Have We Lost Our Minds?

This 35 second video says a lot...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY2Qh6Mv0ZY

Have We Lost Our Minds?

This 35 second video says a lot...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY2Qh6Mv0ZY

SB 776 is Now on Final Passage

Representative Brian Palmer is now speaking to a bill he has been trying to get done for over five years. His House version has not moved, but the Senate version, introduced by Sen. Cameron Brown, was passed on January 22, 2008, on the 35th anniversary of the legalization of abortion through the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

The bill passed by a veto-proof 74-32 and is now on its way to the Governor for her signature or veto.

Be sure to let the Governor know what you think she should do.

SB 776 is Now on Final Passage

Representative Brian Palmer is now speaking to a bill he has been trying to get done for over five years. His House version has not moved, but the Senate version, introduced by Sen. Cameron Brown, was passed on January 22, 2008, on the 35th anniversary of the legalization of abortion through the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

The bill passed by a veto-proof 74-32 and is now on its way to the Governor for her signature or veto.

Be sure to let the Governor know what you think she should do.

House Leadership (Oxymoron)

We were convened at 1:30 today. It is now 8:08 p.m. We have not voted on a single bill today. There seems to be some problems with House "Leadership" regarding what to vote on and when to hold that vote.

We seem to be stuck on two items, banning smoking and banning partial birth abortion.

The first rule of leadership is...you have to actually lead. Stay tuned, you never know what might happen...or not happen.

House Leadership (Oxymoron)

We were convened at 1:30 today. It is now 8:08 p.m. We have not voted on a single bill today. There seems to be some problems with House "Leadership" regarding what to vote on and when to hold that vote.

We seem to be stuck on two items, banning smoking and banning partial birth abortion.

The first rule of leadership is...you have to actually lead. Stay tuned, you never know what might happen...or not happen.

...on the Right to Life

On Memorial Day 2008, after marching in the parade and commemorating our fallen
heroes at a moving ceremony at the Portage War memorial, we went home to spend time
with family. It was a great day. Part of what made it so special was the opportunity
we had to be with some of our kids - our youngest daughter, her husband and their
little boy. Connor Aidan, our grandson is a real reflection of his proud daddy;
he looks like an Irishman! He has bright red hair and sparkling blue eyes.  He is
only 20 months old and just recently learned how to walk. He is a treasure.

Connor, a beautiful and "normal" healthy boy, had a rough start. He was six weeks
premature and weighed just over 3 pounds when he was born. Erin and I flew down
to Orlando immediately upon hearing the news of his emergency birth. It was "touch
and go" for a few days, but he was a tough little boy and rallied quickly.  Erin
 and I were able to hold him briefly before we had to head back home.

I tell you this story because as this week unfolds the House of Representatives
is still sitting on a bill that would prohibit the heinous practice of partial birth
abortion. Senate Bill 776 was passed in the Senate on January 22, 2008 and sent
to the House. Ever since, the "pro-life", Right-to-Life-of-Michigan endorsed Speaker
of the House has kept this bill bottled up, first in committee, then on the House
floor. He has refused to allow the full House to vote this bill up or down. 

It escapes my comprehension as to how he could, in good conscience, do this.
Partial-birth abortion, where a fully developed unborn child is pulled from his
mother's womb, feet first up to the head, only to have his skull punctured so that
he is delivered dead, is a procedure that the overwhelming majority of Michigan
residents oppose. They think it is unconscionable, immoral and in violation of the
spirit if not the very words of the Constitution. Partial-birth abortion is opposed
by a nearly veto-proof majority of the State House of Representatives; at least
67 members would vote to ban it. And yet, Speaker Dillon will not allow this bill
to be voted on.

When I think that my little grandson, with his carrot-topped, blue-eyed, cherubic
face, could have been snuffed out by a doctor with a sharp pair of scissors, it
defies my sense of logic.  Is this not the United States of America, a country founded
upon the belief in the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Speaker Dillon, please do what is right for this state. Use your leadership position
to make a meaningful statement about how much YOU value human life and the Constituion.
Put this bill up for a vote.

