Part Two:
What has this to do with the legal theory of Equity in the Law and Family Law in Utah? Everything.
About a year ago I approached my then very green legislator about correcting the problem of imbalance in the equity between two parties in family law--the very same issue as previously mentioned in part I of this series. To my chagrin, and dismay--and my Legislator's bill--not even formally written up yet--was dead on arrival! It had no chance from the beginning because another legislator who happened to serve on the health and human services committee said changing one line in the ORC's ledger affected by the bill would cost upwards of $250,000! What is worse is that the department was locked into this program for about 6 years!
What is wrong with this picture? Any businessman in his right mind would NEVER lock himself into a program for that many years, for one. IT changes nearly overnight. To lock into a program for that long guarantees your competitor the edge when times are tough and every penny on a dollar counts toward a profit. Secondly, to lock into a program with a line change costing $250,000 is ludicrous--unless you are the programmer. Then you are a genius.
The bureaucratic mess penalizes the least to afford such a blunder. Imagine what could be had for the sake of the least fortunate in the State of Utah with $250,000. A recent cut in benefits just eliminated services that include eye care, physical and occupational therapy and specific mental health services. These are key services for the hopeful advancement into society of what would otherwise be termed "fringe" members of society. Those on the outside edges of society. Conservative politicians would argue that charitable services should not be given: Citizens must do for themselves: Private entities must do for others: Arguably, charity has no place in Government they say.
But while one my argue the virtues of governmental charity, mismanagement definitely does not belong in government. Period. This is the people's money. $250,000 will go a long way to pay for glasses so the less fortunate can see to fill out an application at an interview. $250,000 will go even further to assist the depressed from lack of work to get on their feet again and get out in the workplace. Taking away vital health services and mismanagement of funds penalizes those who may otherwise assist the Utah economy more than any other single entity. One, they get off the "dole". and, two, they become productive citizens, even by piecemeal if need be.
Health and Human Services exists to provide for the least able to do for themselves without any other resources from which to draw. I consider myself one of the most conservative people. But common sense is still common sense! As one friend of mine put it though, it's unfortunately true that "common sense isn't that common!" So when two seemingly unattractive sections of government, one a theory in Law and the other a practice in bureaucratic business management get together, you have to know something needs correction.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Equity in the Law and Government Oversight of Waste Management
This is an 2-part article written in preparation for the upcoming legislative session for Utah. As an FYI: Since I chair the Legislative/ Mobilization Committee for the Utah Federation of Republican Women (UFRW), this particular blog post is written from that perspective. Responsible participation through this blog or on Facebook under the Group, "Friends of the Utah Federation of Republican Women" is invited.
Equity in the Law and
Government Oversight of Waste Management
Part One: Equity in the Law
First, let me lay a foundation by saying that the UFRW lobbies on behalf of its members across all areas of legislation. But we are particularly interested in family welfare, human dignity, etc. Broad in scope these can entail about any kind of legislation if one really wanted to push it. Now looking at the title for this blog entry, one would truly wonder exactly how "equity in the law" and "waste management" could be tied together. If anyone knows about the one, they are not likely to know about the other, as they are about as opposite as two topics could be. Or so it would seem.
For now, let's consider the welfare of those effected by split families for a minute. In law, there is the theory called "equity in the law", meaning that whenever two parties (or more) are involved in an action where the welfare of all need to be considered, those needs are balanced against the availability to provide for them, not the number of available resources to the number of those parties. In other words, what is fair is not split down the middle, but is split according to need. In family law, the party with the most pressing need and the smallest available resources to offset those needs gets the lion's share of combined assets. Catch my drift?
So child support, meant to provide for the least likely able to provide for themselves is calculated by a formula. This formula, if you are not familiar with it, (and pardon this dialog if you are), adds both rational incomes of the parties, and then divides the larger into the smaller to get the percentage of one most liable for expending resources. This is fair and balanced according to the law of equity. But in Utah medical expenses--also a type of child support, obviously--is split ignoring the law of equity, right down the middle--using a completely different rule--that of number of resources to number of parties. This is nonsense. It is a simple breach of the algebraic equation: What you do to one side, you must do to the other side. Otherwise you mess up you outcome and your equation doesn't make any sense! And clearly this doesn't.
