SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Hillary And Wal-mart

THE SPINE MAY 20, 2007

Hillary And Wal-mart

BY TNR STAFF

I always wondered why Hillary Rodham Clinton never boasted about her
service on the Wal-Mart board. After all, she boasts--even exaggerates--about everything she's done and does. I have had this "story" in my head
for maybe fourteen years. I tried to get New Republic staffers to go after
it, anyway without the success.

Let me be frank. I think that the argument about Wal-Mart does not come
out one-sided, either in terms of the economy as a whole (not just in the
U.S.) or of local economies. Nonetheless, I feel deeply that, until some
national health program like the one Ezekiel Emanuel and Victor Fuchs
proposed earlier this year in TNR and about which I posted, all
businesses should bear some responsibility for the medical care of their
workers. This was once assumed almost as axiomatic but no longer.

I was interested in what Mrs. Clinton did for this matter as a director of
Wal-Mart, particularly since as soon as she entered the White House
universal health care became her mantra and her message. What had she
thought of Wal-Mart's indifference to its workers' medical coverage?

This morning when I picked up the Times, I immediately noticed a front-page
headline, "Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, But Only So Far." Here, I thought
was the story for which I'd been looking for over nearly a decade and a
half. Michael Barbaro's article told me a lot (and a lot that I'd
suspected: Hillary was a "play" director, nothing more). This will cause
her grief. Some of the "idealists" in her camp may realize that, when she
was in a position to do something in what was even then one of the largest
corporations in America, she played footsie with her bosses, which is
exactly what they were. What an empty vessel.

In any case, she did nothing then for medical care. Of course, she'll have
an elaborate scheme for the campaign. But, as usual with her, it will be
too simple and too intricate at once, covering her inspirational ambitions
and trying to make her appear as a wonk, too.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 20 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

20 comments

"...all businesses should bear some responsibility for the medical care of their workers. This was once assumed almost as axiomatic but no longer." This is an economic fiction. No business picks up the tab for your health care. It simply deducts money from your overall pay package to pay for the insurance. Your hourly rate or salary will ultimately be smaller. When everything is said and done, your boss never pays even one cent towards your health needs. Sigh, Marty Peretz needs to take a course in Economics 101. Being a nice guy is not good enough. One must know the basics.

- thomsondavid

May 20, 2007 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best profile on Hillary Clinton I ever read was "Ice Queen, Drag Queen" written by Camille Paglia in TNR. After 11 years that article seems to have become only more incisive. It would be nice if TNR or TNR Online republished it for the primaries.

- bahaha

May 21, 2007 at 12:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are there any idealists in Hillary's camp? Good lord, they must be masochists. I don't think this is a big story, though. Hillary had little impact on Walmart! Yawn.

- ratnerstar

May 21, 2007 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign - Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart. Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features. Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental "eco-store" in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut. One executive derided it as "Hillary's store" because it was more expensive to build than the average Wal-Mart, but several of its features, like the skylights that cut energy bills by reducing the need for artificial lighting, were widely copied across the industry. "We were on the leading edge of something that is being mandated now," said Bill Fields, the head of merchandise at Wal-Mart in the early 1990s who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton on the environmental project.

- jacobt1

May 21, 2007 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you gotta study economics yourself bud. Gov't also picks up a share because the health care portion that is deducted is not taxed, so people taxes are lower then if it were straight compensation, and when workers pull together, they are able to get better rates then if a worker were to go alone. Sigh, thomsondavid needs to take a course in Business 101, being a heartless robot is not enough, one must know the basics.

- blackton

May 21, 2007 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmmm, a recap. The editor-owner of TNR is tossing rocks at Hillary Clinton because of what she may/may not have done some years ago as a board member at Wal-Mart, yet ruefully admits that "for maybe fourteen years" he "tried to get New Republic staffers to go after" the story "without success." After reading the NYTimes article, I'd say Clinton's record was remarkably good, especially given that corporate board members are not exactly armored with authority. As for the editor-owner of the TNR: fourteen years of being unable to persuade one of his own employees to write a story? What's the word for that? Dan

- dbuck

May 21, 2007 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

what are you saying? that Hillary treats trees better than she treats people? that is how that sounds. actually, I have a vague suspicion that trees and people have just about the same worth in Hillarys eyes.

- blackton

May 21, 2007 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>Gov't also picks up a share because the health care portion that is deducted is not taxed Granted,thomsondavid is occasionally over the top but here his economics is correct (I didn't say "spot on" an overused phrase I'm getting tired of. Only in the Orwellian world of socialist-speak would the refraining of taking one segment of a person's or a company's property be considered some sort of subsidy.

- ipuritani

May 21, 2007 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This post made me think of another recent post. "Has he nothing better to blog about? Actually, that's how makes a living: by writing about people who are smarter than him and know more about the world than him." That perfectly describes my feelings about this post.

