Spitzer Spits At Working Families Party Bills? Update: Sources and hotlinks added
Although he's the WFP candidate for Gov., Elliot Spitizer opposes, it appears, the Fair Share Health Insurance bill proposed with great fanfare by the Working Families Party. Reported today in the NY Post and picked up by the Empire Zone, the Spitzer campaign announced opposition to the Fair Share Health Insurance bill, which would extend health insurance to employees of large retailers. Affected employers would include Wal-Mart, Trader Joe & Whole Foods. Mr. Spitzer also opposes a bill promoted by labor unions and the WFP which passed Senate & Assembly (Pataki-vetoed it) which would have made it easier to recruit state-funded Day Care employees into unions by characterizing them as state employees. I wonder what the Working Families Party has to say about all this?
Update: People cannot find the originals so here they are
1) Empire Zone story appeared in ther 9:21 AM post Morning Buzz by Pattrick Healy. It stated:
"Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, a Democratic candidate for governor, has come out against the so-called Wal-Mart health care bill, defying the wishes of some Democratic and labor allies."
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=224#more-224
The Empire Zone story hot linked to a NY Post story by Frederic U. Dicker:
ELIOT IN SPLIT WITH DEMS
By FREDRIC U. DICKER
June 20, 2006 -- ALBANY - Sending a message that he wants to reduce the influence of special-interest groups, gubernatorial hopeful Eliot Spitzer broke with top Democratic lawmakers and several powerful unions yesterday by opposing the "Wal-Mart bill," which would tax businesses that don't provide health insurance.
Spitzer also crossed his party on a "right to organize" measure that would turn 50,000 private day-care workers into state employees.
The two measures have been bitterly denounced by business groups as harmful to the state economy, but the union-backed Working Families Party, which has endorsed Attorney General Spitzer for governor, lists them as its top priorities.
Spitzer, a Democrat, told The Post through a spokesman that the Wal-Mart bill, which the state's Business Council warned would kill thousands of jobs in New York, failed to address the need for the "comprehensive reform" of health-care coverage in the state.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/eliot_in_split_with_dems_regiona...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
» Daniel Millstone's blog | email this blog | printer friendly version | send to friend | 2105 reads
Source request seconded
Submitted by atomicBirdsong on 20 June 2006 - 6:23pm.
I'm also interested in seeing a source. I could not find one either.
MickeyRourkeswm
Submitted by MickeyRourkeswm (not verified) on 15 July 2006 - 1:45am.
Ein Schloss, Ein Wurst, Ein Kopf !swm
Choice of language: F
Submitted by Bouldin on 20 June 2006 - 8:27pm.
Considering the reasoning offered by Spitzer, your choice of language - "spitting in the face of working families" - is about equally insulting to your readers as it is to Spitzer himself.
Spitzer, a Democrat, told The Post through a spokesman that the Wal-Mart bill, which the state's Business Council warned would kill thousands of jobs in New York, failed to address the need for the "comprehensive reform" of health-care coverage in the state.
You really might consider changing the headline, because it's misleading and, frankly, false.
I am glad you were able to
Submitted by Daniel Millstone on 20 June 2006 - 9:40pm.
1) I am glad you were able to review the originals. You are welcome.
2) Spitzer is the WFP candidate for Gov.
3) At the convention which nominated him and for months before WFP pushed the Fair Share Bill. When he accepted the nomination, did he say phooey on Fair Share?
4) Certainly reasonable people can differ about Fair Share. I personally have qualms about it. Here, leading vastly in the polls, Spitzer gives the WFP a very tough, very public shove.
5) The WFP argues that the Fair Share Bill is actually possible and would add 400,000 to the rolls of health insured, while "comprensive" coverage is not on the Albany agenda. So Spitzer's position is that a doable bill should be abandoned for what WFP argues cannot be passed.
5) Is your complaint that "Spitzer Spits" contains no actual saliva? How about "Spitzer
Scorns?" Did you add the words "in the face" in a moment of inaccurate passion?
6) I Get it. You think the headline is about "spitzer spits on working families." Of course not. Its the WFP Bills he scorns (or whatever). I will amend the headline so as to reduce the possibility of the confusion.
I can't find this
on either the Empire Zone or the Murdoch Post. Is it true?