A little over a year ago, in an effort to retain more recruits, the Army ordered drill sergeants to take a more sensitive approach. That means less shouting. According to Pauline Jelinek’s October 10, 2006 Associated Press article, “Army tones down drill sergeants,” the head of Army National Guard recruiting, Colonel Mike Jones, said, “trainers found today’s generation responded better to instructors who took ‘a more counseling’ type role.” It sounds like boot camp is in danger of becoming summer camp. Will drill sergeants/councilors soon be organizing volleyball games, the making of s’mores and choruses of “Kumbayah”?

The military is not my area of expertise, but I thought the purpose of boot camp was to inure recruits to the hardships of battle and to weed out those unsuited to combat. The rigors of boot camp were designed to develop physical and mental toughness as well as abilities that include following instructions, improvising, strategizing and sizing up situations.

In Jelinek’s article, Jones said positive results of the change are that it lowered attrition and eased recruits’ fears over whether they can make it through basic training. Those changes could turn out to be changes for the worse.

Kinder, gentler basic training decreased the number of recruits who drop out during their first six to 12 months by nearly 7%. In the short run, that is good because money spent on training is wasted when recruits drop out. It may not be good in the long term. How will those who can’t deal with being called “maggots” by their drill instructors react to being shot at by the enemy? If captured by an enemy force with no qualms about demoralizing, torturing or beheading prisoners, such individuals may eagerly reveal our troop positions and strategies.

Easing potential recruits’ fears about whether they can pass basic training may get more people through recruiting office doors, but will they be the best people the military can get? Knowledge that basic training is grueling may encourage potential enlistees to give long and careful consideration to the decision to enlist. It is not a decision to be taken lightly. The recruitment advertisements of a few years ago used to emphasize that service provided job skills and money for college. Yet, the military was not meant to be a jobs program or a scholarship fund. The purpose of the military is to fight wars. Those who join the military should be patriots who believe in the value of military service and who are physically fit and mentally suited for it.

Two things may be responsible for the feeling that a change in basic training was needed. One may be that many young people were overprotected as they grew up. Since about the 1970’s schools taught children that “words hurt” and required kids to report their disputes to adults rather than settling matters among themselves. Games such as tag and dodgeball have been banned for fear of injuries and so the less athletic children won’t feel bad. In the interest of raising children’s self-esteem, participation awards often replaced prizes. Some school systems even banned the use of red ink for corrections because red was too “stressful.” The result may be a generation of wimps who can’t handle being yelled at by drill sergeants.

The other thing that may be responsible for the change in basic training is the push to have more women in the military. This has already affected physical performance requirements. For example, in her book, Women Who Make the World Worse, Kate O'Beirne wrote, “Men receive the same grade for doing seventy-two push-ups in two minutes as women do for performing forty-eight.” Is it possible that being spoken to in a harsh manner encourages women to drop out of basic training? According to O’Beirne, almost 47% of enlisted women leave the service during their first three years compared with about 28% of the men. The problem with attempting to recruit and retain substantial numbers of women in the military is that, while some women perform well, many women are physically or mentally unsuited to that career. Traditionally, women weren’t warriors.

O’Beirne also reports that Bill Clinton’s “consultant on gender integration,” Madeline Morris, advised Clinton’s Army secretary that the military should cease its “masculinist attitudes.” They are “dominance, assertiveness, aggressiveness, independence, self-sufficiency and willingness to take risks.” I thought those attributes should define our military. It is not possible to enter into or fight wars without willingness to take risks. It is impossible to win battles without dominance, assertiveness and aggressiveness. Independence and self-sufficiency are necessary to survival in battle if an enemy foils a unit’s strategy or if a soldier becomes separated from his unit.