- adamvaught

May 21, 2007 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Hillary is nominated, will MP endorse her for President? Also, to follow up on David T.'s comment, I think the problem is the chaos today with so many employers dumping health insurance. I'm paying for my own health insurance now because the job market is too unstable and this is the only way I can protect myself against developing a preexisting condition which in the future will be uninsurable. Anyone who isn't ultra-secure in their job (with an ultra-secure employer) is at risk even if they do get health insurance benefits.

- Lymon1

May 21, 2007 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

David Thomson, BTW, is correct about health care, and the reason that employers pay even part of their employees health care insurance costs has largely to do with limitations imposed by wage controls many years ago. So instead of wage increases, employees got health insurance premium increases. In any event, given that Americans change jobs frequently and their employers are often in competition with foreign companies, located in countries that fund health care differently, it's an absurd system. Should your employer contribute to your auto or home insurance? Your cable or utility bill? (Your bar bill? -- now there's an idea.) In re health care insurance, there are really only three question to pose: Who is covered? What is covered? And who pays. Each is too hot to be handled without mittens, but there they are. Where DT and I proably disagree is in how health care should be financed. I will leave that to the reader's imagination. Nonetheless, his point is a good one. Dan

- dbuck

May 21, 2007 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

speaking of Orwellian, all taxes are equal but some are more equal than others. What would you call it then if one person gets a tax break for buying something, but another person doesn't?

- blackton

May 21, 2007 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When everything is said and done, your boss never pays even one cent towards your health needs." Of course he does, for one, it is part of people's overall compensation for work provided. Given the choice I am sure my boss would prefer to pay me nothing for my work done and pocket all of the goods and services my work provides. Beyond compensation TD is ignoring all of the lost productivity my boss spends on wasting his time looking for health insurance companies. Believe it or not, not all bosses are soulless robots as they exist in TD's mind. I know my boss did not write down in his ledger how much time he spent on health insurance matters in order to deduct it from his employees wages. TD undoubtedly would.

- blackton

May 21, 2007 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aside from the Animal Farm reference, I haven't the foggiest notion of where you think you are going with that. Or how it speaks to the issue at hand.

- ipuritani

May 21, 2007 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When we stop connecting health care with employment we will be able to fashion a health care system for all Americans, whether they are employed or not. Why are other developed countries able to do this, but we are not???

- JNAESQ

May 21, 2007 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton writes: "Gov't also picks up a share because the health care portion that is deducted is not taxed, so people taxes are lower then if it were straight compensation,. . .". "Government" is a bloodless abstraction, an empty social bookkeeping entry. Actual health insurance premium costs are not displaced on "government", but are shifted forward to people not covered by employer-provided plans. Those covered pay no taxes on the income that their health insurance policy costs; they receive a tax expenditure subsidy.

- Bretlaw

May 22, 2007 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

come on, use your imagination, you are a bright guy. You mentioned Orwell above, and I countered it with my own reference. You called a Tax break a subsidy, and then labeled it Orwellian socialist speak. Now if you want to state that all taxation should be equal, just say so, but it is not equal, and in this case the tax system is not designed for the maximum benefit since there are 40 million uninsured in the states. Hence my above equation was in counter to TD who was implying in the free market world of his mind it doesn't matter in what way people get their insurance, it all comes out the same (is all equal) Honestly, I really thought you were smart enough to put two and two together, and I didn't really want to have to do the math for you.

- blackton

May 22, 2007 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apples & oranges. If you want to discuss the inquities of the tax system, fine. We might even agree on a few things. But the fallacy of "tax break as subsidy" is a whole different issue.

- ipuritani

May 22, 2007 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Called "tax expenditure subsidies", some tax breaks are subsidies. Take mortgage interest payments as a homely example. Taxpayers with incomes high enough for them to itemize can deduct mortgage interest payments from taxable income. For the sake of argument. assume that I have shelled out $1000 in interest payments this past year and that I am in the 25% marginal tax bracket. That reduces my federal tax payments (and government tax receipts) by the same $250. If the government had collected all taxes due on my income and afterwards refunded me $250, the results would have been identical: the government collects $250 less in income taxes and I have $250 more to spend or invest as I choose. (Renters receive no breaks and hence no subsidies. Homeowners on average enjoy higher incomes than renters, so the distributive effects are regressive.) Bearing of all of this on the health care issue? Workers in covered industries do not buy insurance with taxable dollars. Thus they buy more of it than they would have if they had purchased it with taxable dollars. Laborers in uncovered workplaces (like a neighborhood garage with five employees) have to buy insurance with taxed dollars. They buy less of it than the bloke who works on the Ford assembly line. This all is an unavoidable consequence of linking health insurance coverage to place of employment.

- Bretlaw

May 22, 2007 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would agree I am playing semantics with "tax break as subsidy" but it is hard to get a point across in as few words as possible so in a roundabout and tortuous way "tax break as subsidy" works for me. If two people make $100 and one is taxed $10 and the other $8, then how to classify those $2? Again, I know you are smart enough to understand what I mean, even if my language is faulty.

- blackton

May 22, 2007 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close