Where Does Carl Levin stand on making English the Official Language?

 Every American knows and often recites the Pledge of Allegiance:
 
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
One thing that has made America unique throughout its history is its "indivisibility."  But is America truly indivisible? Can anything happen that could cause division to occur?

The United States has endured trying times, periods when the dividing of our nation seemed almost certain. The slavery issue appeared to be the one that would permanently divide us.

I don't think anyone would disagree that to continue to be a great and strong nation, we must continue as a united, indivisible nation. Abraham Lincoln was right when, paraphrasing a passage of scripture, he said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Every four years, we elect a president. The campaign can become quite bitter or vitriolic at times. Our political or moral disagreements come to the forefront. And yet, after all the votes have been counted and a new president is elected the transition of power occurs peacefully. One can only hope that this will always be the case.

What is it that keeps us unified? What is the glue that holds us together as a nation? I suppose there are many factors, but I would argue that one of the most important ingredients to a strong, unified, indivisible nation is a common language. We take for granted that people who live 3,000 miles away speak the same language and can understand us when we communicate with them. But how long will we survive if we cannot understand each other?

As the United States continues to accept and assimilate immigrants into our society (as we always have) without demanding that they learn the English language, we will begin to see, I believe a "balkanization" of this great country. We will begin to break up into regions that have differing interests, where residents can no longer easily identify with one another and where they cannot even understand one another. We are already beginning to lose that ability to travel from one end of the country to the other and still feel like we are from the same homeland.

It is important that we pass a National English Language bill in the Congress. Unfortunately, efforts to do so have stalled. Senator Carl Levin  scores an "F" with US English.org for his refusal to support pro-English legislation. Perhaps it is time to contact the Senator and ask him to do what 87% of the public wants him to do, make English the official language of the land. Let's do this before we see the fabric of this nation further unraveled by residents who no longer identify themselves as Americans and are unable or unwilling to speak the language that has unified us for over two hundred years.

My pledge to you is that as a U.S. Senator, I will do the same thing I did as a State Representative; I will introduce a bill to make English the official language of the land.

"Hire Michigan First" Means Keeping Michigan Last

Yesterday, the House pushed through a twelve-bill package that will put another huge burden on businesses in this state. Under the guise of stopping the hiring of illegal aliens, we have enlarged the power of Big Brother government and given job providers one more reason not to come to Michigan. House Bills 5780-5791 would ostensibly disqualify employers from receiving state or local assistance or tax breaks or doing business with the state if they hire illegal aliens, fail to hire only Michigan residents whenever possible or fail to comply with state prevailing wage laws when applicable. In fact, these bills:
--Would require Michigan employers who are receiving state assistance or tax breaks to become the "immigration police" with respect to their employees.
--Would encourage even more employers to leave the state, since they would be forced to meet often unreasonable Michigan-only employment standards and comply with federal employment verification standards not required in other states.
--Could end up wasting taxpayer money if firms are forced to concentrate on who hires the most Michigan residents, instead of who is most-qualified and equipped to handle a state contract.
--Could present significant difficulty for Michigan employers that are near our borders with Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Canada, who likely rely on some workers from across state lines.
--Could jeopardize federal funds. (Chamber representatives say labor law attorneys told them a state can only make a preference for hiring state citizens if all of the money for a project comes from the state.)
--Could have a negative impact on the MEDC's efforts to attract out-of-state or out-of-country businesses through the use of MEGAs and Brownfield credits.

Meanwhile, the state has demonstrated an inability to hire qualified Michigan firms for certain state contracted projects, such as the recent example of the DMB paying an Ohio company to pulverize documents instead of shredding them. While the state cannot comply with the onerous regulations, we are forcing the private sector to do so.

This package of bills will, once again, turn businesses away from this state. We are going to become an economic wasteland...but maybe that is what the extreme left in Michigan really wants.

