Amazing Regulatory Over-Reach

I want bother to except this, you really need to see the post in its entirety.  Popehat looks at 98 pages of Colorado state regulations on day care centers.  The breadth and depth of the regulations, down to exactly how many of what type blocks kids should have to play with, is just amazing.

This is job security for life for a bunch of bureaucrats.  If we require all this stuff, we need regular reporting don't we, on compliance.  And inspections. And a detailed licensing and application process.  And ten years from now, when all the day care centers are closed or cost too much, we will need extensive government programs to provide subsidized day care.

  • Brian Martinez

    Denver already has subsidized child care, funded by a voter-approved tax increase in 2006. Parents receive tuition credits and day care providers receive funding based on "quality ratings", which of course need a bureaucracy in order to investigate and tabulate. And that's on top of the normal, regulatory inspections. It's practically self-perpetuating.

  • Bart Hall (Kansas, USA)

    Declaration of Independence -- ~1450 words. Unamended US Constitution -- ~4500 words. USDA definition of "cabbage" -- ~28,000 words. At a federal level we should be profoundly concerned that CFR is far longer and far more important than the Congressional Record.

    By the way, why is it that the regulations for day-care centres, hair salons, and many other such businesses are far longer, far more detailed, and far more rigorously enforced than regulations on ... abortion clinics?

  • el coronado

    or.....capital requirements on banks, especially large investment banks? or securities ratings agencies?

  • morganovich

    "it it moves, tax it. if it keeps moving, regulate it. if it stops moving, subsidize it."

    the gipper had it nailed.

  • DrTorch

    If Colorado needs to balance its budget, I know where it can start...

  • Nascar Wife

    It always amazes me... Everyone thinks their "insert profession here" professional is A-OK, but that other purveyors of this same profession need close government supervision to perform ethically. Once the over-site is in-place, everyone agrees "it's a good thing." Then a year down the road everyone wonders why their professional went out of business or raised prices so high that only the wealthy can now afford the service.

    Child care (all the way through age 18) is the PARENTS' RESPONSABILITY. We have our daughter in a home daycare situation and couldn't be happier. But we got referrals and references before placing her. We monitor her attitude when we drop her off and pick her up. We pick her up at non-standard times and observe the facility, regularly, at times when parents aren't expected to be there. We monitor her health; colds, but no food poisoning, no diaper rash, no head lice, no bruises, no cuts etc... I would hate to lose this option in favor of a chain provider. We have not heard one good story from one parent about these "baby warehouses." Plus they are CONSIDERABLY more expensive than home day-care providers. And make no mistake; these new regulations are about putting the small providers out of business, leaving nothing but the "baby warehouses."

  • Capn Rusty

    Nascar Wife: Careful. When you say that "child care is the parents' responsibility," you'll be advocating a "family values" social position that might irritate the host of this blog. Or maybe, Gary Johnson will flip you the bird.

  • Nascar Wife

    Capn Rusty, my position is the libertarian position. You are responsible for yourself and your family. Its no different than when Coyote advocates against government health care. You are ultimately responsible for yourself and no-one else

  • NL_

    So wait, if I have a 22-month-old it would violate the regulation for him to watch a complete episode of Sesame Street? The 20-minute time limit seems like a war on coherent plot development.

  • Mark

    "You are ultimately responsible for yourself and no-one else"

    But you use a qualifier in this statement that makes the statement untrue in many circumstances. As I have pointed out in several posts on this site, we have many shared responsibilities and must interact with people that are not our family, or even our friends. ANd, in those circumstances, the rights of the individual may clash with the rights of another.

  • Another guy named Dan

    Goes to prove my observation that upwards of 20% of government employees are conscientiously and diligently performing tasks that don't need to be done.

  • Craig

    I'll say something really controversial. Don't have kids if you can't take care of them by yourselves. This is what happens otherwise.

  • http://herdgadfly.blogspot.com/ gadfly

    Spell check: "excerpt" not "except" please.

  • Mark

    Whatever happened to parents raising their own kids. Kids aren't like pets and furniture where you can warehouse them when it is inconvenient.

    The kids, in the libertarian viewpoint, should be able to sue the parents for the harm the daycare caused them in their youth, and there is quite a bit of evidence that daycare kids have trouble with relationships and emotional issues as adults.

  • http://www.cogfactory.net colson

    "The kids, in the libertarian viewpoint, should be able to sue the parents for the harm the daycare caused them in their youth, and there is quite a bit of evidence that daycare kids have trouble with relationships and emotional issues as adults."

    Not true. We advocate for eating babies so they can't sue for emotional distress.

  • Robert Spiegel

    "I want bother to except this"

    Arrgh! Let me spell/ grammar check for you!

  • Jon B.

    Mark:

    A person's true rights can NEVER infringe upon another's rights. If what I do infringes upon you, then it isn't a right at all.

    I defy you to provide an example of any right of mine that infringes upon any aspect of your life.

    Jon B.

  • Ted Rado

    Where will the never-ending expansion of government intervention into our lives end? I expect to find a gov regulation posted in the men's room stating how many times to shake it when you are done. Probably an inspector standing by to make sure you comply. The idea that 20% of gov employees are doing unnecessary work is dead wrong. It is probably 99%+.