Policymakers should shift priorities and resources to children

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kreg Wagner EDEN PRAIRIE, MN
    Nov. 30, 2011 10:16 p.m.

    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?

  • jotab Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 30, 2011 11:07 a.m.

    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?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 29, 2011 12:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Nov. 28, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    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 children.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    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 pockets.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 27, 2011 1:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    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 choices.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 27, 2011 8:51 a.m.

    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 government resourses!

  • kcmannn Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 3:50 a.m.

    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.