By Scott Fluhr
There seem to be some Republicans in the Indiana state legislature that believe that people should be wrapped in bubble wrap for their own protection and that the government can legislate personal responsibility. At the start of every legislative session, they come around with these ostensibly good ideas that are, in the final analysis, horrible examples of big government liberalism and progressivism.
The latest two examples are a proposed statewide ban on smoking and a proposed ban on texting while driving.
The term RINO gets thrown around a lot (too much, I think, and perhaps so much that the term has lost all real meaning). But our problem is not that the Republican Party has “Republicans In Name Only”, but that we have Republicans that are not conservative (or who are “Conservative In Name Only”).
A conservative looks at legislation like this and finds it an undue expansion of government power into the lives and upon the liberties and rights of the people. I don’t doubt that it is well-intentioned, but it is not conservative.
And this isn’t the only place that we find Republicans lining up behind “well-intentioned” legislation that expands the power of the state at the expense of the people. Mitt Romney (and anyone that supports or supported him) falls into this category, for example. Mitch often falls into this category (he says he will sign the smoking ban, for example). Dick Lugar has spent his entire political career living in this category.
Many Republicans, conservative on spending and social issues, nevertheless have no problem expanding the power of the state into other aspects of the lives of the citizenry (sometimes in the name of their social values). That’s certainly not meant as a critique of social conservatives, who in recent times have resorted to legislative means primarily to stop activism by the judiciary (the chief examples being in abortion and marriage).
Yet, here, we have a problem of legislative activism, and not in response to anything other than people being irresponsible. “Government,” Ronald Reagan said, “exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” (And just trying to do so wastes resources and needlessly expands the power of the state.)
Public smoking ban:
Gov. Mitch Daniels says he would sign a statewide smoking ban if Indiana lawmakers approve sweeping restrictions on indoor smoking in public places.
The Times of Munster reported Thursday that Daniels said he would definitely sign such a bill because “there seems to be growing momentum” for such a ban.
State Rep. Charlie Brown plans again to sponsor legislation in January that would prohibit indoor smoking statewide in public places. The Gary Democrat has won House approval of a smoking ban with exemptions in previous legislative sessions. This time he’s seeking a ban with no exemptions.
Daniels spokeswoman Jane Jankowski says the governor has said for nearly two years that he would sign a statewide smoking ban if it passed the Legislature.
Mitch loves to kick around smokers, that’s for sure.
An Indiana legislator once again is trying to keep cell phones out of drivers’ hands.
Sen. Travis Holdman, who authored the 2009 law that prohibits people 18 and younger from texting while driving, has filed legislation that would prohibit the use of handsets behind the wheel.
Holdman, R-Markle, said Indiana needs such a law to crack down on distracted driving.
Indiana State Police report that cell phone usage has been a factor in 1,167 accident reports this year, according to a news release from Holdman’s office. Four of those accidents resulted in death.
Under the legislation proposed by Holdman, drivers still could use hand-held phones to place and end calls, but they would have to use Bluetooth or speakerphone devices to talk. Drivers also could use cell phones in emergencies and check them while stopped, but they wouldn’t be able to text while driving.
If the bill becomes law, police could stop people who are talking or texting and issue tickets. Those ticketed would have to pay fines, Holdman said.
Similar legislation, which outlawed only texting, died in a committee earlier this year because legislators feared it would be difficult to enforce.
But Holdman thinks the new measure would be easier to enforce because police essentially could stop anyone holding a cell phone while driving.
Holdman has worked with other legislators on the proposal and hopes it will succeed this time.
This is well-intentioned (as all of these things are), but probably still unenforceable. Anyone caught with their hand on their phone will say that they were trying to place a call or were in the process of hanging up, since touching the phone for that reason is apparently permitted by the legislation. I don’t, however, see any pending legislation for people eating while driving, doing their makeup while driving, looking at the person next to them they’re talking to while they’re driving, or any of the countless other distracting behaviors that responsible drivers should not be engaging in while operating a vehicle.
Update (12-20-10): I’ve been informed that the AP article I previously cited (here) is incorrect; despite what the article says, the legislation does not require that the purchase of cold medicine be made to require a prescription. It is much more limited in focus and scope (and something similar has been used with success in other states).
Scott Fluhr writes at Hoosier Pundit and is the Harrison County Republican Party Chairman
Tags: Indiana Politics, Nanny state
Entries (RSS)
