Joan Walsh of Salon.com is a true believer who seems unable to separate reality from fantasy. Her latest column is a great example of this phenomenon. It is entitled "Crush GOP obstruction, and reduce inequality now!" With a title like that, you would think the point of the column would be about some major fight on Capitol Hill or in the media. You would be wrong, however. Walsh wants president Obama to issue an executive order mandating that all federal contractors pay higher wages to employees. Then she goes on to explain that such a move is needed because there are so many low wage employees at place like McDonalds and Walmart.
My initial reaction to the column was that someone had hacked the Salon website and posted this piece under Walsh's name as a joke. But that was wrong. Walsh really wrote this nonsense. Think about it.
First, Walsh wants to "crush" Republicans. But the GOP has nothing to do with whether or not Obama issues an executive order. That is a decision which is totally up to the president. Now I don't know if Obama has the authority to order wage increases for employees of federal contractors. I tend to doubt that. Nevertheless, Walsh's issue has nothing at all to do with the Republican party.
Second, Walsh wants to reduce "inequality" by raising the wages of people who already make a decent wage. Although she talks about low wage employees, Walsh has no plan for them.
Third, Walsh never considers who will pay the higher wages that she seeks. While I am not sure if Obama could order higher wages for these employees, I am certain that if he issues such an order, then the federal government will have to pay the contractors to cover these newly increased wages (with an appropriate mark up for overhead and profit). In essence, Walsh is advocating for a new form of transfer payment to middle income workers who already have good jobs.
It is as if there are only a few themes that Liberals can use. One is defeating the evil Republicans (whether or not they have any involvement in the matter.) The second is reducing inequality (whether or not there is any effect on that issue.) The third one is to reduce America's power abroad, but thankfully, Walsh does not use that one here.
My initial reaction to the column was that someone had hacked the Salon website and posted this piece under Walsh's name as a joke. But that was wrong. Walsh really wrote this nonsense. Think about it.
First, Walsh wants to "crush" Republicans. But the GOP has nothing to do with whether or not Obama issues an executive order. That is a decision which is totally up to the president. Now I don't know if Obama has the authority to order wage increases for employees of federal contractors. I tend to doubt that. Nevertheless, Walsh's issue has nothing at all to do with the Republican party.
Second, Walsh wants to reduce "inequality" by raising the wages of people who already make a decent wage. Although she talks about low wage employees, Walsh has no plan for them.
Third, Walsh never considers who will pay the higher wages that she seeks. While I am not sure if Obama could order higher wages for these employees, I am certain that if he issues such an order, then the federal government will have to pay the contractors to cover these newly increased wages (with an appropriate mark up for overhead and profit). In essence, Walsh is advocating for a new form of transfer payment to middle income workers who already have good jobs.
It is as if there are only a few themes that Liberals can use. One is defeating the evil Republicans (whether or not they have any involvement in the matter.) The second is reducing inequality (whether or not there is any effect on that issue.) The third one is to reduce America's power abroad, but thankfully, Walsh does not use that one here.
No comments:
Post a Comment