Rice County Republicans

From William Paulsen we received the following commentary.  Clearly we will be looking forward to more of his thoughts as the legislature runs through its agenda …

A Tale of Two Bills

The Minnesota legislature is currently considering two bills that sound completely unrelated but are deeply intertwined.

Rep. Marty Seifert has introduced H.F. 997 (where H.F. stands for House File) that asks the federal government to abide by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is a cornerstone of our constitutional system because it declares that any power not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.  In other words, the federal government must obey the law and not exceed the powers granted to it.

The problem is that the federal government has found ways to evade this law.  One of the classic tricks is for the federal government to give money to the states but only if they pass legislation that conforms to some policy the federal government wants to promote.  A well known example is the 21 year age drinking law — money for highways that is given to state governments is tied to whether they set the legal drinking age to 21.

The federal government is at it again.  Currently all states except New Hampshire require one to wear a seat belt.  Many of the states, including Minnesota, though make the seat belt a secondary offense, i.e one can only be cited after being pulled over for a different offense.  The federal government has decided to give money to states who make the seat belt a primary offense, ie one where a driver can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt even if there is no other offense.

Enter H.F 108. This legislation makes a not wearing a seat belt a primary offense.  We can debate all day the merits of this law.  Will this bill save lives? If so, how many?  Supporters suggest about thirty lives in Minnesota per year could be saved.  Should we extend the police power of the government over people’s lives to save 30 lives?  It is not as if a third person is placed at risk as it would be in the case of drunk driving.  But will the cost of extra injuries be passed on to taxpayers?

The debate could go on and on but the main concern here is a comment by State Sen. Steve Murphy of Red Wing, author of the SF 42 (Senate File 42) the state senate companion to HF 108. Murphy is quoted as saying:

“This is the year where we must pass primary seat belt into law .. beyond needlessly losing more lives on Minnesota roads every year enactment is delayed, 2009 is the last year where we can receive federal incentive funds for doing so.”
(http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/members/member_pr_display.php?ls=&id=2074)

There you have it.  The federal government will set traffic regulations and use the state legislatures to enforce them by manipulating state budgets.  Whatever side one is on with respect to the seat belt law, the decision must be made at a local level without being strong armed by federal bureaucrats.

The federal government has several important duties and the US Congress and the President should be focused on those. How will we defeat Al-Qaeda? What policy will have in Afghanistan? How will we deal with the crisis on the US border?  What regulations are needed on inter state financial dealings?  But traffic regulations are best dealt with by state and local governments that are responsive to the people impacted by the regulations and that must enforce the regulations.

Our state representatives should stand for local control in these matters. Interestingly, recently State Senator Kevin Dahle of Northfield was asked about the primary seat belt law. The questioner was concerned about losing the federal money and Sen. Dahle replied offhandedly that absolutely he would support it if required to get the money. I raised the objection that this would subject the independent decision making of state legislatures to federal mandates. Sen. Dahle immediatedly switched gears and spoke against federal mandates, including the drinking age law.  Rather than this political posturing, we need to elect an state senator for S.D. 25 that will vote with their conscience for the best interests of the district without being strongarmed by Washington, D.C.

- Bill Paulsen -