Glenn's link reminded me that Wal-Mart has not paid me to write a post attacking the Philadelphia Inquirer's criticism of Wal-Mart for the crime of hiring people on Medicaid (or something like that).

The data will add fuel to the debate, which may be part of today's budget hearing in Harrisburg, over whether too many employees at the nation's largest retailer are relying on public assistance.

State Rep. Jake Wheatley (D., Allegheny) said yesterday he would ask the state Department of Public Welfare today to investigate whether corporations are abusing the tax-funded Medicaid program.

"We need to protect taxpayers from subsidizing large corporations that can afford to provide health care to their employees," Wheatley said in a statement.

But defending Wal-Mart? That ain't my job, baby! I'm not running this blog in order to be a corporate slave! I haven't received a single email from Wal-Mart. (Despite the fact that I defended the company in the past. For huge crimes involving cultural genocide!)

This does not incline me towards defending Wal-Mart yet again. There are numerous other things I should be writing about, and I don't have time.

My philosophical side, however, wonders how government funded medical care is a "corporate subsidy." Applying this same logic, isn't low income housing a "subsidy"? Aren't student loans and Pell grants also subsidies? From where derives the notion that employers are guarantors of things like health, housing, or education? When I was a kid, all they had to do was pay you if you did your job. The rest was up to you.

But I'm annoyed at Wal-Mart! And I think we should require the evil place to fire all employees who go on any sort of government assistance.

Take that, you mean old deadbeat capitalists!

(I'm sorry to sound like such a leftist whiner, but I'm still waiting for my check from Karl Rove. Ye gods, it's been over a year!)

AN EVEN SILLIER AFTERTHOUGHT: Since there's a big debate about money and power and influence, I think it's worth asking again: is the issue whether or not the stuff in a blog post is true? Or is the issue the source of funding -- i.e. who might be paying the guy who wrote it? I guess that depends on whether truth is a function of morality or economics. Such questions are over my head, and unless Wal-Mart pays me, the hell with the truth!