Wednesday, October 19, 2011

I'll be traveling for the next ten days.

I'll check in as I can.

Until later.

Culinary coup for 'Occupy Wall Street' - New York Post

Big Thank You for the compassion and dedication to democracy.

Thompson was the only caretaker of these animals?

How is it that all these large cats and bears were seen running loose before anyone at the zoo reported it?  All these animals were cared for by one person?  

...Deputies found Thompson's body on Tuesday when they went to the farm on Tuesday on reports of wild animals running free....

What does Jack Hanna have to say about this?

...Officers armed with assault rifles have been patrolling the rural area and hunting down the animals, which include bears, big cats and orangutans.

As of Wednesday morning, 31 of the 48 animals had been shot and killed. Some had been recovered and eight were still unaccounted for as of Wednesday morning, Hanna said....


The distribution of funds for programs often have rules.  This is no different and the States have to submit a plan for the funds of the " Program."


(a) IN GENERAL.— For a State to be eligible to receive an allotment under section 322, a State shall submit to the Secretary of Labor a State plan in such form and containing such information as the Secretary may require, which at a minimum shall include:

A description of the use, the bill uses the word activities, for the funds, the distribution amounts, the OUTCOMES anticipated,...

(3) a description of coordination of activities to be carried out under this part with activities under , the , and other appropriate Federal programs;

Cited Law:


Public Law 105-220
Aug. 7, 1998       
112 Stat. 936
105th Congress

An Act

To consolidate, coordinate, and improve employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs in the United States, and for other purposes.

Subtitle A--Workforce Investment Definitions

Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (click here)


To provide for the establishment of a national employment system and for cooperation with the States in the 
promotion of such system, and for other purposes.
SEC. 1. In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of a national system of public employment 
offices, the United States Employment Service shall be established and maintained within the Department of 
SEC. 2. For purposes of this Act--

The State Plan includes a timeline of implementation, the number of EUC...

I was hoping the participants were qualified in some way.  My first impression at the 
beginning of this section was that corruption of the funds could be conducted if the State 
considered a prison population on work furlow to be eligible for the programs.  It would allow 
calculation of an institutionalized person for monies.  Not that prisons aren't in need of funding 
for programs, but, these monies are to be spent on persons outside of prison in need of a job.  
If prisoners are allowed to be counted the State could bank roll the monies while reporting on 
outcomes without qualifying as to whom they were reporting.  In doing so it would also askew 
the outcomes as to the success of the programs in reporting any of the "Obama Monies."  
Republicans love to make Democrats, especially this President, look as fools for the funding they 
infuse into the economy for the purpose of job creation and/or unemployment relief.

So for the purpose of this bill the eligible participants are ECU Claimant (persons enrolled in unemployment) 



(b) PLAN SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL.—A State plan under this section shall be submitted 
to the Secretary of Labor for approval not later than 30 days after the Secretary issues guidance 
relating to submission of such plan.

There is probably an element to the bills President Obama and/or any Democratic legislator
writes that States don't appreciate.  The laws passed to the States recognize States Rights and 
have the option of 'opting out,' but, with most of these laws due to the nature of the problem 
there are timelines and time limits for application of the funding.  In order for a State to comply 
with the federal law, especially true in Red States, they may have to hire people to carry out the 
law.  The States, especially where there are currently Republican Governors downsizing 
government and making processes less democratic, would find that distaste to their own agendas 
of political discourse if they are forced to hire people to carry out laws to support their work force.  
As a rule Red States like to either contract services out where they can to private entities (whether 
it is more efficient or not) and/or have skeleton work force in their State with warehouse like offices
that service the public.  A common State office is usually a large multi-purpose room with cubicles 
of movable walls and ancient office furniture.  The Red States squeeze every nickle when it comes 
to State government infrastructure spending, hence shrinking their tax base by limiting the 
amount of commerce they do with the public sector.  Old buildings, old furniture, etc.  The Red 
States sincerely know how to hurt themselves and they do it so well.  Limited government. 

(c) PLAN MODIFICATIONS.—A State may submit modifications to a State plan that has 
been approved under this part, and the Secretary of Labor may approve such modifications, 
if the plan as modified would meet the requirements of this part and are appropriate and 
adequate to carry out the purposes of this part.

Betcha they ask for time line extensions on a regular basis to limit new hiring of State employees. 
I'd curious to look into that.  There is a difference between being prudent and simply OUTDATED.


(a) IN GENERAL.—A State may use funds allotted to the State under this part to establish and 
administer a Bridge to Work program described in this section.

