Archive

Archive for the ‘governement’ Category

On Putting Mexico Back In Its Place – Underneath America

November 3, 2011 Leave a comment

Mexico is like that unwanted wart, scab or pimple (any type of blemish) that appears somewhere on our body, that the more we “pick” at it the more of a nuisance, and the more problematic, it becomes for us.  But the more we try to ignore it, the more the irritation grows.  In other words, we’re damned if we do anything, we’re damned if we don’t.  And with Mexico, like the irritating scab that pops up on our being from time to time, sometimes we just give in to the “itch” and scratch it.  The problem with “giving in to the itch” of course is that it only makes the problem – the pimple, scab, whatever – worse that it was before we scratched it.

Mexico is a third world nation.  It has no one to blame for its lowly status but itself.  And despite the fact that America has done more for Mexico, given more aid, support and money, than any other nation in the world, still – Mexicans love to hate America.  Its politicians in particular, as one would gather listening to them speak about (vilify) America, especially those Mexican politicians vying to be its next President.

America’s newest scab (boil it you prefer) is former Mexico City Mayor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who is speaking his hate of America all across, of all places, American cities. (A tradition, it seems, with Mexican politicians running for President of Mexico.)

Said Obrador:

It is more effective and humane to implement cooperation in order to reach development, rather than insisting on giving priority to police and military cooperation.”

What could he possibly mean by “cooperation” other than more financial aid – money?  He wants America to stop defending its border with Mexico, where all Mexicans trying to illegally gain access to America go, because America is preventing them from attaining their goal of illegal entry.  Obrador wants America to open up our border and simply ignore the rush of Mexicans crossing over to the American side.  And once they are inside America, Obrador wants us to accept them as American citizens.  (Another tradition of Mexican Presidents)

Obrador continued:

It is not with military assistance or intelligence work, helicopters or weapons shipments that we will remedy the insecurity and violence problem in our country.”

Really?  At a time when Mexican drug cartels are more violent than ever, and that violence is spilling across into America, Obrador wants America to cease and desist from defending us, our border, to come to the aid of Mexico, not with “military assistance” or “helicopters” but with a huge chunk of our money confiscated in taxes; money we earned working our butts off, to make a life for ourselves and our families.

And what exactly would Obrador do with this money if, and once, he possesses it?

Said Obrador:

To incorporate young people back into Mexican society by giving them jobs and schools to continue their studies.”

In other words, Obrador would do with our money exactly what Obama wants to do with it – create a few hundred thousand public sector jobs that grow the size of government, forces more and more people to become fully dependent upon government to live their lives, but doesn’t do anything for the economy itself.  That type of socialistic approach doesn’t work in America, it doesn’t work anywhere in the world – it never has – nor would it work in Mexico.  It’s a waste of money any way you look at it.

If Mexico really wants America to pour billions and billions of dollars into its coffers; if Mexico really wants to put an end to its poverty, to put its “remaining” citizens back to work and become a nation where people are eager to flee to, and become a proud citizen of, instead of risking life and limb to escape from, it – Mexico – ought to open up its own borders and its land to American entrepreneurship, business and investment.

There is a golden opportunity for our two nations to join in partnership for the economic benefit of one another.  Mexicans needs jobs too, just as Americans do.  If Mexico really wants to see billions, tens and hundreds of billions, of American dollars pumped into its country, its economy, that can happen by bringing American business, investment and entrepreneurs into Mexico, opening up its land at low cost, in exchange for paying Mexicans a very fair wage – the equivalent of 9 or 10 U.S. dollars.

Mexico’s woes will not be solved by America giving it a chunk of “financial aid”, the vast bulk of which will ultimately find its way into the pockets of the corrupt, politician and drug lord alike.  Mexico’s woes will not be solved by America laying down its guard at the border, opening itself up to whatever wants to cross its path.  Mexico’s woes will not be solved by acquiescing to left leaning, socialist politicians like Obrador who demand American dollars, our money, at the same time he continues to slander us.

So long as Mexico continues down this path, it will remain a third world country of its own free will, and an irritating scab under the skin of America.  Fortunately, just as there are ointments for scabs, warts, pimples and the like, America has its own ointment to deal with the irritation that is Mexico.  We have our border fence, border security and patriotic Americans and American politicians, who are no longer doing nothing to curb the stem of illegal immigration into our country.

