Month: September 2007

Categories
culture politics State

Bureaucracy in Action

This is what happens when we expect government bureaucracy to manage something rather than leaving things in the hands of individuals.

Loving couple. Loving home. Steady jobs. No criminal history. Kids like them and the birth mother wants it.

Despite all that, Michael Valez and Michael Oberg are wading upriver through the state child protection system to be able to take care of four kids belonging to Valez’s niece. . .

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge’s directive that Valez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

The rules governing DCFS are quite reasonable – I don’t think that they should be running around placing kids in unstable situations such as with a couple that has decided that they should move in together to save rent. On the other hand we are faced with the question – who is responsible for raising these kids? Is it the state (DCFS) or the mother? I would argue that too often the state is given precedence over the parents and it is only rarely justified. I think that cases like this, where DCFS is actively trying to help the mother to prepare herself to resume raising the children (as they ought to), should make it that much easier to admit that primary responsibility lies with the mother and therefore her wishes, not to mention the wishes of the children, should take precedence over “the rules.” (Maybe if there was a criminal history to consider I would change my mind.)

Luckily reason has prevailed (so far) –

On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children.

“The judge said, ‘I see absolutely no reason why the kids can’t stay where they’re at,'” Valez said.

If only this were the case all the time.

Categories
politics State

Voucher Related Tidbits

The closer we get to November the more likely we are to see commentary related to vouchers. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of it was as well thought out as Conner Boyack’s Weighing in on the Utah Voucher Program – but I won’t hold my breath. Connor seems to be trying in a single post to sum up the entire voucher debate – which is an impressive task. Perhaps one reason that I like Connor’s thoughts is that his conclusion is quite similar to mine – the voucher bills might be flawed (as most bills are) but I believe they will prove to be a positive move for education in Utah.

Though I support vouchers I can’t say that I support all the political maneuvering of voucher supporters (not that I favor political maneuvering of voucher opponents). I find it disturbing to hear reports of potential political retaliation (in reference to this article). Vouchers should stand or fall on their merits – there should be no stooping to coercive tactics to bolster political support.

Categories
culture politics

Fostering Engagement

I have been contemplating the implications found in Scott Hinrichs’ Civically Disengaged ever since he posted it. I have been concerned about the lack of civic involvement by most people for a long time because I am convinced that it is a cause for many of our social problems – especially our increasingly divisive political environment which only makes all our problems seem larger and discourages individual participation at all levels of government.

Scott has identified some causes of our disengagement:

Why has this happened? Part of it has to do with the mass movement of women into the workforce. Americans have become uncomfortable with single-sex organizations. Although women still do most of the work at home, men have accepted many more domestic duties than their fathers did. Thus, they have less free time to devote to pursuits outside of the home and family.

The whole of our society has become less formal as people have sought out more flexibility. People are less comfortable with conformity. People of the boomer generation and younger aren’t into special handshakes, funny hats, and mandatory meetings.

Another factor is mobility. People are far more mobile than ever before. It takes time to sink roots in any new location. Increasing diversity, as Putnam’s recently released study shows, decreases interpersonal and communal trust, even among people that are most alike, resulting in people drawing inward and away from social connections. The tendency increases with population density.

Putnam says, however, that the biggest factor in civic disengagement is TV. He said that back in 1996 before many people were connected on the Internet. Going online can be far more interactive than TV. It can even lead to civic discussion and coordination. But certainly not in the same way or at the same level as involvement in traditional civic organizations.

Finding out where we are and how we got here is nice, but the operative question is always – where do we go from here? I’d love to have some solid answers but lacking that I’ll share my own ideas. The causes illustrated above are:

    • We have become uncomfortable with single-sex organizations
    • Men have less free time to devote to pursuits outside of the home and family
    • People are far more mobile than ever before
    • Television discourages interaction

I am convinced that the discomfort with single-sex organizations could be easily overcome by building new coed organizations to replace the old single-gender groups.

The issue of having less free time is partially a matter of priorities. If people viewed civic groups as being more relevant and important than other things that compete for their time they would chose to be engaged. This may be a marketing problem as civic organizations attempt to show people how they can make a positive impact in the community. It might also be an issue of the organizations themselves adapting to a new cultural setting. It may be that we need to build organizations that are better suited to our current society or such civic organizations might already exist and we just need to give them time to gain the influence that has existed in older civic organizations.