What this does is force the person with the least resources, usually the one with custody, and the woman, (but not always) to either ignore medical needs until they become critical, or ignore them altogether, or to go on chips. Now, when the other person's income has already been proven to be able to bear the burden of responsibility, why would we allow the state to become the bearer of responsibility? This becomes just another waste of public assets!
Other states use the correct formula consistently across the full measure of child support--both the financial contributions and medical/in kind contributions. What is the matter with Utah? This should be fixed a.s.a.p. So then why isn't it?
Part Two will discuss the reason why.
Equity in the Law and
Government Oversight of Waste Management
Part One: Equity in the Law
First, let me lay a foundation by saying that the UFRW lobbies on behalf of its members across all areas of legislation. But we are particularly interested in family welfare, human dignity, etc. Broad in scope these can entail about any kind of legislation if one really wanted to push it. Now looking at the title for this blog entry, one would truly wonder exactly how "equity in the law" and "waste management" could be tied together. If anyone knows about the one, they are not likely to know about the other, as they are about as opposite as two topics could be. Or so it would seem.
For now, let's consider the welfare of those effected by split families for a minute. In law, there is the theory called "equity in the law", meaning that whenever two parties (or more) are involved in an action where the welfare of all need to be considered, those needs are balanced against the availability to provide for them, not the number of available resources to the number of those parties. In other words, what is fair is not split down the middle, but is split according to need. In family law, the party with the most pressing need and the smallest available resources to offset those needs gets the lion's share of combined assets. Catch my drift?
So child support, meant to provide for the least likely able to provide for themselves is calculated by a formula. This formula, if you are not familiar with it, (and pardon this dialog if you are), adds both rational incomes of the parties, and then divides the larger into the smaller to get the percentage of one most liable for expending resources. This is fair and balanced according to the law of equity. But in Utah medical expenses--also a type of child support, obviously--is split ignoring the law of equity, right down the middle--using a completely different rule--that of number of resources to number of parties. This is nonsense. It is a simple breach of the algebraic equation: What you do to one side, you must do to the other side. Otherwise you mess up you outcome and your equation doesn't make any sense! And clearly this doesn't.
What this does is force the person with the least resources, usually the one with custody, and the woman, (but not always) to either ignore medical needs until they become critical, or ignore them altogether, or to go on chips. Now, when the other person's income has already been proven to be able to bear the burden of responsibility, why would we allow the state to become the bearer of responsibility? This becomes just another waste of public assets!
Other states use the correct formula consistently across the full measure of child support--both the financial contributions and medical/in kind contributions. What is the matter with Utah? This should be fixed a.s.a.p. So then why isn't it?
Part Two will discuss the reason why.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Adaptation & Unification: Keys to Political Survival
With every election the final outcome is not the election itself, but the reaction to it. The winner proves his/her grace as easily as speaking kindly and eliminating boastful "I told you so's" and rubbing remarks. Too often not done, and too often ignored by constituents ready to break down their opponents "goal post" rather than pass along a gentle "well done--a battle well fought! I'm glad that's over, aren't you?!" condolences. Or better yet, congratulations for stepping into the ring in the first place are left absent as opponents walk, backs turned away, as if people never counted in the first place.
To the looser, grace is shown in how tactfully a congratulations and admission that the better person may have won is done. Or at least, to admit that the better person won even if the looser doesn't really believe it. It is far better for this contender to prove his/her chivalry and poise under pressure than that he or she has been wronged. A giant task indeed--one of which only the best of candidates has proven to triumph over these days! Increasingly, we see an embattled candidate lay blame for campaign miscalculations, downright error, or frankly, personal inadequacies compared to the opponent, by bringing up all kinds of travesties heaped upon them by their opponent or his/her supporters, the media, circumstances, even God. Though there are plenty of elections filled with lies, misinformation, and downright slander against an opponent, when the battle is over, the loser must show him/herself to be above the fray.
The simple truth is this: Great leaders are good losers. They are not prone to whining but pick themselves up and learn from the experience. They take that new-found knowledge with them to their next election adventure. It is what separates the poor, average and the truly great among us.
To complicate feelings about elections and their results, are the outcomes of elections won by newcomers defeating incumbents--even incumbents with strong, loyal supporters. Such was the case with the race between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz for US House of Representatives for the 3rd District of Utah. The fact that Chris lost is history to Cannon. He has gone on to develop projects for which he as a Congressman saw a need and longed to do, but could not for lack of time and commitment. His opportunities have skyrocketed.
