Last spring the Maryland state legislature passed a bill requiring Wal-Mart stores in the state to reimburse the state's Medicaid fund or provide health care for its employees. Like other states, Maryland faces spiraling deficits, and some taxpayers resent having to foot the bill for insuring Wal-Mart employees and their children.
Today the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Wal-Mart will challenge the Maryland law in court. Representing Wal-Mart is none other than Eugene Scalia, whose dad, Antonin, sits on the Supreme Court.
"This law is highly discriminatory," Eugene Scalia told the Associated Press (reported in the Inquirer). "This was intended and crafted to affect just one company."
Well, yes, that's probably true. Wal-Mart has become one of the largest employers in Maryland in a very short time. Other large employers that spring to mind are the federal governmemt (sufficient benefits), Johns Hopkins (sufficient benefits), and the University of Maryland (ditto).
Maybe some of you can remember cases of retail and/or large employers who insufficiently covered their workers' health care costs, to the point where the workers needed Medicaid for their children and themselves. I can't think of one other company, especially a large one, that has sparked legislation on this issue.
Now the fight commences. Do states have the right to enact legislation aimed at curbing their Medicaid payouts to employed people? Or is this a matter for the federal government to decide?
Maybe we should have a civil war over it. Personally I am heartily tired of paying taxes to support Wal-Mart's profit margin.
Incidentally, the Maryland bill was vetoed by its Republican governor, Robert Erlich. His veto was overridden.
Surprised to see a Scalia bravely going to bat for Wal-Mart? Me neither.