Wal-Mart, Health Care and the NY Post

Mary Campbell Gallagher, of BigCitiesBigBoxes, trenchantly responds to the New York Post’s editorial on Wal-Mart that we dissected on Monday. As Gallagher points out:

But wait. The Post also thinks New York's taxpayers can afford to subsidize Wal-Mart. "New York," the Post says, "leads the nation in Medicaid spending, at $45 billion a year. Supposedly impoverished Wal-Mart staff would never make up even a hint of a speck of a drop in New York's Medicaid bucket." So now the Post is trivializing New Yorkers' tax bills. Leaving aside the fact that Medicaid is only one form of public assistance, does the Post really think that cheaper groceries are more important than lower taxes? Was that supposed to be what the Post was arguing? I thought it started out to say that the unions' claims were false. Apparently not.

Read the whole thing.