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?

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