Jobless benefits extension passes Senate

The bill that passed is HR-4213, without the objectionable language!

7-21-2010 Washington DC 10 PM:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate Wednesday voted 59 to 39 to restore unemployment benefits to 2.5 million jobless Americans, ending a seven-week stalemate.

The bill, which would push back the deadline to file for extended unemployment benefits until the end of November, now goes to the House, where it is expected to pass on Thursday. The president is expected to sign the measure quickly.

On Monday, Obama called on the Senate to pass the extension, saying the unemployed should not be held hostage to politics. He praised lawmakers after the Senate narrowly approved Tuesday a key procedural step that allowed the bill to move to final passage.

"Today marks an important step toward passing the unemployment insurance extension which is critical to millions of Americans fighting to find a job, put food on the table and make ends meet during this tough economic time," he said on Tuesday.

The jobless stopped getting their checks in early June, after Congress failed to extend the deadline to apply for benefits. Senate Republicans, as well as Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, prevented the legislation's passage, saying it should be paid for first. They suggested covering the $34 billion tab with unused stimulus money, a step the Senate Democratic leadership rejected. ..For the rest of the story: by CNN Tami Luhby, senior writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: The Senate will be voting on HR 5618 "Unemployment Benefits" bill this afternoon

7-20-2010 Washington DC:

Tuesday is here and the Senate is scheduled -in the afternoon- to vote on HR-5618, the "Unemployment Benefits" bill. At this time, I can find no evidence that the harmful provision has been removed from the bill. It looks like the bill will pass with the harmful provision in it. In case there is anyone who does not know what it says, here it is:

‘‘(2) ensure that benefits under this Act are not provided to any individual convicted of a sex offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)); and

There is no doubt the nation needs this bill, but the above provision certainly is not needed as it provides no public safety under any construction, it is nothing but a hateful insertion. I do suggest folks continue to contact their representatives in Washington and explain the harm this provision will cause to those affected by it, and do not forget to include the harm to families in your messages.

I strongly suggest folks continue to contact Washington people, Representatives, Senators and their aides; light up their switchboard. Make this a every Monday chore, as we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Maybe some sort of investigation could be started; and maybe thats wishful thinking. Simply do not give up, two other bills also have similar damaging language in them.

Also recommended, is, everyone affected needs to start contacting every branch of the ACLU nationwide, in hopes one of them will get the ball rolling to start a lawsuit. However, that suit will need a Plaintiff, someone will have to step forward and put their name on it. That is simply how the courts work, and there is no way around it.

While I'm sure, if the ACLU takes up the fight, they will look to file with John/Jane Does, but behind those Does must be real people. The best possible scenario -for the lawsuit- will be a family with children where the RSO is the one being denied unemployment benefits; spouses could add their names to the suit as well.

It will be a long fight, but I do believe that if it gets into court, the court will see the unnecessary harm it is causing and stop it with a quickness, but it must get into court.

In closing, if there is anyone who does not know what going on with this bill, and two others, Small Business Loans and FHA Mortgages, you can read the following:

Who is pushing the agenda to deny certain former sex offenders, federal benefits?

ACTION ALERT: More on denying certain sex offenders, mortgages..

Sex Offenders, Poison Pills, Wrecking Amendments, Politicians and the "Sex Offender Registry."

UPDATE: Sex Offenders and the FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Housing Issues)

ACTION ALERT: Sex Offenders and the FHA Reform Act of 2010 (Housing Issues)

Have a great day & a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: A AP Reporter Would Like to Talk to "Certain Sex Offenders" about "Federal Bills" that Would Deny Benefits.

7-15-2010 National:

An Associated Press reporter has contacted RSOL Virginia about doing a story about the three recently PROPOSED federal bills which would deny benefits to any person convicted of a sex offense against a minor. See here for a complete explanation of the benefits involved.

Benefits involved: Unemployment, FHA Loans, and Small Business Loans. Remember, folks may not need these benefits TODAY, but may eventually need them, a critical distinction!

Further, these bill if passed, would affect persons convicted of a sex offense against a minor regardless of where they live in the nation. Congress is moving these bills on a FAST TRACK and they may be passed within a week or so.

Accordingly, if you are one of these former sex offenders, the AP reporter would like to speak to you ONLY if you would be affected by these bills, if made law. The reporter will be doing the story quickly, 24-96 hours, and she needs input from folks ASAP.

So, if these bills would affect you, please contact either:

RSOL Virginia rsolvirginia@comcast.net -OR-

AP Reporter dpotter@ap.org

Many thanks to both RSOL Virginia and SATA for advising us of this opportunity for folks to have their voices heard, a rare opportunity.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Mansfield: Is sex offender reputation bad for business?

2-14-2010 Ohio:

MANSFIELD -- Ashland has attracted a string of big-name investments lately, including shaving cream maker Barbasol. That town up the highway has done this even as a legacy business in Mansfield -- General Motors -- hits the road.

As it happens, Ashland County also has fewer felony sex offenders -- about a third the number, proportionately, that live in Richland County.

Public policy experts say there is at least some relationship between economic depression and high populations of sex offenders, but local economic development leaders say they haven't heard anything about it.

When asked about Mansfield leading the state in most sexual offenders per capita and whether that distinction influences business investments made -- or not made -- in the area, local Mansfield-Richland Area Chamber of Commerce president Kevin Nestor said, "I can't say that I've had somebody bring it up as a business concern, but I have heard people bring it up more just as a general concern."

He said Mansfield's reputation as a haven for sex offenders probably wasn't hurting local business much, but said some industry people he has talked to are aware of that stigma.

At a public forum Feb. 4 about Adultmart, the new adult shop south of town on Hanley Road, Nestor said given perceptions regarding the high number of sex offenders here, Mansfield's newest business wasn't helping things.

"It will bother a certain percentage of people," he said.

Cynthia Mercado, a psychology professor and public policy expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, said having a high number of sex offenders and economic turmoil may just be a catch-22.

"Offenders' housing choices are typically motivated by social ties and economic factors," Mercado said.

Dave Baldwin, head of the recently formed Richland Community Development Group, said he couldn't say for sure what effect the sex offender population here has on potential investors' thinking about whether to settle here. In an interview Wednesday, Baldwin mostly tried to stay upbeat about the area's future, but conceded the sex offender statistics were less than ideal.

"I've heard it raised as an issue, but there hasn't been a lot of direct dialogue (among business leaders)," the Lexington business consultant said. "But I don't want to get mired in that and lose focus of the big picture."

Evan Scurti, director of the Ashland Area Council for Economic Development, said he couldn't explain the difference between Mansfield and the town he represents. He didn't know, he said, whether the sex offender population issue made much of a difference in attracting investment.

The recent Barbasol move to Ashland was mainly about transportation issues, he said.

Ashland, like Mansfield, lies just west of Interstate 71 and its officials boast about the town's felicitous position between Cleveland and Columbus. Mansfield would seem to have an advantage with its proximity to U.S. 30, while Ashland's other roads aren't as well traveled. Also, Mansfield Lahm Regional Airport far outstrips Ashland County Airport in terms of capacity and use.

"(The sex offender population) hasn't come up -- I hope it doesn't," Scurti said. "But I don't start off presentations with why Mansfield's terrible." ..Source.. ERIK SHILLING • News Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...