I think the issue of mobility is the most crucial and subtle deterrent to civic engagement. It does take time to sink our roots somewhere and we do ourselves a disservice if we wait to sink those roots. Imagine how much more engaged someone would be civically if they settle down at 25 knowing that they are going to stay put for 50 years. By 35 they can be very well established in the community and contributing. Not only that but they care much more about a place if they expect to stay there for half a century. By contrast, imagine someone who moves every 3 to 5 years from one job to another until they are 40 years old where they then stay until they go into a kind of active retirement by the age of 55. By the time this person has set down any roots they can only expect to participate civically for a very few years – if it’s even worth the effort.

As for television – by itself it is a deterrent to civic engagement, but it can be used by groups to invite engagement. While the internet might some involvement that is inferior to the engagement in real civic organizations it can also be used as a strong tool to increase involvement and communication for an organization in a way that can compensate for some of the other factors in our society that discourage engagement. For example, I can still participate with civic organizations when my company sends me to live overseas for 6 months or a year.

Scott lists many groups that have been shrinking (scouts, bowling leagues, labor unions) does anyone know of civic organizations that are growing? Does anyone else have suggestions of how to help people participate in their communities civically?

Categories
culture politics

Jeffs Guilty Verdict

After having posted my thoughts on the intent of the Warren Jeffs trial I thoughts I would follow up with my thoughts after his conviction. I am quite certain that Jeffs is guilty of any number of crimes related to polygamy and his actions within the FLDS community. If this trial really cuts down on the forced marriages of young girls then that will be a very positive thing. Despite that I think it is still a dangerous thing to prosecute against the belief in polygamy – which this case clearly seems aimed at doing. If it were simply a matter of enforcing the law that had been breached there would also be a rape trial for the young ex-husband. (UPDATE – the ex-husband has now been charged – thanks Jeremy)

It will be interesting to see if polygamy continues to be a target of legal action. If there is continued pressure against underage marriages that would be commendable, but if this is just a token case against a high-profile church leader then the overall effect will be negative.

I also found a very good summation/analysis that some people might find interesting to read. I can understand the feeling of those polygamists quoted in the article that this was a biased proceeding.

Categories
National politics

Political Conundrum

I have been evaluating my position with regards to the presidential candidates – specifically those in the Republican party. Right now there is a front runner that I don’t think I could be compelled to vote for in the general election no matter who his opponent was. I could give up all hope except that I really do think that Mitt would make a good president and despite any of the early questions about whether he could get the nomination he has shown that he has a legitimate shot to win the primaries.

My conundrum is that I really like Mike Huckabee as well. In fact I wish that he were in the top tier on par with Mitt (unless that would split the votes and pave the way for Giuliani to get the nomination). I think that Mike would make a much better president than McCain or Thompson. So my challenge is deciding how much to support Mike Huckabee without inadvertently helping Rudy Giuliani.

I have talked to Laura about this and also sought input from some other family and friends. Does anyone have any suggestions about how they might face this conflict of hopes?

Categories
National politics

Fiscal Realism

I keep returning to the sentiments of Reality Check – that we need to realize that on tough issues we will not be able to satisfy everyone and that the decisions we make must be based on what is best and not merely based on what offends the fewest people. This comes up again as I read the platform for Divided We Fail. This is an initiative of the AARP. I do not wish to accuse the AARP of not caring for the future, but I think it is fair to note that when push comes to shove the best solution for the next 5 years is going to be more favorable to the AARP than the best solution for 30 years from now.

Their platform consists of 6 points – 3 on social security and 3 on health care:

  • All Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations.
    • This sounds like a noble and universal sentiment.
    • We can deduce from their other points that the path they envision is one of government backed health care which is not possible without being a burden on future generations so this goal is unattainable in its fullness – one part has to give.
    • For more insights here go read No Free Lunch.
  • Wellness and prevention efforts, including changes in personal behavior such as diet and exercise, should be top national priorities.
    • Absolutely. This is the one undeniable truth, and the single most influential factor in the rising costs of our current health care system. How do we go about doing this?
  • Americans should have choices when it comes to long-term care – allowing them to maintain their independence at home or in their communities with expanded and affordable financing options.
    • Agreed. Only, what “affordable financing options” do they have in mind?
  • Our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire. Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations.
    • Everyone (the AARP as well as their children and grandchildren) deserves an adequate quality of life when they retire. We might need to define “adequate quality of life” because what that seems to be today may well be unsustainable.
    • On the other hand, there is no possible way to strengthen social security without increasing the burden on future generations. Some generation is going to have to take the fall on this one. The program needs to receive its sunset – Sadly, I feel compelled to volunteer my generation. I don’t expect to receive social security benefits. Even if social security benefits are still available I hope not to avail myself of that benefit. (Why should I be a burden to my posterity?)
  • Workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age.
    • I agree.
  • Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances, and save for the future and better, easy to understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely.
    • This is another point that sounds good but the pessimist in me is skeptical that we will ever really educate the majority of our population on money matters.
    • I also believe that managing money more wisely requires more than financial literacy – it requires a new attitude about the value and nature of wealth. So long as we are driven to keep up with the Joneses financial literacy won’t make us wise managers of our money.
Categories
life

