Thank goodness for our state representative, Judy Solano.

She recently introduced a bill mandating how much money large employers in the state must contribute toward employee health care. Potentially 27 large companies in the state are affected although it is obvious this is targeted at a select few. The reasoning? Solano said, “We have standards for safety and health, standards for child protection, standards for environmental protection. It is time that we have health care coverage standards."

By all means yes! We need more laws! We need more mandates and requirements from the government! We want to pay more for the products we buy.

Wait! What was that? No, no, we don’t want more laws and we sure as heck never said we wanted to pay more for anything! Apparently Rep. Solano thinks we do. Who ultimately pays for mandates like this? The big, bad company? Are they going to sacrifice their profits to fund some bureaucrat’s brilliant plan? No. It becomes part of their cost of doing business. If the company’s costs go up, those costs are passed on to the consumer – you and I. That means you pay more for your groceries and the other products you buy every day.

Ostensibly one of the reasons Rep. Solano stated for the legislation is that the state should not be footing the health care bill via Medicaid for someone gainfully employed. If that were the case, then there must be a lot of employees of these companies on the state welfare rolls right?

Well, believe it or not Rep. Solano doesn't even know how many folks this would affect - I asked her. If we don’t even know the numbers, how do we know it will do any good? If there is a relatively small number of people that fit in this category (which is most likely the case), then the legislation simply puts a burden on business with no return for the state.

Further, if it costs the company more to employ a person, as this mandate would, what is to keep the employer from simply lowering wages to compensate? How many of these large companies’ employees are going to be happy with having their paychecks cut? Thanks, Representative Solano! I really appreciate the cut in pay. NOT!

The fact of the matter is that this is a misguided effort to attempt to correct the health care issues in our state. Only 60 percent of employers nationwide even provide health insurance at all so why then are we penalizing those that do? 27 major employers in the state - all of whom make health insurance available for employees - would be affected including University of Denver, HCA-HealthOne, Centura Health, Exempla Health, IBM and of course the evil Wal-Mart.

Since Wal-Mart is obviously one of the targets of this bill, let's look at a few things: Did you know that a Wal-Mart employee can obtain health care for less than $23.00 per month? Did you know that Wal-Mart allows part-time employees to get health insurance – a rarity in any industry, let alone retail? Were you aware that 73 percent of Wal-Mart employees are eligible for health care coverage, significantly higher than the retail industry average (61 percent)?

Again I ask, why penalize those companies who actually help people get insurance and health care?

Could something else be behind this? Let’s delve a bit in to this. Historically, who are the most vocal and staunch opponents of Wal-Mart? If you said unions you are correct. Unions are dying, their purpose is dead and they are desperately in need of new blood to stay alive. Unions hate Wal-Mart because despite their best efforts over the years they have been unable to convince Wal-Mart employees that they need the unions’ help. Employees have repeatedly shot down the unions efforts to infiltrate the stores.

If an employee is unhappy with the benefits (or pay, or working environment or whatever) an employer provides, they have a choice to leave and find a better opportunity. This is America! Obviously the employees of Wal-Mart are satisfied or we would not have anyone to check us out when we shop! At a minimum they would jump at the chance to join a union to help them out.

So why does Rep. Solano think we need yet another unfunded government mandate? Two numbers might allow us to connect the dots: 15,200 and 2,300. The first number? The amount of money unions contributed to Representative Solano’s 2004 election campaign – over 25 percent of the total she collected in the election cycle. The second? The amount unions have contributed in just the last two months to her current 2006 election campaign, an amount which is sure to grow before November.

Then there is of course the thousands of other dollars from lawyers and lobbyists that have contributed to Rep. Solano in recent years. I won’t even go in to the $12,317 she received from a mystery lobbyist group as recently highlighted in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.

Special interests seem to be getting their money’s worth.

In the end, if passed by the state legislature, Rep. Solano’s measure is sure to be brought down by Gov. Bill Owens’ pen with a veto. It does not solve anything other than to cost you and I money and provide another burden on business and stifle economic growth. Let’s stop wasting time and money on pointless measures and address real issues, not those that special interests say we should for their own self-serving purposes.

Let Representative Solano, or whomever your state representatives are, know that we pay enough for the products we buy, stop putting undue burdens on businesses, don’t pander to special interests and most importantly, find real solutions to the problem.

Breaking News, 2/10/06 - The Rocky Mountain News denounces Representative Solano's legislation in its editorial pages.