Mexico either can engage in a real partnership with America and become a nation on par with America, or it can see more of its citizens being returned, via Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to the poverty, the nothingness, they originally fled from, looking for a better opportunity than their own third world nation could provide.

Until then, Mexico’s place will rightly remain where it is – “underneath” America.

What say you, Mexico?

Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies! – Part 2

September 26, 2011 1 comment

Here is the link to Part 1 of Obama’s Lies; Obama’s Damned Lies; Obama’s Damnable Lies!

In President Barack Obama’s latest lie he asserts that:

Republican vision of government would “fundamentally cripple America.”

It must then be asked, what is the “Republican vision of government”?  Why does Obama say this vision will “cripple” America?  And why is this really nothing more than another Barack Hussein Obama lie, mmm, mmm, mmm?

The Republican vision of government, and of America, is very simple – a government that taxes less; a government that is smaller; a government that does not interfere so heavily in states rights and the personal freedom and liberty of all Americans as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Why is the Republican vision of taxing less “crippling” to America?

Obama, Democrats, liberals – they all assert that when taxes are cut this somehow equates to less overall revenue generation and this screws the poor.  In their minds, less money coming into government means less money for all the social programs they create and fund – and want to create and fund (and expand) – they say are intended to help “less fortunate” Americans.  They further attest that when taxes are raised, especially on the rich, this creates the new revenue necessary in order to provide for these programs.  Conversely, when taxes are cut, the money allocated for their social programs dries up, and said programs wither need to be cut or abolished.

This is yet another Barack Obama lie!

Whenever taxes are raised, whenever new taxes are created, whenever more money is taken out of the pockets of taxpayers this actually stifles revenue growth.  The reason is simple to anyone with a clear mind.  Rich people, in sound economic conditions, will invest capital in new projects; new innovations and inventions; research and development of new drugs and products that benefit everyone; the growth and expansion of their businesses, including the hiring of more employees, higher and more competitive salaries and benefit packages for those employees – all of which increases, not decreases, tax revenue.  The programs that Obama touts are absolutely unnecessary, absolutely useless, and are only there to tighten the grip of poorer Americans and ensure they keep voting Democrat.

Barack Obama hates entrepreneurship, in particular the non union, private business sector.  Obama hates wealth, as wealth equates to being independent of government.  What other explanation is there for someone who has waged a war on the American business sector?

Why is the Republican vision of less government “crippling” to America?

With all the red tape, bureaucracy and roadblocks in getting legislation passed, one would naturally assume a smaller government would also be a more efficient government.  Not liberals.  Not Barack Obama.   They demand an even larger, more encompassing government that reaches into the lives of all Americans, American business and American lifestyle.  Obama insists on the creation of new programs, like Obamacare, that has added trillions of dollars in new debt, and will continue adding trillions of dollars in even more debt for years to come.  More government programs to ensnare and entrap more Americans into government dependency.   More departments, more agencies, more government employees, more government in of itself is not the solution to poverty in America, nor is it the solution to economic growth and prosperity.  Obama says that it is.

This is also another Barack Obama lie!

More government creates more problems and allows for more money to “disappear” into thin air.  More government allows for more money to be hidden into obscure programs which either don’t really exist or are used merely as a front to payoff groups and organizations that voted for, and helped elect, a specific candidate.  More government allows huge sums of money to be transported virtually, if not completely, unseen, until long after it is too late to recoup it.  More government strangles economic growth, freedom and prosperity, individual liberty.  More government gives more power to politicians, and unelected governmental bureaucrats, who would desire to use that power in unethical and immoral ways to create artificial chaos for the purpose of tricking Americans into believing they need more government.

What would happen, for example, if the Department of Education, created in 1979, was abolished?  All that means is that the control, decision making and policies and funding of all public schools reverts back to the individual states.  It means states, and local communities, have greater power and influence and more flexibility to change what’s not working and become even more competitive, thereby becoming that much more attractive to parents wishing to relocate to another state and another community.  What’s wrong with that?  Only liberals, only Barack Obama, would see that as a problem.

Why is the Republican vision of more personal freedom “crippling” to America?

Expect for liberal’s, and Obama’s, insistence that women have “more personal freedom” to kill their unborn child, there is not much support for “personal freedom’ among Democrats, liberals or Barack Obama.  The government must control everything and everyone, because only government knows how best to guide our lives  and our decisions.  From healthcare to education; from gun control to food safety; from the cars we drive to the gas we buy for those cars – Obama believes government must have its hand – and his hand, by extension – in everything.

