House Bill 67 is Big Brother 2009

Written by Roberta Biros

I watched for the past two weeks as discussions were taking place in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The topic of conversation was House Bill 67. I reported in a previous blog post [READ HERE] that House Bill 67 passed the House, but I was going to postpone publication of my opinions about the Bill until after gathering feedback from my local Legislators.

I sent a polite email to the three State Representatives that represent Mercer County (Rep. Michele Brooks, Rep. Mark Longietti, and Rep. Dick Stevenson). Unfortunately, I suspect that my name has been moved to the “no call list”, which is usually reserved for troublemakers and general “PIA”. Rather than wait, I’m advancing to Plan B.

Instead of outlining House Bill 67 from a neutral prospective and allowing all voices to be heard, I’m just going to give you my opinions . . . as it will probably be more entertaining that way any how. Here it goes!

House Bill 67 has been referred to by two nick-names: “The Cell Phone Bill” and “The Teen Driving Bill”. Both nick-names are partially correct. As a general description, House Bill 67 sets new rules for “Junior Drivers” (drivers under the age of 18), as well as specific rules and penalties for the use of “interactive wireless communication devices”. You can read the full text of House Bill 67 HERE if you are interested.

First, let me tackle the easy part of my opinion . . . the part that examines the portions of House Bill 67 that I like.

[this space left blank intentionally]

Now that I got that out of the way, let me move on to the parts of House Bill 67 that I didn’t like:

Item #1:

There is a new clause added that states that “Junior Drivers may not a vehicle with more than one passenger under 18 years of age.” When I was a kid (a few decades ago), I would have never gone ANYWHERE if I weren’t able to ride with my friends that had licenses and cars. As a member of my high school Girls’ Golf team, my teammates and I (all five of us) went everywhere together for four years. If we couldn’t have all gone in one car, we never would have gotten to practice after school. Believe me when I say that I understand the reasoning behind allowing only one passenger in the car with a young driver, but my friends and I did it as teens and we all survived. Just because there were five of us packed in a car didn’t make us ‘bad kids’ and it didn’t make us irresponsible. It is my experience that you can pack 15 ‘good kids’ in a car and there will be no problems . . . it only takes one ‘bad kid’ in a car to make trouble. Don’t you think it is time that we leave parenting to PARENTS rather than to the State Legislature?

Item #2:

There are new rules regarding the test for driver’s license and junior driver’s license. I’ll admit that it has been a LONG TIME since I tested for my junior license, but I don’t understand the new clause that requires parents to sign a form stating that their kids have “completed 65 hours of practical driving experience, including no less than ten hours of nighttime driving and five hours of inclement weather driving”. My parents made the decision of when I was ready to take my drivers exam, and it had nothing to do with the number of hours that I had behind the wheel. It had everything to do with how prepared I was to drive on my own. Once again, don’t you think it is time that we leave parenting to PARENTS rather than to the State Legislature?

Item #3:

There is a new restriction stating that “No driver with a learners’ permit or junior driver’s license shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway or trafficway in this Commonwealth while using an interactive wireless communications device.” Again, I understand the reasoning behind the law, but don’t you think it is time that we leave parenting to PARENTS rather than to the State Legislature? The Legislature’s next move will be to determine who can and who can’t own or operate ‘an interactive wireless communications device’. Good Lord.

Item #4:

House Bill 67 outlines that if a driver is convicted of ‘careless driving’ the State can now tack on additional fines for being “distracted”. Distractions include an interactive wireless communications device; an electronic, electrical or mechanical device; a personal grooming device; food; drink; and any printed material. When I read this I can see the scenario in my head . . . I’m spotted by a Trooper on I-79 . . . he sees me swerve but doesn’t know why . . . he pulls me over for “careless driving” . . . he sees a newspaper on my passenger seat, my Blackberry in the center console, and a 16 oz. Fat-Free Cappuccino in my drink holder . . . I’m charged with “careless driving” plus ‘extras’ for all of the ‘distractions’ in my vehicle.

Why doesn’t the Legislature just outlaw cup holders in passenger vehicles? Why don’t we require a license to own a Blackberry? Why doesn’t Senator Robbins just try to put the newspapers out of business in order to eliminate the distraction? (oops, I forgot, the last one is a reality–READ HERE) Honestly, where does this silliness stop?

