Role of Social Services

We have recently been talking about our role as social service workers.  Where do you think we should step in when a family isn't doing well; or, what would be the best way to work toward healthy families?

Elections

Election day is tomorrow. I know we will all be glad when we are not assaulted by misinformation about the issues, the candidates, and the policies!  One of the things I have been interested in are serious changes to our government. It will be interesting to see who gets voted in and/or voted out.

Many Utahn's think that Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate too long; however, he barely manages to stay in the race and keep his job in the senate. This year, the issue isn't what Senator Hatch will vote for, but rather whether or not Conservatives maintain their percentage in Congress. If they do, their agenda gets to take priority; if not, then their agenda goes south and the liberal agenda takes priority.

Have you ever voted for an agenda? Or, do you vote for the person? What kinds of changes happen to government if we were to have a one party dominating all of the government?  For example, if there is a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in the Congress? Does it help to have opposite sides represent us?

upcoming election

We are getting closer all the time to the upcoming election.  I am wondering if we can take some time and list some of the issues that are related to family policy that are brought up in the campaigns?  Most importantly, how accurate are the claims made by the candidates and who is checking to see if the claims are true?  Can you find the truth about some of the issues?

I think this could be an excellent exercise in defining what is family policy and what is not. It's also an excellent exercise related to your media analysis.

One that I heard of today was an attack ad on Jim Mattheson (sp?)  The ad claimed that he changed his vote about getting our spending under control, but he voted to lower the debt ceiling.  Is that contradictory?  Is that family policy?

What have you heard?

Presidential Debate

As we move closer to election day, we will be seeing three debates between presidential candidates and one between potential vice-presidents. (OK, one is already Vice President and the other is already President.)

Since we have been discussing the quality of our information, I am curious about what you saw on the debates and your thoughts about the following story:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/viewart/20121003/NEWS03/310030029/Obama-Romney-clash-first-debate

When I read this story, I immediately wondered what you, as class members, thought about it. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the quality of reporting here and the content of the debates.

This is getting exciting!

See you on Tuesday. :)

Determining which topics are Family Policy

Karen Bogenschneider writes in her Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars:

Family policy, a subfield of social policy, encompasses one of four family functions: (a) family creation (e.g., to marry or divorce, to bear or adopt children, to provide foster care), (b) economic support (e.g., to provide for members’ basic needs, (c) childrearing (e.g., to socialize the next generation), and (d) family caregiving (e.g., to provide assistance for the disabled, ill, frail, and elderly). Family policies address issues such as child care, child support, divorce, family violence, juvenile crime, long-term care, and teenage pregnancy. Tax provisions that create a child care tax credit would be considered family policy. However, a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, many of whom happen to live in families, would not be considered family policy. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would be considered family policy. However a universal health care program would not be considered family policy, because it targets individuals, irrespective of whether or not they live in a family setting.

So many things might be considered family policy, but some are not necessarily considered proper discussions for family policy. Since this field is considered a "sub-topic of social policy," what types of policies have we talked about in class might be considered social policy and what might be considered family policy?  

What are the arguments and current topics that are being discussed in this election season that might be considered family policy?  (Hint: see the four basic functions of families).

Media Paper

I see so many issues that are coming up related to the election that not all of them are associated with Family. However, when we are in an election season, which of the candidates share your views of family?  Family Policy is all about the family values that we share as a country.  Part of the problem with the US is that we all come from so many different cultures sharing so few of the same family values that we have a difficult time translating those values into effective public policy.

How would you determine which policies are about family?  Does the recent issue of the killing in Libya connect with Family Policy?

More to come...hint:  Karen Bogenschneider

Timely Ideas

In class last night we talked about possible projects. UPR (USU's NPR network) had an interesting discussion today about Rachel's idea to think about texting and driving as a possible topic. I was fascinated to listen about the tragedy that occurred in Vernal when a driver who was texting hit a young man from the Jr. High and killed him. What a horrific accident!  Texting seems to be on the rise, and it's a great problem to address.

