From FRC:
Natural Barn Killers
First, the government started supervising preschoolers' sandwiches. Now, it's monitoring children's chores. What's next--picking out my four-year-old's bedtime story? Give them an inch, and they'll take an acre--preferably on the family farm. That's where the latest crop of regulations is headed, if the Labor Department gets its way. Secretary Hilda Solis is convinced that "children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America," so she and her team wrote 200 pages of rules dictating what kids can and cannot do on American farms.
The list is so over the top that it bans anyone under 18 from working in grain elevators, feed lots, silos, stockyards, and livestock auctions. Operating power tools like screwdrivers, milk machines, or tractors? Also off-limits. Any work that "inflicts pain on an animal" is also outlawed, even though the department doesn't stipulate what that means. Would branding or tagging cattle be taboo? What about veterinary work?
Apparently, these activities are all at Solis's discretion. Her department's press release is clear, "[The government] charges the secretary of labor with prohibiting employment of youth in occupations that she finds and declares to be particularly hazardous for them." Notice there is no mention of families or the parents' responsibility to keep children safe. Under this policy, even kids' chore charts will be dictated by a Washington bureaucrat. Solis insists that her agency is "working to prevent unnecessary child injuries or deaths."
But considering the latest data, what may be unnecessary is her legislation. "The reported farm-related injury rate for youth under 20 fell by nearly half from 2001 to 2009, a U.S. Department of Agriculture survey found." I find it hard to believe that the mortality rate of a teenager working on a family farm is higher than the mortality rate of the ones walking the streets of America. If the government is really concerned about child welfare, maybe it should focus on those children--not the ones learning the value of a hard day's work.
And while Solis's "Fair Labor Standards Act" would provide some exemptions for kids who work on their parents' property, farming is multi-generational business. Under these rules, families couldn't teach the trade to grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or other relatives. Hasn't this administration done enough to destroy small business? Does it have to constrict its workforce too?
Tennessee's leaders are so livid about the regulations that they passed a bill that blocks the state from enforcing Solis's changes. "This is a prime example of D.C. way overreaching their limited powers," said Assemblyman Jeremy Faison. In Congress, conservative members are pushing a measure called Preserving America's Family Farms Act that would stop Solis's rules before they start. Like us, they're concerned the government is not only trampling on family's rights, but it's also robbing this generation of the valuable experience they gain working on a farm. As one parent said in the public comment period, " It's much better to teach these young people to work at an early age than have them getting into trouble in town because there's nothing to do." What's more, it could have the unfortunate effect of steering more kids away from agriculture because it clamps down on their involvement in groups like 4-H.
The bottom line is that these decisions belong to the family--not the Feds. The government doesn't need to swoop in and rescue children from their own relatives. In this or any legislation, family rights are the last things Washington should put out to pasture.
Conservatives Engage in Some Hire Learning
Most conservatives have been anxious to see how the Romney campaign would react now that the strongest social conservative, Sen. Rick Santorum, is out of the race. Would the Governor try to fill the void left on values issues or would he stick to his more moderate approach? Some people believe that question was answered last week with the selection of Richard Grenell as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman. Grenell, who served in President Bush's administration, specialized in the U.N., but the areas where he disagreed with his old boss are what concern conservatives most.
Grenell, who has been very open about his homosexual lifestyle, publicly condemned the Bush administration (shortly after leaving it) for opposing a U.N. resolution urging the full acceptance of homosexuality. While Bush (like nearly two thirds of the U.N. member states) refused to endorse the measure endorsing homosexuality, President Obama signed it shortly after taking office. Since then, his State Department, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, has tossed aside the cultural and religious beliefs of other countries to promote homosexuality as a basic human right, while downgrading the importance of religious liberty. Clearly, the strategy is for the State Department to force these policies (which most U.S. states reject) on the international stage and then build pressure on the U.S. to adopt measures like Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and same-sex "marriage."
In a recent column for the Washington Blade, Grenell hinted at where he falls on the marriage issue when he criticized gay and lesbian Democrats for supporting President Obama despite the fact that he hasn't done enough to redefine marriage. Still others point to Grenell's long-time partner and his desire to tie the knot, "It's not an option for us... but hopefully someday soon it will be." While past performance is not a guarantee of future results, there is strong evidence that Grenell would lobby for foreign policy more in line with the current administration than the last Republican one.
Me: Drudge linked today to this article: EEOC Extends Job Protection to Transgender recipients