Posted on 08/27/2006 9:00:32 AM PDT by shortstop
Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: Most of the leading 2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls think you should be paying higher prices for the merchandise you buy at the world's largest retailer.
They're sure you won't mind, since the money could go for higher wages and better health care benefits for Wal-Mart employees.
Just when about everything seems to be breaking their way - a majority of Americans are fed up with President Bush's fiascoes at home and abroad and with the recklessness and ethical rot of the Republican Congress - Democrats have decided the way to connect with middle-class voters is to bash Wal-Mart, one of America's great success stories and the place where more than 170-million people choose to shop because of its low prices.
"My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don't see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people," Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware recently told an anti-Wal-Mart rally in Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucuses.
Are we are supposed to believe that Washington politicians care more about the middle class than Wal-Mart does? At least Wal-Mart saves working people money. Can you recall the last time Congress did anything to help the middle class?
The anti-Wal-Mart campaign was organized by labor unions that have been shut out of the giant retailer. Other Democratic presidential hopefuls who appear at rallies denouncing Wal-Mart include Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
Sen. Hillary Rodman Clinton of New York hasn't yet appeared at one of the rallies - her campaign cited scheduling conflicts - but she returned a $5,000 campaign contribution to the company last year to protest Wal-Mart's health care benefits.
But as usual, Clinton's position depends on what's in it for her. As first lady of Arkansas, where Wal-Mart has its headquarters, Clinton served on the company's board of directors and, as far as anyone can tell, never used her position to press for improved wages and benefits for Wal-Mart employees. What a hypocrite.
Democrats say attacking Wal-Mart is a way to focus attention on the plight of the working Americans who have not shared in the economic gains of the past decade. But by trying to make Wal-Mart the symbol of what's wrong with America's economy, Democrats risk reviving their image as antibusiness and of alienating many of the middle-class voters they are trying to reach.
They might want to consider what H. Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's chief executive, told the National Governors' Association in February: "Twice as many Americans shop at Wal-Mart than voted in the last presidential election."
Wal-Mart makes an easy target for organized labor and liberal Democrats. The corporate behemoth that earned more than $11-billion in profits last year takes better care of its shareholders than its workers, who earn an average of $10.13 an hour. Fewer than half of its employees are covered by the company's health care plan, and many of its uninsured workers qualify for Medicaid. Critics say Wal-Mart's low pay has a ripple affect that depresses wages and benefits among its suppliers and competitors. And perhaps most offensive to Democrats, Wal-Mart is a nonunion shop and intends to stay that way.
Other major retailers may do better by their employees, but the fact is, no one is forced to shop or work at Wal-Mart. To understand why Wal-Mart is such a huge success, Democratic presidential wanna-bes should visit some of the company's Supercenters and spend some time talking to customers and employees.
In the crowded shopping aisles, where you are unlikely to bump into Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, they would encounter more working-class people, including NASCAR fans, than they will ever meet on the campaign trail. They would learn that shoppers come to Wal-Mart for one reason - its low prices. If working Americans are not getting their fair share of the nation's economic gains, then every dollar they save is another dollar in their pocket.
No doubt they would hear complaints from some Wal-Mart employees about their pay and benefits. But those workers know plenty of people stand ready to fill their jobs. In January, 25,000 people applied for 325 positions at a Wal-Mart opening in the Chicago area. It's also a huge deal when a Wal-Mart comes to rural America. It brings good jobs, at least by local standards, and provides access to a wide array of merchandise at the lowest prices. The downside is that it also drives some mom and pop stores out of business.
Do Democrats really believe they can force Wal-Mart to up its wages and benefits without upping its prices? And what would become of Wal-Mart if it no longer offered the lowest prices?
Instead of bashing Wal-Mart, Democrats should enlist the company's CEO in their cause. Lee Scott is on record supporting a higher minimum wage and calling for measures to address the nation's soaring health care costs. They should make an ally of Wal-Mart, not an enemy to be pilloried for cheap political gain.
Of course the fact that this idea is pure make believe manufactured by Junk Media types too arrogant to deal with factual reality should not be overlooked either. Wonder if Mr Editor here can explain why his hero Democrats have lost all their sample manipulated phony "lead" in the latest Gallup poll?
Well, Walmart is doomed. The liberals want them to pay their workers more and given them health insurance. The Christian right wants to boycott them because they formed some sort of partnership with some gay organization.
It seems clear to me. Walmart will be closing any day now.
Oh, wait...
Besides this lie, which seems to be the required leading statement in the Liberal Hack 101 playbook, the rest of the article is quite amusing. Thanks for the post.
It's a political stunt. He said it only to stop the Wal-Mart bashing, as it would force other companies to raise their wages too, who couldn't absorb it as easily as Wal-Mart can.
And all those mom-and-pops were unionized and paying union wages, with full healthcare, retirement, vacation, promotion, and pension benefits. NOT! Leave it to the dems to totally ignore our real enemy and declare war on Walmart. Idiots.
I stopped buying the St Peterberg Slime when they started on their spiel that I pay too little property taxes.
The only reason I can see for this editorial is that they think it is a bad political move to bash Walmart. Walmart is popular in this area of FL, and lots of old folk here work there.
They are worried that God forbid, the Dems might lose because of Walmart. Then there would be weeping and wailing at the slimes.
I have an idea. The RNC should buy airtime on Walmart's in store TV network and run commercials telling Walmart customers what the Dems want to do to their favorite store.
Then do a little comparison shopping. Find out how much Hillary spent on her office chair and compare it to the comfy $80 version on Aisle 6. Or, how about the plasma TV Ted Kennedy has - only $1200 in Electronics. And then there's the $12 haircuts available at Cost Cutters at the front of the store - compare that to Bill Clinton's infamous trim from Christophe.....
If Congress shopped at Walmart, American taxpayers would save how many millions of dollars?
Wow! This is enough to give thousands of parakeets in the St. Petersburg area a case of constipation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.