Our military is currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea threaten. This isn’t the time for a kinder, gentler military. To keep our country safe from terrorists and hostile governments, our military must consist of the smartest, the bravest and toughest. Units are only as strong as their weakest members. Basic training is the time to let them go.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 10/15/06, all rights reserved

Recent headlines ranged from the crude to the cruel. The crude being sexually explicit instant messages from Congressman Mark Foley, (R-FL), to underage pages. The cruel being the most maleficent school attack to date: The execution style shootings of 10 Amish girls by a monster who had brought items designed for the performance of yet more brutal acts.

Learning of such things can make some lose faith in both human nature and our nation’s morals. Maybe news of people who have done good things for humanity will restore the hope and faith of others.

The good news this week is that Americans have won all of the Nobel Prizes announced thus far. Andrew Z. Fire of Stanford University and Craig C. Mello of the University of Massachusetts Medical School won the Nobel Prize for medicine. John C. Mather of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and George F. Smoot of the University of California at Berkeley won the Nobel Prize for physics. Roger D. Kornberg of the Stanford University School of Medicine won the Nobel Prize for chemistry. Winners of the Nobel Prizes for economics, literature and peace will be announced next week. Prizes will be awarded on December 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death.

Fire and Mello won their Nobel Prize for discovering the process of RNA interference. RNA interference involves development of double stranded RNA molecules. When introduced into the cell, double stranded “silencing” RNA molecules activate interference mechanisms that break down the messenger RNA, (mRNA), that has the same genetic code. This prevents the gene from producing the protein it is encoded to make. In their October 3, 2006 Associated Press article, “Americans Win Nobel Prize in Medicine,” Matt Moore and Karl Ritter write, “a gene causing high blood cholesterol levels was recently shown to be silenced in animals through RNA interference.” This process is being studied as a means to treat hepatitis, cancer, AIDS and heart disease.

Mather and Smoot won their Nobel Prize for their study of cosmic microwave background radiation. Their research provided physical evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. Both men were instrumental to the success of NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer, (COBE), satellite program. Smoot also found areas in space where there were small variations of the microwave background radiation in various directions. Such areas can cause matter to aggregate. After aggregation starts, gravitation pulls in more matter that can lead to the formation of galaxies.

Kornberg won the Nobel Prize for his research on genetic transcription. During transcription, a gene’s DNA is copied into a single strand of mRNA. The mRNA is transported from the cell’s nucleus to its ribosome where the proteins encoded by that gene are produced. Kornberg and his team investigated a key enzyme for transcription, RNA polymerase II and demonstrated how a gene to be transcribed is fed into the RNA polymerase II enzyme and comes out with a growing strand of mRNA on it. Kornberg’s work includes pictures, (in which individual atoms can be discerned), of mRNA being created. Kornberg’s lab has been further breaking down the transcription process and found that a component, “Mediator,” instructs RNA polymerase II as to which genes to transcribe. This research has great potential for medicine because disturbances in transcription may be involved in cancer, heart disease and inflammatory diseases. Additionally, greater knowledge of the transcription process will be needed in the development of stem cell based treatments.

The accomplishments of these men emphasize positive attributes of American culture. One is the drive to innovate and to discover more about our universe. Another is the value placed on education and knowledge. Another cultural attribute these scientists share is dedication to one’s work.

One under-rated attribute these researchers share is patience. Decades of work went into all of these projects. The COBE satellite program that Mather and Smoot worked on was launched in 1987 and was followed by years of data collection and analysis. Kornberg’s team spent 20 years on their research including 10 years optimizing laboratory procedures in order to carry out the investigation. That should remind us that breakthroughs aren’t instant. Soundbites and factoids don’t substitute for in-depth knowledge of a subject.

