Who knew?
Oh, that’s right, you and I did.
If you remember back in January, the Maryland Legislature set up and passed their “We Hate Wal-Mart” bill, making it so that Wal-Mart and only Wal-Mart would have to spend at least 8% of their payroll within the state of Maryland on healthcare or pay it in taxes to the state.
Seeing the black arm of socialism tighten its grip on the heart of the Constitution, US Judge J. Frederick Motz slapped some sense into the Marylander Pols by downing the law.
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant “faces threatened injury” from the law’s spending requirement.
The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by the law.
However, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz concluded that the law would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law “imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart.”
Good on ya, Your Honor. And thank you.
Though this was a bad law, I don’t see why you immediately characterize it as socialism. True, it’s a bad idea. There are better ways to ensure proper benefits for Wal-Mart workers. But the fact that it seeks to improve worker’s lots, albeit in a sloppy, heavy-handed way, doesn’t make it an example of socialism.