On February 12, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sent a message to his 62,550 followers on Twitter: “Small business is the job growth engine in this country and we need to pursue policies that reflect that reality to create jobs.” Cantor was wrong on both counts. Despite overwhelming conventional wisdom to the contrary, small businesses are not the engine of growth. And the small businesses that do create jobs rarely stay small for long, which makes crafting policies that favor those fast-growing firms both difficult and unnecessary.

The cult of the small business is so prevalent that you are treated like a heretic in Washington if you don’t pledge to do something nice for the little guys. Targeted tax credits, special regulatory exemptions, preferential access to government contracts—nothing is too good for America’s DIY manufacturers and social networking startups. Support for the Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal agency tasked with handing out goodies to the modestly sized, remains strong, despite dozens of compelling studies demonstrating that its efforts amount to little more than poorly targeted corporate welfare.

In his 2011 budget, President Barack Obama requested $1.4 billion to fund SBA programs. Most of the agency’s money is spent on special credit programs for small businesses that have difficulty getting loans from regular banks. In fiscal year 2011, the SBA guaranteed $30 billion in such loans, which theoretically don’t cost taxpayers anything. In practice, however, whenever the economy goes south, the SBA can’t cope with the number of small businesses that default on the loans. In 2011 the SBA ended up spending $6.2 billion, a $4.8 billion increase over its requested amount, mainly because so many small businesses couldn’t make their payments.

The idea that small is glorious or that small businesses are the engine of growth is based on bad economics, and the result is bad policy.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by Veronique de Rugy.

President Barack Obama has compiled a handy to-do list for Congress that, “if acted upon quickly, will create jobs and help restore middle class security,” according to the White House’s blog. And it’s about time. This is most certainly not, as cynics might suggest, another transparent political scheme. After all, these initiatives, the White House claims, enjoy bipartisan support—which, I gather, is meant to impress you, even if it’s not exactly true.

Regrettably, the sentiment of the to-do list does garner bipartisan support and illustrates how cheap populism leads to bad policy and why Washington shouldn’t be in the business of “creating jobs” in the first place.

Obama says passing his to-do list would help create “an economy built to last—one that creates the jobs of the future and makes things the rest of the world buys—not one built on outsourcing, loopholes, and risky financial deals.” History tells us that when government “creates” an economy, it won’t be much of an economy to speak of—but here’s the new plan:

“Reward American Jobs, Not Outsourcing.” Hey, let’s play on the genuine frustration of struggling Americans. Most politicians will latch on to this protectionist notion to some extent. But need it really be repeated that outsourcing, by generating more productivity, creates more wealth and more jobs? On this point, most economists actually agree.

CONTINUED at Reason. Written by David Harsanyi.

A New York woman who donated a kidney so her ailing boss would move up the transplant waiting list says she was fired shortly after the operation, according to a complaint she filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Deborah Stevens said her former employer, Atlantic Automotive Group, discriminated against her over disabilities brought about by complications from the surgery, and she plans to sue the company for lost earnings and damages.

The company, which runs car dealerships on Long Island, said Stevens’s complaint is groundless.

“My gal is just a good-natured woman who’s trying to save a life and as soon as she did it, everything changed,” said Stevens’ attorney Lenard Leeds on Tuesday.

“When she wanted to take time off, she was scolded, she was yelled at,” he said. “Instead of being sympathetic, they were very hostile towards her.”

Stevens, of Hicksville, New York, said she learned that Jacqueline Brucia, who worked at Atlantic Automotive, was in need of a kidney in November 2010. Stevens had worked there as well but at the time had temporarily moved to Florida.

Stevens said she told Brucia she would donate a kidney.

“Brucia declined, but told her, ‘You never know, I may have to take you up on that offer one day,’” the complaint said.

Stevens learned the company would rehire her following her return to New York and not long afterward, Brucia told her a potential donor had not been approved by the hospital and asked if she was still willing to donate.

Stevens now believes Brucia was “grooming (Stevens) to be her ‘back-up plan,’” the complaint said.

Stevens’s kidney was not a good match for Brucia, but she agreed to donate it to a stranger in St. Louis, Missouri, setting up a transplant chain that enabled Brucia to receive a better-matched kidney from a donor in San Francisco.

Surgeons removed Stevens’s left kidney in August, and she returned to work about a month later. The surgery left her with damaged nerves in her leg, digestive problems and mental health issues, her lawyer said.

At work, Brucia became “curt and dismissive,” the complaint said. Stevens said she was berated for taking sick days and forced to relocate to a less desirable office after she complained to human resources about Brucia’s behavior.

