According to an online dictionary I found, 'patsy' is defined as, "apersonwhoiseasilyswindled,deceived,coerced,persuaded,etc.;sucker. A personuponwhomtheblameforsomethingfalls;scapegoat;fallguy. Apersonwhoistheobjectofajoke,ridicule,orthelike." Each of those phrases perfectly describes the way businessmen are perceived and treated in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika these days. It is difficult to conceive why anyone would want to go into business in this envy-filled country given the enormous obstacles stacked in the pathway of every entrepreneur. Although difficult to conceive, I do know why people continue to go into business. The simple fact is that, despite all of the government rules and regulations attempting to thwart their efforts, businessmen want nothing more than to produce goods and services and then sell those goods and services to people for a price the people are willing to pay. That attitude of serving the public so dominates businessmen that they will move heaven and earth in their efforts to serve us. If only government were so motivated. The latest example of government created rules designed to make patsies of businessmen comes out of that haven of market freedom known as San Francisco. I read this article in my newspaper yesterday, "San Francisco approved a measure Tuesday making it the first place in the nation to require businesses to provide fully paid leave for new parents....The San Francisco Board of Supervisors (an inauspicious title if I have ever heard one, ed) voted unanimously in favor of the measure after supporters said six weeks of fully paid leave is needed because too many families can't afford to take time off after a child is born or adopted." Well there you have it. Families can't afford to take care of their children so the coercive powers vested in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have determined that some of the costs associated with having children should now be borne by businessmen. Let's consider that for a while today. This is not the first social cost that businesses have been forced to pay in this hate-filled country. As the law now stands, businesses are required to pay the costs associated with their employees social security benefits, life insurance, disability insurance, health insurance, worker's compensation insurance, medicare insurance, personal retirement plans and, now, the costs associated with the first six weeks of child rearing. As a Christian businessman I am forced, by law, to pay for my employees daughter's abortions. I am also forced to subsidize the promiscuous sexual behavior of my female employees by paying for their birth control substances and devices, some of which are abortive in nature. If I want to have a retirement plan, and I do, I am forced to pay some of my hard earned cash into retirement plans for my employees, despite the fact they usually empty them out to pay for vacations to Disney World. I also have to pay for their worker's compensation, a scam if there ever was one. They claim to be injured while on the job, when oftentimes there is no real injury or they were actually injured when they got drunk over the weekend, and I have to pay a portion of their wages while waiting for them to heal from their self-inflicted wounds. And now I learn that if I operated in San Francisco, which thankfully I do not, I would be required to subsidize the first six weeks of their lives after someone in their household bears a child. Man am I a patsy! Let's think about this from the perspective of common sense. Why is it intuitively obvious that a profit seeking business should be responsible to pay for your retirement plan? Why is it intuitively obvious that a profit seeking business should be required to pay for your health insurance? Please explain to me why I am responsible for the bills of my employees, over a six week period, simply because they make the voluntary decision to have a baby? None of these rules make any common sense. So there must be some other reason why these things are the way they are. Historically speaking the impetus for the state of affairs we see today is grounded in government regulations. Many moons ago Congress decided to do something about outrageous CEO salaries. Yes, the argument from envy-filled haters of the free market that risk taking entrepreneurs make too much money has been with us a very long time. Congressmen, always in search of a vote from the larger group of people, responded to the cries from the oppressed masses and made a law capping the amount a CEO could earn. In response to that law something totally predictable happened. Businesses, in search of the best talent to head their firms, had to sweeten the pot by adding non-cash compensation to their salary packages. Presto, chango....employer provided health insurance came into being. That precedent has come to haunt us today. I have two questions for those who believe making businesses a patsy is a good idea. First, why stop with insurance, retirement plans and paid time off? If these rules do no harm to businesses whatsoever why not make businesses pay for more of their employees expenses? I believe the employer should be required to make the mortgage payment of his employees. Further, I believe the employer should be required to make two car payments for his employees. It would also be a good idea for the employer to make some additional cash payment, beyond the negotiated wage rate and called a sur-payment, on a monthly basis to each employee. Certainly none of this will ever prove harmful for economic growth in this immoral land. My second question, asked without bias or animosity towards government worshiping fools in this idolatrous country, is why should business be forced to subsidize all of the expenses listed above? More importantly, why is government not responsible to pay the subsidies, if the subsidies must indeed be paid? We all know that, unlike business, government has access to unlimited funds. Government can pay the subsidies without any harm being done to itself or the economy, or at least that is what the Keynesians who rule over us repeatedly tell us. After all, we all know that everything government does is stimulative to the economy. The more the government spends the more the economy grows. Let's take it upon ourselves to shift all of the present subsidy requirements from business to government so we can all grow rich together, shall we?