We display a case today of government not practicing what it preaches, even when its preaching has significant - and negative - economic effects.

There's been a fight recently between Walmart, the corporation everyone seems to love to hate, and the city of Washington, D.C., not known nationally for having a sterling reputation, even as governments go.

D.C.'s council wants Walmart and other large retailers in the district to increase its wages to what it says is a "living wage." The figure discussed by the council is $12.50 an hour.

We're not going to step into the debate regarding minimum wage here, except to note that the current D.C. minimum wage is $8.25.

We don't expect that the legislation, even if signed into law, will long survive court challenges. It segregates a certain category of businesses and forces them to compete by a different set of standards. We suspect that will be found to be in violation of either existing regulation or constitutional standard.

The proposal would cost D.C. three of the currently six proposed Walmarts within district limits. That's a considerable amount of jobs and significant access to retail goods that won't be provided to the district's people because its representatives want to take a shot at a vast, corporate target.

So, we think it's a bad idea, one that does not make economic sense in terms of either job creation or retail availability.

Now for the practicing and preaching part. It turns out that D.C.


's council isn't particularly good at assuring its own employees are earning the same living wage it expects the giant retailer to pay.

There's something to be said for leading by example; D.C.'s council either hasn't heard of it or chooses not to apply it - bad news either way.


Looks like there's some housekeeping to do in the D.C. government before it targets the economic decisions of businesses who want to bring jobs into the region.

Let's accept some doses of reality. The unemployment rate for Washington, D.C., was 8.5 percent in April. That was almost a full percentage point higher than the national rate of 7.6 percent in May. In short, new jobs wouldn't hurt D.C. one bit.

Further, the political hijinks will have a dampening effect on other potential employers like Walmart who might want to crack the D.C. market - but not on terms dictated by local government.

There are some within D.C. government who don't appear to be warmly embracing the lopsided playing field being suggested through this legislation.

Victor L. Hoskins, deputy mayor for planning and economic development, said the law, if passed, would have a "chilling impact" on retail growth in the city, according to reports. He didn't specifically say if he recommended that the legislation be vetoed, but we find it hard to believe he's carrying a flag for it in the backroom debates of D.C.'s council.

It's not government's place to dictate so intimately the business policies of any private organization, whether a mom-and-pop corner shop or a massive retailer like Walmart. Let business and the markets that they generate take care of themselves - they might help take care of some of D.C.'s economic trouble as a side effect.