Another case of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'

Archive From The 'Tank
User avatar
Rawedge Rim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Florida

Another case of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'

Post by Rawedge Rim »

otherwise know as sheer F***ing governmental bureaucratic stupidity and overreaching.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich
State to mom: Stop baby-sitting neighbors' kids

By JAMES PRICHARD, Associated Press Writer James Prichard, Associated Press Writer – Tue Sep 29, 9:41 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.
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper

"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61765
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Y'all are going to legislate yourselves into a nanny state. Scratch that...more of a nanny state.

--A
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7384
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

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

Good fences make good neighbors.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

The article goes on to say that even the people enforcing the law think it defies common sense. But, I presume, the law is the law and they have to follow it.

So this is not an overreaching beaurocracy. This is a problem with the law as written. As the article goes on to state.

If people routinely decided that the law wasn't the law whenever it made sense to them, there'd be reason to complain about that. Frankly I consider that the worse error.

Meanwhile, I'm confident the matter will be cleared up in the nice woman's favor. This is newsworthy only because it inflames the flamable.
.
User avatar
rdhopeca
The Master
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Post by rdhopeca »

Avatar wrote:Y'all are going to legislate yourselves into a nanny state. Scratch that...more of a nanny state.

--A
Worse. We are going to legistlate ourselves into non-existence.
Rob

"Progress is made. Be warned."
ParanoiA
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:51 pm

Post by ParanoiA »

Why do we allow the state to decide who is a daycare provider or not? Where does the state get off setting a bar of expectation for people I want to leave my kids with? How about letting me keep my parental rights and let the state chime in when a crime has been committed...like how the rest of our rights are negotiated? or what's left of them anyway....
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7384
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

This whole thing is total bull crap.
The woman wasn't running a business.
Legally she should be able to give the State the finger.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:This whole thing is total bull crap.
The woman wasn't running a business.
Legally she should be able to give the State the finger.
Or a good punch to the face.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9302
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Post by SoulBiter »

The state is always so worried that someone will get away without paying their taxes that they make laws like this. But the problem isnt the law its how the law is written. They really need to think through how they write these laws before they sign them.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7384
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

SoulBiter wrote:The state is always so worried that someone will get away without paying their taxes that they make laws like this. But the problem isnt the law its how the law is written. They really need to think through how they write these laws before they sign them.
In the Age of Obama reading a Bill before signing it is racist.

;)
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Earthfriend
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:32 pm
Location: The Hills of Andelain

Post by Earthfriend »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:
In the Age of Obama reading a Bill before signing it is racist.

;)
Yeah, back in the Age of Bush you at least pretended you could read, before signing it.
Last edited by Earthfriend on Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stone and Sea are deep in life,
two unalterable symbols of the world;
permanence at rest, and permanence in motion;
participants in the Power that remains.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

SoulBiter wrote:But the problem isnt the law its how the law is written. They really need to think through how they write these laws before they sign them.
Agreed. But no one is perfect, and the great thing about the system is we can fix it up as we go. It takes specific situations to get laws fixed. This is such a one, it will drive the law to be changed, and everyone will end up fine.

Even people who want reasons to ridicule Obama get something out of it.
.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19641
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Wayfriend, I agree that this is a very small issue. And it will (hopefully) work out fine. However, it's never a bad idea to review examples of unintended consequences in our laws as a way to maintain the necessity of our vigilence. In an age where Obama has broken his promise to have bills on the Web for 5 days before he signs it, and when Democrats voted down the Republican proposal to have the health care bill online for 72 hours before a vote, this lesson is especially relevent. It might be easy to undo the unintended harm of this particular law. But it will be a lot harder to undo an overhaul of our health care system. This has nothing to do with looking for reasons to ridicule Obama. A man who breaks his promises invites his own ridicule. This is more about the importance to take a closer look at our laws before we pass them in a rush.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61765
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

That was a twisty argument Malik. :lol: I agree that laws should be carefully considered in terms of the consequences, potential and otherwise, that they have. If only we all felt that way about all laws. :D Of course, that isn't going to stop them advantaging some, and disadvantaging others. That's what laws do, come to think of it.

But I agree with WF that it takes something like this to get a law re-examined. And that regardless, unforeseen consequences will creep in. That's why we call them unforeseen. :lol:

I think fixing them quickly and fairly is not only more important, but easier, than trying to prevent every possible negative affect...even if it were possible. You'd either get bogged down and never pass anything, or end up with bills 1,000 pages long. :D

--A
User avatar
lucimay
Lord
Posts: 15044
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: Mott Wood, Genebakis
Contact:

Post by lucimay »

this is what really gets me about this:
Snyder learned that the agency was responding to a neighbor's complaint.


who is the stupid freakin simpleton butthead that started this ridiculous stink?

