legislation
Sen. Beason's Presser on Alabama Health Care Freedom Act
30/03/10 19:39
We had a pretty good crowd at today's press conference for Senator Scott Beason's SB 233 (Alabama Health Care Freedom Act). The AP estimates 250 people. Senator Beason did a great job explaining why he introduced the bill, what it does, and why it's important that Alabama pass it.
Here are a couple of pictures of the crowd:
Democrats put Senator Beason's Health Care Freedom Act on the special order calendar today...after the bingo bill. The Senate Democrats pulled out their bag of tricks and passed the bingo bill around 6:30 PM. They then moved on to consideration of SB 233. Senator Rodger Smitherman began to filibuster. The Senate then decided to adjourn and will take up SB 233 on Thursday.
Here are a couple of pictures of the crowd:
Democrats put Senator Beason's Health Care Freedom Act on the special order calendar today...after the bingo bill. The Senate Democrats pulled out their bag of tricks and passed the bingo bill around 6:30 PM. They then moved on to consideration of SB 233. Senator Rodger Smitherman began to filibuster. The Senate then decided to adjourn and will take up SB 233 on Thursday.
0 Comments
Legislative Update
19/01/10 23:13
What's going on in the legislature this week?
House Judiciary Committee will be considering HB 81 (England) which allows a person charged or convicted of certain felony or misdemeanor criminal offenses to petition the court in which the charges were filed or in which the conviction occured to have his or her record expunged. Certain conditions have to be met such as fulfilling all parole or probation requirements, at least three years must have passed since the conviction, and others. You cannot petition for expungement under this law if you have been convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor, you are a convicted sex offender, and other convictions laid out in the statue.
Proponents of the bill argue that everyone makes mistakes and people deserve a second chance. I have a serious problem with it for the following reason: Imagine you are the manager at a bank and you are responsible for hiring a new teller. Susie Q, who has previously been convicted of embezzeling money from her employer, applies for the job. This law will allow Susie to have her record wiped clean and she will not be required to disclose her conviction on her job application. Then assume you hire Susie Q. Several months later you discover money missing from your accounts. All of this could have been avoided if you would have known Susie had been convicted of embezzelment to start with. No one in their right mind would hire her to work with money. Now you are liable to your customers for the money she stole and possibly vulnerable to a civil suit for hiring her in the first place given her prior conviction.
This bill actually passed the legislature last year and Gov. Riley vetoed it. Hopefully it won't get to that point this year.
Rep. Paul DeMarco's ethics bill (HB 278) will be considered in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning as well.
Tomorrow afternoon the Tourism Committee will consider one of the pro-gambling bills, HB 154 sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black. The bill will grant amnesty for casino/electronic bingo operators from paying taxes--taxes they already owe and haven't paid--and exempt them from paying future taxes. It also grants casino/eletronic bingo operators immunity from both civil and criminal prosecution, even if they are fixing their machines in their favor. Finally, the bill will allow non-tribal operators to do as much as the tribal operators (Indians) even if what the Indians are doing is illegal under the Alabama law.
State Senator Lowell Baron is making a big push to raid the state's Oil and Gas Trust Fund to the tune of one billion dollars over the next ten years. I'm hearing from Republicans who are worried he has the votes, but since the bill is a constitutional amendment it will still have the pass a statewide vote of the people. Baron's actions are definitely consistent with Democrats nationwide--spend, spend, spend.
On a happier note, both the House and Senate have passed the State Sovereignty resolution declaring our rights under the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I suspect Democrats were willing to let this bill pass because it has no legal teeth. However, as more and more states begin to pass these types of 10th amendment resolutions, Washington will get a clear message that the states aren't just going to roll over and die.
I'll continue to update as I hear more.
House Judiciary Committee will be considering HB 81 (England) which allows a person charged or convicted of certain felony or misdemeanor criminal offenses to petition the court in which the charges were filed or in which the conviction occured to have his or her record expunged. Certain conditions have to be met such as fulfilling all parole or probation requirements, at least three years must have passed since the conviction, and others. You cannot petition for expungement under this law if you have been convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor, you are a convicted sex offender, and other convictions laid out in the statue.
Proponents of the bill argue that everyone makes mistakes and people deserve a second chance. I have a serious problem with it for the following reason: Imagine you are the manager at a bank and you are responsible for hiring a new teller. Susie Q, who has previously been convicted of embezzeling money from her employer, applies for the job. This law will allow Susie to have her record wiped clean and she will not be required to disclose her conviction on her job application. Then assume you hire Susie Q. Several months later you discover money missing from your accounts. All of this could have been avoided if you would have known Susie had been convicted of embezzelment to start with. No one in their right mind would hire her to work with money. Now you are liable to your customers for the money she stole and possibly vulnerable to a civil suit for hiring her in the first place given her prior conviction.
This bill actually passed the legislature last year and Gov. Riley vetoed it. Hopefully it won't get to that point this year.
Rep. Paul DeMarco's ethics bill (HB 278) will be considered in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning as well.
Tomorrow afternoon the Tourism Committee will consider one of the pro-gambling bills, HB 154 sponsored by Rep. Marcel Black. The bill will grant amnesty for casino/electronic bingo operators from paying taxes--taxes they already owe and haven't paid--and exempt them from paying future taxes. It also grants casino/eletronic bingo operators immunity from both civil and criminal prosecution, even if they are fixing their machines in their favor. Finally, the bill will allow non-tribal operators to do as much as the tribal operators (Indians) even if what the Indians are doing is illegal under the Alabama law.