NPR had a couple of guests talking about the issue. They had a Dr. Strayer who has been doing research on the quality of thinking as we text, or multitasking, etc. and another guest who can talk about the issues of policing people who are texting.  You can read the story or listen to the entire discussion at:  http://upr.org/programs/access-utah.

Pay attention to the upcoming membership drive. I'll match your contribution to UPR if you have decided that it's a valuable resource to you!

All Politics are Local

You've heard the saying: "All politics are local?"  I have often wondered about this issue, but recently, I have been thinking about my taxes burden, my house, where I live, and the laws that are in place here.  We get very focused on the national elections when we choose our president, but what really matters is in our local elections and the choices of judges. The judges are the ones who interpret the constitution.

I have been a bit frustrated about how we learn the competence of the judges. I reviewed one of our voting information books, and the review of the judges was based on lawyers interpretation of whether or not the judge came prepared to court, whether or not they were competent, etc. It's not a discussion at all about their values, their judgments, etc. I want to know how the judges rule on certain cases. Are they likely to view the constitution as a "dead" document where we are to follow it by the letter of the law? Or,  are we more likely to view it "living, breathing" document that is adjustable by circumstance and by the "zeitgeist?"

There's a very informative discussion on yahoo about the electoral college if you are interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-could-tie-electoral-college-just-explain-194537108.html#more-id

Democratic National Convention

Once again, I'm into listening to the DNC this week.  It's been a bit harder to catch all of the speeches, but I am able to watch some of the key speakers online. It's amazing how former President Bill Clinton can still inspire so many people. He was quite engaging and an enjoyable speaker. Many pundits were talking about how long his speech was, but it didn't feel that way. I have not been impressed with his sense of self-importance, however.

He did touch on some topics that address the "values" of America. Certainly the issue of whether or not being successful is a shared experience rather than an individual one is an important distinction between Republicans and Democrats. It's a good thing to think about. Do we attribute our success to the fact that America is built on individual's work? Or, do we attribute our success to shared effort?  The fable of the Little Red Hen is an important narrative exposing this "american value." Where does the family fit in to this narrative?

Obama speaks tonight. I am looking forward to hearing his speech.

Republican Convention: part deux

I really enjoyed watching the Republican Convention this past week. I think it's fascinating how the pundits and news reporters discuss what we saw. If you didn't see it, you would have a completely different perspective of the convention depending on who you watch or which station you spend more time listening to. Some of the pundits say that Governor Romney was inspirational and knocked it out of the park. Others say that he didn't get past his "wooden" persona and is out of touch with the regular people.

Some of the people I find caustic and rude. I got to watch a bit of Mrs. Romney's speech and thought she did a lovely job describing her husband as she saw him.  However, I read one reviewer that still believes that the privilege she experienced while going to school, living in a basement apartment, and scraping by isn't the same as others who live in poverty because she always had a back up system of her family. When people don't have family to back you up, or your mother is on drugs and you are raised in foster care, those who haven't lived that life can't relate to those who can.

I wonder if that's true?

Republican Convention

I am really enjoying the Republican convention this week. It's very interesting to listen to values they espouse as "American Values."  It's an interesting thought that an entire group of people can agree on values. I find it even more interesting as I listen to NPR unpack their speeches the next day. Mara Liasson (whom I very much admire) pointed out that Ryan's speech discussed how Obama's stimulus didn't save one of the GM plants. However, Liasson indicated that the plant was scheduled to be closed before Obama took office. It's an interesting question.

I love it that there are "fact checkers" who are validating these speeches. If the fact checkers point out that the plant was scheduled to close BEFORE Obama took office but didn't close until a few months AFTER he took office, should Obama be held accountable for not being able to close the plant?  True, he claimed that he could save jobs and keep plants from closing, but does that invalidate Ryan's statement?

