Comments on: DHS Extorts Higher Fees for a Rotten Licensing Racket

By: Hunter

Hunter — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:08:49 +0000

At the prices the state government says it costs to adequately monitor child care facilities, I would expect many private companies would be willing to undertake the inspections and certifications. With their reputations for accuracy the only thing keeping them in business, private companies would be more reliable than government and probably at a significantly lower cost.

The state law could be changed in response to the budget crisis to say that all day care facilities must prominently post whether they have independent certification and who is providing it. That would privatize the regulation, save everyone money, and provide more reliable protection for most children in daycare. Free enterprise certification is more flexible and can act more decisively because there are no considerations of government due process protecting bad facilities.

Plus, the certification companies can, unlike the government, be sued which give them stronger incentives to be more vigilant to keep costs down by keeping their liability insurance companies’ satisfied they are doing a good job. The greatest gains from tort system regulation are that insurance companies pressure their policyholders to act responsibly which does prevent problems as well as provide financial settlements in response to problems.

By: ron

ron — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:53:10 +0000

I wonder what the fine is for operating an unlicensed facility? I suspect it is a whole lot less than the cost of that license. I suspect a lot of business are going to go ‘unlicensed’ and just pay the fine which they will write off as ‘the cost of doing business.’

By: Snickers

Snickers — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:17:22 +0000

Sean, I explain it the same way I explain Hitler winning popular elections. Or the vote to release Barabbas.

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:45:12 +0000

Snickers do you apply the same “special interest” label when immigration and other propositions pass handily? How do you explain the payday loan loss? They spent millions and lost 70-30.

By: Snickers

Snickers — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:07:55 +0000

Light rail was passed by Phoenix and Maricopa county voters is two separate votes, after two separate multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns. These campaigns were funded by the light-rail industry: the folks ending up with the billions you and I are paying them. So, yeah, you have democracy in action right there.

By: wanumba

wanumba — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:55:21 +0000

todd Says:
October 30th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
wanuba – I think again you are not aware of reality. The light rail system was approved by voters and the funds aren’t coming from money that would be spent on rural schools.
…………………..
A light rail wasn’t necessary. Any funds allocated to that means massive funds were not allocated to OTHER more deserving projects, including rural schools, improvements in school choices, opportunities, curriculum, teaching.
It was a CHOICE which was pushed and presented by special interests and most certainly painted in glowing and unrealistic potential ridership hypothetical projections. No one else in the entire state benefits from a Phoenix light rail, just gets the bill for it.
How can anyone be serious about fiscal responsibility when that light rail will demand subsidies to keep operating? Another demand on a state budget that represents money that could have been used for better purposes, or shouldn’t have been demanded for in the first place. And they’re too chicken to tear it up and sell it on EBay. The additional costs trying to keep it going will be worse than the initial costs.
Evicerating private pre-schools and daycare to pay for the likes of such boondoggles is grotesque.
CUTS aren’t necessary if proper fiscal decisions are made in the first place.

By: todd

todd — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:27:03 +0000

wanuba – I think again you are not aware of reality. The light rail system was approved by voters and the funds aren’t coming from money that would be spent on rural schools.

By: todd

todd — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:21:23 +0000

Antifederalist,
Did the legislature change the law regarding preschool licensing – no, so I don’t think you get it. The same activity is legally required just with less funding. What is so hard to understand about that?

By: wanumba

wanumba — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:26:13 +0000

“Best solution? Put the little SoB’s to work in the cotton fields. Cheap labor, no illegals, and they’ll be too tired to scream and yell all day long.”
……………….
Could work. How about YOU try that for a year and come back and tell us all how you liked it?

By: wanumba

wanumba — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:22:46 +0000

About cutting costs. One starts with using money wisely in the first place.
Example: How come Phoenix got a brand new light rail system that is pretty much useless, when all that money – and it must have cost a billion-plus – COULD have been used for better schools in rural areas?
A billion for schools, vouchers, scholarships, charter schools for poor, outlying areas all over the state so kids in remote areas could get a real shot at college and advanced degrees?
Nope.
Well paved, lighted, full of roads and a perfectly functional BUS system and Phoenix gets an expensive luxury no one actually needs.
Now what? A big paperweight in Phoenix should have been a NO from the get-go, and is certainly one big, inconvenient reason Arizona’s having budget problems. And even though all the business schools in Arizona, and in the nation, teach that SUNK costs are no valid reason to keep funding bad ideas, the politicians feel pressed to keep the pretty thing plugged in. So, the pre-schools now have to pony up to cover that sort of frivolous spending? Another case of an irresponsible generation selfishly taking from the children?
Day care and preschools all over the state – run by small-business people and used by families who may NEVER have any occasion to USE the light rail in Phoenix, to add insult to injury.
Let’s see the fiscal seriousness of the legislators: Cut the light rail, before punishing daycare providers. Families actually USE and NEED daycare to go to work, not the light rail.

By: Festus B. Rottweiler

Festus B. Rottweiler — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:21:22 +0000

Best solution? Put the little SoB’s to work in the cotton fields. Cheap labor, no illegals, and they’ll be too tired to scream and yell all day long.

By: Antifederalist

Antifederalist — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:14:48 +0000

Todd,
You just don’t get it. The idea is not only to cut the funding to government, but to also lessen government’s impact on our personal lives and on industry. The idea is for government NOT to charge industry more, it’s for government to do LESS. Government should have to cut back their operations, NOT charge more to maintain their current operations. So, yeah, it’s consistent for conservatives to favor cutting government funding AND to oppose increases in fees, surcharges, etc.

By: DeAnn

DeAnn — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:56:47 +0000

The sad thing is they don’t really check preschools very often. This is just a way to get money for doing nothing.

By: todd

todd — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:47:20 +0000

VV and wanuba – what do you guys think cutting government means ? It is like you champion cuts and then get exercised that it actually results in the government having to charge the industry being regulated enough to be able to continue doing the job they are mandated to do by law. Is this really a surprise?

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:33:32 +0000

I will be the first to say there is a LOT of waste in Government. Seriously though, are we all THAT crazy that we are surprised when 20%+ cuts come down the pipe and there are some big changes?

I hope our party people aren’t naive and think that we could mandate cuts and everything would just be peachy and fine.