State Senator Lowell Baron is making a big push to raid the state's Oil and Gas Trust Fund to the tune of one billion dollars over the next ten years. I'm hearing from Republicans who are worried he has the votes, but since the bill is a constitutional amendment it will still have the pass a statewide vote of the people. Baron's actions are definitely consistent with Democrats nationwide--spend, spend, spend.
On a happier note, both the House and Senate have passed the State Sovereignty resolution declaring our rights under the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I suspect Democrats were willing to let this bill pass because it has no legal teeth. However, as more and more states begin to pass these types of 10th amendment resolutions, Washington will get a clear message that the states aren't just going to roll over and die.
I'll continue to update as I hear more.
Resisting the Statist Impulse
17/01/10 12:19
I read an article today that made me stop and think. Lawrence W. Reed writing for the Centre for Individual and Economic Liberty discusses his thoughts when first ecountering a smoking ban. Many states have now outlawed smoking in public places, and many Americans (even liberty loving ones) don't think twice about a law that allows them to avoid the rank smell of cigarette smoke. However, as Reed rightly points out smoking bans are statism at its best (or worst depending on how you look at it). From Reed's article:
For the last couple of years, Sen. Vivian Figures (D) has introduced legislation in Alabama that would ban smoking in all public places including private offices. My coworkers and I had a discuss a while back on this specific legislation. As Reed encountered, the most common arguement I heard was:
"secondhand smoke harms other unwilling patrons and therefore must be banned"
I argued as does Reed that it is an infringement on the property rights of the owners of the establishments. I suggested they could choose not to patronize restaurants, etc that allowed smoking. Their reply was "but what if I want to go to a place that allows it but I don't want to have to smell smoke." I told her that that falls under the category of tough luck.
I find it interesting that so many freedom-loving conservatives are willing to go along with the smoking bans for their own comfort. I often wonder what happens when the populace finds some other habit it deems abhorent and decides the government needs to outlaw it. The slippery slope is getting icier. Now states like New York are considering bans on trans fat and higher taxes on soft drinks.
As Reed rightly points out, freedom is eroded one small bit at a time. When free people don't kick up a fuss about smoking bans, it sets the stage for the statists to come up with their next public health concern. Kind of reminds you of that old poem by Dr. Martin Niemoller:
If we desire to remain a free people, we must constantly be on guard against the erosion of our liberty--no matter how small it seems. If we aren't, they will slowly chip away at that freedome until it no longer exists. So the next time you visit a restaurant with a smoking ban and sigh with relief, I hope you'll think about what it means for the bigger picture. As Reed so eloquently put it:
A few months ago, I walked into a restaurant in Naples, Florida, and said, “A nonsmoking table for two, please.” The greeter replied, “No problem. All restaurants in Florida are nonsmoking by law. Follow me.”For a brief moment as we walked to our table, I thought to myself: “Good. No chance of even a whiff of a cigarette. I like that!”And then I felt shame. I had fallen victim to the statist impulse. For 40 years, I thought I was a passionate, uncompromising believer in the free society. Yet for a few seconds, I took pleasure in government trampling on the liberties of consenting adults in a private setting.This incident troubled me enough to think about it a long while. I wanted to know why my first instinct was to abandon principles for a little convenience. And if a committed freedom-lover like me can be so easily tugged in the wrong direction, what does that say for ever getting nonbelievers to eschew similar or more egregious temptations?
For the last couple of years, Sen. Vivian Figures (D) has introduced legislation in Alabama that would ban smoking in all public places including private offices. My coworkers and I had a discuss a while back on this specific legislation. As Reed encountered, the most common arguement I heard was:
"secondhand smoke harms other unwilling patrons and therefore must be banned"
I argued as does Reed that it is an infringement on the property rights of the owners of the establishments. I suggested they could choose not to patronize restaurants, etc that allowed smoking. Their reply was "but what if I want to go to a place that allows it but I don't want to have to smell smoke." I told her that that falls under the category of tough luck.
I find it interesting that so many freedom-loving conservatives are willing to go along with the smoking bans for their own comfort. I often wonder what happens when the populace finds some other habit it deems abhorent and decides the government needs to outlaw it. The slippery slope is getting icier. Now states like New York are considering bans on trans fat and higher taxes on soft drinks.
As Reed rightly points out, freedom is eroded one small bit at a time. When free people don't kick up a fuss about smoking bans, it sets the stage for the statists to come up with their next public health concern. Kind of reminds you of that old poem by Dr. Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist;Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist;Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out.
If we desire to remain a free people, we must constantly be on guard against the erosion of our liberty--no matter how small it seems. If we aren't, they will slowly chip away at that freedome until it no longer exists. So the next time you visit a restaurant with a smoking ban and sigh with relief, I hope you'll think about what it means for the bigger picture. As Reed so eloquently put it:
Societies rise or fall depending on how civil its citizens are. The more they respect each other and associate freely, the safer and more prosperous they are. The more they rely on force — legal or not — the more pliant they are in the hands of demagogues and tyrants. So resisting the statist impulse is no trivial issue.