Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Democrats and government growth

Today, I report on just three bills among many being considered in the House of Representatives. They seem to have a common thread...


Democrats Pandering to the Unions?

As this two-year session of the House moves through its second year since the Democrats took over on January 1, 2007, I continue to be amazed at the relentless onslaught of more government, higher taxes and greater regulation of families and businesses that the Democrats keep thinking up. Here are three of the latest Democrat bills which all seem to have something in common:

HB4998 will allow people who purchase insurance to sue their insurance company if they think the company did not act "in good faith." The bill does not define what good faith is. Never mind that the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation
already has the power to levee fines and revoke the license of an insurance company or agent who wrongs a customer. Now we have to allow the trial lawyers into the game to sue an insurance company for virtually any reason. Is this really about protecting consumers or pandering to the powerful trial lawyers' lobby?

HB5912 would require all parents who educate their children at home to register their children by name, age and home address with the local public school superintendent. Why? Because perhaps one in 10,000 home-school families is not truly educating their children? Never mind the fact that home educated children score well above the average of government run schools or that the public schools have about a 50% dropout rate statewide. Is this really about making sure kids get an education or is it pandering to the powerful education union lobby?

HB5024 would require that construction sites have one porta-john per 10 employeeson the job. Current law requires a 1:20 ratio. Let's do the math; if we need one porta-john for every ten employees on the job, and they each work an 8 hour shift,
that comes out to two 24-minute bathroom breaks per shift, per employee! Bad enough this is bad public policy; who ever said the employer couldn't figure out if he was providing enough facilities for his employees? Is this really about meeting
the vital needs of working citizens or is it pandering to the powerful labor union lobby?

In summary, Democrats in the House apparently believe insurance customers need government protection from the insurance company, children need government protection from parents who don't care about them, and construction workers need government protection from employers who do not care about their well-being on the job.

On the other hand, one might surmise that Democrat leadership in the House is marching to the orders of the "ones who brung 'em to the dance." The trial lawyers and big unions got these folks into office. Perhaps now they are simply "cashing the check."

No comments: