The Freedom Bulletin

There is good news and bad news out of the State Senate. Unfortunately but predictably, they passed the hypocritical bill which would give Governor Patrick the power to appoint a senator to replace Ted Kennedy, a power that they took away from Mitt Romney in 2004 because he is a Republican. Because Patrick has said he will sign the bill, it is set to become law.

However, the power-hungry Democrats did not get a two-thirds majority, which means that the bill has to wait 90 days before going into effect. That is, unless Patrick petitions Secretary of State William Galvin saying that it is an emergency, and Galvin grants the petition. I really hope he doesn’t do that.

A salute goes out to the 5 Republican state senators, as well as the 11 Democrats who were brave enough and had enough integrity to vote against this bill:

• Stephen Brewer
• Jennifer Flanagan
• John Hart
• Brian Joyce
• Michael Moore
• Richard Moore
• Michael Morrissey
• Steven Panagiotakos
• James Timilty
• Susan Tucker
• Stephen Baddour

Source: Boston Herald

The “hypocrisy bill” – which would allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy – just passed the Mass. House of Representatives. I honestly cannot believe that so many people support this.

In case you’ve been living under a rock (or aren’t from Massachusetts), governors in this state used to have the power to appoint interim senators when an empty Senate seat arose. Five years ago, however, when Massachusetts had a Republican governor, the Democrat-dominated state legislature passed a bill taking this power away. Now, because we have a Democratic governor, the Democrats want the governor to be able to appoint an interim senator again. In other words, they want the bill that they changed, changed back.

Do I even need to tell you how hypocritical this is?

There have actually been rallies in favor of changing the law back, and the main argument of its supporters is that Massachusetts needs two voices in the Senate. I don’t know about you, but as a supporter of liberty, I don’t feel that either of Massachusetts’s two senators has really represented me.

Obviously, the sole purpose of changing the law back is to allow our Democratic governor to appoint a Democratic senator so that there are as many Democrats in the Senate as possible. This is especially important to the Democrats because they are currently trying to pass their ”health care reform” bill (which I put in quotes because it really doesn’t go far enough to reform much of anything). Contrary to what the pro-hypocrisy people argue, this is precisely the time we don’t need another Democratic Senator from Massachusetts. The health bill – which I will write more about later – threatens to take away our liberty, and we need to do whatever we can to take away votes from it.

Because of Deval Patrick’s budget cuts, the Franklin Park Zoo may have to close, and some of the animals there may have to be killed.

I find it outrageous that the Massachusetts government is spending large amounts of money on things like free stuff for people who aren’t even citizens, STD prevention, and teen pregnancy prevention, but they are going to just let animals die. And the T has to raise its fares because the government decided that free things that only poor people or people with babies are allowed to have are more important than public transportation, which benefits everyone.

Things like zoos, public transportation, museums, and libraries should be made financially self-sustaining through fares, admissions, and membership fees if at all possible, but it is much more justifiable to spend tax money on these things than on wealth redistribution programs. This is because welfare programs are discriminatory in that they only help people whom the government has decided are eligible, usually those whose incomes are below certain levels. Zoos and public transportation benefit everyone who chooses to use them.

The state government should cut $14 billion, mostly in welfare programs, as I outlined here: The Massachusetts budget. It’s completely wrong that they are raising the sales tax, cutting from zoos, and forcing T fares to go up, while barely touching $14 billion worth of unnecessary, unjust welfare programs. If they made all the cuts they should, the state could lower taxes (not just avoid raising them) and still have enough money for zoos and $8 billion to give to the T in order to get rid of its debt and hopefully enable it to not need tax revenue in the future.

Governor Patrick and the state legislature really need to get their priorities straight.

The opinion that follows is probably going to be very unpopular. But I think it is right.

Despite the recent furor over a few high-profile accidents, I am opposed to increased testing requirements and restrictions for elderly drivers. People from across the political spectrum, from Michael Graham to Attorney William Kickham to Governor Deval Patrick, have been speaking out in favor of restricting older people’s right to drive. However, anyone who truly believes in freedom would oppose such restrictions.

