In the majority of States, benefit funding is based solely on a tax imposed on employers. (emphasis original)
That is from the Department of Labor discussion of state unemployment insurance programs. Or they can read this … or this … or this … By a legal definition they might be right, but isn’t that statement fraudulent and with an intent to deceive? Particularly since they put the emphasis on it? What recourse does a citizen have against this deceit?
UPDATE:
A colleage reminds me that (in his words) Social Security is marketed as “insurance” and that benefits are said to be “just getting return on your own money back.” Also, Federal Reserve Notes are said to be a legal tender for all debts public and private. A govt. that can do that can redefine unemployment insurance (and workmen’s comp) that in reality is paid for out of an employee’s salary equivalency as paid by a tax on employers. And you can’t sue-you won’t have standing. Thanks to the failure of the case Schroder v. Bush, 263 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 7, 2002), the principle now stands that NO ONE, not even a US Senator, apparently, would have standing on the complaint you voice. The Dept of “Justice” cites it now as the leading case in favor of the principle that no one has standing in “political” questions
bWwStXPGs4oN1