I caught a public radio interview on some show I never heard of the other night (I needed to go to the store. I’m a car and dog-walking listener only).

They had an anti-Wal-Mart guy on who was bemoaning Wal-Mart’s real and “stealth” subsidies. The complaints about the real subsidies deserve at most one and a half cheers, since most of the subsidies as I understand it are from localities who are desperate to attract Wal-Mart in order to launch inner-city revitalization projects. I don’t like most “public-private partnerships” and I’m sure there are some real stinkers out there in terms of Wal-Mart friendly pork. But it’s not the corporate welfare this guy was describing.

But his schtick about “hidden” subsidies was just outrageous. Basically he and his group add-up all of the benefits they think Wal-Mart should provide, from health-care to daycare, and then they claim Wal-Mart’s getting a free ride on these costs because “the government” is covering them. In other words, because Wal-Mart isn’t sending its employees’ kids to private school, they’re getting a subsidy because the government is paying for their education.

The perniciousness of this logic should be obvious. If the private sector doesn’t provide a benefit offered by the government, the private sector is accused of benefitting from a subsidy.

I may be being a bit unkind to the nuances of his argument, but I was distracted by the spittle-splattered yawps of outrage emanating from the driver of the car as I drove myself home. But that was definitely the gist of it.