Government insanity

ETWolverine · #1 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 · Sep 30, 2009, 08:27 AM

The Headline should read NANNYState to Mom.......

Trade associations ,Guilds ,licensing and other credentialisms all have traditionally been used to restrict the number of people providing services to inflate fees associated with the "trade" . It is a form of protectionism...and in this case it has nothing to do with protecting the children. It's the Nanny State protecting it's turf.

'' If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.'' Milton Friedman

speechlesstx · Sep 30, 2009, 08:59 AM

If you ask me all these child protective services have way too much power anyway. I realize the importance of such agencies but they're out of hand, they can basically do anything they want.

My precious mom would have probably been jailed if things were like this 30 years ago, she watched everyone's kids and did a damn sight better than any daycare.

I'm curious though, what would Hillary say about the lady's comment that "it does take a village" in this area?

inthebox · Sep 30, 2009, 12:54 PM

So much for "it takes a village," ... maybe that should be it takes the state.

When I was about 10, I was bicycling, having graduated from big wheels, in the cul-de-sac where I grew up. I fell off the bike, hit my head and just started bleeding etc.. My neighbors mom ran out picked me up and carried me home to my mom, who cleaned, my wound, and then took me next door to have my aunt, an obstetrician, stitch up my head on their kitchen table.

What would have happened to me if every one needed state approval to do what they did?

G&P

earl237 · Sep 30, 2009, 12:58 PM

Nanny-statism is ridiculous. I grew up in the 80s and no one wore bike helmets, seat belts were optional, we rode in the backs of pickup trucks and we went out past dark alone without thinking that a potential pedophile was lurking around every corner. Being cautious is good but overdoing it is just as harmful as being careless. I wish we could turn back the clock.

speechlesstx · Oct 5, 2009, 10:32 AM

Elliot, Illinois has the answer to people providing some type of care in their homes, unionize them all.

paraclete · Oct 5, 2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids - Yahoo! News

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?

ever heard of child protection? you know government sees this as their thing

ETWolverine · Oct 6, 2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

ever heard of child protection? you know government sees this as their thing

Yes, I know, that's the problem. They think it's their thing, and they employ people with no ability to use reason or critical thinking skills to do it. That is EXACTLY the problem.

excon · Oct 6, 2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Government insanity.....Comments?

Hello Elliot:

Of course, I have a comment...

I can't help but notice that you left off a LARGE part of government in your diatribe...

You don't think it's insane for the government to torture in your name, to listen to your phone calls and read your mail WITHOUT a warrant, to spirit people off the streets and render them off to some foreign land for indefinite imprisonment... You don't think THOSE things are insane at all.

I do.

So clearly, it's not "government insanity" that you don't like. It's simply a SEGMENT of the government that you don't like... The OTHER segment is just fine with you...

So, as much as you pretend to dislike government, you're really a lover of government, aren't you? Actually, you're quite LIBERAL in that regard!

excon

ETWolverine · Oct 6, 2009, 11:43 AM

Actually, I'd prefer to be doing the interrogating myself. But I don't think the government is going to let me do it. So I have to trust THEM to do it. I don't have a choice in the matter.

More seriously, though...

...the other part of the argument, as I have pointed out in the past, is that the Constitution specifically gives the government the power and responsibility to run wars, maintain security and keep the peace... as well as to maintain roadways, infrastructure, the mail system, etc.

The Constitution does NOT give the government the power to be a nanny state, determine how much people can be paid for their work, etc.

So yes, I support the parts of the Government that are mandated by the Constitution, and I am against the parts of the government that are NOT mandated by the Constitution.

So yes, I support the military, the police, the CIA and the FBI, while being against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the NEA and any other non-constitutional part of the government.

You do remember the Constitution, don't you?

Probably not.

That's ok, I'll keep reminding you.

Elliot