(b) DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM.— In order to increase individuals’ opportunities to move to 
permanent employment, a State may establish a Bridge to Work program to provide an EUC 
claimant with short-term work experience placements with an eligible employer, during which 
time such individual—

What would probably be really curious to look into are stories of State employed maintenance 
mechanics and the amount of bubble gum, tape and bailing twine they use as opposed to BEST
PRACTICES.  It would make an interesting compare and contrast that results in excess State 
spending opposed to the return to the economy and public interface.  The public does not 
necessarily view 'old office' space as a place of 'good service' to the monies they spend in tax dollars.

The "Bridge to Work Program" is a try it before you buy it approach to employment supported
by all kinds of safety nets for the citizen and an 'easy out' for the employers.  It could work, but,
it can also do damage to people sincerely trying to 'prove themselves' to an employer when perhaps
it is simply a revolving door to the employer to keep operating costs to a minimum.  I don't know 
the statistic success of these programs, but, politically 'they look good' to voters.

(1) shall be paid emergency unemployment compensation payable under title IV of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as wages for 
work performed, and as specified in subsection (c);


This program has voluntary participation and require a minimum of 25 hours per week of work.  
The program has exemption from usual job reporting and work hours impact on benefits during 
the time the participant is under the program as opposed to permanently hired.  The provisions 
do not refer to employment longevity of this program in reporting statistics.  At least I haven't run 
across that yet.

(4) the program shall be structured so that individuals described in paragraph (1) may participate in the program for up to—

(A) 8 weeks, and

(B) 38 hours for each such week;

(5) a State shall ensure that all individuals participating in the program are covered by a 
workers’ compensation insurance program; and

(6) the program meets such other requirements as the Secretary of Labor determines to be 
appropriate in guidance issued by the Secretary.


(1) CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYER.—A State may certify as eligible for 
participation in the program under this section any employer that meets the eligibility criteria 
as established in guidance by the Secretary of Labor, except that an employer shall not be 
certified as eligible for participation in the program described under subsection (b)—


(B) unless such employer provides assurances that it has not displaced existing workers pursuant to the 
requirements of subsection (h).

In the provision below there is a fair amount of 'personnel infrastructure' needed for this much QUALITY 
ASSURANCE.  Many states won't have a problem complying and have quality assurance standards already, 
but, there are going to be states where these standards are not important, but, should be.  No state or federal
program should ever exist without quality assurance to the tax payer that their investments are well made with
dividends that prove their faith in their government.

(2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Funds allotted to a State under this part for the program—

(A) shall be used to—

(i) recruit employers for participation in the program;

(ii) review and certify employers identified by eligible individuals seeking to participate in the program;

(iii) ensure that reemployment and counseling services are available for program participants, including services describing the program under subsection (b), prior to an individual’s participation in such program;

(iv) establish and implement processes to monitor the progress and performance of individual participants for the duration of the program;

(v) prevent misuse of the program; and

(vi) pay augmented wages to eligible individuals, if necessary, as described in subsection (e); and

(B) may be used—

Quality Assurance of government with such standards as noted above would make an interesting platform 
for elections.  I doubt there are many voters that actually know how well their tax dollars are spent in relation
to outcomes.

(e) PAYMENT OF AUGMENTED WAGES IF NECESSARY.—In the event that the wages described in 
subsection (c)(1) are not sufficient to equal or exceed the minimum wages that are required to be paid by an 
employer under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) or the 
applicable State or local minimum wage law, whichever is higher, a State shall pay augmented wages to a 
program participant in any amount necessary to cover the difference between—

(1) such minimum wages amount; and

(2) the wages payable under subsection (c)(1).

Assurance of minimum wage.  That is sad.  A state program has to be legislated to be sure its participants are 
receiving minimum wage.  Wow.  Minimum wages are being propagated as viable for best outcomes to state 
programs.  Wow.  Where has the integrity of 'work vs pay' gone in the USA?  Are we all going to be working
for SUBSISTENCE wages?  Are we?  The state programs seem to indicate that.

And to think that "Eligible Employers" have to be subsidized for achieving the goal of minimum wage standards
is just about as immoral as it comes.  Do these participants get to say "NO" to an offer of employment under
this provision especially considering the wage they are working for is subsidized by the state and once
employed won't be?  Participants will be leaving a program that pays them more than the employer they are
going to be working for on a permanent basis.  The participant needs to have that information BEFORE they 
begin employment with an employer of this program.

That subsidy is the carrot and stick to this program, too.  I don't believe in the lack of integrity (an intangible) 
of this employer-state interface.  I believe the participant will be victimized more than not.  Either an employer
needs the employee and treats them with dignity and anticipation or they don't.  

under this section shall be considered as income for the purposes of determining eligibility for and the 
amount of income transfer and in-kind aid furnished under any Federal or Federally assisted program 
based on need.

The participant cannot be penalized to other assistance, such as Food Stamps or Medicaid or SCHIP when
they participate in the program.  Will they afterward though?


There is to be disincentive for a participant to the program.  The program should be an incentive to build a 
relationship with a potential employer.  It would be nice if it works out that way.  It would be best if the 
participant is not left in worse condition financially if they are offered permanent work than they were 
before entering the program, too.  I don't doubt the disincentives are removed, however, what about the 
disincentive that employment may be worse for their financial circumstances than unemployment and other
compensation?  When is that dynamic removed?  When is the private sector employment incentive be a 
sincere opportunity to value than other options?  When does that happen?  When are people eager to leave
unemployment for the improved quality of life they and their family will have once they have 'landed the job.' 

Where there are industries without unions there are profound deficits of quality of life.  Take for instance trade
unions where 'union halls' are the place prospective employees receive a 'stamp of reporting' as a qualification
for 'work search' to unemployment.  The union hall is actually a better job placement agency than any 
unemployment office.  It is where unemployment participants can actually count on knowing when they are
needed and will go back to receiving their 'good wages' again.  THAT is incentive to be off unemployment 
and not arbitrary removal of benefits for the sake of political pandering in states where citizens can't even 
imagine the 'idea' of a union hall where qualified people report for work opportunities.  Union halls are 
frequently the place where interpersonal relationships with others add to finding work and good pay and also
add to competency of employable skills.  It is where skilled labor can find information to update and improve
their skills.  No one in a union hall wants to be on unemployment.  They want to be working.  Their families 
suffer when they are on unemployment as opposed to when they are working.  It is a place where emotional
support to the unemployed is found as well.  The staff of the union halls actually seek to make the experience
better, but, work as hard as the skilled labor to be sure unemployment doesn't happen for long, but, only 
between jobs.  The benefits to employers of unionized workers speaks to the competency of the workers as
well as their willingness to 'love their job.'  It is not only gratifying to be a skilled laborer, but, it proves a
person is worth their 'hours on the job.'  If employers want to 'hire skilled labor' as they need them, then there
should be unions that can assure the quality of that labor.  The very convenience of that option to an employer
should be enough to INCENTIVE unions where they have never been before.

That's what bothers me about some of the attitudes of Congressmen and women that actually believe 
unemployment benefits are due to laziness and a disincentive to work.  They don't understand the benefit 
of work over non-work.  They are from 'oppressed wage' states.  They don't care about the quality of life
of the employed as an incentive to remaining employed and skilled.  They don't care to know that dynamic 
either.  They are dangerous to the Middle Class and the integrity of the tax base of this country.


(1) PROHIBITION.—An employer shall not use a program participant to displace (including a partial 
displacement, such as a reduction in the hours of non-overtime work, wages, or employment benefits) any current employee 
(as of the date of the participation).

(2) OTHER PROHIBITIONS.—An employer shall not permit a program participant to perform work 
activities related to any job for which—

(A) any other individual is on layoff from the same or any substantially equivalent position;

(B) the employer has terminated the employment of any employee or otherwise reduced the workforce 
of the employer with the intention of filling or partially filling the vacancy so created with the work activities 
to be performed by a program participant;
(C) there is a strike or lock out at the worksite that is the participant’s place of employment; or

(D) the job is created in a manner that will infringe in any way upon the promotional opportunities of 
currently employed individuals (as of the date of the participation).

Exactly.  How many employers within this program actually use it for their work force.  The problem I have 
with this; is that; if these employers are looking for qualified workers to offer a good quality of life with 
employment; why aren't the unemployed finding them anyway?  Why are the states even spending monies
on these programs if the jobs are viable in the market place to begin with?  There is an inherent understanding
that recipients of unemployment are unable to find work or are not trying to find work or simply can't seem to 
make it happen regardless of reporting a job search.  I think these programs are strange in that they have 
perspective employment, but, are somehow not finding good employees.  I find that odd, especially in such a 
depressed economy for the Working Class.  It seems to me there is 'something "W"rong' here. 

(j) LIMITATION ON EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION.—If, after 24 weeks of participation in the program, an employer has not made an offer of suitable long-term employment to any individual described under subsection (c)(1) who was placed with such employer and has completed the program, a State shall bar such employer from further participation in the program. States may impose additional conditions on participating employers to ensure that an appropriate number of participants receive offers of suitable long term employment.