Another great thing about these men is their modesty and willingness to share credit. In the October 2, 2006 NBC11.com article, “Stanford Professor Wins Nobel Prize,” Fire talked of the notification phone call he received. He said, “Then I thought I was dreaming or maybe it was a wrong number.” Fire also commented, “It makes me feel incredibly indebted at the same time. You realize how many other people have been major parts of our efforts.” Kornberg, too, expressed surprise at being notified that he won. The October 4, 2006 CBS/AP story, “American Wins Chemistry Nobel Prize,” quotes Kornberg: “When the telephone first rang, I was completely bewildered.” He added, “I can accept this award on behalf of more than 50 coworkers who have done the work that is cited. This Nobel Prize, I think, is testimony to their hard work and capabilities.” In an age in which self-esteem is valued without regard to actual accomplishments, such modesty is refreshing. It is almost ironic that these great scientists are so unassuming while some celebrities are incredibly egotistical. Humility may be helpful to research and invention. Almost single-minded devotion to the subject of one’s research is integral to making great discoveries. Obsession with the self would detract from that. Additionally, collaboration speeds research by enlarging the pool of ideas and eliminating redundancy. Those who want all of the credit for themselves are unlikely to share findings or to inspire others to share theirs with them.

Scientific and technological innovation is vital if the U.S. wants to continue to thrive in a global economy. If the accomplishments of these 2006 Nobel Prize winners inspire young people to pursue careers in such fields, our nation will be on its way to continued prosperity. Additionally, some of those young people may go on to discover cures for illnesses, new energy sources and a host of benefits to humanity.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 10/08/06, all rights reserved

This weekend illegal aliens and their advocates marched on House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s Batavia, IL office to promote a plan to end deportations and legalize those illegally in the U.S. This event was brought to you by Miller! Miller Brewing Company, part of London based SAB Miller, spent $30,000 for materials, a planning convention and advertising for the protest.

In an April 30 press release, Miller Brewing Company expressed opposition to the border security and immigration enforcement bill H.R. 4437. Miller Brewing Company’s press release expressed “our desire for appropriate immigration reform that provides adequate protection for the rights of undocumented immigrants.”

No one has the right to enter into or remain in a sovereign nation without the permission of that nation’s government. Miller Brewing Company’s press release states that the company’s founder, Frederick Miller, immigrated to the U.S. in 1855. Unlike the illegal aliens Miller Brewing is supporting in this protest, Miller presumably immigrated legally which he still could do today. Currently the U.S. government issues six types of work visas as well as visas for other purposes. The U.S. also grants approximately 950,000 permanent residence visas each year.

Miller probably brought his brewing skills to the U.S. Many illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. now are unskilled and have less than eight years of schooling. A Center for Immigration Studies, (CIS), report revealed that, in 2002, 39% of immigrant mothers lacked high school diplomas compared with 17% of native born mothers. In his June 1 Rocky Mountain News piece, Robert Rector wrote, “on average, each immigrant dropout will cost the U.S. taxpayers $85,000 over the course of his life.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that the state and local costs associated with illegal immigration are $36 billion per year in education, medical care and incarceration costs. Those are just state and local costs. A 2004 CIS analysis found that federal costs of illegal immigration are over $10 billion mostly in unpaid taxes. Federal expenditures related to illegal immigration include about $5.8 billion in incarceration costs and $3.4 million in environmental remediation costs to clear trash and repair damage left by border crossers in Southern Arizona. Additional federal expenditures include reimbursements to hospitals for treating uninsured illegal aliens who are unable to pay. According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, in the five-year period from 1998 to 2003, foreign-born individuals accounted for 86% of the growth of the uninsured population.

While many illegal aliens lack health insurance, many also drive without vehicle insurance. The Virginian-Pilot newspaper reviewed police records of 179 Eastern Shore accidents from 2002 through 2004 that involved migrant workers. 75% were uninsured. In most cases, the cars did not have inspection stickers, the drivers were unlicensed and alcohol was involved. Is this what Miller had in mind when it created its “Live Responsibly” slogan?

