Today's Paper Latest stories Most commented Obits Traffic Weather Newsletters Puzzles + Games
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Our favorite wacky democratic socialist is back at it, this time with a new bill and new evil corporate target. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Union Lobby) is gunning for our own Walmart with new legislation to stop large businesses from buying back stock unless the company meets his slew of demands.

The name is so on the nose it might as well be a nostril. It's called the Stop Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers Act, which, if you'll notice, could be called the Stop WALMART Act.

Cute.

But we doubt he ran that by any focus groups, or he might have realized how many people don't want to stop Walmart at all, but enjoy doing business with the company. Leg quarters at 60 cents a pound, anybody?

Clearly bolstered by all the attention he got with his Stop Bezos Act, Sen. Sanders is once again bringing his untried and untrue business practices to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Here's more from CNN on what the bill would do:

"Sanders on Thursday introduced a bill, titled the Stop Walmart Act, that would prevent large companies from buying back stock unless they pay all employees at least $15 an hour, allow workers to earn up to seven days of paid sick leave and limit CEO compensation to no more than 150 times the median pay of all staffers."

Why 150 times? Why not 15 times? Or two times? Arbitrary is arbitrary, and if Bernie Sanders gets to decide what CEOs are allowed to make, instead of the free market, then why not go all the way? Next, Bernie Sanders could fix prices for all products, too. How Venezuelan.

But you just can't keep a good socialist down. Bernie Sanders doesn't just want government planning for wages, but for benefits too. Why only seven days of paid sick leave? Why not 70? Gentle Reader can see where this all leads, but then again, perhaps Gentle Reader doesn't think he should set wages and prices for the country. Bernie Sanders doesn't have that complication.

The Vermont senator is confident this bill will bring out meaningful change at Walmart: "The Walton family, the owners of Walmart, are the wealthiest family in America with a net worth of about $180 billion. Meanwhile, most Walmart retail workers are working for horrendously low wages with minimal benefits. The wealthiest family in America must pay its workers a living wage."

Maybe the people who work there should have an opinion. Which they do. The company employs more than 2 million people--1.4 million in the United States alone. And after the Republican Congress and Republican president passed a tax cut, the company increased its starting minimum wage to $11 an hour. Probably to keep employees from going to Amazon or other companies. Some of us call that the free market.

Others, however, just want large corporations to bleed simply for the crime of being successful.

Ah, but this is still capitalist America. So, as with his Stop Bezos Act, this newest idea is dead in the water. As even Bernie Sanders knew it would be. Something tells us he doesn't hold news conferences and issue press releases thinking these things will actually pass, but to get a little publicity, and maybe an SNL appearance once in a while. That, or he's already getting to the left of the Democrats (again) as the 2020 campaign unofficially starts.

It really does give one pause to imagine what would have happened if Sen. Sanders had beaten both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. That is, if the Democrats hadn't rigged the system against him.

Oh well, chalk that idea up as just another thing to be thankful for this week as we sit down to eat that turkey. The one we bought at Walmart.

Editorial on 11/20/2018

Print Headline: Weekend at Bernie's Pt. 2

Sponsor Content

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • 23cal
    November 20, 2018 at 6:56 a.m.

    It is a bad bill. I'm not a big Bernie fan.
    *
    However, in an article of this nature, one would have hoped the ADG editor would have had the decency and the fairness to at least note that Walmart workers cost Taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance. Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
    *
    When one has such outrage on behalf of the corporate giant, it seems a shame that the poor, suffering American taxpayer who subsidizes its low wages isn't deserving of at least a crumb of passing mention.

  • WhododueDiligence
    November 20, 2018 at 8:33 a.m.

    Yes, 23Cal, it's a bad bill and with zero chance of getting passed, not a serious bill. I'm also not a big Bernie fan.
    I'm not a big fan of wildly misleading partisan rhetoric either, like the second-to-last paragraph of this editorial which parrots the partisan accusation that Bernie lost because the Democrats rigged the system against him. In reality Clinton won the Democratic primaries decisively and Bernie's delegate count depended heavily on caucuses in which relatively few people voted. The total of votes in the Democratic primaries/caucuses showed that most Democratic voters were not big Bernie fans.
    *
    Both pledged and superdelegates favored Clinton. So essentially the wildly misleading Republican rhetoric is stating that Hillary beat Bernie because she was helped by a vast conspiracy theory. How wildly ironic can Republican rhetoric get? Not only that, the second-to-last paragraph also assumes Bernie would have beaten Trump. That's doubtful since Bernie's brand of socialism would have been pummeled and branded synonymous with communism in attack ads. Bernie is too far left, but a communist he isn't.