This, too, constitutes, another Barack Obama lie!

More government oversight, more governmental regulations, more government control into our lives and businesses is what is “crippling to America”.  Our economy is worse now because of Obama and the Democrat Party, and because of more government, more governmental regulations, more governmental programs and scams, more out of control governmental spending, etc.

“Evil” rich people are holding onto their money because the risk of losing it, of not making a profit on it, is much too great as a direct result of Obama and his draconian economic policies.  “Evil” rich people are not growing their businesses, are not hiring new employees – are laying more employees off – because the demands for their products and services has dropped, in direct correlation to Obama’s rigid economic policies.

It is Obama, the Democrat Party and liberals that are “crippling to America”.  It is Obama, the Democrat Party and liberals, their vision of government, that is “crippling America”.  It is those Americans who accept higher taxes, more government, less personal freedom out of ignorance or a true hatred and snobbish attitude of wealth and the wealthy in America, that is “crippling to America”.

It’s not Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party that is “crippling to America”.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Over? Don’t You Believe It!

September 20, 2011 Leave a comment

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Goes Into Effect (VIDEO).

The U.S. Military officially ending its long standing doctrine, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on gays and lesbians in the military.  And while this is a positive step, there will still be some very uncomfortable moments for all men and women in the military, both gay and straight, and among those young men and women who want to join, but do not support the idea of training, and fighting, alongside people they know are gay.  What this will do for future enrollment is yet to be seen.

It seems altogether silly that anyone, even when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was in effect, would be so offended , so uncomfortable with living alongside side a man or woman who happened to be gay.  Granted, there are religious implications, and many people oppose homosexuality for religious reasons.  However, once you actually join the military, you are bound to the rules and regulations of the military, not you own personal opinions, religious or otherwise.

Looking back at this issue, and having formed an opinion of it early on, it is an altogether perplexing situation, specifically from both a conservative and secular point of view.  Obviously conservatives by in large are deeply religious and oppose not only homosexuality in the military, but homosexuality in of itself.  And secularists, not bound by religious doctrine or dogma, and the majority of whom are liberals and who are very suspicious of religion anyway, support, and have supported the right of gays and lesbians to openly serve in the U.S. Military even before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell went into effect during the Clinton Administration, and have continued to fight it ever since.

However, the reason why homosexuality in the military should never have been an issue to begin with is that:

For any man or woman willing to volunteer to join an institution where they know in performing their sworn duty they could literally be killed in action fighting for their country, their constitution, and for our freedom – in the types of conditions, places, terrains, etc. one is forced to embed themselves, having to stand, sit, or even bed down next to and remain in close quarters or proximity with, someone who happens to be gay should be the least of their worries.  When bullets are flying everywhere, when comrades are being shot left and right and the smell of death permeates the air all around you, who has time to think, or care, about whether or not the soldier next to them is gay?

Perhaps the one question yet to actually be defined is – what does it mean to “serve openly”?  While many gays and lesbians in the military prior to the official ending of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were nonetheless partially open with those in their units they could trust, many others kept it to themselves for fear of being thrown out if their true sexual orientation was ever discovered.  Now, that fear has been lifted.   What are gays and lesbians going to do and, in particular, how are they going to conduct themselves?  In other words – now that they don’t have have to worry about being discharged for being homosexual, will that lead gays and lesbians to become brazen, outspoken, even militant?

The biggest concern, the only real and legitimate concern, is that now that they can serve openly will they become a distraction for their superior officers and fellow mates to the extent that it will bring down the whole unit, even the military itself?  Showering beside and bedding down next to someone you know is gay should never be an issue unless the individual attempts to make advances toward you, or forces themselves on you.  Otherwise, in the military, conditions force everyone into tight situations, especially during real combat.  Trust, then, is imperative and mandatory.

But will homosexuals in the military now, and in the future, begin to take advantage of this new policy and flaunt themselves with open conceit?  Or will they recognize they are American soldiers first, and homosexuals further down the list?  That they must conduct themselves in a manner congruous with the rules and regulations set forth by the U.S. Military?  That, gay or straight, no soldier ought to disgrace the Unites States military, or embarrass it, themselves or their fellow comrades?

And will straight soldiers, now and in the future, recognize that, although the soldier next to them may be gay, and they may be open about it, being gay in no way is detrimental to their unit?  That being gay in of itself, and having gays and lesbians in a unit, will in no way negatively affect the unit?  That it is possible to have gays in a unit, and still be fully operational and functional, and ready at a moments notice to be sent into hostile territory?

