Let's Be Blunt

POSTED BY JHW22

What would you do if your boss said he was morally opposed to providing health care plans that cover pregnancy if you are in your second marriage because you were divorced from your first? And then you got pregnant with your new husband. Would you have to quit your job? Find a private policy to cover your health care? Scrape the money together? What if a female business owner thought prostate cancer was something she didn't want to cover in her company-provided plans? What would her male employees do? This Blunt amendment could mean YOU don't get health care coverage through your job. So, where ya gonna get it?

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 11, 2011

Partnering with the Private Sector to Spur Hiring

President Obama's Weekly Address - April 3, 2010

Holiday Greetings

Cry Me A River

Alberto Gonzales can't find a job.

Gonzales: "What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?"

Do you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing "You're Breaking My Heart."

Social Security Sabotage

Thirty-two sponsors of a crap-ass bill in the House of Representatives think it's a good idea that every hire, EVERY HIRE of the 55 million yearly in the U.S. be approved by the government. You're applying for an engineering position? Making ends meet with a part-time job at the local Home Depot? How about garbage collection or a job at McDonald's? We'll have to verify you are a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant. Isn't that what having a Social Security number is all about?

What's the problem with the New Employee Verification Act? Who in the hell is going to manage this colossal administrative nightmare? The Department of Social Security, the same department that is already understaffed and way behind on current issues. But we can trust the government with this one right? I mean, the No Fly List works so well now.

...Business groups opposed the idea of the state requiring companies to use E-Verify.
They worried that mistakes in the system could result in qualified legal workers being turned down for a job. This mirrors concerns nationwide, in addition to worries that the system is ripe for abuse and is a potential bureaucratic quagmire.

...Caroline Fredrickson, chief of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, said the legislation would create a “no-work list” in the Washington bureaucracy.
“Americans should not have to ask their federal government if they have permission to accept a new job,” she said.
Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the new workload would overwhelm an understaffed administration. Already, she said, “disability cases are piling up and needy people are waiting years to receive their benefits.”

...There is no official cost estimate, but some think it could run as much as $10 billion over nine years for such things as additional workers, equipment and online capacity.

...the U.S. Government Accountability Office... said a mandatory system could be vulnerable to fraud and abuse and questioned whether the system could detect employees who present genuine but stolen Social Security numbers.

$10 billion cost to run, in an already understaffed department, spells doom for Social Security. Isn't that the ultimate goal? Who'll take over the system you ask? Ask Dubya. I'm sure Wall Street will be magnanamous and take that $8 trillion off our shoulders to invest for us... for a small fee.