Stop the credit chects.

On March 29th of this year, Oregon Governor signed a law that prohibit employers from doing credit checks on job applicants. Now Oregon residence have an easier time getting a job. Supporters point out that well qualified applicants could have bad credit history.
Opponents argue that credit history can indicate whether or not the applicant is financial responsible, have good judgment, or risk abusing drugs or gambling. Lets dissect this argument.
1. It’s hard to be financial responsible if you’re out of work. Employing people makes them financially responsible. Moreover, to say that bad credit indicates bad decision really without knowing whether the circumstances what gave the applicant a bad credit score is wrong.
2. So you didn’t use your coupons when you went to the store, that makes you unqualified to work? I think we need to be careful before we make judgment against people.
I think Missouri and the whole nation should prohibit employers from doing credit checks. As state representative, not only I would introduce a bill to ban credit checks, but I would include in the bill the option to opt out of paying taxes until all old dept is paid back to collectors. This would not only make it easier to pay the money back, but it should increase the employees credit.

I also writer for the St. Louis Examiner.

Race and Gender Quotas is not just a U.S. Problem

Hello, Hello,
my last blog was in response to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about me petitioning to get an initiative on the ballot that will ban preferential treatment based on race and gender in public employment, education, and contracting. This has been a problem in the past. Now I have news for you, it is not just a problem in the United States.
According to a recent British News, the Telegraph, British has banned the practice; However, there a push to repeal the ban. Similar to American proponents of these practices, British proponents argue that these practices are need to to help the disadvantaged. British opponents argue that granting preferential treatment is unfair and insulting to the disadvantage.
Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP and leading campaigner against all-women shortlists in Parliament, said: "In addition to being superfluous, this law would be detrimental because it suggests that women and members of ethnic minorities need special treatment."
I have a thought, if proponents of preferential treatment want to help the disadvantage, then they should help the become advantage. For example, help students of the St. Louis Public Schools learn the skills they need to go to college and get a job. The school district is in need for qualified tutors and teachers.
As for Britain, granting preferential treatment people based on race and sex could hurt their growing emigration population. Last year, Telegraph reporter Phillip Johnston reported that Britain is emigrants are moving in was Britains are moving out. Should these same proponents who want preferential treatment based on race and sex be concerned about putting the emigrants at a disadvantage?