Government insanity

ETWolverine · Sep 30, 2009, 07:59 AM

Ahhh... our ever-efficient government strikes again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/..._backlash_mich

Quote:

State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids

By JAMES PRICHARD, Associated Press Writer James Prichard, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 29, 7:23 pm ET

IRVING TOWNSHIP, Mich. – Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood's children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school.

Regulators who oversee child care, however, don't see it as charity. Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she'd be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

"I was freaked out. I was blown away," she said. "I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls" — that is, the mothers whose kids she watches — "every one of them."

Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said.

"Being a good neighbor means helping your neighbors who are in need," Ahmed said in a written statement. "This could be as simple as providing a cup of sugar, monitoring their house while they're on vacation or making sure their children are safe while they wait for the school bus."

Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the agency was following standard procedure in its response. "But we feel this (law) really gets in the way of common sense," Boyd said.

"We want to protect kids, but the law needs to be reasonable," she said. "When the governor learned of this, she acted quickly and called the director personally to ask him to intervene."

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, said he was working to draft legislation that would exempt situations like Snyder's from coverage under Michigan's current day care regulations.

The bill will make it clear that people who aren't in business as day care providers don't need to be licensed, Calley said.

"These are just kids that wait for the bus every morning," he said. "This is not a day care."

Snyder, 35, lives in a rural subdivision in Barry County's Irving Township about 25 miles southeast of Grand Rapids. Her tidy, comfortable three-bedroom home is a designated school bus stop. The three neighbor children she watched — plus Snyder's first-grader, Grace — attend school about six miles away in Middleville.

Snyder said she started watching the other children this school year to help her friends; they often baby-sit for each other during evenings and weekends.

After receiving the state agency's letter, she said she called the agency and tried to explain that she wasn't running a day care center or accepting money from her friends.

Under state law, no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers. Snyder said she stopped watching the other children immediately after receiving the letter, which was well within the four-week period.

"I've lived in this community for 35 years and everyone I know has done some form of this," said Francie Brummel, 42, who would drop off her second-grade son, Colson, before heading to her job as deputy treasurer of the nearby city of Hastings.

Other moms say they regularly deal with similar situations.

Amy Cowan, 34, of Grosse Pointe Farms, a Detroit suburb, said she often takes turns with her sister, neighbor and friend watching each other's children.

"The worst part of this whole thing, with the state of the economy ... two parents have to work," said Cowan, a corporate sales representative with a 5-year-old son and 11-month-old daughter. "When you throw in the fact that the state is getting involved, it gives women a hard time for going back to work.

"I applaud the lady who takes in her neighbors' kids while they're waiting for the bus. She's enabling her peers to go to work and get a paycheck. The state should be thankful for that."

Amy Maciaszek, 42, of McHenry, Ill., who works in direct sales, said she believes the state agency was "trying to be overprotective."

"I think it does take a village and that's the best way," said Maciaszek, who has a 6-year-old boy and twin 3-year-old daughters. "Unfortunately you do have to be careful about that. These mothers are trying to do the right thing."

___ Associated Press writers Randi Goldberg Berris and David Runk in Detroit and Kathy Barks Hoffman in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

A couple of questions.

1) Who is the schmuck that complained that his neighbor was watching other people's kids? I want to find that idiot and just smack him/her upside the head.

2) Seeing this example of how government bureaucrats seem to be able to only operate according to "stadard procedure" and can't seem to think for themselves, do we really want that type of bureaucrat in charge of any part of our lives, much less making "decisions" about our health care? Seems to me that government bureaucrats have their common sense and critical thinking skills removed upon beginning employment within the government.

Comments?

tomder55 · Oct 11, 2009, 02:52 AM

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Or as James Madison said it much better than I
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

excon · Oct 11, 2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Hello tom:

Nor is the cop part of government which you and Elliot just adore. They're UNCONSTITUTIONALLY reading our mail, "for our own good". We are the worlds largest jailer, "for our own good". They're torturing people, in our names "for our own good". They are making war on people who never attacked us, "for our own good". Personally, I think attacking people who posed NO THREAT to us, was pretty INSANE - no?

