Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Taxpayers pay their salaries !!! Can we afford this?

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Quotas Hidden in Bank Reform Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Millions Thursday, 15 Jul 2010 07:27 PM By: David A. Patten Buried deep in the bowels of the massive
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 16, 2010
      Quotas Hidden in Bank Reform Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Millions

      Thursday, 15 Jul 2010 07:27 PM

      By: David A. Patten

      Buried deep in the bowels of the massive financial-regulation bill the
      Senate passed Thursday are massive race- and gender-employment provisions that
      will cost countless millions to enforce and appear to duplicate other
      civil-rights initiatives already in place.

      More importantly, all private financial institutions doing business with
      the federal government will be affected by them, sources tell Newsmax.

      Opponents say the provision was put in the bill to help garner political
      support for its passage. They object that it was inserted with almost no
      discussion or debate, and call it a "power grab."

      Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served
      as chief of staff for former President George W. Bush's Council of Economic
      Advisers, tells Newsmax that the rules represent a "dramatic change in
      employment legislation."

      Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently penned a
      letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and several
      other leading senators, objecting to the new fair-employment regime in the
      Dodd-Frank legislation now headed to the president's desk.

      "The likelihood that it will in fact promote discrimination is
      overwhelming," the letter states.

      Section 342 of the bill calls for an "Office of Minority and Women
      Inclusion" to be established in each of 29 federal bureaus and offices.

      The regulations appear to go beyond ensuring that discrimination in hiring
      decisions does not occur. Instead, they require assurance of "fair
      inclusion." Furchtgott-Roth says it will pressure companies to find and hire
      minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job.

      The bill's affirmative action provisions — some suggest they are de facto
      quotas — would apply not only to the 29 federal agencies but also to all
      "financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms,
      asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities,
      underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal
      services" who do business with them.

      Moreover, the law also applies to those firms' sub-contractors "as

      Furchtgott-Roth says that means financial firms seeking to do business
      with the government will have to verify the racial and gender composition of
      their subcontractors — including office-cleaning crews, paper-shredding
      vendors, office-party catering firms — if they want to do business with the

      Each Office of Minority of Women Inclusion will have an executive-level
      director, and support personnel, who will set standards to increase
      "participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and
      contract of the agency."

      Each office director is required to recommend the termination of any
      contractor who refuses to show good faith in efforts to comply with the Section
      342 standards.

      Among the federal agencies affected:
      * The 10 offices of the Department of the Treasury.
      * The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
      * The Federal Housing Finance Agency
      * Each of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks
      * The Federal Research Board
      * The National Credit Union Administration
      * The Office of Comptroller of the Currency
      * The Securities and Exchange Commission
      * The newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
      If each of those offices employs just 10 people, each of whom meets the
      average federal compensation level of $200,000 including salary, benefits,
      and office-space cost, the program would cost $58 million a year in staffing
      and office space alone.

      Furchtgott-Roth says the real cost of Section. 342, however, will be its
      impact on the financial sector.

      The additional expenses and inefficiencies sustained by the companies that
      do business with the specified agencies would make them less competitive,
      she says.

      The broad expansion of affirmation action programs in the bill went
      largely unnoticed, even after Furchtgott-Roth published an article on
      RealClearMarkets.com titled "Gender Quotas in the Financial Sector?"

      "The new Offices of Women and Minorities represent a major change in
      employment law by imposing gender and racial quotas on the financial industry,"
      Furchtgott-Roth wrote.

      Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Employment
      Policy, noted the tortuous legal history of quotas, and said the Dodd-Frank
      provisions are "broad and vague, and are certain to increase inefficiency
      in federal agencies."

      Moreover, she calls the establishment of the minority offices "a troubling
      indictment" of current law.

      "Women and minorities have an ample range of legal avenues already to
      ensure that businesses engage in nondiscriminatory practices," she writes. "By
      creating these new offices, Congress does not believe that existing law is

      All Cabinet-level departments already have Offices of Civil Rights and
      Diversity, she noted. The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract
      Compliance and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission already oversee
      fair-hiring practices.

      "With the new financial regulation law," writes Furchtgott-Roth, "the
      federal government is moving from outlawing discrimination to setting up a
      system of quotas. Ultimately, the only way that financial firms doing business
      with the government would be able to comply with the law is by showing that
      a certain percentage of their workforce is female or minority."

      The four civil rights commissioners say in their letter than "some
      legislators" add affirmative action provisions to major legislation under
      consideration to garner political support to get a bill passed.

      The commissioners' letter states that, "like several major bills that have
      passed or may pass the 111th Congress, the Dodd-Frank bill includes a
      section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up
      with national affairs may have failed to notice. It's not hidden, but in a
      document that is almost 2,000 pages long, nothing can ever be as accessible
      as we would like it to be."

      Furchtgott-Roth writes that "the issue deserves careful debate — rather
      than a few pages slipped into the financial regulation bill."