Advertising which featured Miller Time as the reward for a hard day’s work implied solidarity with the working man. Miller Brewing Company’s support of illegal immigration undermines the working class that their advertising appears to target. Illegal immigrants generally work for lower wages than Americans and often do so without paying taxes. The ability to hire and pay illegal aliens “off the books” is attractive to employers who don’t want to deal with payroll deductions and regulations. A study by George Borjas, professor of economics and social policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, demonstrated that low wage immigrant labor has reduced wages of Americans working in low-skilled jobs by 7.4%. In their December 2005 Washington Times column, “Illegals hurt Americans,” John Hostettler and Lamar Smith cite a CIS report which said, "immigration may reduce the wages of the average native in a low-skilled occupation by...$1,915 per year."

Hostettler and Smith also wrote, “One study estimates that illegals displace 730,000 Americans every year.” In his April 2006 article, “Arrival of aliens ousts U.S. workers,” Jerry Seper of the Washington Times reported that Complete Employment Services, Inc. of Mobile AL hired 70 laborers at the request of contractors who were rebuilding after Katrina. The laborers were U.S citizens, mainly black Alabama residents who had lost their jobs in the aftermath of the hurricane. At three job sites, the contractors who had requested the workers told them they were no longer needed because immigrant labor had arrived. Illegal immigration has displaced other workers, too. Many teenagers no longer even seek jobs. Nationwide, there is 40% unemployment among young blacks according to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As all Americans pay more in taxes to cover the costs of illegal immigration and as low-skilled Americans see their wages stagnate or their jobs disappear, can we afford to support a company that seeks amnesty for illegal aliens? If all goes well, the American public can persuade Congress to pass a compromise immigration bill that will protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws without rewarding lawbreakers. In the meantime, we can stop buying products from Miller Brewing Company.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 09/04/06, all rights reserved

On Friday, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that the state’s new early voting law is unconstitutional. This “vote early and often” bill included an unfunded mandate allowing five days of voting in the week prior to Election Day, although the state constitution permits only one day of general election voting. The bill also permitted voters to vote anywhere in the state using provisional ballots. During early voting, this would occur at a limited number of polling places most of which were located in heavily Democratic districts. The court ruled against that provision because the state’s constitution specifies that citizens who reside in the state vote in their wards or districts of residence.

Some Democrats were angered by the court’s decision. In his August 25 AP article, “Md. Court of Appeals Overturns Early Voting Law,” reporter Tom Stucky quoted Maryland Democratic Party spokesman David Paulson saying, “I will criticize those who worked hard and spent money to suppress the vote,” by filing the lawsuit. State House Speaker Michael Busch complained about the ruling because more than 30 states have early voting and nine of them have similar constitutional provisions. Busch said, “I don’t know what makes Maryland unique.” It is possible that early voting simply hasn’t been challenged in court yet in other states in which it violates constitutional provisions. John Fund can tell Speaker Busch what makes Maryland unique: According to his February 9, 2006 OpinionJournal.com article, “Voting Early—and Often,” Maryland is unique in being “the only state in the nation to allow statewide early voting on touch-screen machines that lack a verifiable paper trail.” Furthermore, Maryland voters are required to verify their names and addresses, but no identification or proof of residence at those addresses is required at the polls. According to Fund’s OpinionJournal.com piece, a bipartisan advisory commission criticized use of provisional ballots in any part of the state because multiple votes by the same individual may not be detected until after the votes are certified.

Single day voting in a voter’s ward or precinct of residence hardly suppresses the vote. In Maryland, polls are open for 13 hours on Election Day. “No excuses” absentee ballots are available to Marylanders even if they will be in their home precincts on Election Day. Voters can apply for absentee ballots over the internet, so obtaining them shouldn’t be a great hardship.

While early voting and the ability to cast ballots at polling places in various locations increases the potential for voter fraud, its purpose is to increase voter turnout. Will it do so? Is it even desirable? Early voting provides more opportunities for voting to those who are “too busy” to go to the polls on Election Day. If people are “too busy” to vote during the 13 hours that the polls are open on Election Day, will they have more free time on the other days? Will they have time to go to polling places that may be farther away than their own precincts during early voting? At the Take Back America 2005 Conference, Howard Dean said Election Day should be a holiday because people who have jobs and need to pick up their kids from daycare don’t have time to go and wait in line to vote. Somehow, many people who have jobs, children and commutes still manage to vote on Election Day. It seems that the problem may not be that some people are “too busy” to vote, but that they don’t think it is a priority to vote. If Election Day were a holiday, would those people go to the polls or spend the day shopping or golfing instead?