You and your friend the Wolverine, can see the Constitutionality in THOSE things, but you're blind when it comes to the Constitutionality of what really might be "for our own good".

Chris, you are right, right, right... The wingers here are wrong, wrong, wrong, as you so succinctly pointed out.

excon

chrisbosco · Oct 11, 2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

chris BY and FOR the PEOPLE is not in the Constitution. Elliot is correct. There is no Consititutional authority for most of the acts of benevolence the government undertakes under the guise of it being for our own good.

Or as James Madison said it much better than I
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

But a clear examination of the expenditures of the Federal Government ,and it's future liabilities shows it is dominated by expenditures related to benevolence.

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

tomder55 · Oct 12, 2009, 04:55 AM

take benevolence from your own pocket . there is no virtue if it is compelled . Compelled benevolence is pure and simple theft.

paraclete · Oct 12, 2009, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisbosco

Sorry for paraphrasing about We the People, I thought I'd made my point.

The preamble actually says: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of health care for its citizens and proper education and fair and equal treatment under the law is incompatible with the efforts of our forefathers to "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?"

As for our future expenditures being dominated be a relation to benevolence, what's wrong with benevolence? What's the purpose of being a United States if not to be benevolent to ourselves? Not the wealthy and powerful ourselves, the ALL OF US ourselves? For that matter, what is the largest single future expenditure by our federal government. Is it not defense spending? Is that benevolent spending? Is military power more important than a healthy, tranquil, justly treated population? I sure hope not...

You made and interesting quote there "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty?" I wonder what part of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty isn't associated with ensuring the health and well being of all citizens. what exactly are the blessings of liberty if not to live a secure life in good health? It is strange that there are those who rely on that constitution for their protection but would deny its blessings to others. I think there might be a crack in the liberty bell

tomder55 · Oct 12, 2009, 06:07 AM

Madison in Federalist 45 made it very clear that decisions regarding the general welfare was STATE and not Federal Govenment's perusal . The powers of the Federal Government were few and enumerated .

Quote:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

Madison also said "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one".

Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .

speechlesstx · Oct 12, 2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Not nearly as often as you think............

I suspect the mom was watching the kids to protect them from each other, not from stranger danger.

To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.

Wondergirl · Oct 12, 2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

To protect them from each other? Read the article, this is a mom helping her friends out by watching them - keeping them safe from whatever danger - so the parents can go to work while the kids wait for the bus.

I read the article. I'm a mom, have babysat lots and lots of kids since I was 15, and stick to my story. Those kids are in more danger from doing stupid things with and to each other than they are from "whatever danger," etc. She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

excon · Oct 12, 2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Indeed. What everyone here who argues for massive govt. welfare is actually arguing for is throwing the Cosntitution in the scrapper and fundamentally changing the contract between the people and the national government .

Hello again, tom:

That would be so, if that's what we're arguing for.... But, we're not. It's your use of the word "massive" that just isn't so. If you wanted to discuss the plan as it really is, we could.. But, it's been evident from the git go, that you, along with your Fox noise machine, want to inflame the issue, and NOT discuss it...

I suppose that would be because if you REALLY debated what's really being considered, you'd LOSE in a heartbeat.

excon

PS> Why is it, that you have no objection to MASSIVE government handouts to business??? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE increase in police power the Patriot Act gave the government???? Why don't you object to the MASSIVE footprint this country is taking in the Middle East?

I know why. That's because you're very selective about WHICH massive government program you support. Some of 'em, you think are pretty cool, doncha?

speechlesstx · Oct 12, 2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

She's being more of a behavior monitor than anything.

You're seriously serious? You can think of no dangers of a child being left alone at a bus stop for an hour besides "doing stupid things." Remind me not to ask you to babysit, I'd want someone with a much more developed understanding of keeping my children safe.