"Hire Michigan First" Means Keeping Michigan Last

Yesterday, the House pushed through a twelve-bill package that will put another huge burden on businesses in this state. Under the guise of stopping the hiring of illegal aliens, we have enlarged the power of Big Brother government and given job providers one more reason not to come to Michigan. House Bills 5780-5791 would ostensibly disqualify employers from receiving state or local assistance or tax breaks or doing business with the state if they hire illegal aliens, fail to hire only Michigan residents whenever possible or fail to comply with state prevailing wage laws when applicable. In fact, these bills:
--Would require Michigan employers who are receiving state assistance or tax breaks to become the "immigration police" with respect to their employees.
--Would encourage even more employers to leave the state, since they would be forced to meet often unreasonable Michigan-only employment standards and comply with federal employment verification standards not required in other states.
--Could end up wasting taxpayer money if firms are forced to concentrate on who hires the most Michigan residents, instead of who is most-qualified and equipped to handle a state contract.
--Could present significant difficulty for Michigan employers that are near our borders with Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Canada, who likely rely on some workers from across state lines.
--Could jeopardize federal funds. (Chamber representatives say labor law attorneys told them a state can only make a preference for hiring state citizens if all of the money for a project comes from the state.)
--Could have a negative impact on the MEDC's efforts to attract out-of-state or out-of-country businesses through the use of MEGAs and Brownfield credits.

Meanwhile, the state has demonstrated an inability to hire qualified Michigan firms for certain state contracted projects, such as the recent example of the DMB paying an Ohio company to pulverize documents instead of shredding them. While the state cannot comply with the onerous regulations, we are forcing the private sector to do so.

This package of bills will, once again, turn businesses away from this state. We are going to become an economic wasteland...but maybe that is what the extreme left in Michigan really wants.

The Great Lakes Compact and Her Nine Evil Step-Sisters

The House approved the Great Lakes Compact last week. This is the legislation that protects the Great Lakes from being raided by states outside the Great Lakes Basin. The Compact must be approved by the eight states and two Canadian provinces that are in the basin. While there are arguments for or against the Compact, the nine bills that were introduced by the Democrats and tie-barred to the compact are dangerous at best and devastating at worst.

House Bills 5065-5073 are extremely restrictive to further water usage and the economic and agricultural development that cannot happen under their passage. These bills are overly restrictive; they ignore sound science which has shown that much greater use of Michigan’s water can occur without any adverse effect on the environment. This legislation puts more regulatory burdens on farmers, business owners and manufacturers. It gives the Department of Environmental Quality overreaching authority to restrict the growth of industry and agriculture in Michigan. In some areas of the state it will cause economic growth to come to a complete standstill.

The problem is that this issue has been reduced to a sound bite. Just like you can’t vote against “the kids”, “the elderly” or “the poor”, this issue is about “saving the Great Lakes.” The public at large will never hear about the details of these bills; they will only hear that they will save the lakes, rivers and streams from those terrible old manufacturers and business owners who want to drain the Great Lakes Basin dry.

The Dems have tied this nine-bill package to the passage of the Compact. They are holding passage of the Compact hostage while demagoging the “protection of the Great Lakes”. We have been sold out to the most extreme elements of the environmental protection lobby. These bills quite simply represent overkill.

You can read the bills and their analyses at http://www.michiganvotes.org/

The Great Lakes Compact and Her Nine Evil Step-Sisters

The House approved the Great Lakes Compact last week. This is the legislation that protects the Great Lakes from being raided by states outside the Great Lakes Basin. The Compact must be approved by the eight states and two Canadian provinces that are in the basin. While there are arguments for or against the Compact, the nine bills that were introduced by the Democrats and tie-barred to the compact are dangerous at best and devastating at worst.

House Bills 5065-5073 are extremely restrictive to further water usage and the economic and agricultural development that cannot happen under their passage. These bills are overly restrictive; they ignore sound science which has shown that much greater use of Michigan’s water can occur without any adverse effect on the environment. This legislation puts more regulatory burdens on farmers, business owners and manufacturers. It gives the Department of Environmental Quality overreaching authority to restrict the growth of industry and agriculture in Michigan. In some areas of the state it will cause economic growth to come to a complete standstill.