Intellectual Laziness

I find it interesting that during an election season, many pundits, candidates and their supporters are charged with intellectual laziness. It's an interesting situation when we are charged with determining who is to lead our country. I think that our values speak louder than our intellect when we are determining such things, and I think that the candidates and their election team like to take advantage of us for the same things.

For example, I was just looking at a democratic website asking Romney to share his tax returns. He already shared his last year returns according to law, so why should more matter? Are his tax returns critical to making a decision about who is going to be a good president?  Personally, I am more curious about what kinds of laws he passed or signed into law in the state of MASSACHUSETTS when he was governor. Why are we not getting more information about that?  Conversely, why are we not hearing about  Obama's policies that he signed into law? What about the ones he requested but didn't get signed because of congress? I am still curious about why he brought us into the war in Afghanistan when we are now seeing soldiers being killed by their "trainees."  Why are we not talking about that? Why are we not talking about closing Guantanimo?

Our founders made sure that the President doesn't have too much power, but we certainly attribute a great deal of power to our president. There are many things that the president can control, but there are a great deal of things that he cannot since the Congress has much to do with what bills get passed, etc. Why are we not asking more questions about how the President can work with Congress? How well did Romney work with the MASSACHUSETTS state legislators? What's Obama's record?

Our values may be getting in the way of making a good decision in this election. I read an article recently in Salon.com that described our fascination with these "side stories" a matter of intellectual laziness. Is it? Can you find some evidence of intellectual laziness in some of the news stories about the upcoming election?

Sex Education in the Schools

The Governor just vetoed the Sex Education bill that passed during our legislative session. The bill required schools to teach abstinence only. However; right now, Utah has an "opt in" policy that means parents have to CHOOSE to allow their children to participate in the sex education in the schools.  They are still pretty strict in what they can teach, this bill just took the limitations one step further.

First, the supporters of the bill provided a pretty good argument that sex education should be taught by the parents and that students who learned abstinence only (according to their studies) tended to delay sex for longer.

The opponents of the bill suggested that the children should be armed with all the information they can get in order to NOT get STD's or get pregnant.

Where do you stand on this? Are you glad the governor vetoed the bill? Do you wish he hadn't?  What do you know about sex education and premarital sex?

I'd LOVE to hear from you!@
s

Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional

We just heard over the news that Caliornia's supreme court has ruled that the popular vote to pass California's Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This brings up an interesting question. We are NOT a democracy. We are a representative government. A democracy requires rules by popular vote. However, we are also bound by the constitution.

If, the people vote on something like Gay marriage, then the courts over-rule it...which is considered more valid. The courts or the people's views?

Families and Government

I caught the last part of the State of the Union address last night. Then I listened to the Republican rebuttal. I found it interesting that the Governor of Indianapolis thought to praise Obama for his dedication to family and spending time with them.

Michelle Obama is working on healthy diets for kids as her project while in the White House.  There are some guidelines created by the federal government about the quality of school lunches, etc.  Have the school lunches changed in the past 40 years?  Has the menu at home changed in the last 40 years?  What is the role of government in helping families to eat better?

media bias

We are now talking about bias in the media. Does it exist? Does it lean left or right?? or, are we all biased and see bias whenever someone doesn't agree with our own perspective.

My Aunt sent me a clip from "TOWNHALL.COM" (a VERY conservative) website. IT was a very interesting discussion about media bias to me.

I can't figure out how to link you to the site, so I decided to let you read the email itself.  I'd love to hear what you think about this!

January 20, 2012

ABC News Produces Empty and Biased Story on Mitt Romney and Tax Havens

By Daniel J. Mitchell

1/20/2012

Exactly 10 days ago, I predicted that the press would attack Mitt Romney for using tax havens. In that post, I wrote that, “…based on the questions, it appears that the establishment media wants to hit Romney for utilizing tax havens… As far as I can tell, none of these reporters have come out with a story. …But I think it’s just a matter of time.”

Sure enough, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, it’s happened. Two hacks at ABC News, Brian Ross and Megan Chuchmach, revealed (brace yourself for a real scoop) that Mitt Romney is a rich guy and some of his investments are based in funds domiciled in the Cayman Islands (gasp!).

