that smoking costs their governments huge sums. As a result, 46 states have a stake in the long-term profitability of tobacco companies.
and this:
States engage in ”entrepreneurial federalism,” competing to be especially attractive to businesses. A Wal-Mart distribution center, creating at least 800 jobs, planned for Maryland could be located instead in more hospitable Delaware.
Which brings me to my point. Do you remember a year or so ago when a store in Quebec, CA unionized and Wal-Mart shut it down? Why not apply the same logic in Maryland and pull out completely? Causing 10,000 voters to lose their jobs probably isn’t what the legistlature had in mind and would certainly cause them to reconsider this ridiculous piece of legislation. Additionally, it would head off any other (Nanny) state that wants to enact similar legislation.
What do you think?
What an excellent point! It is a pity most politicians aren’t as clever as most women ….
When you use the words “logic”, “people”, and “Walmart” all in the same sentence you’re not going to get much sense. Visit my blog: byuidems.blogspot.com