Item #5:

This is the item that ticks me off the most. House Bill 67 specifies that “no person shall drive a motor vehicle equipped with any image display device, video receiving equipment, including a receiver, a video monitor or a television or video screen capable of displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications or similar equipment which is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver’s seat”. Why does it tick me off? Allow me to explain . . .

My husband and I live in Mercer County. We are originally from Westmoreland and Allegheny Counties. We travel home often to visit family. The drive is 90 minutes each way. When we go to visit, I drive the first half of the trip and my husband drives home. During the drive home I always pack my laptop so that I can use the 90 minutes of ride time to work. According to House Bill 67, I would be breaking the law . . . technically, my husband would be breaking the law by operating the vehicle while I was using my laptop. The only work around would be that I now need to sit in the back seat to be “legal”.

Does anyone else see the stupidity here?

We’ve successfully traveled this way HUNDREDS of times. We’ve never so much as broken the speed limit (ok, just a little) . . . but we’ve never caused a problem . . . we’ve never been reckless . . . we’ve never been distracted. He drives and I work . . . but Pennsylvania Lawmakers want to make the practice illegal?

Aren’t there ‘real bad guys’ out there that need to be stopped from breaking the law? Are our State Troopers so bored that they need new reasons to harass regular law-abiding taxpayers? Can’t they just focus on the drunk drivers, excessive speeders, and aggressive drivers on the highway? Do they really need to have a reason to go after two over-worked 40-somethings that are trying to make good use of their travel time?

In Closing:

Need I go on? House Bill 67 is a perfect example of the government run amuck. As a firm believer in smaller government and more freedom, I find House Bill 67 insulting. As a taxpayer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I find the passage of House Bill 67 disturbing. Perhaps George Orwell should be required reading for all Legislators. ‘Big Brother’ wasn’t just in 1984 . . . ‘Big Brother’ is alive and well in 2009.

P.S. to Representatives Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson — I’d still welcome your comments if you’d be willing to share.

Casino Owners Can Now Buy Legislators

Written by Roberta Biros

In 2004, when the Pennsylvania Legislature passed the law that legalized slots, they also built in a ban that prevented casino owners and executives from making any political campaign contributions. The intention of the ban was to prevent any “hanky panky” between the gaming industry and elected officials that might “erode public confidence”. Unfortunately, on Thursday (April 30, 2009), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled (through a 5-1 majority) that the ban “violated the state constitution’s guarantee of free speech”.

My response . . . (to be polite) . . . BULLCRAP!

In a HARRISBURG-AP story in the Pocono Record [READ HERE], Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille explained that the ban was too broad and a “harmful attempt to combat corruption” as it prevented ANY and ALL contributions (not just “large campaign contributions”).

“What the . . .?”

Is there really such a thing as a “harmful attempt to combat corruption”? Are you kidding me?

Deeper in the story the following is written:

Philadelphia-area developer Peter DePaul, who sued to challenge the law in 2007, argued that the ban was a discriminatory infringement of the rights of free expression and association. DePaul, a part owner of as-yet-unbuilt Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia, also contended that the Legislature never justified the ban by looking into whether the gambling industry posed any risk of political corruption.

Again I say “What the . . .?”

Let me get this right. Mr. DePaul . . . a casino owner . . . is calling “foul” because he has lost is rights to “free expression” by being banned from lining the pockets of elected officials (including Judges I might add)? He has been “discriminated” against because he can’t donate money to political friends? In order to limit contributions the Legislature should have paid for a multi-million dollar study to find out if there is a “risk of political corruption” in the gambling industry? Worst of all the Pennsylvania Supreme Court bought into this?

The AP story went on to explain the numerous Bills that are currently under consideration by the Pennsylvania Legislature including the issues of video poker and table games. The timing of the elimination of this ban is amazing and particularly handy for state lawmakers as it opens up the flood gates for money to flow into the hands of politicians from very rich friends.

If there are ANY Legislators out there with a lick of honesty, they need to jump on this issue immediately. If the contention of the Supreme Court is that the ban was too broad, the Legislature needs to narrow the ban to specifically limit “large campaign contributions” and they need to do so quickly. Failure to do so will prove the existence of “political corruption in the gambling industry”.

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives