Sunday, December 27, 2015

Congressman Paul Cook (CA-08), Steve Knight (CA-25) Increased the Debt by Giving or Reviving Tax Breaks to Special Interest Without Telling Us Where They Will Get the $

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget [] said about the "Tax Extender Bill" that Congressman Cook just voted for:

"Although lawmakers have been adding to the debt repeatedly for the past few years, the $680 billion tax deal is easily the largest step backwards and is comparable in magnitude to the deficit reduction lawmakers enacted between 2011 and 2013. The deal easily swamps the net savings from the 2013 Ryan-Murray agreement, almost equals the revenue raised in the fiscal cliff agreement, amounts to three-quarters of the sequester savings, and is more than two-thirds of the savings from the Budget Control Act spending caps. ...
Lawmakers announced a negotiated package of business and individual tax breaks will cost about $680 billion over ten years. After interest, the cost will be closer to $830 billion over ten years.
The deal largely focuses on reviving tax breaks that expired at the end of 2014, making some permanent and extending others for either two or five years. However, it also permanently extends three refundable tax credit expansions that would have expired in 2017, originally enacted in the 2009 stimulus bill. The bill also pauses or delays three taxes from the Affordable Care Act, opening the door to further delays or possible repeal of the taxes, undermining the health care law's deficit-reduction and cost-control efforts.  ...

With debt already around its highest level as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) other than around World War II and estimated to grow with no end in sight, the least one could have hoped for from lawmakers would be to stop digging the hole deeper. But 2015 proved even that low bar to be too lofty a goal. ..."
Paul Cook & Steve Knight's vote for the Tax Extender Bill is unconscionable . Pelosi called it “practically an immorality in terms of ... how it damages the future,” later saying, “These massive giveaways to the special interests and big corporations are deeply destructive to our future." Hoyer called it “extraordinarily irresponsible,” explaining that “it makes almost sure that we will have to continue some type of disinvestment in our country because of lack of resources."
The tax extender bill is explicitly exempted from the PAYGO rule that requires that every new bit of spending (and tax cuts are certainly a form of spending) be offset. 

Republicans want to crush the priorities important to most people in the 25th and 8th Congressional Districts. Republicans want to use the deficit (that they just added to) as a way to demand cuts to programs that they don’t like—those that help the vets and retirees on limited incomes, children, the working poor & middle-class and their families.  

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Paul Cook's & Steve Knight's H.R.3668 - California Minerals, Off-Road Recreation, and Conservation Act--H.R. 3668 Contains (1) Unfunded Mandates, (2) Giveaways to Corporate Donors, (3) Guts California Sovereignty, (4) Gives Away Use of Public lands without Any Compensation (for starters)--Do Cook & Knight read these Crap Bills?

What does H.R. 3668 really do?
To the superficial envios & off-roaders, it sounds like we get more wilderness areas & off road areas
So what is it really?
1. THE ONLY new areas that have any proviso in the law for acquisition expenses, is Mojave Trails Special Management Area (Sections 603 & 604 of the Bill) and the Sand to Snow National Monument (Section 703 & 704 of the bill)--the problem?? NO funding; this is another Republican unfunded mandate and taking of private lands 
2. The "Release of California School Land" strips the California Land Commission of jurisdiction - Problem? Its another Republican use of federal power to strip the State of its sovereignty AND AGAIN, its another unfunded Republican mandate  and taking of private property without compensation
3. The "Valid Existing Rights Conversion (Section 807)is a gifting of easements to the power lobby(PG&E, Edison & SoCalifornia Gas)--again the problem (we get no money from them for the USE of our public lands again despite the billions they make--another act of corporate welfare by the Republican police state)
4. Release of Reversionary interest to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Section 801)--lands which they used, but did not own, Cook's & Knight's bill is giving away in perpetuity, again collecting NOTHING for the use of public lands and water, with NO conservation mandates
Wow--bad law dudes

Note: Mr. Cook (for himself and Mr. Knight) introduced the bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources-- see full text at{%22search%22%3A[%22\%22hr3668\%22%22]}&resultIndex=1#toc-HA80A6C832758444A9F15C22FA2470065.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Congressman Paul Cook Shows he's No Patriot & an Even Worse Policy Maker

In a recent newsletter from Congressman Cook, he brags about voting for HR 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.  He really should be ashamed of himself.