  • WhododueDiligence
    November 20, 2018 at 8:50 a.m.

    "Why 150 times? Why not 15 times? Or two times? Arbitrary is arbitrary."
    *
    This paragraph is even more ridiculous. That giant sucking sound is from whooshing down the old slippery slope from 150 to 2 in 0.8 seconds. And then after arriving at 2 comes this sucking sound: "How Venezuelan."
    Replacing 150 with 2 is a classic and extreme slippery slope fallacy. Then attacking 2 as Venezuelan is a classic and extreme straw-man fallacy. It's not often we get to see two blatant examples of classic and extreme logical fallacies in one short paragraph.

  • JiminyC56
    November 20, 2018 at 10:05 a.m.

    Whodidntdue, except for the leaked emails of Debbie Wasserman Schultz which proved the Democratic National Committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders' campaign. But you're a liberal and facts don't seem to matter to people such as yourself so spin away!

  • GeneralMac
    November 20, 2018 at 10:32 a.m.

    Bernie Sanders reminds me of freshly castrated steers in my farming days.

    They meekly back away as aggressive cows push them aside.

    ( two Black women from the hate group Black Lives matter taking away his mic )

  • WhododueDiligence
    November 20, 2018 at 10:49 a.m.

    JiminyC, yes, Wasserman Schultz wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. So what? Are you claiming the Democratic voters who actually voted in the Democratic primaries were influenced by Wasserman Schultz's emails? That's irrational. Those emails showed her bias but it's an irrational giant leap to use that little tidbit of evidence to jump to the conclusion that her bias and the bias of a few others caused Hillary to win and Bernie to lose. In the real world it was the voters' votes that caused Hillary to win the nomination and Bernie to lose. Those voters gave Hillary a clear majority of pledged delegates. Some high-ranking super-delegates in or affiliated with the DNC were biased toward Hillary but that became irrelevant when primary voters' actual votes also showed a clear preference for Hillary.

  • Packman
    November 20, 2018 at 11:34 a.m.

    When I saw this headline I thought it was an article about Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
    .
    Just love it when socialists talk of a "living wage" and it's lapped up by useful idiots who lack the mental ability to grasp the reality there is no such thing as a "living wage" because individuals and circumstance determine standards of living. Is a "living wage" the same to a teenager living at home with mom and dad as a single mom with 3 kids living alone? Should they both be paid the same "living wage" for doing the EXACT same job? But useful idiots gonna useful idiot, and Bernie Sanders knows this all too well.

  • WhododueDiligence
    November 20, 2018 at 12:26 p.m.

    "But useful idiots gonna useful idiot, and Bernie Sanders knows this all too well."
    However well Bernie Sanders knows this, Donald Trump applies this all too well.
    All too often, too.
    *
    Packman, yes, "living wage" is somewhat vague, but it should be clear that when people express support for a living wage they're not talking about a teenager living at home with mom and dad. Maybe that should be called a "tuition wage." Have you noticed how much tuition has risen faster than the rate of inflation over the past decade or two?

  • Dontsufferfools
    November 20, 2018 at 4:31 p.m.

    I'm just happy that the Democrat-Gazette employs an economist as an editorial writer with the intellectual chops to ridicule and dismiss a veteran U.S. senator who made a pretty good run at nabbing a presidential nomination. Now, wage floors are controversial to some. I noticed that the U.S.'s NAFTA negotiating team managed to put a wage floor on a percentage of Mexican autoworkers, something I've yet to see the Democrat's Phd. economist denigrate. I'm sure he's working on it. Just read a pretty good book about how, since the mid-1990s, the U.S. electorate has been slowly boiled, like a lobster, into believing all government is bad, taxes should only be cut, and market regulation is onerous. The boiling is being done by well-financed political operations with names like Institute of Humane Studies that are funded by the likes of the Adelsons, Kochs, etc. Bernie Sanders is putting out competing ideas. Maybe his ideas won't take root immediately, but he's put them in the zeitgeist. That's what the Dam-Gaz economist is really afraid of, and why is tone is so slippery.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT