McDonnell's card-check ploy fails reality check

Thank you for a compelling answer. We all know the liberal hypocritical truth. One claims to be so supportive of the plight of the working person but in reality talk is extremely cheap.

with everything the Pilot says in this editorial, but I have to point out yet again their unending hypocrisy when such things suit their argument du jour!

From the column: "Rather than consider how best they could help constituents survive the recession, Republican lawmakers gloated that they had bested President Barack Obama and Gov. Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, as if the whole thing were a game."

Since when does politics not include this? Of course, the Pilot would never report on any instances of the Dems doing this, even though we all know the Dems engage in such practices themselves. Anyone remember the Dems going very public with their own "go negative" strategy in Bush's second term? Ever see an editorial about that? No, you didn't. I have no problem with the Pilot pointing these things out, I DO have a problem with their usual one sided presentation of them. If the situation was reveresed, and they were indeed calling out Dems in this column, you would have had the obligatory reference to Repub practices as well. They conveniently don't saddle themselves with such requirements when their ardor is focused on someone like McConnell. So typic

No, I won't. Do your own research. My understanding of the law now is that employers do not pay into the unemployment insurance fund for part time or for seasonal employees, so if such an employee were discharged, such an employee would not be eligible for unemployment insurance compensation in Virginia.

So would Mr. Barrett please provide us with truthful benefits policies for non-exempt and part time workers at his company. The web site doesn't have any employment section. Or how about SPSA since he is on the board of directors?

I know, I know "awaiting staff approval" because about 50% of my posts get deleted by the guess who.

Well, my point was that the receipt by the Commonwealth of the $150M in extended unemployment benefits, when paid to eligible workers who had lost their jobs, allows them to contine to patronage Virginia businesses, so while there is a cost to this change in policy, there is also a benefit. I think that the business community, the large majority of whom abhor the corporate greed that led to this near collapse of our economy, missed a rare opportunity to show compassion, empathy, and plain old ordinary sympathy with workers harmed by corporate greed, incompetence, and failure to act in a business like fashion to prevent this near catastrophy. Yes, I admit some self interest as well as tenants who get continued business from patrons who receive those extended benefits may benefit my employer as well. Point is, we are all in this mess together, and McDonnell and the republicans, and the Chambers of Commerce, made a bad decision on this issue and failed to do the right thing.

You didn't answer C.B's question Mike.

Brian Moran will be the next Governor.

McD does not stand a chance as Republicans continue to run on issues that have no importance and only want to TRY and block anything a Democratic President is trying to do. This is not fun and games time for Republicans, but that seem to be their only current platform.

If people think this is a "leftist" newspaper based on its opinions on card check, Bob McDonnell, or politics, then the "right" is truly a scary position on the political horizon.

And if the "dangers inherent in that proposal" i.e. EFCA, means that "politics would play too big a role at the workplace," the person presenting the opinion is management and not a "regular" employee, because in the place I work, politics is the only game in town.

Bob McDonnell has a tendency to take extreme positions on many issues and uses arguments that are shallow and arrogant. Extremism, coupled with arrogance, never moves an argument forward nor does it promote mutual cooperation.

Of course, as you read C.B.'s post, you can discern that he is not just against receiving the extra federal allotment, he is opposed to unemploynet insurance in general. He ignores the fact that we have this program so people who lost their jobs without cause can live and support their familiesw while they look for work. In the current scenario, most Americans who have joined the ranks of the unemployed are victims of a system of organized greed and corporate corruption that is unparalleled in the history of our nation. The fact that wall street essentially continued securitization of assets that most of them knew were either worthless or worth less than advertised, because they could earn millions if not billions in fees, is corruption of the grossest kind. To deny extended unemployment benefits to many of the hard working Americans caught up in this debacle is to practice hard heartedness at the highest level.

...count the times any state or local government has ended an assistance program.....uhhhhh .... uhhhmmmm.... maybe exactly never.

Name one entitlement that has been repealed. Don't say welfare as that was just renamed with bigger payouts through "public assistance" and EIC. You know as well as I that, if approved, there would be a liberal outcry of why the funding was being stopped after 2 years by the mean repubicans. That is why your liberal friends and media are trying so hard to paint a favorable light of how so "little" it "will" cost after the porkulous money runs out. It is a catch 22. If part timers get a real job then they qualify, if career students finish and get a real job then they qualify. No problem.

has to continue the extra unemployment benefits after the 2 years are up.

They can if they so choose, but the legislature can return to the original level of funding that now exists.

Like you said, drop it.

Is there a backlash against the banks for begging non-qualified borrowers to take money, yet there some of you have NO PROBLEM taking money from the federal government any time they offer it? The commonwealth picks up the tab, and we can't afford benefits for PART-TIMERS after the fed money runs out. Has anyone noticed how giving MORE money to people who don't have jobs tends to to make unemployment worse over time? Now we want to increase money to part-timers?

"costs the Commonwealth our share of federal stimulus".

Ummm...it "costs" the state nothing and there is no "share" as in fair share of porkulous. What we do not "share" is complicity in taking money from by far the largest (2 trillion a year) deficeit creating "spending" bill ever concieved. A bill that over half of which does nothing but pump money we don't have into porkulous social spending and already bloated state budgets with strings attached. Republican leaders correctly read the fine print and correctly said NO THANKS. And to top it off, one liberal mouth likes to spout about how little it costs businesses in taxes but the other liberal mouth likes to spout about how much money it brings to businesses. Make up your mind as $5 from peter doesn't just morph into $1 million for paul. Lastly, this money was for part timers. Perhaps Mr. Barrett would like to fill us in on truthful benefit policies for non-exempt or part time workers at his company.

If a political leader and candidate endorses action that costs the Commonwealth our share of federal stimulus, and then tries to obfuscate that endorsement by confusing it with another issue, I think it is the responsibility of the free press to point out that obfuscation. The Pilot made it very clear it agrees with McDonnell on the card-check issue, but has taken him to task for endorsing the refusal of republicans in the House of Delegates to accept extended unemployment benefits. By not accepting this money, it hurts individuals and businesses as well that would have received that money from eligible recipients as they purchase food, gas, other necessities, and training. By refusing the money, it simply makes those funds available to our competitors. Frankly, this is an issue that must be explained by a candidate for Governor, no matter their party.

There are too many questions concerning this dead horse but a few are:
1. Why does there have to be a stipulation to continue the extra funding at state expense after the porkulous runs out? Drop it and there is no argument.
2. If the extra burden is only a few dollars a year, then how can the extra benefit equal anything more that "a few dollars" a year?
3. Part time jobs notoriously don't have any benefits for a reason. Why is it so important to change it and to what benefit? People come and go frequently in this market.
4. What is the incentive to finish schooling and get back to work if your schooling is being paid for and you get a never ending stipend to boot?
5. Why isn't there a fair reporting of what the GA DID increase in the form of expanded unemployment to the prior full timers?
6. What is the obligation of the "poor" to be responsible for their own choices and actions? Gaming of the system has become, well, a game and a very fruitful one at that.
7. Why are Democrats and the Pilot the only ones that incessantly "critcize" this issue? This has become a 3 times a week dead horse.

This paper and its editorials are so far left leaning that I am suprised they can even stand up. They will do anything they can to support ANY DEMOCRAT especially if they have the Philadering Bill Clinton on this canadiate's side. The Problem or shall we call it like it is, ThIS paper and it's editors fai;l to tell the whole truth concerning these UNEMPLOYMENT Benefits, Yes the extend to cover some people longer but what the Virginia Pilot IS NOT TELLING is that in 2 yrs when the FEDERAL Mandated money runs out the state and it's businesses will have to continue supporting these same benefits by raising TAXES or NOT HIRING new employee's. So editors Why is it that you publish these half truth letters knowing these facts are undistubable? If we need anythig right now it is to get the FEDERAL Government out of our back pockets and let the Small Businesses prosper so they can continue to hire people.

This post will be delayed or deleted after review by the editoral staff and deemed offensive because it does not support Liberal IDEAS.

Can the Op Ed board go any further left? It's comical to read the same Republican bashing every week. Voters do not want to add more debt to our huge national debt by paying unemployment benefits for part time workers. The VP lost all moderate balance during the last election. Voters are smarter than the Op Ed board gives them credit. The Dems are good and Republicans are bad theme sung here will fail in the next election. Voters actually look at the issues and a majority do not want more government debt.

The VP Editorial Board is supporting the "Not Republican" candidate. I wonder, have you decided yet which of the Democrat contenders you will try to get us to vote for?

It matters not VP, you lost any semblance of objectivity long ago. Just print "Democrats Good, Republicans Bad" on the front page every day and admit the bias.

For these extra $$$$ when the Federal Govt stops funding the program? The state which is already cash strapped.

This was smoke and mirrors if you studied how it works. Yes the Fed gives $$$ to entice states to get in this deal, but then pulls the funding and leaves the state high and dry on how to continue it.