Those who don’t think voting is important are unlikely to familiarize themselves with the issues or the candidates’ positions on those issues. A recent Zogby poll found that 74% of respondents could name the original Three Stooges, but only 42% could identify the three branches of government. Those who are more familiar with television comedy teams than their own government probably think voting in elections is less of a priority than voting on “American Idol.” They are also likely to get most of their information from television and movies. Who wants such individuals who think Syriana is factual to vote? The Democrats do. As a case in point, in Maryland, the three most heavily Democratic areas, (Baltimore City, Montgomery County and Prince Georges County), were the ones that mailed early voting information to voters before the appellate court made its ruling on the law.

Those who won’t vote if it involves any inconvenience are those most likely to ask what is in it for them. They are easily swayed by promises of something for nothing such as healthcare for all, “affordable” housing and other tax funded services. They are unlikely to care about how the government will pay for those things.

If early voting anywhere in the state isn’t enough to attract the “what’s in it for me?” crowd, Dr. Mark Osterloh of Tucson, AZ has a better offer. He has a proposal on Arizona’s November ballot to enter everyone who votes in a drawing for one million dollars. In his Townhall.com column, “We don’t need Beavis and Butt-Head voters,” Jonah Goldberg quotes Osterloh: “One of the goals that I’ve had in my lifetime is to see that all Americans have health care like every other major country on Earth. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that everybody votes.”

Not quite. Those who really care about our nation and the issues affecting it will vote anyway. The best way to attract those who will vote for candidates who promise them “something for nothing” is to give them a chance to get something for nothing. It’s cheaper than the price of a lottery ticket.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/29/06, all rights reserved

The think tank Education Sector recently released a study that suggests the problem of academic underachievement in boys is a misperception. Sara Mead of Education Sector suggests that the belief that our educational system may be shortchanging boys is “hysteria” tied to “Americans’ deepest ambivalences and fears about changing gender roles.” Mead also said, “The idea that girls could be ahead is so shocking that they think it must be a crisis for boys.”

The Education Sector study relied primarily on the performances of fourth and eighth grade boys and girls on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NEAP). The test scores were similar for both boys and girls. However, test scores don’t reveal the whole picture. In most schools, boys receive up to 70% of the D and F grades. About 80% of high school dropouts are male. According to the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram series, “The New Gender Gap” by Kevin Wack and Beth Quimby, boys are 4.5 times more likely than girls to be expelled from Maine schools. Boys represent 70% of those diagnosed with learning disabilities, 80% of those diagnosed with behavioral problems and 80% of those being medicated for ADHD. In high schools, most of the students in advanced placement and honors classes are girls. Men comprise about 44% of the U.S. college population and approximately 40% of the graduate school population. About 60% of all associate’s, bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the U.S. are awarded to women. Education Sector may deny there is a problem, but Americans should be concerned.

The July 9, 2006 New York Times article, “At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust,” by Tamar Lewin attributes men’s lackluster performance to “slacking.” The article indicated that males spent less time studying and more time videogaming, socializing and participating in sports than women did.

