12th grade
With tears
rolling down her face, the young girl lays in her pale, jail-like bed. This
small four-year-old child tries desperately to go to sleep and make this
horrific condition go away. As she
begins to drift off to sleep, she suddenly squints open her eyes at the sound of
the door, slamming shut. The little
blonde-headed schoolgirl looks in the darkness of her room and sees everything
in a new perspective; the clown that she had loved so much just hours before now
looks more like a frightening creature, and at every sound in the house, she
jumps in terror. Out of the
blackness her scratched white door creeps open just enough to see the light from
the hall and a black figure standing at her door.
The boyish figure looks at the innocent child curled up in a ball as to
protect herself and crawls over to her. When
her brother reaches her, he simply puts his arms around the demoiselle and hugs
her; without saying a word, he pulls the white pillow from the bed and sleeps on
the newly refinished hard wood floor.
The
night that her parents separated, which led to their divorce, is a deep-seeded
hurt that she will forever remember. This
young girl is me, and although I survived this moment of fear and love both of
my parents very much, there are plenty of kids who have experienced what I did
and have not turned out all right. Government
regulation concerning family matters seems to be on a smooth track, although I
feel as though there are weaknesses with the strengths.
Divorce has become an everyday occurrence. Instead of being shocked and appalled by a couple separating, we feel as though it is okay because everyone else does it. Something needs to be done. We must have a better excuse for getting a divorce than simply incompatibility. Too many children come from broken homes, and learn that marriage is not a sacred bond and that they can get out at any time. Why are there not laws that say couples must go to counseling and then let the counselor determine whether it will work or not? The government must put stronger restrictions on getting a divorce; otherwise, the children of divorced parents will get married themselves, and this awful cycle will continue with their families.
Being
raised by my father since I was ten years old, I have a different opinion of who
children should live with and how alimony works.
Why is it automatically assumed that the children would be better off
living with the mother? Fathers are
just as much a part of a child’s life as the mother is.
A special connection between a father and his children is sacred and
should never be taken away from anyone. Too
many fathers believe that there is no chance of getting full custody over their
children, so they just give up. Our
government must do something to prove to fathers that they do believe they are
fit parents.
When
it comes to alimony, it is assumed that the father will give his children to the
mother and then pay alimony. It is
a sad situation when a woman does not even have to work because she can just
live off of the alimony that her ex-husband sends her.
Charles Mayfield has been divorced for 11 years; he has remarried and has
a newborn on the way. Why must he
work long hour shifts and never get any sleep?
He is trying to support two families, when his ex-wife does not even have
a job! Something must be done to
get this changed. Our government
must look at every case individually and determine what needs to be done based
on each family. We cannot afford to put
every family into one category.
Many
regulations the government has are successful, such as the fact that they will
not allow a child to live in an abusive home.
Our government has done everything in it’s power to make families work.
There is absolutely no reason for a child to be beat.
Once a person says that he feels as though a child might be getting
abused, the government sends a social worker.
Thus person makes sure everything is all right.
If a child is being beat, he/she does everything within his/her power to
change that, and if there is nothing that can be done, he/she will send the
child to a foster home.
Foster care is another strength in our government’s role in the family. It is an amazing program that we have in America. Places such as foster care are a blessing. It is never a child’s fault that he/she is being beat. It is absolutely remarkable for there to be places for children to go when this horrific event happens. Although foster homes are never the greatest adventure of a child’s life, it is a necessity to have homes such as these in our society.
Another
great regulation that the government has for the American family is the tax
break. Parents with more children
have to send a less amount of money to the government by the tax break. The
government is aware that the more children one has, the more money he/she is
going to spend on raising and teaching them to be admirable Americans.
It is an extreme relief to parents of five children that they will not be
penalized for having that many children.
Government
regulation within the family is desperately needed for this great country to
work. We need rules and regulations
to make this country function. The
cost of government regulation is not always determined by dollar signs.
The cost of the child’s mentality after being put through a foster home
is an enormous gamble. So many
people’s mentalities at risk; the director of the foster home, the parents
after their child is taken away, and the family of the child who is being put in
such a facility. Most of all, the
cost of how society will treat such individuals once they are on their own does
exist. I believe society, in
general, should decide what is over-regulation.
Let the people who actually have to live with these regulations decide.
Congress is made up of people who are very prestigious.
Why don’t we let middle-class people make decisions such as these? Congress is right on track with their government regulations.
They have their strengths and their weaknesses and that is common.
Overall, I am happy with the government regulations in my life.
Q1: What is the only way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane according to the unknown author?
A:
The only way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane is
to harden the cockpit.
Q2:
What are the arguments given by lobbyists for the Bells in favor of HR
1542 (Tauzin-Dingell Bill) and arguments given by their opponents against this
legislation?
A:
The lobbyists argue that it’s members need regulatory relief to compete
with cable television companies and other high-speed Internet providers.