(btw, i agree with the finger idea)


also...WTF you guys? is it POSSIBLE for any of you to have a conversation that DOESN'T involve obama? i mean really. broken record syndrome boys.
you're more advanced than a cockroach,
have you ever tried explaining yourself
to one of them?
~ alan bates, the mothman prophecies



i've had this with actors before, on the set,
where they get upset about the [size of my]
trailer, and i'm always like...take my trailer,
cause... i'm from Kentucky
and that's not what we brag about.
~ george clooney, inside the actor's studio



a straight edge for legends at
the fold - searching for our
lost cities of gold. burnt tar,
gravel pits. sixteen gears switch.
Haphazard Lucy strolls by.
~ dennis r wood ~
User avatar
Rawedge Rim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Rawedge Rim »

Again, as I said, this is another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", which happens quite often when someone uses the power of government to regulate even the tiniest of matters between people, let alone bigger things like property ownership.

Now if the state wished to regulate day-care centers, and ensure that people who charge lots of money to watch over lots of kids have some minimal standards, I'm okay with that. When the state goes further to define "day-care providers" as anyone who watches over a couple of kids not thier own for more than an hour a day, regardless if money changes hands or not, then it's gotten ridiculous. In the case I posted, I guess it's much better for the children to stand outside in the cold for a couple of hours while waiting on the bus, or in the rain, than to be in a neighbors house, safe, until the bus comes along to pick them up.

What I really would like to know is what the complaintants problem is?
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper

"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19641
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

lucimay wrote:also...WTF you guys? is it POSSIBLE for any of you to have a conversation that DOESN'T involve obama? i mean really. broken record syndrome boys.
Ha ha. I can understand your ire. However, the original reference to Obama in this thread (HLT's) wasn't really about Obama, but rather about how those who criticize legislation are demonized with ad hominem attacks such as "racist." It's a fair point to make (while "ridiculing Obama" was not; no one ridiculed him in this thread), given that the mere existence of this thread--a thread aimed at criticizing unintended consequences of poor legislation--was itself ridiculed by, "This is newsworthy only because it inflames the flamable." In my opinion, one of the roles of the media should be to act as a watchdog for government excess, corruption, inefficiency, and yes, unintended consequences. That's always newsworthy. There is no reason to ridicule the choice to bring it to our attention, other than to demonize those who do so. It's a tactic strikingly similar to the one our Democrat leaders have found so tempting lately . . . which to me makes the point relevant. This is certainly a characteristic of the "Age of Obama."
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Tjol
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:11 am

Post by Tjol »

wayfriend wrote:The article goes on to say that even the people enforcing the law think it defies common sense. But, I presume, the law is the law and they have to follow it.

So this is not an overreaching beaurocracy. This is a problem with the law as written. As the article goes on to state.
Actually no. The bureacrats don't have to automotonically observe the law. Judgement, and critical thought is expected in the enforcement of laws.... so I think it can be blamed on an over reaching bureaucracy.
"Humanity indisputably progresses, but neither uniformly nor everywhere"--Regine Pernoud

You work while you can, because who knows how long you can. Even if it's exhausting work for less pay. All it takes is the 'benevolence' of an incompetant politician or bureaucrat to leave you without work to do and no paycheck to collect. --Tjol
User avatar
DukkhaWaynhim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9195
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: Deep in thought

Post by DukkhaWaynhim »

Malik23 wrote:There is no reason to ridicule the choice to bring it to our attention, other than to demonize those who do so.
This is a basic fact / frustration of the Tank -- someone must post something to start a conversation. But since not all 'news' articles can be posted, the choice of what gets posted can often become the topic of the conversation, or at least one salvo within that conversation. And by conversation, I mean partisan text-based slapfest.

The couch of our partisan discussions is developing some well-worn a$$ grooves. :) One can almost begin typing others' responses for them... ;)

dw
"God is real, unless declared integer." - Unknown
Image
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Rawedge Rim wrote:When the state goes further to define "day-care providers" as anyone who watches over a couple of kids not thier own for more than an hour a day, regardless if money changes hands or not, then it's gotten ridiculous.
Well, now, that comes down to whether or not you think the law was INTENTIONALLY designed to address "anyone who watches over a couple of kids", or whether it is an unintended consequence of a law which was really designed for something else and constructed poorly.

I really see no evidence that it was the former; looks like the latter to me.

And if it is, it's not a rediculous overreaching of authority, it is a rediculous bad job at constructing legal code.

But that wouldn't be as useful in constructing myths about our authoritarian government, would it?( With an opportunity to bolster a myth about Obama on the side.)
Tjol wrote:Actually no. The bureacrats don't have to automotonically observe the law.
Okay, now that's where you go into crazy land for me.

Only judges have the right to interpret the law. Anyone else doing so is making themselves a law-unto-themselves and are nothing but dangerous. This is why everyone from the president on down takes a vow to uphold the law.
.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”