Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

Our country's economy has weathered some pretty remarkable challenges in the past.  The Great Depression comes to mind.  I'm not sure if it can weather another four years of the Obama Administration...I'm really not.  It's that bad.  In fact, when I read this story, I found a new and more appropriate name for it: madness.

Buried in the text of President Obama's jobs bill is a provision named the "Fair Employment Opportunity Act," which would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against the unemployed.

Like everything liberals propose, it is made to sound great on the surface.  It sounds great to say that you are "investing" in this, that and the other thing.  Until you realize that word means you are taxing people oppressively and wasting their money on things that don't work.  It sounds great to say that you are providing a "safety net" to folks who are out of work.  Until you realize that phrase means that many times you are encouraging laziness and exacerbating your own problem.

And here again, the idea of stopping "discrimination against the unemployed" makes sense until you understand what that means and what it would do:

Under existing federal law, employers are already prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. Obama's plan would effectively add "employment status" to that list, a classification that brings with it an array of special protections ? most notably the right to sue and recover damages for violations. Businesses deemed to be in violation of the act could face a court order and be forced to pay a fine of up to $1,000 per day or "reasonable attorney's fees," including "expert fees," and other damages as high as $5,000.

 

Chai Feldblum, a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the body that would be charged with enforcing the new rule, called it "a perfectly reasonable policy step [that] would allow people to bring a claim directly . . . without having to go through the whole ?disparate impact' analysis." Translation: The provision would make it much easier for unemployed individuals to file, and potentially win, discrimination lawsuits. Further translation: The provision is a windfall in the making for trial lawyers, a loyal Democratic constituency.

This new law would seriously lower the standard of proof an individual would need to bring to court when filing a discrimination suit against a potential employer.  Basically they would now need to say two things: I am unemployed and they didn't hire me.

We always used to believe that was the trials and tribulations associated with a job search.  Obama now tells us it is discrimination and we have a right to sue.  The trial lawyers that fund his campaign are licking their chops.

So what's the consequence of this?

As a result, despite the inevitable he-said, she-said nature of the cases likely to be brought under this new rule, it would be exceedingly difficult to get even the most unwarranted claims thrown out before trial, thus imposing a substantial burden, in time and money, on businesses regardless of whether or not they have done anything wrong. As the editors point out, there are plenty of reasons why businesses may consider unemployed individuals to be less desirable job candidates, none of which constitute "nefarious discrimination."

Of course there are!  Just like there are plenty of reasons that mortgage loan companies didn't give loans to people with risky or bad credit.  But there, the government got involved, forced those businesses into making those loans anyway, and then blamed the mortgage companies for foreclosing on the folks who refused (or couldn't) pay their mortgage!  There's a reason that employers choose not to take a risk on certain employees.  But here comes the government to threaten to fine them if they don't.  Again, it's madness!

And far from helping the unemployed, the unintended consequence of this will be that employers will just not take the risk of even granting these folks an interview.  Thanks, Barack!

Oh, but wait.  He has an answer for that too (liberals always have a way of making their mess even worse):

The provision also targets businesses that "fail or refuse to consider for employment" individuals based on their employment status, the inevitable result being a vicious feedback loop in which businesses are technically in violation of the new rule if they refuse to consider unemployed applicants because they fear being accused of violating the rule.

It just keeps getting worse.  Now Obama will punish you if you don't hire an unemployed person, or if you refuse to interview them.  So what will that do?

It is not unreasonable to predict that this would discourage employers, already wary of a second recession, from hiring altogether.

And boy will that help our jobs situation in this country, and get our economy humming, won't it?  Fools.