Barack Obama has helped to crystalize the differences in America. One group of people who are generally self-reliant wish to have government do the basics, but otherwise leave them alone. Another group (the 51% who pay no Federal Income Tax) wish to have the government do everything for them, and to charge it to the ‘other group’. These are the ‘eaters of other men’s bread.
The Republican Party generally attracts people from the self-reliant group and the Democratic Party attracts the eaters of other men’s bread. Looking at that 51% number above, it helps explain whose in charge and why.
But a Faustian deal had strings attached, as America’s labor unions are finding out. Their deal with the devil isn’t working out to be as clean as they hoped it would be as ObamaCare ruins the 40 hour workweek and the healthcare of their members. Obama has been anything but labor-friendly in his march to transform America into a socialist state.
The Obama Justice Department is increasingly using statistical models to accuse employers and lenders of racial bias, without looking at widely accepted selection criteria such as applicants’ skills or borrowers’ credit histories. It says it’s doing nothing new. But industry groups and past government officials argue that its actions are unprecedented and could lead businesses to adopt racial quotas to avoid lawsuits.
(IBD) The latest case targets Bank of America (BAC), which was ordered to pay $2.2 million to more than 1,000 black job applicants turned down for positions, many of them back in 1993. The back pay was levied after the Labor Department ruled the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank discriminated against them. The financial giant denies the charges and is reviewing an appeal.
Bank of America was ordered to pay $2.2 million to more than 1,000 black job applicants. BofA is already paying $335 million to settle lending discrimination charges filed by the Justice Department. It insists the government would not have found bias if it had looked at all relevant criteria in its lending process.
Both cases are based on statistical analyses of outcomes that don’t take into account differences between applicants other than race. They are typical of bias lawsuits the administration increasingly is bringing against employers and lenders.
Credit problems explain much of the disparities in hiring. Credit checks, which the bank uses for bonded tellers and other employees, disqualified 11.5% of the African-American applicants and 6.6% of the white applicants. Even though the checks were applied evenly across races, according to BofA, they disproportionately affected African-American applicants. Federal studies show that, on average, blacks don’t fare as well as whites on credit measures, regardless of income. Likewise, whites don’t fare as well as Asians.
Labor ruled that because BofA hiring policies had a disparate impact on some black candidates, they were inherently racist. Actual victims of racism weren’t identified, just pools of “potential” victims based on statistical models.
Are African-Americans equal? Apparently they’re not capable as a group — they can’t keep up. At least that’s what Eric Holder and his Justice Department are telling us. It’s a handout, not a hand-up.
The White Man’s Burden
However, if a business was to hire a negro based only on skin color and just give them a chair to sit in where they didn’t have to do anything (because they weren’t qualified) and just paid them to keep the government happy, the business would also be charged with discrimination because they didn’t promote the unqualified ‘protected class’.