If you read the newspaper on a regular basis you will see many articles that tell you that Wal-Mart is an evil beyond comprehension. Almost every time they want to open a store there are articles about how the new store will be awful for the neighborhood, the environment, the traffic flow, the health care of the employees (especially The Children), the trees, the migration path of the caribou, etc. Then, when the store opens up, it is covered up with shoppers eager to save money.
I am not just pecking this out for finger exercise. I have a solution to propose...
- The federal government ought to take an active roll to minimize the footprint of Wal-Mart.
- Our Government should buy a huge track of land to accommodate all the stores that Wal-Mart will build in the next 50 years.
- Then all of the next 50 years stores could be built in one location.
- I'm certain each of you have already seen the benefit to our society by taking this bold action...
o Only one neighborhood will be negatively affected.
o The environment will only be damaged in one location.
o Traffic patterns will not be disrupted anywhere but this one location.
o The health care of the employees would still be an issue but I have faith that our 9% Approval Rating Congress is chomping at the bit to address this problem because it directly affects The Children of the employees.
o Trees would only have to be removed in this one area and, if we selected a location in the middle of Death Valley, this issue would become mute.
o I also have faith that our 9% Approval Rating Congress could find an area that would not interfere with the migration path of the caribou.
Being as sharp as I know all of you to be, you are probably thinking to yourselves that I have missed out on where the Federal Government will get the money to finance this huge undertaking. I've also have that covered...The Tobacco Tax. This is where Congress already gets a lot of its money.
I do see the fallacy of depending so often on the Tobacco Tax. We, as a society, are smoking less and this tax revenue source is drying up. I propose to counter this decrease in tax revenue by collecting five cent per cigarette from people who used to smoke but are now guilty of trying to smoke less and preventing our rulers from collecting a tax on what they were smoking when they were smoking. Makes sense to me!
Would I kid u?
