Mitt Romney is running false advertisements in Ohio alleging that Chrysler is planning to move its Jeep plant to China. Radio and TV stations in Ohio need to stop playing Mitt Romney's factually incorrect advertisements.

Provide the benefits the unemployed need, while the unemployed provide services the government needs.

Co-operative enterprises historically have been very successful in the United States. For example, the TVA, rural electric companies, grain elevators all throughout the Midwest, and a steel rolling mill in Arkansas. All employees share in the profits.

There are just too many people struggling to get back into the working world. They need a break. My family, my siblings, and children of my relatives, have been greatly affected by the loss of their job, and those trying to get their first job. Some have managed with jobs that are paying them below minimum wage, and naturally are only able to survive by cutting back (not driving their vehicle, riding a bike to work, much less food, grooming needs, etc) barely able to pay the bills and getting charged late fees on top of it all. I'm on Soc.Sec.Disability, due to my spinal trouble; and therefore am able to survive, but no extra from month to month; until I can claim my small pension. Which leaves me helpless to offer assistance to my adult-children. It's sad to watch so many people who want to be responsible, but cannot find anyone to give them a chance. In this difficult time, we need to keep the hiring process simple; the college requirment should be dropped for at least a year, to help people get back on their feet again.

social security tax reform

We see them every day. The people who tally up our groceries. But we don't see their quiet suffering. In Europe, these people can tally up groceries and sit or stand as they wish. For some reason, here in America, we insist they stand for many hours on end. Let's start to notice them and campaign for this simple humane and human right.

In a state with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the U.S., I have seen family, friends and neighbors struggle since 2008, enduring lowered wages, lost benefits, housing foreclosures, and too often losing hope for the future. People who have suffered the most from the excesses of the Bush years deserve a break and some basic fairness - we have no more left to give, and it is time for those at the top of our economy to share the burden

I have worked for tips as a bartender for 10 years. While the cost of living continues to rise in Tennessee, the amount people tip is steadily declining. Tipped minimum wage was set at $2.13 per hour in 1991 and has been frozen since. In 2009, federal minimum wage was increased, yet tipped wages remained the same. Since states can choose to adopt their own tipped wage, I would like to see Tennessee raise the tipped wage to $3.63 so these workers have a fair shot at making a comfortable living wage. The raise to $3.63 is based on tipped wage being half of current minimum wage.

This formula would give low and middle income people more to spend on products and services which would increase employment and more taxpayors to reduce the deficit and less dependence on welfare. Eliminate all tax loopholes and deductions except contributions to legitimate charities up to 10% of income and medical expenses exceeding $5,000. Then take the remaining balance, subtract $50,000, then all should pay 25% in taxes. Those with million dollar incomes would have to pay their fair share instead of paying less than 20%, such as Romney who stated he pays 13% and Warren Buffet who pays 17%. The average for this group is 15%, while middle income people pay at a 28% rate.