First, the law will bring from England its laws on who pays attorney fees in litigation (maybe Cook should run for the British Parliament, not Congress again!)--one which requires the loser to pay his or her own attorney AND the attorney of the side that wins. The American rule requires each side to bear their own attorney fees [absent some special statute or contractual provision]

Second, this bill is, like all of Cook's votes,  sided in favor of large corporations and companies. How? If we are going to shift to a system of loser paying attorney fees, we should make ALL parties who prevail on frivolous claims (including plaintiffs who defeat frivolous defenses) entitled to attorney fees ON TOP of whatever damages they get--HR 758 only gives defendants (typically large companies) attorney fees.

From the American Bar Association, a few more critical thoughts--It is a bad law for three reasons.

First the law was drafted in an empirical and historical vacuum WITHOUT the input of the judicial branch. The Rules Enabling Act was established by Congress to assure that amendment of Federal Rules occurs only after a comprehensive and balanced review of the problem and proposed solution is undertaken by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That review was not done.

Second, there is no demonstrated evidence that the existing sanction rule (called Rule 11) is inadequate and needs to be amended. Judges have all sorts of punitive tools in their arsenal

Third, by ignoring the lessons learned from ten (10) years of experience under 1983 mandatory version of Rule 11, Congress incurs the substantial risk that the proposed changes harm  litigants by encouraging additional litigation and increasing the court costs and delays. 
Paul Cook is a clueless another chapter in that book....his HR 758 vote.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Oversight Reports for Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (OIG) Reports Overruns & Ongoing Problems Paul Cook's HR 832 Does Not Address

Veterans Benefits Management System overruns..... $579.2M to $1.3B & NOTHING COOK did by pushing for HR 832 will improve claim processing & benefits delivery!!

In February 2013, the VA could not provide reasonable assurance the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) would meet its goals of increasing claims processing accuracy to 98 percent and eliminating the disability claims backlog by 2015.
"Since September 2009, total estimated VBMS costs increased significantly from about $579.2 million to approximately $1.3 billion in January 2015. The increases appear due to inadequate cost control, unplanned changes in system and business requirements, and inefficient contracting practices".
The result?? "The VA could not ensure an effective return on its investment and total actual VBMS system development costs remained unknown.
"VBMS did not fully provide the capability to process claims from initial application to benefits delivery".
"Users lacked training needed to leverage the enhanced functionality provided. System response-time issues resulted from rapid software enhancements while system disruptions were due to inadequate service continuity practices. Until these issues are addressed, VA will continue to lack assurance of meeting its claims processing accuracy and backlog elimination goals by the end of 2015".
Paul Cook is clueless--in fact  the bill he touts as his solution [HR 832 which this blogger commented on June 11, 2015], does nothing to increase capability to process claim forms (just study the system) and does nothing to train the users to leverage the additional functionality already provided.


Friday, July 31, 2015

Paul Cook's Newsletter Misrepresents What HR 2898 is about--

The Congressional Budget Office says  []

1) H.R. 2898 would direct the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to convert water service contracts with water districts in 17 western states to repayment contracts if a contractor requests it. Water users that choose to convert their contracts would be required to accelerate repayment of their share of the capital costs of constructing the affected projects. Under the bill, existing repayment contractors would have the option to repay their share of capital costs on an accelerated schedule.
Based on information from the BOR, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would reduce direct spending by a total of $883 million over the 2016-2025 period. Under the bill, offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending, would increase by $721 million over the next 10 years from accelerated repayments (net of annual payments that would otherwise occur under current law).  Comment: No one is saying IF the water service contractors can afford this nor how much it will increase water costs or increase our water bills!
2) H.R. 2898 also would repeal the authority to implement the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (SJRRSA) which CBO estimates would reduce federal costs by $162 million over the next several years. Comment: So the environmental policies passed into law to protect our fisheries and water supplies are getting repealed
3) Additionally, because the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) expects nonfederal contractors would finance accelerated payments with bonds exempt from federal taxation, they estimate that enacting the legislation would lead to a decrease in revenues of $89 million over the 2016-2025 period. COMMENT: Sounds good until you realize, the bill does not say from WHAT programs the money be taken nor does it say that there are bonds and a market for same!!