While there are other reasons for males’ poorer academic performance such as classes tailored to the needs of females, “slacking off” is one of them. The question that needs to be addressed is “Why aren’t boys motivated?” One reason may be that they think they can’t succeed academically. This frustration can start early. William Pollack of the Centers for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital in Belmont, MA mentioned that skills once taught in kindergarten are now taught in preschool before boys are physiologically ready to do those things. This probably discourages some boys early in their school careers. When they attend primary school, boys often face teaching styles that favor girls. One such approach is a change from grading on the basis of getting the correct answer to one of grading on the basis of showing the “process” by which the answer was reached. Another is the almost exclusive use of lectures as a teaching method. In an effort to encourage girls to participate, many teachers came to favor girls by calling on them in class while ignoring boys who raised their hands. Girls are most ahead of boys in proficiency at reading and writing. Most assigned books and essay topics are ones that appeal to girls. Books like Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage and Jack London’s Call of the Wild have largely disappeared from classrooms. Being forced to rely on one’s weakest skills, being made to feel like a second class citizen and being assigned boring material are all morale busters.

The frequent portrayal of men as idiots in commercials and sit-coms can lead boys to have low expectations of themselves. Additionally, when intellectual men are depicted in TV shows and movies, they are usually portrayed as sissies. Meanwhile, the way the media lionizes rap stars and athletes leads young men to believe education isn’t necessary for success. Media influence can be overcome by male role models in boys’ lives. Unfortunately, 40% of boys are being raised without their biological fathers. When fathers are active in their children’s lives, schools don’t always encourage their involvement. Steven Andrew, a social worker and co-founder of the Men’s Resource Center met with focus groups of fathers in Portland, ME in which fathers reported being greeted coldly when they visited their kids’ schools while their wives were welcomed. Male teachers can also inspire boys’ interest in academics. There are too few of them, especially in the lower grades. According to the National Education Association, only about 25% of U.S. public school teachers are male. Men are discouraged from teaching by low pay and by the stereotype that men who want to work with children or teenagers are pedophiles.

Fathers, male mentors and male teachers can encourage boys’ interest in school. Schools should also welcome fathers’ involvement rather than allowing PTAs to become “moms clubs.” William Pollack believes the presence of an adult, (not necessarily a male), who understands boys’ needs is key to engaging their minds. That implies that teachers should learn about the different ways boys and girls process information so both sexes can be accommodated in the classroom. The use of teaching styles favorable to boys as well as those favorable to girls can increase the skills of both. That could involve practical hands-on applications in math and science classes, fast paced question and answer sessions and providing a choice of fiction and non-fiction books for book reports and reading assignments. Boys may be more motivated if they the shown practical uses of education. Field trips to various businesses where students can see people working and learn what skills and education are needed for those careers may inspire boys more than “Career Day” lectures do.

Those who don’t have sons or who fear girls will fall behind if educators pay attention to boys, should care that boys perform well academically. Males make up approximately half of the population and most of our military. Those attending school now will eventually become our workforce and our leaders. Our nation will depend on them to stay globally competitive. Additionally, well paying jobs that do not require college or technical school are disappearing due to automation and outsourcing. More than ever, education matters. In his Times Herald-Record article, “Boys flunk life 101,” Steve Israel quotes Michael Gurian, the author of The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons From Falling Behind, who said, “(A man) will be three times as likely to be unemployed and more likely to be homeless (as he is today).” Our nation could face hard times if we ignore the educational needs of half of our population.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 07/23/06, all rights reserved

In a fascist economic system, businesses are privately owned, but government controlled. In any economic system, some regulation is necessary to ensure safety and to enable redress of fraud. When the government micro-manages private businesses, it threatens to cross over the line of fascism.

The latest attempt at government control of business is Chicago’s proposed “living wage” ordinance. If it passes the July 26 vote, stores with 90,000 square feet operated by retailers who earn at least $1 billion in sales must pay all employees who work at least 10 hours per week $9.25 per hour plus $1.50 per hour in benefits on July 1, 2007. Those employers must pay $9.50 per hour and $2.00 per hour in benefits in 2008, $9.75 an hour and $2.50 per hour in benefits in 2009 and $10.00 per hour plus $3.00 per hour in benefits by 2010. After 2010, the “living wage” will be increased annually to match the inflation rate.