All of this remains yet to be seen, and it will be thoroughly tested.

Thankfully, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over, although it ought to have been decided and overturned, or remained intact, by the American people, not from political pressure on the military.  And because the American people have not been the ultimate deciders on this issue, this policy, because the military acquiesced not to the American people directly but rather to internal political pressure, it’s hard to imagine we have actually heard the ultimate end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Bust The Unions (Union Smuggery Knows No Limits)

September 19, 2011 Leave a comment

Andrew Breitbart to Public Sector Unions: Bring it On – Katie Pavlich.

What really happens to someone who opposes the reprehensible, vindictive terrorism perpetrated by unions and union thugs who use such tactics as a means to intimidate and bring into line anyone who might pose a threat to them and their livelihood?  Is it like in the movies and on television, where such people are physically and brutally harmed, or killed?

Make no mistake about it – it is!

In real life, this is what unions have devolved themselves into doing.  Whether you call it union thuggery, union buggery, union muggery – it all boils down to union smuggery – a long standing, deeply seeded arrogance and conceit ingrained among all unions and union heads.  Hostility and violence has become a staple, and very lucrative, way of life for them; it is all they know.  In public, in front of the cameras, they use violent words and innuendo (and sometimes they throw all innuendo out the window) to describe their frustration with capitalism, the free market, private business and the right to work without being forced to pay union dues.  It used to be in private, or deep into the night when all the lights went out, they put their words aside and used other, non conventional methods of persuasion.  However:

Look at open, broad daylight union smuggery in action here, here and here.  One has to wonder, who are the unions really looking out for?  Google it, check it out on YouTube, union smuggery is, except for the mainstream media, everywhere!   But don’t look upon this as discouraging.  On the contrary, these brazen, cheap assaults are clear evidence conservatives are winning.  Union thugs never had to commit so much time and energy, in public, to denouncing and denigrating us before.  We’re getting to them and they are panicking.  They are also getting very sloppy in their retaliations.

Recall all the hoopla and ballyhooing that occurred in Wisconsin earlier this year because its Governor, Scott Walker, had to balance his state budget and the unions, rather than coming to the table to compromise on an agreeable solution, told all the Democrats in the state legislature to flee the state.  Incidents like this happen all the time all over America, and more and more conservatives are standing up and fighting back. exposing unions for the thugs they are, and less and less afraid of retaliatory actions.  (By the way, Scott Walker succeeded in balancing his budget.  The Unions lost.  And they lost a lot more than they would have had they been grown up enough to come to the table early on and work with Walker.)

Take the Tea Party, for example.  A rising influence within the Republican Party.  Because of this grass roots effort, conservatives won the house back from the Democrats last November 2010.  And there is a growing sense, and polling evidence, we can take back the senate and the White House in November 2012.  Because unions are so heavily entrenched within the Democrat party, this does not bode well for them should Republicans – tea party conservatives in particular – retake power.   Unions, which support repressive and oppressive measures such as higher taxes, bigger government and less freedom, know conservatives will work to overturn and abolish these  pro union measures for pro conservative, pro America measures – less government, lower taxes and more personal freedom, including supporting every workers right to work in any state, in any business without being forced to pay union dues.

Unions won’t go away anytime soon, and they won’t go away quietly; and although union membership continues to dwindle throughout America as more businesses opt out of union representation and refuse to even consider partnering with a union, so long as unions can find a way into the pockets of Democrats and RINO Republicans, and other weak-minded, prone to corruption politicians, they, union thuggery, and union smuggery, will remain a contentious fixture in American society.  That is why we conservatives need to continue in our efforts to  -

Bust the unions!

 

Israel Has The Right To Exist (And To Expand Their Settlements)

September 18, 2011 Leave a comment

Israel, with roughly 8000 to 8500 square miles in total land value, is roughly equivalent with the state of New Jersey, which is actually only slightly larger.  Yet, the Palestinian Liberation Organization demands a piece of it for their own homeland.   And if it was not for the strong relationship Israel has with the United States (the Barack Obama Administration aside) not only would the PLO be demanding an even greater piece, but they would have, long ago, brazenly, and with the support of Hamas and most of the Middle East, invaded Israel and fought a very bloody, very costly war to take it.  Although Israel most likely would prevail in such a war, without the support of the United States, its only real ally, the casualties would have been considerably greater simply because, without the United States, lawless insurgents and terrorists would be that much more emboldened, leading to a greater death toll on both sides.