      And yet, read this which was featured on this morning's Today Show

      In the race for equality, will men become obsolete?
      Why modern society may be better suited to women
      _Role reversal: Are men the weaker sex? _

      by Hanna Rosin
      updated 2 hours 41 minutes ago

      In the 1970s the biologist Ronald Ericsson came up with a way to separate
      sperm carrying the male-producing Y chromosome from those carrying the X.
      He sent the two kinds of sperm swimming down a glass tube through
      ever-thicker albumin barriers. The sperm with the X chromosome had a larger head and
      a longer tail, and so, he figured, they would get bogged down in the
      viscous liquid. The sperm with the Y chromosome were leaner and faster and could
      swim down to the bottom of the tube more efficiently. Ericsson had grown up
      on a ranch in South Dakota, where he’d developed an Old West, cowboy
      swagger. The process, he said, was like “cutting out cattle at the gate.” The
      cattle left flailing behind the gate were of course the X’s, which seemed to
      please him. He would sometimes demonstrate the process using cartilage
      from a bull’s penis as a pointer.

      In the late 1970s, Ericsson leased the method to clinics around the U.S.,
      calling it the first scientifically proven method for choosing the sex of a
      child. Instead of a lab coat, he wore cowboy boots and a cowboy hat, and
      doled out his version of cowboy poetry. (People magazine once suggested a TV
      miniseries based on his life called Cowboy in the Lab.) The right
      prescription for life, he would say, was “breakfast at five-thirty, on the saddle
      by six, no room for Mr. Limp Wrist.” In 1979, he loaned out his ranch as the
      backdrop for the iconic “Marlboro Country” ads because he believed in the
      campaign’s central image—“a guy riding on his horse along the river, no
      bureaucrats, no lawyers,” he recalled when I spoke to him this spring. “He’s
      the boss.” (The photographers took some 6,500 pictures, a pictorial record
      of the frontier that Ericsson still takes great pride in.)Feminists of the
      era did not take kindly to Ericsson and his Marlboro Man veneer. To them,
      the lab cowboy and his sperminator portended a dystopia of mass-produced
      boys. “You have to be concerned about the future of all women,” Roberta
      Steinbacher, a nun-turned-social-psychologist, said in a 1984 People profile of
      Ericsson. “There’s no question that there exists a universal preference
      for sons.” Steinbacher went on to complain about women becoming locked in as
      “second-class citizens” while men continued to dominate positions of
      control and influence. “I think women have to ask themselves, ‘Where does this
      stop?’” she said. “A lot of us wouldn’t be here right now if these
      practices had been in effect years ago.”

      "With few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the
      country’s economic success,” writes Rosin.

      Ericsson, now 74, laughed when I read him these quotes from his old
      antagonist. Seldom has it been so easy to prove a dire prediction wrong. In the ’
      90s, when Ericsson looked into the numbers for the two dozen or so clinics
      that use his process, he discovered, to his surprise, that couples were
      requesting more girls than boys, a gap that has persisted, even though Ericsson
      advertises the method as more effective for producing boys. In some
      clinics, Ericsson has said, the ratio is now as high as 2 to 1. Polling data on
      American sex preference is sparse, and does not show a clear preference for
      girls. But the picture from the doctor’s office unambiguously does. A newer
      method for sperm selection, called MicroSort, is currently completing Food
      and Drug Administration clinical trials. The girl requests for that method
      run at about 75 percent.
      Even more unsettling for Ericsson, it has become clear that in choosing
      the sex of the next generation, he is no longer the boss. “It’s the women
      who are driving all the decisions,” he says—a change the MicroSort
      spokespeople I met with also mentioned. At first, Ericsson says, women who called
      his clinics would apologize and shyly explain that they already had two boys.
      “Now they just call and [say] outright, ‘I want a girl.’ These mothers
      look at their lives and think their daughters will have a bright future their
      mother and grandmother didn’t have, brighter than their sons, even, so why
      wouldn’t you choose a girl?”
      Why wouldn’t you choose a girl? That such a statement should be so
      casually uttered by an old cowboy like Ericsson—or by anyone, for that matter—is
      monumental. For nearly as long as civilization has existed, patriarchy—
      enforced through the rights of the firstborn son—has been the organizing
      principle, with few exceptions. Men in ancient Greece tied off their left
      testicle in an effort to produce male heirs; women have killed themselves (or been
      killed) for failing to bear sons. In her iconic 1949 book, TheSecond Sex,
      the French feminist Simone de Beauvoir suggested that women so detested
      their own “feminine condition” that they regarded their newborn daughters with
      irritation and disgust. Now the centuries-old preference for sons is
      eroding—or even reversing. “Women of our generation want daughters precisely
      because we like who we are,” breezes one woman in Cookie magazine. Even
      Ericsson, the stubborn old goat, can sigh and mark the passing of an era. “Did
      male dominance exist? Of course it existed. But it seems to be gone now. And
      the era of the firstborn son is totally gone.”
      Ericsson’s extended family is as good an illustration of the rapidly
      shifting landscape as any other. His 26-year-old granddaughter—“tall, slender,
      brighter than hell, with a take-no-prisoners personality”—is a biochemist
      and works on genetic sequencing. His niece studied civil engineering at the
      University of Southern California. His grandsons, he says, are bright and
      handsome, but in school “their eyes glaze over. I have to tell ’em: ‘Just
      don’t screw up and crash your pickup truck and get some girl pregnant and
      ruin your life.’” Recently Ericsson joked with the old boys at his
      elementary-school reunion that he was going to have a sex-change operation. “Women
      live longer than men. They do better in this economy. More of ’em graduate
      from college. They go into space and do everything men do, and sometimes
      they do it a whole lot better. I mean, hell, get out of the way—these females
      are going to leave us males in the dust.”

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.