“Allow” vs. “Require”

Facile, inaccurate comparisons are common fare among the Left in Colorado these days. Case in point: Diarist GoBlue on the Dead Governors site, convinced by the fact he has the ultimate “gotcha,” publishes a post that compares a Republican proposal that would allow small businesses to pool together to negotiate health insurance policies with a Democrat proposal that would require state and local governments to accept binding negotiated agreements.

Memo to GoBlue: There is a vast difference between allow and require. There is no Colorado law, nor should there be, preventing voluntary associations of public employees to meet, express their interests, and air their grievances. Such arrangements already exist. Besides, if Governor Bill Ritter’s back-room deals with union bosses were as innocent as liberal apologists try to portray them, can one of them explain the level of secrecy?

No law binds the government to accept arbitrated agreements – it already has the incentive to treat properly one of the highest-compensated state workforces in the U.S. And no law binds workers to pay fees for representation, whether or not they asked for it or believe they benefit from it.

The status quo in employee representation (not the secret Ritter plan) sounds very similar to the Republican proposal that would merely allow small businesses, if they so choose, to band together to get better rates on health insurance. It wouldn’t bind insurance companies to accept arbitrated agreements. And it wouldn’t force businesses to participate or subsidize participation in an insurance pool.

What Ritter wants sounds very different to me. The fact that the Left in Colorado so easily conflates the two proposals demonstrates either their lack of understanding of – or their lack of respect for – the principles of freedom. Time for GoBlue and friends to pull out a dictionary and read up.