The problem is that this issue has been reduced to a sound bite. Just like you can’t vote against “the kids”, “the elderly” or “the poor”, this issue is about “saving the Great Lakes.” The public at large will never hear about the details of these bills; they will only hear that they will save the lakes, rivers and streams from those terrible old manufacturers and business owners who want to drain the Great Lakes Basin dry.

The Dems have tied this nine-bill package to the passage of the Compact. They are holding passage of the Compact hostage while demagoging the “protection of the Great Lakes”. We have been sold out to the most extreme elements of the environmental protection lobby. These bills quite simply represent overkill.

You can read the bills and their analyses at http://www.michiganvotes.org/

Does the Michigan Economic Development Corp. really create jobs?

Many have questioned the value of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). This publically funded body was created by the Engler administration ostensibly, to promote Michigan within and outside the state to potential job providers and to encourage expansion of existing businesses in the state. The results have been dismal, at best.
 
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has been monitoring the MEDC as to their effectiveness in bringing new jobs to this state. Below is an edited report from Michael LaFaive. The full story will appear in the June issue of Budget and Tax News, a publication of the Heartland Institute, www.heartland.org.

Does Central Planning Work in Creating Jobs?

Since 1999 Michigan has operated its Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and a variety of other expensive programs designed to create or keep jobs in the state. According to Gov. Jennifer Granholm's (D) 2008 State of the State Address, more such programs are in the offing.

These efforts call to mind two popular tales-The Wizard of Oz and "The Emperor's New Clothes"--because they represent a marriage of blustery theater and a deliberate disregard for reality.

MEDC officials and their apologists want us to believe these programs "create" jobs. The truth is that while MEDC was appropriated more than $1.6 billion in federal, state, and other dollars to facilitate its mission, Michigan between 1999 and 2006 shed 244,000 jobs, and the state's unemployment rate is the highest in the nation, at 7.6 percent.

Scrutiny of MEDC job-creation claims may lead the public to wonder why the department even exists. Perhaps this is why legislators have tweaked language in the state budget guiding audits of MEDC job-creation claims.

In 1993 and 2003, Michigan's state auditors criticized the state's development agencies for their job-creation claims. For instance, in 2003 the auditor general reported recipients of MEDC job training grants were supposed to have created 635 jobs, but only 222 were verifiable.

In 2004, the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA) was claimed to have created more than 28,000 jobs. Finding those numbers suspect, I made repeated attempts to obtain an explanation from MEDC. Those requests were ignored or rebuffed until several state legislators practically compelled MEDC to explain itself. Once it did, it was clear the jobs numbers were practically pulled out of thin air.

This is not the only example of the agency trying to take credit for jobs that did not exist. The Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. in 2004 actually disavowed job-creation claims made by MEDC on a project for which it had received a MEGA deal.

While such programs are little more than public relations opportunities whose actual impact must be hidden, they continue because politicians don't care about job creation as much as they care about the perception of it. That is why it is so important for the political class to quash any reasonable accounting of job-creation claims.

The naked truth is that the public might realize lawmakers are not job-creating wizards capable of great feats, but are more like the tired old man trying to distract his audience with fire and smoke, desperately praying there are no "Totos" around to pull back the curtain.

Michael D. LaFaive (lafaive@mackinac.org) is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.

The Cost of Getting Good Pro-life Legislation

Senate Bill 776, read here: http://michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=54423 has been languishing in the House since January 22, when it passed the Senate. We have waited through broken promise after broken promise by the Speaker to run this bill.

Finally, in an apparent breakthrough on Right-to-Life Legislative Day, the Speaker agreed to allow a discharge motion to put the bill on the House floor. They did that, but they did not vote on it. Instead, to the disappointment of three hundred RLM members in town for the day, the vote never took place. The Speaker sent Planned Parenthood-endorsed State Rep. Rebekah Warren (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ebjorn/images/pa/endorse/12ppam.htm)
out to negotiate a compromise with Right to Life.