Life Steps In

In the last week I have had many things to write about. I was saving some things up for the next time I am not finding a topic I want to write about. I was looking forward to writing one of those posts today that would take me more time than I can normally devote during the week. Unfortunately I was running around all day. In the evening when I can normally expect to find time to write after the kids go to bed I found instead that the power supply had died on my desktop so Laura and I had to split time on the laptop. So no political post for today. I just have to remind myself sometimes that there are times when you just do what you can and don’t worry about all the things you wish you could get done.

Categories
life

Interesting Argument

The news from the Warren Jeffs trial could make me wonder if my blog is more widely read than I thought. The closing arguments of the defense look very much like the discussion from my post on Sunday. (No, I don’t actually believe they got the idea for this defense from me, but the similarity is striking.)

Categories
National politics

An American DREAM

When I first heard about the DREAM Act it seemed reasonable to me. When I saw it called Backdoor Amnesty I was not really surprised, but I thought that I should look into it more closely. That meant going to see the actual text of the bill. The last time I talked about immigration I said that we needed to decide what we believe on the issue before we run around legislating a position. My own position, the more I consider it, would have us be much more open for immigration than we are now (on the books).

As I look at the text of this bill I believe that it is fundamentally sound. The purpose is to allow a path to citizenship for those who came to the US as children (under 16) and who have lived lives in the U.S. that are worthy of citizens (no run-ins with the law, no orders for deportation, completing their educations) and contributed or prepared to make positive contributions to our country (complete degrees at institutions of higher education without federal grants or served two years in the armed services without an other than honorable discharge). Not only that but they must have lived as residents for at least 5 years – no hopping back and forth across the border (limitations against 90 days at one time or an aggregate of 180 days outside the US in the last five years).

The one potential problem that we should guard against is having this used as a back door for children to get legal status and then use that as a lever to gain legal status for their parents. This law should only be applied to those who came as minors and have since completed their secondary education and followed the path to continued contribution to this country. Those who have done so should not be held liable for being brought here illegally. They should not have any special opportunity to help parents (who are accountable for coming here illegally) gain priority access to legal residence. Those parents should be required to seek legal status through existing means. Children who have not yet completed their secondary education should be returning to their country of origin with their parents and if they choose to return to America legally we should welcome them.

Categories
National politics

Suggestions on Health Care

I have noticed a pattern lately in the articles that I have been linking to (and displaying in my sidebar) – many of them (4 out of 10 currently) deal with the issue of health care. I would like to post on all four eventually but for now I would like to discuss my thoughts on some of the general principles that I am seeing in the health care discussion.

The idea of a single payer system spells economic disaster to me.

The idea of forcing everyone to purchase insurance seems fine on the surface with the typical caveats that we subsidize that cost for low income people. On the other hand, I think that people should be able to choose to not purchase insurance if they have enough personal wealth – with the understanding that they will be fully financially liable for any care they receive. This may sound backwards since the wealthy would be the most able to purchase insurance, but imagine that I am a very healthy millionaire (I am healthy, but I do not have even a fraction of a million dollars in net worth) – there is no reason to force me to purchase an insurance policy if I am willing and able to assume the costs of my health care. Perhaps I have to sign away any right to declare bankruptcy in the face of medical bills.

There are two major things that any attempt to fix our health care system must address if they are to have any hope of success.

The first is to make people sensitive to the costs of health care. Right now most of us are only sensitive to the costs of health insurance. Once we have insurance (whether our own, through an employer, or Medicaid/Medicare) we cease to be cost-conscious because most of the cost is already paid. (High deductible plans have the advantage of keeping the consumer cost conscious.)

The second crucial change that must be made is to find ways to encourage healthy lifestyles and preventive care.

If we address these two changes the entire problem would become more manageable because we would have better health and less being spent on elective procedures. We might even hope to have fewer lawsuits driving up the cost of health care as people become more involved in making their decisions of what procedures they undergo.