Obama wants a new protected class

Lowering the costs and risks associated with hiring employees results in more hiring.  Raising costs and risks associated with hiring employees results in less hiring.  This axiom is lost on the Obama Administration and like-minded liberals. That being the case, don't even try explaining to them the concept that, as a business owner, the easier it is to fire, the more employees I'm likely to hire. That blows their social-engineering sockets.

Companies face costly, complex, and ever-increasing employment laws and an army of federal agencies, bureaucrats, and trial lawyers eager to enforce --and profit-- from them.  The result is a big, wet, collectivist blanket thrown over the economy, higher unemployment, more dependency, and less liberty. 

If the President's 155-page, nearly half-a-trillion dollar tax and spend bill becomes law, prospective hirers will be hit with more legal hurdles.  The bill, ironically dubbed the American Jobs Act, includes over four pages of provisions that would create a new protected class: the unemployed.  Specifically, the bill would prohibit discrimination of job applicants on the basis of their status as unemployed.

While such a law would be a boon for the labor bar and the culture of victimhood, it would have opposite its intended effect on hiring, assuming you buy into the premise that the actual goal of the bill is to increase employment.  Rep. Louie Gohmert (R - TX), who has been an outspoken critic of the bill and the unemployed-as-protected class proposal in particular, thinks the Act should be titled "The Plaintiffs' Lawyers Full Employment Bill."

The logic that lowering employers' litigation risks will lead to greater employment escapes liberals.  And overlooked in such a meddling provision, however well intended, is that every newly hired currently employed person will leave behind a vacant position in need of filling.

This country needs another protected class like it needs another Solyndra. But this bill isn't about increasing employment, self-sufficiency, and prosperity. Like this President, it is about "classes" and class warfare, special interest groups, and identity politics. The primary website touting the "jobs bill," paid for by  Democratic National Committee, prominently and unabashedly proclaims the supposed "impact on African Americans," "impact on Latinos," "impact on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," "impact on Low-Income Families," "impact on Women, "impact on Veterans," and "impact on Young People." Not a member of one of these select groups or just think of yourself as an American who is concerned about America (not further partitioned)?  Sorry, Obama and his spending bill just aren't into you.

Lowering the costs and risks associated with hiring employees results in more hiring.  Raising costs and risks associated with hiring employees results in less hiring.  This axiom is lost on the Obama Administration and like-minded liberals. That being the case, don't even try explaining to them the concept that, as a business owner, the easier it is to fire, the more employees I'm likely to hire. That blows their social-engineering sockets.

Companies face costly, complex, and ever-increasing employment laws and an army of federal agencies, bureaucrats, and trial lawyers eager to enforce --and profit-- from them.  The result is a big, wet, collectivist blanket thrown over the economy, higher unemployment, more dependency, and less liberty. 

If the President's 155-page, nearly half-a-trillion dollar tax and spend bill becomes law, prospective hirers will be hit with more legal hurdles.  The bill, ironically dubbed the American Jobs Act, includes over four pages of provisions that would create a new protected class: the unemployed.  Specifically, the bill would prohibit discrimination of job applicants on the basis of their status as unemployed.

While such a law would be a boon for the labor bar and the culture of victimhood, it would have opposite its intended effect on hiring, assuming you buy into the premise that the actual goal of the bill is to increase employment.  Rep. Louie Gohmert (R - TX), who has been an outspoken critic of the bill and the unemployed-as-protected class proposal in particular, thinks the Act should be titled "The Plaintiffs' Lawyers Full Employment Bill."

The logic that lowering employers' litigation risks will lead to greater employment escapes liberals.  And overlooked in such a meddling provision, however well intended, is that every newly hired currently employed person will leave behind a vacant position in need of filling.

This country needs another protected class like it needs another Solyndra. But this bill isn't about increasing employment, self-sufficiency, and prosperity. Like this President, it is about "classes" and class warfare, special interest groups, and identity politics. The primary website touting the "jobs bill," paid for by  Democratic National Committee, prominently and unabashedly proclaims the supposed "impact on African Americans," "impact on Latinos," "impact on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," "impact on Low-Income Families," "impact on Women, "impact on Veterans," and "impact on Young People." Not a member of one of these select groups or just think of yourself as an American who is concerned about America (not further partitioned)?  Sorry, Obama and his spending bill just aren't into you.

RECENT VIDEOS