Exactly.  And if the employers come up against the six month limit and offer employment, but, it turns out it is 
unsustainable employment, then what?  They seem like a strange waste of state and federal monies.  I know 
they are popular with Republicans, but, unless a participant is actually receiving or has received training to 
target jobs areas where they exist what good are these programs?  I want to understand 'the interface' problem
between unemployed person and perspective employer better rather than a program.  Where is it failing both 
of them?  I believe the states with such programs really need to look at the LACK OF SUCCESS of 
employers and the unemployed to find each other and why that is occurring.  Where are the barriers?  Language?
Culture?  WAGES AND BENEFITS?  There is a reason why these programs exist and I am wondering if 
they aren't simply political volleys.

(2) CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.—An individual who opts to discontinue participation in such program, is terminated from such program by a participating employer, or who has completed participation in such program, and who continues to meet the eligibility requirements for emergency unemployment compensation under title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), shall receive emergency unemployment compensation payments with respect to subsequent weeks of unemployment, to the extent that amounts remain in the account established for such individual under section 4002(b) of such Act or to the extent that such individual commences receiving the amounts described in subsections (c), (d), or (e) of such section, respectively.

It isn't their fault if the program fails them.  It was an option and it may be a bad option for them of which they
don't realize until participation begins.


(a) IN GENERAL.—A State may use the funds allotted to the State under this part to provide a wage insurance program for EUC claimants.

(b) BENEFITS.—The wage insurance program provided under this section may use funds allotted to the State under this part to pay, for a period not to exceed 2 years, to a worker described in subsection (c), up to 50 percent of the difference between—
(1) the wages received by the worker at the time of separation; and

(2) the wages received by the worker for reemployment.

There it is.  A step down program so people can adjust their lives to less wages coming into their lives.  Here
 we go with the assault on the tax base.  

(c) INDIVIDUAL ELIGIBILITY.—The benefits described in subsection (b) may be paid to an individual who is an EUC claimant at the time such individual obtains reemployment and who—

(1) is at least 50 years of age;

(2) earns not more than $50,000 per year in wages from reemployment;

(3) is employed on a full-time basis as defined by the law of the State; and

(4) is not employed by the employer from which the individual was last separated.


(a) IN GENERAL.—A State may use funds allotted under this part to provide a program of enhanced 
reemployment services to EUC claimants. In addition to the provision of services to such claimants, the 
program may include the provision of reemployment services to individuals who are unemployed and have 
exhausted their rights to emergency unemployment compensation under title IV of the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2008, (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note). The program shall provide 
reemployment services that are more intensive than the reemployment services provided by the State 
prior to the receipt of the allotment under this part.

(b) TYPES OF SERVICES.—The enhanced reemployment services described in subsection (a) may 
include services such as—

(3) case management;

Case Management?  That is a Social Worker capacity.  Since when does unemployment qualify anyone to
have the state manage their lives?  If a participant can't manage their own employment then there is something
grossly wrong here.  I don't believe the unemployment offices are this invasive.  I think it is a privacy issue 
where the state or federal government doesn't belong.

A State may use funds allotted to the State under this part, in an amount specified under an approved State plan, for the administrative costs associated with starting up the self-employment assistance program described in section 4001(i) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note).

I like that.  I like the fact the unemployed are respected for their skills and the potential for self employment.


(a) IN GENERAL.— A State may use funds allotted under this part to provide a program for innovative 
activities, which use a strategy that is different from the reemployment strategies described in 
sections 324-327 and which are designed to facilitate the reemployment of EUC claimants. In addition 
to the provision of activities to such claimants, the program may include the provision of activities to
individuals who are unemployed and have exhausted their rights to emergency unemployment 
compensation under title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, 
(Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note)....


The Secretary of Labor may establish through guidance, without regard to the requirements of
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, such additional requirements, including requirements 
regarding the allotment, recapture, and reallotment of funds, and reporting requirements, as the 
Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure fiscal integrity, effective monitoring, and appropriate 
and prompt implementation of the activities under this Act.

The Secretary of Labor shall provide to the appropriate Committees of the Congress and make available 
to the public the information reported pursuant to section 329 and the evaluations of activities carried out 
pursuant to the funds reserved under section 322(a)(1).

SEC. 331. STATE.

For purposes of this part, the term “State" has the meaning given that term in section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).

Fine.  The next part of the bill begins on Page 106.  The topic is:



The fact the unemployment circumstances are so profound in 2011, the incentives to having unions within 
a state needs to be examined by every state governor and legislature as a potential failure in quality of life 
and quality of employment in relation to disincentives to work.  I know the political thinking that people would
be employed if they worked for dirt cheap wages, but, it might explain why the states are so strapped for 
monies in their treasuries if the average worker is making minimum wage.  The more minimum wage employees
there are in a state the more fiscal stress within that state.  The average wage of a state should improve in time 
and not disintegrate that assaults their sovereignty and that of the federal system as well.