The opponents contend that the Tauzin-Dingell bill would give the Bells a
stranglehold on high-speed Internet service and delay the development of
next-generation Web technology.
Q3:
Why do small-business groups like HR 1831?
From the small amount of information presented in your required reading,
do you think the legislation is a good idea?
Why?
A:
The bill would protect businesses that discard less than 110 gallons of
liquid waste or less than 200 pounds of solid, non-hazardous waste at a
superfund site. It would also apply
to small businesses that dump ordinary garbage in a landfill that later is
designated a superfund site. I agree with the legislation is a good idea, it will protect
the businesses that have not significantly harmed the environment from being
sued by large polluters that want to recover some of their government-mandated
cleanup costs.
Q4:
Give an argument in favor of government regulating activities such as
rollerblading and bungee-jumping.
A:
Many young adults as well as children do not take proper safety
precautions. If the government
feels that this is the only way to make the streets safe then they must do what
must be done.
Q5:
Define a “burden hour.”
A:
A burden hour is supposed to measure the time it takes to collect data
and fill out federal forms, surveys, and reports.
Q6:
Why was Connecticut Senator, Joseph Lieberman, concerned enough to vote
against the nomination of Professor John Graham as administrator of the office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the current Bush administration?
A:
Lieberman believed that Graham would weaken federal health, environmental
and safety standards.
Q6a:
Graham is a proponent of “risk analysis.”
How is risk analysis defined on page 992 of the May 5, 2001 issue of Congressional
Quarterly Weekly?
A:
Risk analysis calculates the likelihood of a hazard against the costs and
benefits of preventing it.
Q6b:
Who was the first president to order federal agencies to weigh potential
costs and benefits when writing a rule?
A:
The first president to order federal agencies to weigh potential costs
and benefits when writing a rule was Jimmy Carter.
Q6c:
How much would compliance with OSHA’s regulations to limit injuries or
disabilities from performing repetitive tasks cost according to an estimate by
business groups as reported in the 2000 CQ Almanac?
What was the response of OSHA and Labor Department officials?
A:
The 2000 CQ Almanac says it will cost anywhere from $14 billion to $80
billion a year. OSHA and Labor Department officials say that while costing
employers $4.2 billion annually, they say, it would also save them $9 billion a
year in lost productivity.
Q7:
What was the makeup of the “iron triangle” during the Reagan years
and what do environmentalists and consumer activists foresee as its composition
in the current Bush administration?
A:
The “iron triangle” is an unbreakable alliance among Democratic
committee chairmen, agency officials and interest groups that worked in concert
to achieve common goals, whether it was funding for special projects or
protecting specific constituencies. Environmentalists
and consumer activists say they fear the formation of a new triad—composed of
industry officials, the White House and GOP committee chairmen—that leaves
them out of the equation.
Q8:
Name 5 actions of the Bush administration that have drawn criticism from
Environmentalists.
A:
Bush denied a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide and rejected the
Kyoto Protocol on global warning. He
also reversed a Clinton rule to reduce the levels of arsenic in drinking water.
Bush may let timber companies destroy the nation’s forests.
The Department of Agriculture proposed a decision that would have ended
testing of school lunchmeat for salmonella.
Q9:
What did the executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and still in
effect today, require agencies to prove before new regulations were enacted?
How did the Democratic House counter in 1986?
A:
The order in 1981 required agencies to prove that a regulation’s
benefits would “outweigh” its costs—a standard Democrats said was often
tough to prove. In 1986, the
Democratic-controlled House forced a showdown by deleing funds for OMB’s
regulatory division from the fiscal 1987 budget.
Q10:
On average, how long does it take to build an airport?
A highway?
A:
The average time to build an airport is 15 years and the average time to
build a highway is 12 years.
Q11:
Discuss the pros and cons of licensing requirements.
A:
The rules and regulations for licensing are shutting down many young
people who are trying to earn a few extra dollars.
Monique Landers was a 15 year old who started her own business, I believe
that we should recognize her talent and realize that we need more youngsters
such as herself in this world. So
many young people do not realize that they can be anything that they want to be
in life and they just give up. If
others could see what Monique did, they could do the same for themselves.
On the other hand, the rules and regulations are for the customer’s
safety as well. Many people
would be furious if they knew that the person performing a service on them, such
as doing hair, was not licensed. I
believe that a person should be licensed to perform a service, but I also think
that they should be able to get licensed at any age.
Q12:
Discuss the pros and cons of master plans and planning departments.
A:
The cons of master plans and planning departments include wasting the time and
intelligence of those who must take time away from home, business, trade or
profession to full out forms and appear before numerous hearings and
commissions. The boards,
supervisors, commissions and so on operate in an arbitrary and inconsistent
manner.
The pros of master plans and planning departments include looking ahead
to prevent damage.