Some Census Workers May have Criminal Backgrounds

from Big Government:

According to a report issued by the Government Accountability Office Oct. 7, approximately 785 employees with disqualifying criminal records could still end up working for the Census Bureau this year. Excerpts (below) show the exact wording of the agency’s frightening information about the people who go door to door conducting interviews and collecting information for the 2010 Census:

The Bureau’s efforts to fingerprint employees, which was required as part of a criminal background check, did not proceed smoothly, in part because of training issues. As a result, over 35,000 temporary census workers — over a fifth of the address canvassing workforce — were hired despite the fact that their fingerprints could not be processed and they were not fully screened for employment eligibility.

 

…of the prints that could be processed, fingerprint results identified 1,800 temporary workers (1.1 percent of total hires) with criminal records that name check alone failed to identify. Of the 1,800 workers with criminal records, approximately 750 (42 percent) were terminated or were further reviewed because the Bureau determined their criminal records — which included crimes such as rape, manslaughter, and child abuse — disqualified them from census employment.

…we estimate that approximately 785 employees with unclassifiable prints could have disqualifying criminal records but still end up working for the Bureau

In addition to the news about the criminal element aspect of the 2010 Census, the 2009 report contained an estimate of the total cost of the 2010 Census being some $3.4 billion higher than the estimate in a 2006 GAO report. Compared to ex-cons knocking at my door, I guess I can live with cost overruns. But I digress.

For full post: http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2010/02/12/think-twice-before-opening-door-to-census-worker/

“Has the Federal Reserve ever manipulated the stock market”

Audit The FED !!

A Lesson in Hyposcrisy From the Democratic Party

     Despite all of the rhetoric about the uproar over Barack Obama’s speech to the nation’s students today, albeit changed so much that it didn’t match the syllabus that the Dept. of Education had initially published, it seems that the Democrats have been quite hypocritical in their attacks on the parents who did not want their children involved with this Presidential speech.

    From the Washington Post, October 4, 1991:

House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’ ”

Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town.  [...]

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to “start using precious dollars for campaigns” when “we are struggling for every silly dime we can get” for education programs.

Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants “to make him look good,” then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. “Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits,” Frost said, referring to Bush’s threat to veto legislation to extend benefits.

     The Dems went so far as to have the GAO investigate Bush for any impropriety that may have occurred as a result f the speech.

     The NEA condemned Bush for spending $26,000 for the speech while cutting school lunch programs. The NEA today, of course, had high praise for the initiatives of the new President, despite no word on the cost of today’s speech. (Obama has been in office 232 days, and has addressed the American public, in one way or another 263 times).

http://www.tonysrants.com/national/perspective-dems-slammed-george-h-w-bush-for-address-to-schools/

Perspective redux: Dems ordered GAO to investigate George H.W. Bush school speech