To the constituency, however, the rubble remains. Chaffetz has yet to gain real support and trust among vast majorities of the population of his district. Why? Consider that the primary election is in June. A weird, off beat and frankly ridiculous month to consider a vote from the populous. History is showing that this choice is beneficial to the offbeat election, the odd referendum and bond issues, that might otherwise not be passed, or conversely should be passed. Consider the race again between Cannon and Chaffetz: Chaffetz did indeed receive 60% of the vote in that June Primary election. An enormous, lopsided win. But it was 60% of 8% of registered, eligible voters! This is hardly a mandate. The fact is, those who took for granted the outcome didn't come out to vote. Many were elsewhere--Disneyland! We do not know what the real vote would be because those voters never showed up.
But the reaction to the outcome of an election is telling. In a recent local election for a women's group within the 3rd District, one of the candidates running for President of the group was very vocal about her involvement with the Chaffetz campaign, and her continued support for him. It was in her literature as well as her speeches. She lost by about a 20% margin to the other candidate, despite heavily recruiting her own supporters. Direct feedback, of which yours truly witnessed, was, bluntly put, that she was a Chaffetz supporter.
But the constituency also has a responsibility to the final outcome of an election as well as those directly involved in the candidacies. Our reaction can either destroy our communities with crippling poison that warps our perception and keeps us from being productive, or it can produce growth in adversity--sunshine after a storm you might say. Even heavy manure will yield a hardy and abundant bouquet in the garden, if one is willing to look for what might be cultivated. The trick is to not over fertilize with manure, right? Doing that will burn what might otherwise have grown. In that scenario, only starting anew will due.
Perhaps that might be where many feel the 3rd District of Utah is. The field was so badly burned that only starting over will due. If so, then start anew we must. The fact is, the outcome of the election resulted in Chaffetz becoming the next Congressman. Starting anew means those who opposed Chaffetz must accept him as their Congressman. Those that supported him must get off their high-horse and work with those who have concerns. To do otherwise will result in our own 3rd District crippling.
I choose not to make matters worse. While I disagreed with many statements Chaffetz made during his campaign--that I verified as incorrect via the LOC, and which he has yet to retract, I don't have to make matter worse, now that he is my Congressman. I can start anew. Starting with him as my Congressman--not a candidate--I can expect him to rise to the occasion. I can and will use my him as my voice--because he is. Likewise it would be prudent wisdom for all constituents--whether they cared for Chaffetz as a candidate or not to do the same.
Are we willing to sabotage our district's well-being to see Chaffetz flounder? To ignore our conduit to the Federal Government because we believe him not to be the best choice will not serve us, and is tantamount to the candidate who pitches a fit after loosing an election by claiming forever he/she is the victim. Those in the 3rd District who felt victimized by a poor election must rise anew. We cannot be self appointed victims for the next two years. If we do our part as an active citizenry and constituency, Chaffetz's failure, should that happen, will be solely his own. Then, and only then can our adaptation to the political situation in which we find ourselves work to our benefit.
Unification does not mean agreeing upon any particular thought, necessarily. It does mean that we must have the same end goal: Success is the same as survival in politics. The 3rd District is in continual need of Federal dollars for infrastructure; Protection against oppressive legislation is a constant need. Utah's oil shale, school trust lands, wilderness, family values are all in need of constant support and vigilance. We, as a constituency, MUST be united in our efforts to improve and protect Utah. We must raise our voices and submit our own contributions.
Then what ever failings Chaffetz has will be his alone. But whatever we as a District choose to work as a united team to enhance will be ours together--as a District.
And of course, the great leader would be prudent to acknowledge the hand of all those who worked toward success. For great leaders are good losers and gracious winners.
To the looser, grace is shown in how tactfully a congratulations and admission that the better person may have won is done. Or at least, to admit that the better person won even if the looser doesn't really believe it. It is far better for this contender to prove his/her chivalry and poise under pressure than that he or she has been wronged. A giant task indeed--one of which only the best of candidates has proven to triumph over these days! Increasingly, we see an embattled candidate lay blame for campaign miscalculations, downright error, or frankly, personal inadequacies compared to the opponent, by bringing up all kinds of travesties heaped upon them by their opponent or his/her supporters, the media, circumstances, even God. Though there are plenty of elections filled with lies, misinformation, and downright slander against an opponent, when the battle is over, the loser must show him/herself to be above the fray.