This petition is based on: Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0 March 2012 against the Department of Labor CUIAB Case No. A0-265448 won on 10/20/2011 (challenged the faulty and illegal EUC08 policy mistakes and prevailed). (A) The Department of Labor published an implementation error in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08). (B) This error was published by the Employment & Training Administration in August of 2008, in UIPL 23-08 Change 1, in the Q&A section about "Multiple EUC Claims". (C) "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2). What they advise all states to do violates regulations and laws. If you are a scholar and researcher of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), then you might want to look into Division B, Subtitle II section 2001, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program (EUC08). The Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration published an error in their EUC08 guidelines Q&As that they issued to all state agencies starting in August of 2008. The Q&A about "Multiple EUC Claims" does not comply with 20 CFR 615.5(2) the "definition of an exhaustee". What this does is force claimants for EUC08 to "finish off" any remaining balance leftover from any older benefit years EUC08 claim first, before being allowed to start receiving payment for EUC08 based on the most recent benefit year. Example: 1. A Teacher becomes unemployed in 2008. 2. She qualifies for and runs through a 26 week state regular compensation unemployment claim for $81/week based on a part time temp job. 3. She then becomes an "exhaustee" and qualifies for EUC08 at the same $81/week in late 2008 (99 weeks total available on this claim back then). 4. This claimant only uses up 5 weeks at $81/week but she has a 95 week still available when she returns to a much higher paying job again. 5. The EUC08 claim stops payment and ends (according to 20 CFR 615.5(2)). http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20 6. When she loses her job again in 2009, and she goes back onto a new state regular unemployment insurance claim for 26 weeks. This time she qualifies for $450/week. This claim is available for 52 weeks. In her case she started in August of 2009 and the state claim ends in August of 2010. 7. When she runs out of this 26 weeks of state aid for the second time now in early 2010, she becomes an "exhaustee" again for federal EUC08, and the "Multiple EUC Claims" error START (see link for (B) below). 8. Instead of paying her a new 99 week EUC08 claim, based on the 2009-2010 $450 week state claim she just finished, the "Multiple EUC Claim ERROR", incorrectly instructs the states to put her back on the old EUC08 claim from 2008-2009 claim at $81/week for the remaining 95 weeks. 9. This means that when the new benefit year she just entered that paid her $450/week ends in 52 weeks, she will still be stuck on the older $81/week EUC08 claim. She then loses eligibility to the $450/week claim (August 2010). 10. Also when she crosses the last state unemployment claims 52 week benefit year end in August of 2010, she WILL FAIL the Public Law 111-205/HR4213 eligibility test because she is being paid EUC08 from the old 2009 claim and not the 2010 one that would make her eligible for this important law as well. This law requires that the claim she has ENDS after July 22,2010. The old 2009 one does not, but the 2010 one she should have been paid on does (if 20 CFR 615.5(2) had been followed and "Multiple EUC Claims" had been ignored). So she may be forced off the $81/week federal EUC08 and be forced on to a new even lesser state claim for another 26 weeks. On and on... It is just complicated enough that the feds think we are too dumb to figure this out. That almost worked too. Much less federal aid has been paid out for far shorter time periods due to these errors. You can compare and research the ERROR that the DOL ETA made in these links here (just like I did and used to win my appeal case with): Here's the problem with the EUC08 program: (A) Look up the Department of Labor Operating and Implementing Instructions for EUC08: EUC08 Program pre-errors definition of an "exhaustee" http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08a1.pdf (B) Then look up what the DOL issued just a month later and pay attention to Section D. Monetary Eligibility, Q&A (7) "Multiple EUC Claims": EUC08 Program errors begin with this Q&A http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/UIPL23-08C1a1.pdf (C) Then compare that to the DOL's own regulations for Federal State Extended Benefits at 20 CFR 615.5(2), and the definition of an "exhaustee" found here at (C) is the same as (A): 20 CFR 615.5 (C) Refutes what (B) says and supports (A) http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ab144a522fac8b1680f3fb9dec8ebc9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=20:3.0.2.1.8.0.1.5&idno=20 The California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Case I won on 10/20/2011, pointed this same problem out. Case No. A0-265448 prevailed in support of 20 CFR 615.5(2) over the Q&A "Multiple EUC Claims ERRORS" that the Department of Labor published. So there actually is a harmful and wasteful implementation error mistake in the "Stimulus". Further details can be found here (based on the appeal case mentioned): an ARRA Implementation Error Exposed http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/18/1121545/-An-ARRA-Implementation-Error-Exposed Here is the Recovery Fraud Complaint RATB-2011-DOL-9DF2506-0, that the Recovery Accountability & Transparency Board has "buried", and that the Department of Labor is "ignoring" (they are the "accused party in this complaint"). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121274/-a-Recovery-Fraud-Complaint-ignored As for the Obama Administration that is seeking re-election...they got involved in this mess too: Mr. President there is a serious problem with the EUC08 program...

From the moment Walmart announced plans to open a grocery store in Chinatown, that community has been clear. They don’t want the retail giant’s poverty-wage jobs, nor do they want to see the destruction of Chinatown’s small businesses and unique neighborhood character. But Walmart won’t take no for an answer. So now it’s up to the City Council – and to us. Ten councilmembers already have pledged their support for an emergency law to stop Walmart and other chains from locating in Chinatown. We need two more votes to prevent Walmart from moving ahead. Please tell City Councilmembers Tony Cardenas and Joe Buscaino to vote YES on the Chinatown Interim Control Ordinance.

As a member of the Welcome Table, the food I eat is important to me. Part of a safe and sustainable food system is ensuring that the people that grow, harvest, process, transport, and prepare our food are treated fairly and with dignity. Worker rights are as important to me as organics and buying local. According to a recent report released by the Food Labor Research Center at UC Berkeley, raising the minimum wage for the benefit of 29 million low-wage workers - including almost 8 million food workers - would only cost the average household about an additional 10 cents per day for food (see the report at www.rocunited.org/dime-a-day). Almost one-third of food workers suffer food insecurity, meaning they are unable to access enough safe and nutritious food to meet their needs. Food workers rely on food stamps to meet their needs at 1.5 times the rate of the general workforce. This has to change. I have started this petition with the Food Chain Workers Alliance and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, calling on Congress to increase the minimum wage (currently $7.25/hour and for workers who receive tips $2.13/hour). If you care about the people behind your food, please stand with me and urge Congress to support the Miller/Harkin Fair Minimum Wage Act. A dime a day is a small price that I am willing to pay so that 29 million workers can make ends meet! P.S. Some of your reading this might recall that last year's proposal was to increase the minimum wage to $9.80. This year's proposal is to increase it to $10.10 per hour over three years and we have changed the petition to reflect that.