« British "think tank" finds that less physical labor can make you obese! | Main | Troubled Times: Morgan-Stanley dumps NYT stock »

More Nanny State coming from Hillary

Hillary Clinton knows her candidacy relies heavily on women voters - especially younger, unmarried women who tend to favor more and bigger programs as if the government were some huge grab-bag of free goodies for all (if only those parsimonious Republicans could be convinced to open the flood gates). Of course, in a Presidential campaign, as soon as you propose a new and sweeping socialist plan, some opponent pops up to demand "How ya gonna PAY for that? Huh? Huh?" Quite annoying . . .

So, Hillary's latest give-away is the best possible kind of gift she can imagine: the kind she doesn't have to pay for. Oh, she's going to throw $1 billion to the states for grants, but the real costs of her new plan will be born by employers, reports Patrick Healy for The New York Times:


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday proposed giving $1 billion in grants to states that enact paid family leave laws and said that she would support requiring employers to provide workers seven days' annual paid sick leave.

Mrs. Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, also called for expanding the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act, which protects the jobs of workers who take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. The law covers businesses with more than 50 workers. Mrs. Clinton would lower that to 25, covering an additional 13 million people, her campaign said.

The ideas are the latest parts of Mrs. Clinton's strategy to cement women as the cornerstone of her support, but her call for an expanded federal role in labor activities drew fire from business leaders, who called her proposals onerous.

Business representatives said state laws on paid leaves were often so broad that they risked abuses like demands for paid leaves for minor health concerns. In addition, the federal law on unpaid leave continues to concern some critics because some workers take leaves with short notice or are difficult to replace.


Read the entire article at the link above. Naturally, if Mrs. Clinton had studied economics anywhere besides The Sayings of Chairman Mao, she might understand that increasing the marginal cost of employing people inevitably means that, in the long term, fewer people will be employed. Furthermore, since younger unmarried women of less economic means comprise a major constituency for her, it means fewer of her supporters will be able to find work over time.

's'okay, though. I'm sure Hillary will come up with some more dandy programs to support them - at least, in time for her reelection campaign in 2012, eh?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24881.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Nanny State coming from Hillary:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Clinton Has Most Cash In The Bank

Comments (10)

Whoever was the communist s... (Below threshold)
charlie:

Whoever was the communist s.o.b. who first came up w/ the socialist idea that an employer had to "pay" wages to workers in excgange for their labor, rather than a couple of daily bowls of gruel and a company-provided shack for housing?

A goddamned socialist for sure.

Way to defend big governmen... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Way to defend big government & socialism there, Chuck.

I'm a believer now.

This is a great government ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

This is a great government program. It will result in downsizing of thousands of small businesses, non-expansion of thousands of small businesses and what the democrats hope for, an expanded welfare system. The democrats are proven leaders. just look at the state of NJ, half of the residents want to abandon the state. That would be fine but they're so brainwashed they will bring the 'democrat' ideas that made it impossible to live there with them and ruin another state. Half want to go to NC which has already turned into a communist/socialist state due to immigration from yankee land. More stupid people won't help even with thousand of criminals from Mexico doing the work.

As usual, politicians are o... (Below threshold)

As usual, politicians are of the mindset that money simply magically appears out of the thin air, and can be used for whatever they so desire.

Increase benefits, increase cost of employment. And how, exactly, do people think businesses will pay for that cost?

A little history lesson: If... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers in and upcoming post.

Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Furthermore, since young... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Furthermore, since younger unmarried women of less economic means comprise a major constituency for her, it means fewer of her supporters will be able to find work over time.

Not so fast, Jimmy!

What makes you think she would not mandate their hiring?

Hmmmmm?

she might understand tha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

she might understand that increasing the marginal cost of employing people inevitably means that, in the long term, fewer people will be employed. Furthermore, since younger unmarried women of less economic means comprise a major constituency for her, it means fewer of her supporters will be able to find work over time.

FMLA was only enacted in the first place in 1993. After that, the unemployment rate dropped steadily until 2001. If 7 years isn't "long-term" enough, it's now been 14 years, and the unemployment rate currently is about 2/3 what it was in 1997.

So since none of the doom and gloom generalizations have proven true about the first version of FMLA, what makes you think they'll apply to an expansion of FMLA?

Almost forgot, answers from... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

Almost forgot, answers from above.

Answers :

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton - 9/2/2005


Surprised??

Brian ~ There were NO "gloo... (Below threshold)

Brian ~ There were NO "gloom and doom generalizations," merely a statement of economic fact.

Whether or not the general trend in employment is up or down has ZERO effect on the simple truth that increasing the marginal cost of employment causes LESS employment than would otherwise have existed.

By your ignorant "logic," EVERY policy in effect when employment is falling MUST be bad, and EVERY policy in effect when employment is rising MUST be good. It's ridiculous on its face - which is not to say there aren't people dumb enough to believe it.

There were NO "gloom and... (Below threshold)
Brian:

There were NO "gloom and doom generalizations," merely a statement of economic fact.

No, it was a generalization of economic theory.

increasing the marginal cost of employment causes LESS employment than would otherwise have existed.

So your goal is 0% unemployment, at the exclusion of all else?

You seem to latch onto basic, simple economic points as if they operate in a vacuum. That is not good application of economic theory. You deride increasing fuel efficiency because it will theoretically increase demand for oil, while ignoring whether that demand will be for more or less than the savings, thus determining whether ACTUAL demand will rise or fall. To you, the ACTUAL practical result doesn't matter. Only the basic, simplistic classroom theory.

And now you argue that increasing costs will cost jobs, without considering the ACTUAL effects, which conveniently have already been demonstrated when FLMA was implemented. Your current argument applied then, but the economy hummed right along anyway. And even your core simplistic economic point is incomplete.

By your ignorant "logic," EVERY policy in effect when employment is falling MUST be bad, and EVERY policy in effect when employment is rising MUST be good.

Are you really that simple? By your ignorant "logic", EVERY policy with the effect of increasing employment MUST be good, and EVERY policy with the effect of decreasing employment MUST be bad.

We could probably achieve that by cutting corporate taxes to zero. And companies can save a lot by no longer offering health insurance. Let's do it, eh?

As you say, ridiculous on its face.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy