Bush, EEOC throw Medicare under the bus
By Bob Klepak
Three of the "hot-button" issues in this, the political "silly-season," are saving Social Security, "universal" health care and judges who follow the law instead of make the law. On Dec, 26, 2007, the EEOC, a Bush appointed part of his administration, decided that it, not the courts or the Congress, can make Federal law. The EEOC said it can carve out exceptions to laws, as Bush does with "signing-statements," The EEOC asserts that it, an unelected, unequal, derivative of the executive branch, declared it could establish "such reasonable exemptions" as it might find "necessary and proper in the public interest."
It gets better, because the Philadelphia based US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed that the EEOC had the authority to do so with "separate and unequal" exemptions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The good news for American workers is that any harm done to them by the ruling of the Bush EEOC will easily slip into one of those, "no one could have foreseen the devastation resulting from the ruling" moments. After all, the commission did utter these words, "The final rule is not intended to encourage employers to eliminate any retiree health benefits they may currently provide."
I feel better!
Now here comes the cute part. In a time when our 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue version of the 1889 Oklahoma Land Rush is in full "rush" and the Republican candidates are telling us that Social Security in general and Medicare in particular, will not be there before the inaugural balls are over, this Republican EEOC has neatly transferred responsibility from the profitable employer to the nearly extinct Medicare program, thus not relieving the burden on young workers but adding to their burden, if indeed they can find employment without commuting to India, Pakistan, Indonesia or China.
When the Republican candidates speak of reining in "entitlements" does anyone other then me wonder if they were absent from school the day they taught the word "entitlement"? My dictionary says that entitlement is a "guarantee" because of either right or an agreement entered into. Like equal treatment under the law, without presidential appointee "carve-outs" or God given right to carry an assault rifle kind of rights.
Agreements, like if you pay an agreed upon amount for an agreed upon number of payments, you will own your home, agreements. This means that if you paid for social security, government owes you social security benefits, not because you’re poor, Republican or Democrat, white or black, but because you paid for it, period. The "means testing" is and should be, "did you pay and did the government, at the point of a gun and jail cell make you pay"?
Finally, can someone please explain to me, before the election, what type of "traditional family value" it is to dump 10 million 65-year-old plus American retirees off of the "entitlement" earned from 40 years of service to an employer and compliance with a contract, onto a bankrupt and endangered program scheduled for eradication? Or to suggest that another 40 million minimum wage earners use a "tax-credit" to buy insurance when their wages are insufficient to benefit from a "tax-credit?"
It is interesting that the 2008 Presidential/Congressional political strategy for a Republican victory includes, alienating retirees or soon to be retirees, the young, minimum wage workers, immigrants, Hispanics and anyone concerned about breathing air or drinking water. Thank God there are so many "vote dry, drink beer" NASCAR loving hunters out there.