In a free market, a potential employer decides what wage he is willing to pay for a specific job and a potential employee decides what wage he is willing to do the job for. When an agreement is reached, the employer hires the employee. An employee is unlikely to volunteer to work for less than he can live on. That is supported by the facts that approximately 2% of workers over the age of 25 earn the minimum wage and more than 82% of minimum wage earners have no dependents. Those facts are ignored by proponents of a “living wage” who often portray typical minimum wage earners as single mothers. Most minimum wage earners are students and recent high school graduates who do not yet have many job skills. Raising minimum wages and creating “living wages” reduces the demand for unskilled workers. This makes it harder for young people to get their first jobs where they learn skills and get the work experience that will make them employable at higher wages. Employers are less likely to provide training at higher wages because they expect better paid employees to be able to do their jobs without help. Mandated wages and benefits also lead employers to find ways to maintain production levels with fewer workers. Fewer available jobs increases the difficulty of finding work for the unskilled or inexperienced.

Those pressuring for legislation requiring “big box” retailers to pay a “living wage” and mandated benefits generally aren’t those working in retail or those earning minimum wage. Most of the pressure comes from labor unions. Fran Spielman’s June 28 Chicago Sun-Times article, “Stone: Labor playing rough on wage issue,” quotes 50^th ward Alderman Bernard Stone, who said, “The unions have backed aldermen against the wall. They’ve threatened to fund opponents against them and to solicit opponents to run against” those who don’t support the ordinance. This year the AFL-CIO; United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union, (UFCW); and Service Employees International Union, (SEIU), successfully lobbied the Maryland state legislature to override the governor’s veto of the “Fair Share Health Care Act.” SEIU even helped draft the “Fair Share Health Care Act” that requires companies with more than 10,000 employees to pay 8% of their payrolls on healthcare or pay the difference into a state fund. Since the only employer in the state to be affected is Wal-Mart, the act became known as the Wal-Mart bill. Labor unions pressure for such legislation because non-union big box retailers undercut the prices charged by grocers and other retailers who have union shops. Attempts to unionize Wal-Mart employees have been unsuccessful, so labor unions are trying to increase non-union retailers’ costs of doing business through legislation.

The affected retailers may be ready to fight back. Wal-Mart had planned to build 10 to 20 new stores in Chicago over the next five years. Wal-Mart will reconsider this plan if the “living wage” law passes. Mayor Daley challenged aldermen to explain how they will replace 8,000 jobs if Wal-Mart cancels those plans. Wal-Mart also put plans on hold for two distribution centers in Maryland after the passage of the “Fair Share Health Care Act.” In Chicago, Target is following Wal-Mart’s lead. Target is suspending its plans to build three new stores and has implied that it may also close existing Chicago stores if the “living wage” law passes. 34^th ward Alderman Carrie Austin told the Chicago Sun-Times that a pullout by Target could jeopardize the development of a new mall and that Home Depot is likely to pull out of the proposed mall if Target does. In her July 13, 2006 piece, “Target may close stores if city OKs wage rules,” Fran Spielman quotes Austin saying up to 1,000 jobs may be lost if the mall project fails.

49^th ward Alderman Joe Moore, the ordinance’s chief sponsor, told the Chicago Sun-Times, “It’s an idle threat.” Time will tell if that’s the case. Moore also accused Wal-Mart and Target of using bullying tactics. The same could be said of labor unions that pressure legislatures to pass laws designed to increase expenses for non-union retailers.

People who think government control of wages and benefits is ok when it only affects Wal-Mart should rethink the issue. In his February 28, 2006 OpinionJournal column, “Always High Taxes,” Brendan Miniter interviewed Maryland Delegate James Hubbard, a supporter of the “Fair Share Health Care Act.” Hubbard has already introduced a bill requiring employers of over 1,000 to spend 4.5% of payroll on health care or pay the difference into a state fund. Additionally, he plans to draft a similar bill that would apply to companies with fewer than 1,000 employees. After laws affecting big businesses pass, they can be expanded to apply to others. Those who own or work for small businesses should be concerned.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 07/16/06, all rights reserved