Thank you for your support
Various Ontario Vineyard Village Association stories have been picked up by the keywordblogger empire, including its Bankruptcy blog. See here.
This suggests a solution - to end the perceived threats to residential dwellers in the Fourth and Vineyard Area, perhaps all of the businesses in a threatened residential area should go bankrupt. Actually, my previous proposal will probably encourage this action anyway.
So how should the related organization, Ontario Mountain Village Assocation, react? They should react in kind and campaign for Wal-Mart's bankruptcy. This would solve all sorts of problems, since you wouldn't have excess traffic, and since you wouldn't be attracting a criminal element.
Whoops - the criminal element would be attracted to the empty buildings. But bankruptcy does seem to solve our traffic problems, and would also solve my commuter situation. After all, if I don't have a job, then I don't have to commute to it. And I wouldn't be able to afford a car, so I wouldn't have to worry about fixing my brakes.
So perhaps governments should adopt policies that make it tough for businesses to operate in California. And I'm not just talking about preventing penalties for businesses that don't pay taxes. We need to undermine good companies - good, traffic-attracting companies.
Perhaps the government will adopt such policies to discourage business. This would be a good thing, don't you think? Some think so:
A new proposal, now California law, required employers who don’t provide health insurance to pay into a government pool to provide healthcare for the uninsured.
This law levels the playing field. Now CEOs who want to do the right thing will face lower premium costs and won’t have to worry about subsidizing less public-spirited competitors. The law gives responsible businesses the freedom to adopt practices that reflect their values.
In our local assembly race, Democrat Ira Ruskin supports the initiative as a step on the road to universal healthcare, while Republican Steve Poizner describes it as a drag on business, and says it will force jobs out of the state.
Are Bush and Poizner pro-business? Their policies -- the subsidy for shipping jobs overseas, and the implicit subsidy for not providing healthcare -- clearly result give money to businesses. The policies of their Democratic opponents provide more jobs at home and more healthcare coverage, and are clearly motivated by pro-worker values.
But many people would not make the distinction that way. Most CEOs value a level playing field, fair competition, and the freedom to run their business the way they want. When the tax code offers a subsidy to bad business practices, even though it’s a business subsidy, these CEOs would like to see it eliminated.
Not only do the Bush tax loophole and the old healthcare system distort the operation of the free market, they punish CEOs who want to do the right thing. Even their CEOs’ job is maximizing shareholder, most CEOs are good people who want to make the world a better place. Tax distortions that artificially put profitability at odds with making the world a better place should be eliminated. Whether that’s pro- or anti-business, it’s clearly pro- good business.
Comments