Moments ago, the House Judiciary committee, chaired by Pro-choice legislator Paul Condino, posted their agenda for Thursday. They will be running three bills: HB 6048, 6049 and 6050. These bills would respectively, require emergency rooms to offer emergency contraceptives, require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives whether they want to or not, and create the Emergency Contraceptive Education Act. These bills are brand new; I haven't read them yet, not sure what that last one would do.

So, is this the price to be paid for a bill that is supported by 80% of the general public and 69 of 110 State Reps?

The Cost of Getting Good Pro-life Legislation

Senate Bill 776, read here: http://michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=54423 has been languishing in the House since January 22, when it passed the Senate. We have waited through broken promise after broken promise by the Speaker to run this bill.

Finally, in an apparent breakthrough on Right-to-Life Legislative Day, the Speaker agreed to allow a discharge motion to put the bill on the House floor. They did that, but they did not vote on it. Instead, to the disappointment of three hundred RLM members in town for the day, the vote never took place. The Speaker sent Planned Parenthood-endorsed State Rep. Rebekah Warren (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ebjorn/images/pa/endorse/12ppam.htm)
out to negotiate a compromise with Right to Life.

Moments ago, the House Judiciary committee, chaired by Pro-choice legislator Paul Condino, posted their agenda for Thursday. They will be running three bills: HB 6048, 6049 and 6050. These bills would respectively, require emergency rooms to offer emergency contraceptives, require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives whether they want to or not, and create the Emergency Contraceptive Education Act. These bills are brand new; I haven't read them yet, not sure what that last one would do.

So, is this the price to be paid for a bill that is supported by 80% of the general public and 69 of 110 State Reps?

Hoogendyk: 30 years of Levin is enough

Senate candidate turns in 30,000 signatures to get on ballot


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                  Contact: Dave Doyle

May 12, 2008                                                                                                              (517) 372-4400

 

Lansing-State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk today took a major step toward his goal of being the Republican nominee to unseat five-term U.S. Senator Carl Levin when he submitted petitions with 30,000 signatures, double the 15,000 signatures needed to get on the ballot.  

"These thousands of voters have all made one thing clear: 30 years of high taxes, increased spending, and big government are enough" said Hoogendyk, R-Portage. "Michigan residents deserve better, and I intend to represent their desire for smaller government, balanced budgets and permanent tax relief."

Hoogendyk said after 30 years, Levin's support of failed policies have decimated Michigan.

"Sen. Levin's record on fighting for Michigan isn't as great as he'd have you think," Hoogendyk said.  "Michigan continues to lose jobs, we send more tax money to D.C. than we get back, and Carl Levin has never met a tax he didn't want to increase. Michigan can't afford another six years of Carl Levin."

Hoogendyk plans to continue his statewide meetings with families, employers and job seekers to talk about his ideas to help restore a strong economy to the state.

 

###

Are politicians in Lansing circling the wagons?

State reps and senators are partisans. They run as Democrats and Republicans, each with an agenda. Those two agendas are quite different and it often results in partisan battles over policy. But it now appears that legislators in Lansing, or at least some of them, are trying to protect one of their own. In an apparent show of arrogant self-preservation, a House Resolution has been offered to condemn the acts of voters to place a member of the legislature, namely Speaker Andy Dillon, on the ballot for recall. While this resolution seems to be supported by virtually all Democrats, it was offered by a Republican! Here is an edited essay from Michigan Taxpayer Alliance Chairman, Leon Drolet about the issue:

The Michigan House of Representatives concluded this week of session in a most unusual manner. While House Speaker Andy Dillon was vacationing in Mexico, the Secretary of State concluded the first phase of the process that certifies petitions forcing Dillon to face a recall election on August 5th. House Democrats, along with some Republicans, scrambled to try to help Dillon avoid being the first Speaker in U.S. history to be recalled. They offered an official resolution of the House, which is a vote by the House which expresses their 'official' opinion. According to HR358, introduced by a Republican, it is that the Michigan Constitution is unfair because it gives citizens too much power. These politicians also believe, according to HR 358, that elections are bad for our democracy and having the right to fire politicians who they believe no longer represent them is "chilling" to politicians.