Israel already gave up the Gaza Strip in the name of peace, and in the hope of more peaceful relations with the Palestinians.  That has not come to fruition.  (The Israelis had constructed state of the art greenhouses which were promptly destroyed once the Palestinians took control of the land.  Obviously the Palestinians are not that much into environmentalism or the whole “going green” movement.)

Situations have only become worse.   The Palestinians have continued their attacks, and recently have stepped up those attacks, and won’t be satisfied until they get control of the West Bank and, eventually, the rest of Israel itself.  And because the Obama Administration has been, for the most part either silent, or teetering back and forth without a definitive resolution, and except for a statement Barack Obama made early on in his presidency in which he had hoped to see the United Nations welcome a new Palestinian state into it fold (he has since backed away from that), the misguided passion of the Palestinians has only grown, along with their hostility toward, and contempt for, Israel and their ever surmountable anger with Israel’s expanding settlements.

Now, the PLO is demanding the United Nations grant them statehood status, a dangerous move which, if it is aloud to proceed, will have devastating consequences, and almost certainly lead to war.   The PLO has already gone on record saying such a new Palestinian state would be devoid of any and all Jews.  Considering they want a part of Israel to claim as their own, (a piece the size of which they will never be satisfied with), land which is presently occupied with Jews, the ramifications are obvious – mass expulsions.  It’s hard to believe these Jews would go quietly.  They didn’t even go quietly when they were removed by their own government from the Gaza Strip.

The United States has promised to veto any move to allow Palestinian statehood, and to keep such a bid from ever reaching the United Nations.  Many are nonetheless fearful that in doing so, new violence would emerge.  However, it must be recognized that there would be violence regardless.  The PLO, Hamas, Palestinians in general, and the Middle East at large, have yet to affirm Israel’s own right to exist.  Quite humorous, then, and no hypocrisy whatsoever, this is exactly what the Palestinians are demanding for themselves.

The question has to be asked – do the Palestinians really want statehood, or do they really want the State of Israel itself.  In other words, would they accept statehood status if land was offered from Egypt, Syria, Iran or any other Middle east nation?  God knows these nations have plenty of open, fertile space between them to offer up the Palestinians.  (And not many, if any, Jews residing in the area.)  And such a move would be praised by the United States, and, although reluctantly, the U.N. (The U.N. is no fan of Israel.)  It would promote peace and prosperity for the Palestinians, promote pride in their newly formed state and gain accolades from leaders all over the world.  It is of no surprise the PLO is reluctant to even consider such an move.  Their agenda is clear – the annexation of all Israeli land and the annihilation of all the Jews.  This is their mantra and they won’t be satisfied until it has been met.

We, that is, America (there really isn’t anyone else) must be firm.  Absolutely no statehood for the Palestinians.  Not until long after they have ceased their attacks, given up entirely their goal of conquest, dismantled the PLO, Hamas and any other anti-Israel terror organization, accepted Israel’s right to exist and have shown and demonstrated a very real and genuine attempt to live peaceably with its Jewish neighbors.   They don’t have to invite each other over for tea, or even carry on a social conversation with one another.

But there must absolutely be peace.  A peace strongly enforced by a new Palestinian government, free of any links to terrorism or terrorists.  And if any Israeli land is to be annexed and incorporated into this new Palestinian state, (though this seems unnecessary) it ought to be done with the full cooperation of the Israeli government and its people.  Included in this agreement, a legal stipulation that if ever the Palestinians recreate the PLO, Hamas or any Palestinian organization, under any name, affiliate themselves with any anti-Israeli terror groups in any way, however remote; if the Palestinians ever again attempt to seize control of Israeli land, wage, or sponsor, attacks against Israel, or do not suppress such attacks by its own people, such a move would automatically revert any and all land earlier annexed for the new Palestinian state back to Israel.

Until that happens – the PLO, and all Palestinians, ought to keep their hands and their eyes off Israel.  It is the prize of the Israelis.

Communism Comes To Chicago (Buy Healthcare – Or Else!)

September 16, 2011 Leave a comment

City to workers: Join wellness program or pay $50 a month more – Chicago Sun-Times.

The opening paragraph of this story says it all:

City employees would see their monthly health insurance premiums rise by $50 unless they participate in a “wellness program” to manage chronic health problems such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure, under a private sector-style plan to be unveiled Friday.