On April 11, the company fired her, citing performance reasons.

Stevens’s lawyer said the complaint filed with the Division of Human Rights last week was a necessary step before a federal lawsuit is filed against Brucia and the company.

Telephone calls to Brucia’s home were not answered on Tuesday.

Atlantic Automotive released a statement saying: “It is unfortunate that one employee has used her own generous act to make up a groundless claim.

“Atlantic Auto treated her appropriately and acted honorably and fairly, at every turn,” it said. …

Source: Reuters.

The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism—it’s become an economic suicide pact. And we’re here to challenge it. On Earth Day, visit http://freemarketamerica.org/

If I Wanted America to Fail.

The Obama administration is looking for states that will experiment withunemployment insurance programs by letting people test a job while still receiving benefits.

The plan is a key feature of a payroll tax cut package that President Barack Obama negotiated withcongressional Republicans in February.

The Labor Department will open the application process Thursday for 10 model projects across the country. Any state can apply for the “Bridge to Work” program.

The plan is modeled after a Georgia program called “Georgia Works.” Under the plan, workers who have lost jobs can be placed in other temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to retain their skills or gain new ones while receiving jobless assistance. About a third of the time, those workers wind up getting hired full-time.

A number of states are combining unemployment benefits with on-the-job training, including North Carolina, New Hampshire, Utah and Missouri.

A senior administration official said those states would be eligible to apply for the federal demonstration project. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the program before an administration announcement.

States that are chosen could get waivers from the federal government allowing them to tap their unemployment insurance accounts to pay for such costs as transportation for workers in temporary jobs.

The program has had mixed results in some states that have their own programs. Administration officials said they hope the waivers and assistance offered by the federal demonstration projects could help rectify any problems that have emerged.

Supporters of the programs say it helps workers retain or learn new skills and add new job references to their resumes. The plan passed with support from leading Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

It also is designed to answer critics of unemployment benefits who say the aid discourages some people from aggressively seeking work.

Source: Yahoo News.

Either someone just attempted the subtlest of jabs at our nation’s force of uncomfortably invasive rent-a-cops or the recruiters at the Transportation Security Administration need to invest in a better thesaurus. A job posting on the Ann Arbor, Michigan Craigslistinvites would-be screeners to “[b]e part of aimperious security team protecting airports and skies as you proudly establish your future.”

Imperious, indeed.

The Dictionary.com definition of imperious is “domineering in a haughty manner; dictatorial; overbearing.” The definition from Google is even better, describing it as “assuming authority without justification.”

If it was a joke I’d assume the posting would be made elsewhere, but it’s only been posted in Ann Arbor. But what word could they mean instead if it’s real? Imperative? Impetuous? The rest of the text is also a mess, which screams either that this is a fake… or a federal government employee.

Either way, I’ve emailed the poster curious if this might actually be a great jab or a bad job.

Here’s the full posting below, in case it’s pulled:

Transportation Security Officers (Ann Arbor)
See the individual you are in a vital position for our security firm where you implement security-screening procedures that counter deadly or dangerous objects from being smuggled onto an aircraft. Be part of a imperious security team protecting airports and skies as you proudly establish your future.

Minimum Qualifications:
1. You must be a U.S. Citizen
2. You are required to have a high school diploma or equivalent

PT, full training
• Location: Ann Arbor
• Compensation: $17 per hour
• Principals only. Recruiters, please don’t contact this job poster.
• Please, no phone calls about this job!
• Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
PostingID: 2926913263

Source: Jalopnik.

When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.

Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn’t see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information.

Bassett refused and withdrew his application, saying he didn’t want to work for a company that would seek such personal information. But as the job market steadily improves, other job candidates are confronting the same question from prospective employers, and some of them cannot afford to say no.

In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor who calls it “an egregious privacy violation.”

Questions have been raised about the legality of the practice, which is also the focus of proposed legislation in Illinois and Maryland that would forbid public agencies from asking for access to social networks.

CONTINUED at WTOP.

Finding out that you’re the lowest paid person on your team even though you do the same (or more!) work than your colleagues is a pretty discouraging discovery. If you do find out, you should definitely bring it up to your manager or if you think they’re sympathetic and can do something about the discrepancy. How you do it, however, is what makes the difference between getting a raise or getting fired. Thankfully, it’s not as difficult as it may seem.

If you’ve “discovered” that you’re underpaid, it’s likely either because someone else you work with let it slip, or because you did the research yourself at a site like Glassdoor and found that the average salary for your role at your company—or in the industry as a whole—is higher than what you’re making. Now it’s time to do a little homework.

CONTINUED at Lifehacker.