The simple truth is this: Great leaders are good losers. They are not prone to whining but pick themselves up and learn from the experience. They take that new-found knowledge with them to their next election adventure. It is what separates the poor, average and the truly great among us.
To complicate feelings about elections and their results, are the outcomes of elections won by newcomers defeating incumbents--even incumbents with strong, loyal supporters. Such was the case with the race between Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz for US House of Representatives for the 3rd District of Utah. The fact that Chris lost is history to Cannon. He has gone on to develop projects for which he as a Congressman saw a need and longed to do, but could not for lack of time and commitment. His opportunities have skyrocketed.
To the constituency, however, the rubble remains. Chaffetz has yet to gain real support and trust among vast majorities of the population of his district. Why? Consider that the primary election is in June. A weird, off beat and frankly ridiculous month to consider a vote from the populous. History is showing that this choice is beneficial to the offbeat election, the odd referendum and bond issues, that might otherwise not be passed, or conversely should be passed. Consider the race again between Cannon and Chaffetz: Chaffetz did indeed receive 60% of the vote in that June Primary election. An enormous, lopsided win. But it was 60% of 8% of registered, eligible voters! This is hardly a mandate. The fact is, those who took for granted the outcome didn't come out to vote. Many were elsewhere--Disneyland! We do not know what the real vote would be because those voters never showed up.
But the reaction to the outcome of an election is telling. In a recent local election for a women's group within the 3rd District, one of the candidates running for President of the group was very vocal about her involvement with the Chaffetz campaign, and her continued support for him. It was in her literature as well as her speeches. She lost by about a 20% margin to the other candidate, despite heavily recruiting her own supporters. Direct feedback, of which yours truly witnessed, was, bluntly put, that she was a Chaffetz supporter.
But the constituency also has a responsibility to the final outcome of an election as well as those directly involved in the candidacies. Our reaction can either destroy our communities with crippling poison that warps our perception and keeps us from being productive, or it can produce growth in adversity--sunshine after a storm you might say. Even heavy manure will yield a hardy and abundant bouquet in the garden, if one is willing to look for what might be cultivated. The trick is to not over fertilize with manure, right? Doing that will burn what might otherwise have grown. In that scenario, only starting anew will due.
Perhaps that might be where many feel the 3rd District of Utah is. The field was so badly burned that only starting over will due. If so, then start anew we must. The fact is, the outcome of the election resulted in Chaffetz becoming the next Congressman. Starting anew means those who opposed Chaffetz must accept him as their Congressman. Those that supported him must get off their high-horse and work with those who have concerns. To do otherwise will result in our own 3rd District crippling.
I choose not to make matters worse. While I disagreed with many statements Chaffetz made during his campaign--that I verified as incorrect via the LOC, and which he has yet to retract, I don't have to make matter worse, now that he is my Congressman. I can start anew. Starting with him as my Congressman--not a candidate--I can expect him to rise to the occasion. I can and will use my him as my voice--because he is. Likewise it would be prudent wisdom for all constituents--whether they cared for Chaffetz as a candidate or not to do the same.
Are we willing to sabotage our district's well-being to see Chaffetz flounder? To ignore our conduit to the Federal Government because we believe him not to be the best choice will not serve us, and is tantamount to the candidate who pitches a fit after loosing an election by claiming forever he/she is the victim. Those in the 3rd District who felt victimized by a poor election must rise anew. We cannot be self appointed victims for the next two years. If we do our part as an active citizenry and constituency, Chaffetz's failure, should that happen, will be solely his own. Then, and only then can our adaptation to the political situation in which we find ourselves work to our benefit.
Unification does not mean agreeing upon any particular thought, necessarily. It does mean that we must have the same end goal: Success is the same as survival in politics. The 3rd District is in continual need of Federal dollars for infrastructure; Protection against oppressive legislation is a constant need. Utah's oil shale, school trust lands, wilderness, family values are all in need of constant support and vigilance. We, as a constituency, MUST be united in our efforts to improve and protect Utah. We must raise our voices and submit our own contributions.
Then what ever failings Chaffetz has will be his alone. But whatever we as a District choose to work as a united team to enhance will be ours together--as a District.
And of course, the great leader would be prudent to acknowledge the hand of all those who worked toward success. For great leaders are good losers and gracious winners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
