Every time you hear a "liberal"* propose a law so asinine it would cripple many small and medium-sized businesses, not to mention mom-and-pop startups, ask yourself:

• whether or not the end result eliminates competition for well-heeled giant corporations (who are the only ones who can finally afford most of this tomfoolery), 
• whether it could ever force you or your friends or family members (or your kids' employers!) to go to work for a giant corporation at a point in time when you or they would really rather start a new business or grow an old one beyond any definition of "exempted smallness", 
• AND whether any of these ideas such as paternal leave, breast-feeding rooms, wheelchair ramps, or whatever might actually have been deliberately invented in the halls of a conniving giant corporation in the first place, smug in their confidence that economically-illiterate do-gooders would take over their advocacy, doing the work of crippling their competition for them from then on...
• OR (as is often the case) whether these ideas are dreamt up by congressional candidates desperate for campaign contributions, who "sell" them to the corporate targets of their choice. 

FACT:  Even in the best of times, 60% to 80% of new small businesses fail, often leaving behind ruined credit ratings, broken dreams, and sometimes, broken homes (Even the "liberal" George McGovern was aghast at the multiple impediments which taxes and regulations presented to his operating the Stratford Inn, which he bought--and eventually declared bankruptcy on--after his retirement from politics.¹). The vast majority of those which manage to stay in business are marginal at best. The people who start them are the people who try the hardest, work the longest hours, take the scariest risks, and are often doomed to suffer in silence. If anyone deserves any public "compassion," they do, yet they are universally ignored during debates over public policy, especially by the popular news media. So even though every new regulation and every new tax may force thousands, or even tens of thousands, of these borderline businesses under, the fashion of the day is not to care about them, but about whomever the media is willing to fret about. 

"Politicians, Like Bombers, Seldom See Their Victims..." -- Dr. Donald Boudreaux, in his article, "Losing Touch"

* "Liberal?" Doublespeak!! Incredibly, bizarrely, spectacularly twisted doublespeak. The classical meaning of "liberal" was "live-and-let-live." Today, however, that meaning can be ascribed only to libertarian ideas instead. Because nowadays the simple-minded knee-jerk reactionary "pass a law!" big-government control freaks have taken over the term "liberal" to refer to themselves, abetted by the enthusiastic compliance of the philosophically illiterate, extremely short-sighted news media. And even formerly true-blue civil libertarians of the "liberal" persuasion have found themselves in bed with, and even supporting, what in fact are the brethren of their former sworn enemies, the Nazis and other fascists. Take a serious look at their campus thought-police and other self-righteous, nosy, pushy busybodies. See their mean-spirited insistence on "political correctness," and their apparent obliviousness to the fact that such concepts were born in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Talk about Orwellian "doublespeak," this version takes the cake. For a more on the history of "liberal" and other terms, look HERE. 

"Give a good man great powers, and crooks grab his job.":  Even if you believe Bill Clinton meant well, his Executive Order No. 13083 and other directives have helped pave the way for any real despot to impose a  dictatorship of widespread viciousness. (Come to think of it, Paul Begala, while employed as Clinton's advisor, was quoted as saying "Stroke of the pen, law of the land: kinda cool," and absolutely no one in the major media made a stink about this explicit expression of admiration for dictatorship, perhaps because it reflects their sentiments and agendas.)  The United States was supposed to have a limited government originally, because the founders knew power attracts demagogues and despots as surely as horse manure attracts horseflies. They never had the illusion that only saints would be drawn to public service, as many people (and most journalists) today seem to, despite the horrifically graphic lessons of the 20th century. So now when you combine Clinton and Gore's dictates with all the National ID cards, registries and databases which the multinational corporations, the huge federal bureaucracies, and other global power freaks are pushing, you have all the ingredients of a dictatorship. Any demagogue could use them along with their favorite fear-mongers' tactic of engineering several frightening "terrorist attacks". Then the first thing that would happen afterwards is that everyone seen as an "enemy," or even just a detractor, of the despot and his gang would be hunted down, imprisoned, or worse. Don't tell me you haven't noticed how government executive departments misuse F.B.I. files and sic the I.R.S. and other agencies on anyone seen as a personal threat to a powerful politician. Yes, right here in the good ol' U.S.of A. And yes it can and DOES happen here. With over 2 million people in prison already, and more than half of those for victimless "crimes," you must take pause and realize most people with power are nowhere near benevolent -- no, not "even today." Study well, my friend, how evil principles are turned into bloody reality, and now how it looks from afar. 

Do see: Big Burden, Little Burden,   Corporations Which Feed the Fangs That Bite Them,   Corporations Give More Than FOUR TIMES as much to Big-Government advocates as they do to Pro-Liberty advocates, and especially,  MOM & POP VS. THE DREAMBUSTERS