Healthcare is in a crisis precisely because of government involvement.   Chicago is $500 million in the hole because of tight, draconian regulations and oversights bearing down on hospitals and healthcare.   Doctors are fleeing public healthcare and moving into private practice in droves.  Rahm Emanuel thinks forcing Chicago citizens to pony up $50/month for health care (or else) will solve this crisis – a crisis made and deepened by irresponsible, corrupt politicians.  And what does Chicago get for $50/month? (or else):

The program would begin by offering city employees and their dependents enhanced screening and wellness training to establish benchmarks and long-term goals, including weight loss, medication, exercise and kicking the smoking habit.

Wow!  What happens when you have a heart attack or need major surgery?  This whole program sounds like another scam to take away citizens rights and tighten government control.  One has to wonder where most of this money will go:

Coaches would ride herd over workers on a bi-monthly basis to make certain they’re following their prescribed nutritional, medical and physical fitness regimens. Those who refuse to participate would see their monthly premiums rise by $50. Those who meet their goals could see similar reductions.

Unless these “coaches” are working pro bono, they’re getting paid, and probably royally.  What exactly is meant by “riding herd” is unknown, but many Orwellian ideas come to mind.  And that $50/month – don’t expect it to remain static.  Once this scam is implemented, much like taxes, the cost will go up, up, up when stingy politicians realize what a cash cow this is.

“There’s no penalty for getting sick. But, if you choose not to be in it and do it on your own, you’re gonna pay $50 more a month and $50 for your wife. That’s not that much money,” said Lou Phillips, business manager of Laborers Union Local 1001

Words of comfort from the union.  What a surprise it comes with an ultimatum.  The only thing Mr. Phillips left out was the comment, “And we know where you live!”

Chicago has seen its population on the decline this past decade, and that trend will continue into the next decade for myriad reasons.  Forced to buy into a healthcare scam perpetrated by city government will only further drive more people away into more liberty friendly communities.

A Real Jobs Winner – Abolish The Fed. Mandate for Time And A Half…

September 13, 2011 1 comment

Or at least raise the minimum hours from 40 to 50 hours a week.

It’s infuriating enough that the federal government mandates how many hours in a given week we can work, but even more infuriating is that it set the bar too low.  Reality bites.  And the reality is – in this day and age, for many millions of us, 40 hours is just not enough time in a week to earn the amount of money we need in order to make ends meets.  Millions (and millions) of American workers are forced to take on a second and even a third job just to break even.  And we are talking part time jobs.  And the reason?  No fiscally competent, fiscally responsible employer wants to pay their employees overtime.

We all love the idea of getting paid overtime, but in the private sector, where most of the jobs are, overtime is impractical and used sparingly.  In the public sector overtime is used extensively, for obvious reasons, and where union contracts demand it.  Of course, time and a half would still apply to all work done on federal holidays, both in the private and public sector.

But what if the day came when that mandate was abolished?  What if an employee could work an extra ten of fifteen hours a week at the same job at regular pay?  That could mean an extra couple hundred dollars a week, and for those of us struggling to pay the bills, put food on the table and raise a family, that could make all the difference between poverty and independence.  It eliminates both the employees stress of having to look for another job to supplement income (and saves money on gas to and from a second job, wear and tear on the car, etc.) and the employers stress of having to find another part time worker to fill in the needed hours, the money it takes to place an ad for the position and the time it takes to interview and run back ground checks.  Everybody wins!

Ideally the mandate would be lifted altogether.  That may be more of a political fight our elected politicians would rather not touch.  But just raising it to 50 hours would still make a world of difference for workers, even the most cowardly of politician should see that.  And for those seeking employment, it would free up millions of jobs employees no longer need as “second jobs”, creating tremendous opportunities for the over 9% of American workers currently unemployed.  What politician would be so stubborn as to not see the benefit in a mere ten extra hours a week?  (Yes, there is a bit of both sarcasm and skepticism there.)

Time and a half after 40 hours/week may have been a “noble idea” when it was enacted, but now it is antiquated, out of date and in desperate need of revisiting in order to give all American workers the opportunity to increase their income, lift themselves out of despair and realize the American dream.  We’d all love to work 40 hours a week (or less) and make ends meet, keep our independence and our dignity, but until our government stops regulating business and gets the hell out of the way it’s a dream deferred.

Tell your congress man/woman the time has come to abolish this inconvenient and irksome law, or at least raise the bar.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.