Lets take a look at HR358. It starts with:

"A resolution to express the sense of the House that recalls should be based on specific misconduct, criminal activity, or abuse of office and should not be based on a single vote and to denounce the effort to recall Speaker Andy Dillon."

The problem with the first sentence of the resolution is that it contradicts the Constitution, which states very clearly that:"The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required (for a recall election) shall be a political rather than a judicial question." Article II, Section 8. In other words, criminal acts go to courts, recalls are for challenging the policy (political) decisions of politicians. But House leaders don't like the Constitution giving citizens so much power over politicians.

HR 358 further states:"The threat of recall for reasons other than some measure of misconduct undermines the foundation of our democratic republic." What? Recall elections undermine democracy? A recall involves citizens collecting the highest percentage of registered voters' signatures of any petition process allowed under law, and then requires a vote of the people in a scheduled election. How is that damaging to democracy?

What happened to the vote on HR 358? I'm told that some legislators were actually concerned about challenging the Constitution. The other rumor is that Democrats freaked out after hearing that a Republican legislator was planning to offer an amendment to the resolution addressing removal of another politician from office - someone named Kwame Kilpatrick. Democrats quickly removed HR 358 from the agenda.

Are politicians in Lansing circling the wagons?

State reps and senators are partisans. They run as Democrats and Republicans, each with an agenda. Those two agendas are quite different and it often results in partisan battles over policy. But it now appears that legislators in Lansing, or at least some of them, are trying to protect one of their own. In an apparent show of arrogant self-preservation, a House Resolution has been offered to condemn the acts of voters to place a member of the legislature, namely Speaker Andy Dillon, on the ballot for recall. While this resolution seems to be supported by virtually all Democrats, it was offered by a Republican! Here is an edited essay from Michigan Taxpayer Alliance Chairman, Leon Drolet about the issue:

The Michigan House of Representatives concluded this week of session in a most unusual manner. While House Speaker Andy Dillon was vacationing in Mexico, the Secretary of State concluded the first phase of the process that certifies petitions forcing Dillon to face a recall election on August 5th. House Democrats, along with some Republicans, scrambled to try to help Dillon avoid being the first Speaker in U.S. history to be recalled. They offered an official resolution of the House, which is a vote by the House which expresses their 'official' opinion. According to HR358, introduced by a Republican, it is that the Michigan Constitution is unfair because it gives citizens too much power. These politicians also believe, according to HR 358, that elections are bad for our democracy and having the right to fire politicians who they believe no longer represent them is "chilling" to politicians.

Lets take a look at HR358. It starts with:

"A resolution to express the sense of the House that recalls should be based on specific misconduct, criminal activity, or abuse of office and should not be based on a single vote and to denounce the effort to recall Speaker Andy Dillon."

The problem with the first sentence of the resolution is that it contradicts the Constitution, which states very clearly that:"The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required (for a recall election) shall be a political rather than a judicial question." Article II, Section 8. In other words, criminal acts go to courts, recalls are for challenging the policy (political) decisions of politicians. But House leaders don't like the Constitution giving citizens so much power over politicians.

HR 358 further states:"The threat of recall for reasons other than some measure of misconduct undermines the foundation of our democratic republic." What? Recall elections undermine democracy? A recall involves citizens collecting the highest percentage of registered voters' signatures of any petition process allowed under law, and then requires a vote of the people in a scheduled election. How is that damaging to democracy?

What happened to the vote on HR 358? I'm told that some legislators were actually concerned about challenging the Constitution. The other rumor is that Democrats freaked out after hearing that a Republican legislator was planning to offer an amendment to the resolution addressing removal of another politician from office - someone named Kwame Kilpatrick. Democrats quickly removed HR 358 from the agenda.

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."