4) H.R. 2898 also would allow the BOR, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to respond to drought conditions in western states by authorizing appropriations for projects to store water and by accelerating reviews of permit applications and environmental studies for new water projects. The bill also would decrease amounts authorized to be appropriated by repealing the SJRRSA. Based on information from those agencies, and assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase discretionary spending by $398 million over the 2016-2020 period and by $784 million over the next ten years. COMMENT: Sounds good until you realize, the bill does not say from WHAT programs the money be taken!!
5) H.R. 2898 would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting the ability of the State of California to enforce its own water management and wildlife preservation laws. Comment: Cook uses federal law to wipe out control of intra-state water resources--so much for Californians right to govern!

Paul Cook's HR 3176 Vote Shows he doesn't talk with forestry resource people enough

On the forest legislation (HR 3176) I wrote to Paul Cook "aren't you passing more unnecessary legislation and ignoring the real problem--not enough officers and scientists in federal service to protect our natural assets. Passing more laws without trained people to enforce them is symbolic and a waste of paper (more trees). Our forests are dying from arsonists, yes....but the long term killers have been bark beetles (imported from foreign lumber products we did not adequately inspect for infection of because of budget cuts), midget mistle toe (from imported nursery stock and changing Ph in the soils from concrete-type wastes), fugitive dust caused by developers and grading to knock down weeds and fewer grazing animals (deer etc). We need policies that create a healthier forest. HR 3176 is not that".

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Paul Cook (CA-08) Gives Another Gift Tax Cut to the Wealthy in his Latest bill...shame, shame...what programs does he cut to make millionares wealthier??

American Soda Ash Competitiveness Act [HR 1992] sets at 2%, for a five-year period, the royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the output of sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market from federal land. The royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the output of sodium compounds and related products is measured at the point of shipment to market from federal land. So Paul, where are you going to get the money to replace this tax cut? Another tax cut for the wealthy! Where is the study which says this will make them )hopefully American and not Canadian or Mexican Mining ventures) more competitive? If China is causing a squeeze, why isn't Cook urging the filing of a WTO complaint and imposing a tariff to protect American producers against unfair dumping? Fortunately, Cook's bill just came out of committee. I would love to see some people who know something about trading commodities look at this joke and kill it!

Thursday, June 11, 2015

HR 832 (Cook's first major bill) Commissions a Study but No Action Plan is Set Out.....

Directs the Secretary of Labor to enter into a contract with a non-governmental entity to conduct a longitudinal study of a statistically valid sample of each of the following groups of individuals over a period of at least five years: (1) veterans who have received intensive job counseling, training, and placement services; (2) veterans who did not receive intensive services but who otherwise received services; and (3) veterans who did not seek or receive services.
Requires the study to include the collection of specified information for each individual who participates in the study, including:
  • the average number of months served on active duty,
  • the distribution of disability ratings,
  • unemployment benefits received,
  • the average number of months employed and average individual and household annual income,
  • employment status,
  • whether the individual believes that any service received helped the individual to become employed,
  • use of educational assistance,
  • participation in a vocational rehabilitation program,
  • conditions of discharge or release from the Armed Forces, and
  • demographic information.
Directs the Secretary to submit annual reports on the outcomes of the study that include any information the Secretary determines is necessary to determine long-term outcomes of the individuals in such groups.
You can see the text of the bill at:

Cook Says he Will Vote Against the TPP Fastrack...I guess the AFL-CIO bought the vote successfully

I called Cook's office urging him to vote against the TPP fast track authorization. His office person (Michael) said he intended to vote against it. I thanked him. Labor's endorsement and funding of Cook over a pro-labor democrat seems to have paid off.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Paul Cook(R-CA-08) and Steve Knight(R-CA-25) VOTE TO CUT BENEFITS TO UPWARDS OF 70,000--Bad news!

