Why could Idaho's Republican congressman vote to stop child abuse but their Dem couldn't?

[FLAprogressive]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-72&sort=party

Idaho Republican Mike Simpson voted for this bill....Idaho "Democrat", Walt Minnick (one of the three worst freshmen in the House) voted against it.

I suppose he's trying to build "bona fides" with his moron conservative constituents. But you'd think even they would support this.

[atreides1]

1. Why Am I Not Surprised

That Republicans don't have a problem with children being abused and neglected?

I can't wait to hear the BS excuses that the Repukes will spew about this bill.

[Xithras]

2. It does have issues. I'm hoping it gets amended.

As written, it applies to any kind of residential camp, including scout camps, outdoor education camps, recreational camps, etc. One of the requirements is that EVERY adult at the camp, including parents and volunteers, has to have a full criminal history check, a sex offender check, and their information has to be disclosed to every other adult at the camp. All parent volunteers will also have to take medical training to learn to deal with heatstroke and other issues. In theory that sounds like a good idea, but most camps are run on shoestring budgets and are heavily dependent on volunteers. If you require that parent volunteers get fingerprinted and background checked, and require that they PAY for it themselves, and THEN require that they take Red Cross training ALSO at their own expense, the result will be predictable. Most people aren't going to deal with the hassles and will just quit volunteering (my kids are in several outdoor programs and I volunteer regularly...I'll quit doing so if I have to go through all that).

The result will be that outdoor education programs and multi-night camp programs will lose the people they need to keep their camps going. The camps close, and the kids lose opportunities to get out of the cities and enjoy nature. The ones who serve the poor kids anyway...the ones for wealthier kids (which can cost many hundreds or even thousands of dollars a stay) will continue to operate just fine. It's the low-overhead programs that serve poorer kids that will suffer the most, simply because they rely on volunteers the most.

The idea behind the law isn't bad, but it's overly broad. It should NOT apply to recreational or educational camps, or to volunteers and parents. The intent of the law was to deal with the so called "boot camps" for kids, so why is it covering EVERY residential camp of ANY type?

[jmowreader]

3. Do any of the Bushes own a background check company?

I can think of two reasons why they'd make the law this broad: that a large Republican donor owns a background checking company, or that they really want the residential camps that serve the non-rich to close. As you said, the ones that cost serious money will stay open--those camps are probably checking out their employees fairly closely now.

The third option is even uglier, but I won't go into that right now.