From the blogs at the NY Times, Theresa Tritch makes some of the same points I made above: The bill would amend long-standing labor law by allowing private-sector employers to offer compensatory time off in lieu of time-and-a-half pay for overtime. Employers and workers are supposed to agree on the arrangement, but there is nothing to stop an employer from discriminating against those who prefer payment by cutting back on their overtime hours. Nor would employers face any real deterrent against forcing unpaid overtime on workers who fear losing their jobs if they object. The recourse for coerced workers would be to sue, a far-fetched and unaffordable option for most people.

For employers, then, the bill is a way to impose extra work at no additional cost, effectively shifting what would otherwise be worker pay into corporate profits.

Again Goat, why is it necessary, when the can do it now without the legislation. There is a larger game here that you are not seeing. And there is NO speculation as to employers offering OT preference to people who take it as comp rather than OT pay. You know damned well that will happen, and that IS chip, chip, chip. I don't recall the last time Reps supported legislation that was good for workers, do you? I certainly don't recall the last time pro-business groups supported legislation that was pro-worker. Generally they are in favor of weakening worker protections for both their health and safety and their paychecks. Why would pro-business groups be so in-favor of it? There is more here than meets the eye, there is a way that business can use this to screw the worker and pad their already fattening wallets. You can be it's all about chip, chip, chip.

Twin, there are a LOT of people who rely on the few hours of OT they work every week to make ends meet.

I haven't read all of the comments above, so I'm not sure if my points have been touched on but I have three issues with this:

1. All you anti-gun legislation folks who complain that ANY gun safety legislation chips away at the 2nd Amendment can't see the same thing here with worker's rights? This bill might not seem to be much on the surface, but it's chipping away at worker rights. Soon there will be another bill that will allow employers to offer comp-time in lieu of overtime. Chip, chip, chip. We know Reps are opposed to worker rights, union rights, regulations on business and anything else that puts a crimp in corporate profits. Eventually, it's the 40 hour work week that will be gone, and there will no longer be overtime just more straight time. You always have to wonder when pro-business organizations support something so strongly, "Why?" The Dems see behind the curtain, they are for workers, working families AND small business. The Reps are for corporate profits for their wealthy overlords, no matter how badly that might hurt the middle class and working poor.

2. This will allow employers in non-union shops to give preference in overtime hours to employees to take comp-time as opposed to overtime.

3. Employers will create rules where employees will be forced to use their comp-time during slower times, when they don't have to bring in another employee to fill the void.

Mark my words, much like all the other horrible legislation that Reps pass with happy names, reverse the meaning of the name of the bill and you have what the real, eventual intent is.

As usual Often Wrong Thom, you are wrong again. What if the girl was molested by Daddy, or another family member, and she's afraid to disclose because of any number of reasons. I've seen cases where a daughter was raped by the Mom's boyfriend, and Mom sided with the rapist.

Or what if it's some good little Christian girl whose Mommy and Daddy don't know that she's broken her abstinence pledge. By time she figures out how to tell them that she's no longer a virgin, she'll be showing. Hell even if she did disclose within three days, lots of parents don't have any idea what options are available (especially those who have their noses buried in the bible) and are likely to dither too long and miss the window.

What if the parents are out of town, or absent from their kids lives? Not every family looks like the Clevers. Should any of those young girls lives be screwed up any further with an unwanted pregnancy? Of course not. Take off all age restrictions. In Thailand they sell birth controll pills over the counter. It should be the same here.

With her 1950's opinions, it would be a wonder if she could get laid now! She probably wears her hair in a bun, her glasses on a chain, and sensible shoes with support stockings. We see in her comment what really drives much of the anti-choice crowd, they could care less about a zygote, they are all about punishing the girl for having sex. What an ugly, dated, dangerous attitude.

Let's see Thom, if the guns were purchased by the older brother in a way that would require a background, perhaps somebody at the FBI or BATF would have been notified that the older brother, who had been contacted regarding possible ties to terrorism was buying guns. This would have been BEFORE the bombing and might have put him on somebody's radar.

If the guns were purchased at a gun show or through a private sale, then not so much. If they were purchased for them by a straw buyer, a gun registry would allow the feds to know who that person was and determine their complicity in this tragedy. Gun laws are intended to keep guns out of the hands of those people who should not have them, convicted felons, the mentally unstable and yes terrorists.

Ron Paul, your boy Rand just introduced Personhood Legislation, which is unconstitutional (there goes the old saw about how the Tea Party are defenders of the constitution) as it would ban abortion (a constitutionally protected right) and most forms of birth control. Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio, also introduced anti-choice legislation. Both Rand Paul and Rubio are both opposed to marriage equality. What do abortion and marriage equality have to do with fiscal conservatism?

It seems to me you Tea Baggers want small government when it comes to regulating things like business and the environment, but you want a massive government to insure that only your approved type of people can marry, and you want government to insure only your approved outcome to every sexual encounter, whether it be forced or voluntary. Tell me again how you Tea Baggers are Fiscal Conservatives and not Social Conservatives? Hippocrates is more like it.

Maybe at one time the Tea Party was a grassroots organization, but you've been coopted by big money, and no you do the bidding of people like the Koch Bros.

The Tea Party claims to be fiscal conservatives, but don't let that fool you, they are in bed with the old "Moral Majority" social conservatives. Why do you think the "War on Women" meme from the Democrats was so powerful, because it was true! Nothing fiscally conservative about banning or limiting women's access to abortion or birth control.

Tea Party candidates like Sharon Angle, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock and Christine O'Donnell have helped to keep the Democrats in power. All were much more socially conservative than they were fiscally conservative, but all were Tea Party approved, and ran under that banner.

Poor Ron, I hate to burst your bubble, but nobody fears the Tea Party least of all the Democrats. We're just cheering them on as they push the Republican Party further out of the mainstream, tear the party apart as they fight with the establishment and push the party further toward oblivion.

Some things never change. That part of Idaho has long been tainted by a white supremacist scourge. I bet ole Joe Rickey and his Klan buddies can't figure out what all the fuss is about. It's a shame, the Idaho panhandle is one of the most beautiful areas I've ever been, but you couldn't pay me enough to stay there on vacation. Between the meth heads and the white power losers It's too bad there are so many @ssholes living there! And that name, Joe Rickey Hundley, it sounds like a spoof on a NASCAR driver or a country singer but really he's some one-tooth Idaho mouth breather whose family tree probably doesn't branch.