Reps. Xavier Becerra of California and Joseph Crowley of New York, the chairman and vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus respectively, told reporters they would not be complicit in passing the fiscal 2016 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill this week that Republicant Congressmen Paul Cook and Steve Knight voted for — a bill they contend would ultimately decimate veterans services, according to Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus at its weekly closed-door meeting.
Veteran Affairs Secretary McDonald stated: ‘Please don’t let this funding bill become law [as] up to 70,000 veterans would lose services if the pending bill became law.
“Virtually, if not every, veteran services organization opposes the cuts in the MilCon-VA bill,” added Crowley, who characterized the bill’s handling of the Veterans Affairs department as “privatizing” the agency, something he called “a farce.”
While this bill may provide $4.6 billion more in funding for these projects than last year, it undercuts the President’s request by over $1 billion — our service members deserve more.
The bill provides a total of $7.7 billion for military construction projects (not health care!!)– This includes funds for large and small construction and renovation projects on military bases within the U.S. and around the globe (. Of the amount provided for Military Construction projects, $532 million is provided for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).  This bill funds a program that builds infrastructure to support NATO operations--say what??

Veterans Affairs is typically the least controversial spending bill, with lawmakers in both parties usually reluctant to cast a vote that could be portrayed as anti-veteran. Obama declined to issue a veto threat on the MilCon-VA proposal on the House floor last year, though the White House Statement of Administrative Policy took issue with numerous provisions.
Obama’s has stated his intention to veto this time around..and so should we encourage him!!
Bob Conaway
22269 Miramot Road
Apple Valley CA 92308
(760) 617-8305

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Paul Cook's [R, CA-08] , Pete Aguilar's [D, CA-31] and Steve Knight's [R, CA-25] Vote for H.R. 1470 [now H.R. 2] is the beginning of the end for Medicare....

Repost of a great press release:
Repeal SGR, but Don't Privatize MedicareThursday, 26 March 2015 00:00 By Ida Hellander, Physicians for a National Health Program | Press Release
The bipartisan "Doc Fix" legislation (H.R. 1470, now H.R. 2) and proposed amendments will undermine traditional Medicare and advance the goal of privatization, according to Dr. Don McCanne in a series of posts to his popular health policy blog, the Quote of the Day. If enacted as it presently reads, it will:
1. Limit choice of physician in traditional Medicare. Physicians in traditional Medicare would be subject to onerous new documentation requirements for payment and financial incentives to avoid complex patients under the proposed "Merit-based Incentive Payment System." The additional paperwork burden will push physicians to stop seeing patients with traditional Medicare, retire, avoid older and sicker patients, or go to work for large organizations using “alternative payment models” (which are exempt from the requirement and more likely to have contracts with private Medicare plans).
2. Reduce access to care in traditional Medicare. Imposes a deductible that cannot be covered by Medigap insurance (starting in 2020) to encourage patients to join a private plan. The current Part B deductible is $147 annually, although that figure has been rising in recent years; 95 percent of traditional Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental insurance that covers the deductible and other cost sharing in Medicare. The only way to avoid the deductible in the future will be to join a private Medicare Advantage plan.
3. Raise Medicare’s costs by driving more patients into private Medicare Advantage plans. Private plans have already cost Medicare an excess of more than $282 billion since 1985. Mandatory deductibles and reduced access to physicians in traditional Medicare will drive more patients into private Medicare Advantage plans, which are more costly than the cost of caring for patients in the traditional fee-for-service program. Although Obamacare was supposed to reduce the amount the private plans are overpaid (the “Medicare cuts” in Obamacare), these have been mostly offset by “adjustments” and “quality awards” by the Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Undermine Medicare's popular support by requiring higher income seniors to pay higher premiums (means testing). Under means-tested premiums, higher-income individuals will be required to pay larger premiums, undermining the support of this influential group for Medicare program. Although the income subject to extra premiums is high, it can always be reduced in the future.
5. Ending the SGR should cost $20 billion, not $210 billion. These drastic measures aren't even necessary. According to Bruce Vladeck, a former top administrator at Medicare, “Since the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) was implemented in 1998, total Medicare physician expenditures have exceeded the allowed amounts by only $20 billion (on a total of almost $1 trillion). To recoup that all in one year would require a 21 percent reduction in fees for one year. And those reduced fees would then become the base for payment levels in all subsequent years. In a rational world, Congress would write off the $20 billion as a relatively small policy error and establish a more realistic prospective formula. But under Congressional budget rules, the cost of doing so is not $20 billion, but $20 billion per year, compounded by inflation, times 10 years.”
6. The GOP sees this bill as a step towards their longer-term goal of turning Medicare into a voucher program for private plans, shifting more costs onto patients. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., a staunch conservative, told the Washington Post he is supporting the bill because it will lead to much greater savings beyond the traditional 10-year time frame for estimating costs. Newt Gingrich stated the GOP’s goal succinctly in 1996: “Now, we don't get rid of it [Medicare] in round one because we don't think that that's politically smart, and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it -- voluntarily.”
7. Other features:
Continues funding for safety-net programs
* Two-year extension for CHIP
* Two-year ($7.2 billion) extension for Community Health Centers
Restricts abortion, adds funds for war
* Makes Hyde Amendment permanent law. Since the ACA is a permanent statute, any amendment to any part of the ACA becomes part of U.S. Code.
* $94 billion in additional military spending in an “off-budget account.”