Wow, what a revelation! This must be Pulitzer Prize material. Pray tell, what wrongdoing did the story uncover? Well, let’s excerpt the key passages from the article.

Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven. A spokesperson for the Romney campaign says Romney follows all tax laws and he would pay the same in taxes regardless of where the funds are based.  …Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.  …Romney campaign officials and those at Bain Capital tell ABC News that the purpose of setting up those accounts in the Cayman Islands is to help attract money from foreign investors, and that the accounts provide no tax advantage to American investors like Romney. Romney, the campaign said, has paid all U.S. taxes on income derived from those investments. …Bain officials called the decision to locate some funds offshore routine, and a benefit only to foreign investors who do not want to be subjected to U.S. taxes.

You’re probably thinking you missed something, because there’s nothing to the story. But that’s because the reporters don’t have anything. And if you think I excerpted unfairly, feel free to read the whole article.

The only thing you’ll discover is that Ross and Chuchmach are biased hacks. Because not only did they write a story about nothing, they also quoted two left-wingers, Jack Blum and Rebecca Wilson, and failed to give the other side even an inch of column space.

Blum is a former John Kerry staffer who is most famous for making unsubstantiated claims (which he later admitted were fabricated) that tax havens resulted in $100 billion of lost revenue to the Treasury each year.

And Rebecca Wilson works for Citizens for Tax Justice, a union-funded group so radical that even congressional Democrats usually are reluctant to work with them.

But what about the other side of the story?

1. Did the article quote me, since I’ve been working on these issues for more than a decade? No.
2. Did the article quote anybody from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the organization most active in the fight to defend low-tax jurisdictions? No.
3. Did the article quote Richard Rahn, the Cato Institute Fellow who was a Board Member of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority? No.
4. Did the article quote any of the academic scholars who have written about so-called tax havens, such as Jim Hines of the University of Michigan or Andrew Morriss of the University of Alabama? No.
5. Did the article quote Bob Bauman, the former Congressman and offshore expert who serves as Legal Counsel of the Sovereign Society? No.

Fair and competent journalists would have done those things, but not the dynamic duo from ABC News.

Instead, they quote two hard-core lefts. And in a gross display of editorializing, they also referred to the Cayman Islands as a “notorious tax haven.”

Yet what is “notorious” about being a prosperous multiracial society with living standards considerably above American levels?

Moreover, Cayman has a tax treaty with the United States and an overwhelming share of the investment in the jurisdiction is completely legal institutional money – just like the Romney investment funds.

But I guess a place like the Cayman Islands must be bad, at least to biased people from the press. After all, a place with no income taxes, no capital gains taxes, no payroll taxes, and no death taxes must be condemned.

I’m not a Romney fan, as you can see by reading this post, but I believe in honest and intelligent debate. Too bad ABC doesn’t.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

Be the first to read Daniel J. Mitchell’s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Conservative vs. Liberal?

I was listening to NPR today and they had several people, including the president of the Ayn Rand association talking with each other about the definition of "Conservative." It caused me to think that we should define these assumptions for class. Rather than me providing the definition, I am curious about what you think? What is a "liberal" in US? What is a "conservative" in the US?  Have any of you lived in another country where the definition of Liberal or Conservative is the same or different?

I would like to see if we can come to a consensus on this. Is it possible?

Abortion and flip-flop political views

I am really curious about the topic of "flip-flopping." There seems to be a great deal of animosity for those who supposedly flip flop on the topics related to family policy. For example, one of the current candidates is being accused of flip-flopping about their beliefs on abortion. If a candidate says that he or she does not believe in abortion at one point but decided to change perspectives on the topic, is that a weakness or a strength?

I am one who was absolutely PRO LIFE; however, after doing much thinking about the topic, I am still anti-abortion, but am not for creating public policy to limit abortions.

Do you agree with me? Why or why not?