I honestly don't see where in Senator Reid's letter he states he is advocating a
shift in responsibility from the family unit. He is simply
foreshadowing areas in Utah that need dire attention because they are failing
Utah's most vulnerable. Why shouldn't these areas (welfare, education, and abuse
protection) be areas of emphasis, especially when they benefit Utah's overall
stability, well-being, and national prominence? Again, how does this
erode parents' responsibilities to their children?
Senator Reid does a fine job a laying out the problems but offers no solutions.
If several years of Republican dominance has put us in this position, maybe we
need a change of leadership in the state legislature?
Given the high levels of corruption and mis-management, our form of capitalism
probably isn't the best in the world any longer. There probably are countries
that do it better.
The senatorial epistle makes unfounded assertions:Firstly the
flattering assertion about the supremacy of the "American" economic
system - which he doesn't define and which assumes he has perfect judgment
applied to a comprehensive history of the world. The last we certainly don't
have, the first he presumably lacks, and the "American" system today
is a mixed economy in which government is continually dabbling and making
progressively worse.More to the point the assertion (about a
virtuous society being defined in the degree of protective services being
imposed on the public) is also in question and makes many unfounded and
undemonstrated assumptions. I agree with those who say that the State is not as
qualified as parents in caring for children. I also believe that the
interventions of the State, especially when based on surreptitious accusations
followed by precipitate state action by persons of questionable motives and
character, and dubious training, is not safe for either society, parents or
Make this another area where I agree with Mike Richards, which is really rare.
Anytime I hear a politician say " We gotta do it for the kids" I
cringe. With all due respect to Rep. Reid's letter the impression many of us
have towards our state politicians is that they only want to line their own
In a civilized society it is incumbent that we protect those who cannot protect
themselves. First, the responsibility for children lies upon parents. The home
environment has the greatest lasting impact upon the future success and
well-being of the child. So is that where responsibility for children end? No.
States have responsibility for public education, and as a result, for children.
State agencies such as Child Wefare Services have a responsibility for children
too. We all have a moral responsibility for the protection and well-being of
children. This responsibility is not necessarily altruistic. The survival of
society and the species relies on the well-being and education of children.Finally, as one who believes in God, we are brothers and sisters in His
eyes. We are our brother's keeper.
Of course it is noble and good to protect children. But there are too many
children born into poverty because too many people in poverty are making bad
It troubles me when a politician wants to take over the stewardship of a father
and a mother. The State has no business meddling in a family's affairs. God
did not send children to the State for nurture and guidance, He sent them to
families and He will hold those families responsible.When laws are
broken, the State can act; but, until a law is broken, NO ONE has the right to
interfere with a family.To some, that may seem callous, but when you
allow any "well meaning" government to decide how a family should
function and what a family should do, then you are looking at disaster. What "principles" can the State teach?What
"religion" will the State promote?What "ethics"
will the State enforce?No, the responsibility to raise and care for
children remain duties of the parents, not of the State.Buying votes
at the expense of families is a poor way to run for office.
Good article but isn't it interesting that the very people we want to help with
entitlements are harmed the most by the the very entitlements we give them;
dependancy, generation after generation? Further, when we can't pay for all the
entitlements any longer (today for example) and we borrow trillions of dollars
to fund them, the result always is less purchasing power of our money and
inflated food and energy prices which harms most the very people we needed to
help! Unintended consequences of more poverty and suffering are inevitable when
we move away from principles of self reliance and strong family values! The best
resourses we can give our children will never come from the government, but from
two parents in strong families! That is how we will defeat poverty, not by more
Since the legislature controls where every single dollar is spent, I take it the
good senator is blasting them with this letter. In the case of education, the
legislature has spent the last 20 years decreasing the "effort" our
state puts into the system. Once the money gets to the system it is spent as
well as possible. Utah leads the nation in percent of education spending that
gets into the classroom.