Paul Cook [CA-08] and his Republican Thugs Want to Fund their buds' Tax Cuts and Special Interest Giveaways on the Back of Social Security..same broken record

Michael Phelan @ Social Security Works [source:]:

"Five years ago, when the mainstream media said "everybody knows Social Security benefits will be cut soon," we fought back. When they insisted that expanding Social Security was a fringe issue that nobody should take seriously, we fought back. The fight continues, but I want you to see how far we have come.

Over the last couple of days, 115 of the 188 Democratic members of the House and 42 Democratic Senators have voted to support expanding Social Security benefits. Just before recessing this morning, the entire Senate was put on record on how they plan to handle the future of Social Security. And these votes hold major implications for 2016 and beyond.

During a marathon budget “vote-a-rama,” two important Social Security amendments were offered. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment protecting all Americans against cuts to Social Security benefits. And around 2:30 in the morning, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) offered an amendment advocating for the expansion of Social Security.

Every Democratic Senator who was present but two voted to expand Social Security. Every Democrat but one voted against all cuts.

In sharp contrast, no Republican voted to expand Social Security.

The Democratic Party has apparently re-discovered what they stand for:
Shared economic prosperity; a secure retirement future; and a strong social safety net to keep millions of veterans, children, and disabled workers from falling into poverty.

Together we have moved nearly the entire Democratic caucus from cuts to expansion. This is a monumental moment in our fight to protect and expand Social Security’s modest benefits.

Right now, the average annual Social Security benefit is just $14,000. These earned benefits are crucial to over 59 million Americans, two-thirds of whom rely on Social Security for the majority of their retirement income. It lifts more than twenty million Americans -- including more than a million children -- out of poverty each year. And it lessens the depth of poverty for millions more. It provides a floor of economic protection under our nation's workers and their families.

But this hasn’t stopped the Republican Party from launching an all-out attack on our earned Social Security benefits. Since day one of the new Congress, Republicans have been manufacturing phony crises and promoting policies that benefit their friends on Wall Street instead of protecting the retirement security of millions of hardworking Americans. They want us to believe that Social Security is going broke and won’t be there for future generations.

The truth is that Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus, can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 18 years and approximately 80% of benefits owed after that. And all we need to do is ask the very wealthy to start paying their fair share and we can not only extend the lifespan of the Social Security trust fund, we can expand benefits for millions of Americans.

These votes have major implications for 2016 and beyond providing the American people with a clear alternative to the Republican Party’s dangerous policies of cuts and privatization.

If Social Security expansion becomes the number one issue in the upcoming presidential race, it is going to make for a very interesting election".

Blogger Bob's thoughts: Heh, Cook has his military and Assembly pensions, tri-care and Cal-Vet benefits--what does he care? The race to the bottom has got to end soon because when the vets and retirees hit it, there will be little to nothing left to bail them out.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Paul C(r)ook Votes to Allow the Federal Government to Tell California How to Manage its Water for Special Interests (Again)

H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014 gives the US (federal) Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior (Secretaries) emergency authority, subject to existing water rights, to direct the operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and allow the State Water Project (SWP) operated by the California Department of Water Resources to provide the maximum quantity of water supplies possible to CVP agricultural, municipal and industrial, and refuge service repayment contractors and SWP contractors--NOTHING is allocated to consumers or businesses or water district in the 8th Congressional District--which is pretty parched. What is more amazing is there is no specified limit to the amount of the diversion [See].
The water in issue is all intrastate (e.g. within the state) so where does Congress find jurisdiction for this take away for special interest corporate and institutional users?