Because of the tragic death of 4-year-old Diya Patel after she was hit by an 89-year old driver, popular opinion seems to be strongly in favor of limiting the right to drive in order to prevent similar occurrences. State Senator Brian Joyce has introduced a bill to require vision and road tests at age 85, while others support requiring frequent road tests for people of all ages, or banning elderly people from driving altogether. This little girl’s death was truly sad and horrible, and if the driver is at fault, then she should be punished. However, all of the other drivers in the state are not responsible for Diya’s death and it makes no sense to punish us for something that we didn’t do. Yet that is exactly what driving restrictions and increased testing requirements amount to.

Perhaps it’s true that statistically, elderly drivers are more likely to be bad drivers than younger ones. But that is irrelevant. Laws should never be based on statistics, and people’s legal rights should not change based on their age, gender, or other characteristics that they cannot control. 

Michael Graham (a great radio host and blogger who I usually agree with) asks why 30-year-olds and 90-year-olds are treated the same by the RMV. The answer is because it’s the right thing to do. People of all ages should always be treated the same under the law. It violates human dignity and equality to do otherwise.

Everyone has a right to drive, since driving is not immoral and does not interfere with others’ rights. Injuring innocent people or damaging their property does interfere with their rights, and that’s what should be banned and, in fact, is banned. If a person violates someone else’s rights while driving, then they should be punished for that. However, it is unjust to violate people’s rights to drive if they have done nothing wrong. Simply being in a demographic group that is statistically more likely to be dangerous is not a legitimate basis for the government to deprive people of rights or put conditions on those rights.

Although I oppose driving laws that discriminate against old people and teens, I think that laws restricting old people’s rights are even worse. When I passed my driving test, I was happy. The reason I was happy was because I knew I would never again have to worry about taking a driving test. Requiring me to be tested again when I am old would take that away. At least now, even though teenagers are discriminated against, people have something to look forward to as they get older: escaping from this discrimination. If old people’s rights are taken away too, then all people will have to look forward to is losing their independence, seeing their freedom shrink, and being treated in a paternalistic manner. The government should pass laws that enable people to be happy about getting older, not make them dread it.

Contrary to what Graham says, it would take no courage for politicians to go along with the emotional, knee-jerk reaction of the masses. It would take courage to make the rational decision to respect freedom. 

Our government, both on the federal and state levels, is moving in the direction of trying to increase safety at the expense of liberty, and that isn’t good. It’s horrible when an innocent person dies, but horrible things are going to happen, sometimes at the hands of bad people and sometimes as an accident. Taking away freedom in an attempt to prevent tragedies can never be fail-proof, and (more importantly) would be a bad trade-off even if it was. I’d rather live in a society with dignity, equality, freedom, and occasional danger than in a perfectly safe society without dignity, equality, or freedom.

See also:

Pressure building to test elderly drivers – Boston Globe

Pols might finally be driven to act – Margery Eagan, Boston Herald

Hell has frozen over! Massachusetts might actually cut its budget! Yesterday the state legislature proposed a budget for fiscal year 2010 that is $700 million lower than that of 2009. The House’s budget is $57 million lower than Governor Patrick’s proposal. Best of all, the budget contains no proposals to raise taxes!  The Boston Globe (which I really hope stays in business even though I disagree with its politics) might not be happy about this, but I sure am!

Ways and Means Chair Charles Murphy told the Boston Herald that “It’s not pretty, but that’s what we’ve got.” I beg to differ. I think that a smaller state government is beautiful! Although there is a lot more that the state could and should cut, I am amazed that the budget is finally going in the right direction. The Globe calls it “the greatest reduction in year-to-year spending in recent memory.” I certainly don’t see anything wrong with that!

Among other things, the House budget proposal cuts local aid by 25%, makes state employees pay for 30% of their health insurance, cuts funding for seniors’ home care and rental vouchers for low-income people, and eliminates Shannon grants, which are used for anti-gang advocacy, the Quinn Bill, which pays for police officers’ education, and the volunteer program Commonwealth Corps. It fully funds court-appointed lawyers at $192 million, which I think is a good use of state money because it protects people’s constitutional rights.

The House has until tomorrow to file amdendments, debate on the budget will start on April 27, and then the State Senate will get to propose its own budget. I really hope that the House budget is for real and ends up passing, and that the legislature doesn’t change its mind and decide to raise taxes. Maybe Speaker DeLeo and the rest of the House aren’t so bad after all. It seems like there might be hope for Massachusetts.

I really hope Governor Deval Patrick does not succeed in passing all the new taxes and fee increases he wants to. To close the Massachusetts budget deficit, Patrick wants to…

• Extend the 5% sales tax to alcohol, soda, candy, and other good-tasting foods
• Raise the meals tax from 5% to 6%
• Raise the hotel occupancy tax from 5.75% to 6.75%
• Allow towns to create their own meal and hotel taxes
• Raise RMV fees (which are already pretty darn high)
• Charge 50 cents a month for Fast Lane transponders to pay tolls
• Either double tolls on the Turnpike or more than double the gas tax

This is just ridiculous. There are way too many taxes as it is. Why do Massachusetts politicians (and many regular people) think it’s normal and expected for taxes to keep increasing and increasing? Wouldn’t the norm be to establish a good level of taxation, and then leave taxes the same? If taxes are too high (as they are now), then wouldn’t people want and expect them to go down?

Plus, it’s obvious that Governor Patrick isn’t just trying to raise revenue with the candy and soda taxes; he’s trying to influence people’s behavior. But what’s wrong with eating food that tastes good? Eating tofu isn’t superior to eating candy. Contrary to what Deval thinks, a world in which people ate less candy and soda would not be a better world. The best world would be one in which people had the right to make their own choices, about eating and everything else, without others trying to influence their decisions. The government has no right to declare which foods are good and which are bad, but that’s exactly what they’re doing by taxing some foods and not others.

Yes, Massachusetts has a budget deficit, but I think that 100% of closing the deficit should come from budget cuts. With no exceptions that I can think of, I’d always rather see a budget cut than a tax hike.

The food police are at it again. Governor Deval Patrick has created an initiative called “Mass in Motion,” which aims to combat obesity. If the initiative passes, restaurant chains will be required to post the amount of calories their foods contain right on the menu, and kids will be weighed in 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th grades and the results and recommendations will be sent home to their parents.

This is a terrible idea. In addition to costing taxpayers’ money, this initiative will take the pleasure out of eating and will violate kids’ rights.

First, having calorie counts thrown in your face takes the fun out of going to a restaurant. People don’t go out to eat because it’s healthy; they go out to eat as a special treat, because it’s fun. Now, people who are especially health-conscious can go on the Internet and look up restaurants’  nutritional information before they go, and the rest of us can simply enjoy the food without having to worry about how healthy it is. With calorie counts shown right on the menu, however, people might end up choosing foods with fewer calories, but they’ll probably choose things that don’t taste as good, and even then they’ll probably feel guilty because they’ll know there are other foods they could have chosen that have even fewer calories. People should look at food as food, not as numbers. Making people healthier is not good if it requires taking the fun out of everything.

Additionally, making people healthier is not good if it requires violating people’s privacy rights. The purpose of school is to teach kids facts about history, grammar, spelling, math, science, et cetera. Schools should not teach kids what they should do or how they should live their lives, nor should they have any interest in how much kids weigh. Once at my high school, everyone was weighed in gym/health class, and even though no reports were created or sent home, it was slightly humiliating. Imagine if this was done every 3 years and parents received a report about it! Not only would this be humiliating, but it would be a violation of privacy rights, because the government has no right to know how much you weigh.

What is wrong with letting people make their own decisions about what to eat and how much to exercise? How much you weigh is up to you, not up to parents, doctors, schools, or the government.