BE OUR GUEST: TRIGGER: EMPLOYER MANDATES IN DISGUISE

If there is one thing official Washington does well, it is disguise the true meaning of the English language. Taxes become revenue enhancements, deficits become budgetary shortfalls, and new government burdens on employers are deftly entitled shared responsibilities. But when closely studied, the lion's share of the burden always seems to fall on small business.

And here that Washington crowd goes again. Intent on jamming a massive government-run health care program down the throats of America's Main Street firms, the White House and its pro-big government supporters are attempting to hide the true meaning of an employer mandate.

Their new buzzword is "trigger" -- a mechanism that is designed to activate a segment of the law if market-oriented, managed competition reforms don't achieve universal coverage by a certain date.

But small-business owners, many of whom already feel like this administration has them looking down the barrel of a gun, view a trigger as just what it sounds like -- a part of a weapon that could be deadly when it is pulled. And triggers, especially those that activate huge government programs, could prove fatal to thousands of small businesses.

The National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's largest advocacy group for small business, is strongly opposing any type of trigger or employer mandate, because entrepreneurs believe that managed health care competition can work.

Once health insurance is affordable and accessible, employers will continue to find it to their competitive advantage to provide health insurance to their employees. That is the message NFIB is hearing from the men and women across the country who create jobs, meet the payrolls and run the day-to-day operations.

And business owners are saying triggers could force them to close their doors. Entrepreneurs fear they will be the ones cleaning up the federal government's mess. For example, if Congress or a commission overpromises benefits, thereby pricing firms out of the market, the mandate trigger would kick in and employers would have to pay for someone else's mistake.

Trigger-happy supporters wrongly assume that if universal coverage isn't achieved by a specific date, an employer mandate will finish the job.

And they ignore the direct relationship between the financial health of a business and the ability of the business owner to provide health insurance. A firm that is fighting to survive by reducing coverage of part-time workers or other employees would increase its chance of being affected by a trigger. The bottom line is that businesses least able to afford mandated costs will be forced to cut jobs and wages.

Despite all this, there are still many in Washington who will demand that government enact a health plan that includes the impossible-to-achieve goal of universal coverage paid for by employer mandates, no matter who gets hurt.

That reflects a great misunderstanding of the role of small business, the sector of the economy that has been the primary job generator over the last quarter century. Any health care plan that includes triggers or employer mandates will sink small business. Then it will be the nation's economy that needs to be saved.

As we wade through Washington's rhetoric, we should remember that in the deliberately obscure language of politics, a trigger or even a rose, by any other name, is probably a government mandate in disguise.

Jack Faris is president of the National Federation of Independent Business.