Colonel Paul C(r)ook Discriminates Against Vets by his Vote under HR 22 Assuming SR-22 Does Anything New.


    This Act may be cited as the `Hire More Heroes Act of 2015'.


    (a) In General- Section 4980H(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
        `(F) EXEMPTION FOR HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER TRICARE OR THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION- Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer under this paragraph for any month, an individual shall not be taken into account as an employee for such month if such individual has medical coverage for such month under--
          `(i) chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including coverage under the TRICARE program, or
          `(ii) under a health care program under chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, as determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary.'.
    (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
Passed the House of Representatives January 6, 2015

Bob's Comment: Ok, so what does it do? It allows employers to NOT count vets in the number of employees considered for purposes of what triggers an Affordable Care Act obligation by an employer. That's all. It does not create a job. It gives no incentives to hire vets. There is no indication it will save any employer money or reduce the number of employers who have to buy coverage. In fact guys, since the Affordable Care Act kicks people out who are already eligible for government funded care, it does nothing, except make for some bizarre press. If it did make a difference (e.g. the vet does not get kicked out because they have an eligible plan), isn't the vet being denial additional care that might pick up a co-pay, a deductible or even allow the vet to make a physician choice he/she can't make under the VA's plan or DOD's plan.

Col. Paul C(r)ook's Latest Blathers on the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

Cook's latest letter shows a pattern & practice of labeling fraud

 . . . "Congressman Cook Votes to Improve Job Opportunities
Congressman Cook was pleased to support bipartisan legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

This legislation is important for many Americans who are looking for work and for the employers who have job opportunities that remain unfilled due to the skills gap – meaning they have been unable to find workers with the training necessary for the job offered. Closing this gap will improve the lives of many American job seekers while helping our economy grow. The bill, which was signed into law, modernizes and improves existing federal workforce development programs, helps workers attain skills for 21st century jobs, and provides support to people with disabilities to enter and remain in competitive, integrated job settings. "

Ok you've read the babble, so what does it do??
Nothing except burden the existing Job Corps program with reporting, creating new delays in funding and implementation, which is in a fast changing job market and economy, is planned obsolescence

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) Key Statutorily Required Implementation
Dates for Programs Administered by the Department of Labor
SEE: [Chart]
January 18, 2015  the Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Education (ED) and Department of Health and Human Services must publish a notice of proposed rule making no later than 180 days after enactment-- so nothing is done to train or create jobs today; if anything this creates a new layer of government to get on the way of releasing funds to needed job training
Starting in January 2015, the Job Corps has to submit financial reports ever quarter--so this is legislation adds a burden an existing program with more reporting
State & Local Plans: continue to apply for funding in July 2015--
people need help now,  so what is being done now (other than making the Job Corps do more reporting?) 
Eligible Training Providers provisions are implemented by Governors & Boards (not later than 12 mos. after enactment)--so based on this, the States and Feds can wait a year!
Template for performance reports by state, local, and Eligible Training Providers must be developed by Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Education within 12 months after the date of enactment--so performance evaluations, which need to be done for funding, can be done a year later--big help!
DOL, ED and HHS must publish Final Rules to implement WIOA (18 months after enactment) of by January 22, 2016--wow.... so final implementation won't be (and funding obviously can't happen before implementation folks)!
Bob's comment: The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a way to DELAY funding of job training programs. The Bill was passed in July of LAST year--two years later final rules get enacted to implement the program? So what happens in the interim,  job training is in effect it is a funding cut and no action on job training. Money is NOT going out and what little does go out, is forced to endure  (See chart) thresholds that NONE of the existing programs or ones in recent memory had to go through. Maybe Paul Cook needs to go without pay for two years so he can push for implementation of a bill that helps. Paul Cook has been on the dole too long to know a hungry day or the feeling of a repossessed car or foreclosed upon home. Useless. We are leaderless and the people needing job training are serious screwed. Thanks Paul Crook.