CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Lightning strikes twice
on mandatory seat belt law expansion
A push to toughen the state's mandatory seat belt law went down in defeat by a tie vote yesterday
because a leading proponent was on the phone and missed the House roll call.
But supporters of the so-called primary seat belt law will get another chance today when the
House is expected to reconsider its vote....
"I'm sure everyone who didn't vote the first time will be heavily lobbied by the insurance
industry before (today's) vote," said Rep. James H. Fagan (D-Taunton).
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Absent rep vows to buckle down for seat belt vote
Supporters of the measure shared gut-wrenching stories of deaths they said could have been prevented by seat belts. Opponents railed against what they called an erosion of freedom by an overzealous government. The impasse yesterday follows a House deadlock on the issue in 2001, when the measure failed, 76-76....
Fourteen House members did not vote on the measure yesterday. Several of them, including Garry, are expected to be present in the House chamber today, however. The Senate has previously supported the measure, and Romney also supports the bill....
Fagan accused the measure's supporters of being too cozy with insurance companies and their powerful lobbyists.
"This is the unholy alliance of the people with money combining with law enforcement," he said.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Tie stalls a bid to bolster Mass. seat belt law
State Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, an ardent opponent, lashed out at this statement in a red-faced tirade.
"I heard someone say that freedom is a false issue," Fagan said. "Every single person in this commonwealth should be offended by that comment.
"Freedom was born in this state. This issue is about freedom. This is very much about freedom. This law would allow police to stop drivers just on the suspicion, just on the hunch, just on the possibility."
State Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford, said she agrees with critics who argue that the bill infringes on people's freedoms.
"One person said to me, 'Before you know it, we'll have to wear helmets in cars.' I'm not buying the argument that we're doing this for safety reasons," she added.
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, May 29, 2003
House deadlocked on seat belt bill
"We are talking about dollars versus freedoms. I heard someone say that freedom is a false issue. I wither in disgust at that.
'Freedom is a false issue.' Freedom is the issue. How may more laws do we need? Do we tell everyone that we think they are too
stupid to make decisions for themselves? Our citizens are too stupid to make decisions for themselves?
What happens to freedom? Where is freedom? Put a dollar on the value of all the vets that died on D-Day. I am filled with disgust and contempt that in the shadow of Memorial Day we would suggest that freedom is a false issue. I am for seat belts, but I am for freedom. I was born in a free country I hope to die in a free country.
This is the most unholy of alliances. I see big money lobbyists.
'What about by the people for the people?' This is the unholy alliance of law enforcement with big money. We have seen other countries that stop and harass people on suspicion. We had to fight those countries a few decades ago.
"We are chipping away at the Constitution because freedom doesn't count any more.
'Freedom is a false issue'? That curdles my blood. This issue is about freedom. The insurance companies are here to fatten their profits. Those vested interests will take away our freedom for their money."
State Rep. James Fagan
House
debate - May 28, 2003
[From State House News Service transcription]
The top five areas in need of "major improvement," according to the 1,001-person survey, were ... coming in at No. 5 "the amount of taxes an average family has to pay" (47 percent).
Now we should have been able to guess at the latter by the exceedingly narrow loss (45 percent) of the ballot question calling for total repeal of the state income tax and by the rate at which middle-class and blue-collar communities are turning down property tax overrides this spring. In fact, the most intriguing thing about the concerns over taxes expressed in the poll was where it was coming from....
Take that, all you limousine liberals - and you know who you are - who are forever wanting to spend other people's money on their so-called worthy causes. They, of course, will remain forever oblivious to the fact that sometimes the best thing you can do for people on the margins is to let them keep more of their hard-earned money. They may be oblivious, but the political powers that be on Beacon Hill ought not to be.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Taxpayers crying 'uncle' in new poll
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Whoever said "lightning doesn't strike
twice" was wrong.
History repeated itself yesterday, almost to the day,
with an incredible tie vote that -- at least for the day -- killed
expansion of the state mandatory seat belt law, again for the second
legislative session.
But it's not over until it's over, and the seat belt
law nannies vow to strike against liberty again with a
"reconsideration" vote. This "come back again for another
bite" after a vote is becoming contagious, whether it's ballot
questions, Prop 2½ override votes, of votes in the Legislature ... just
keep coming back until you have your way.
Fourteen representatives in the House weren't present
to vote yesterday. As lead freedom advocate Rep. Jim Fagan charged, "I'm sure everyone who didn't vote the first time will be heavily lobbied by the insurance
industry before (today's) vote."
Isn't it amazing how this issue becomes the third
rail of politics whenever it arises? My phone has been ringing with
media calls and requests ever since it again surfaces a few days ago.
Yesterday I did three radio talk-shows and Emily Rooney's WGBH nightly
TV program, "Greater Boston."
They lost yesterday's debate, yesterday's vote ... so
they intend to come back. This could go on for the rest of our lives, if the safety nannies have their way.
If it eventually passes, they will then move on to the fast food issue, because,
like the financially successful Big Tobacco issue, the arguments are exactly the same: people die, illness costs society, etc. There is no end to it.
This is also another issue, like our income tax rollback, where the voters said one thing and half the House is trying to ignore them. This is why, along with my personal commitment to individual
responsibility and freedom, I am actively opposing the Primary enforcement seat belt law.
We have made available yesterday's
roll call vote. The fourteen representatives who were not present to
vote are listed below, and most are expected to vote today. *Peter J.
Koutoujian (D-Newton) is out of the country overseeing elections; *Rep.
Garry will be voting for the expansion of the law; *Rep. Brian Golden, a
member of the Army Reserve, was on active duty and might still be. The
other eleven still present an opportunity for personal liberty.
Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams
Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton
Salvatore F. DiMasi, D-Boston
* Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut
*Brian Paul Golden, D-Boston
Thomas P. Kennedy, D-Brockton
Brian Knuuttila, D-Gardner
*Peter J. Koutoujian, D-Newton
Harold P. Naughton, D-Clinton
William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox
Cheryl A. Rivera, D-Springfield
John H. Rogers, D-Norwood
Mary Jane Simmons, D-Leominster
Ellen Story, D-Amherst
If your rep voted the way you wanted, a call to thank
him or her and tell him or her to stand fast will help. If your rep
voted contrary to your wishes, a call would be in order.
But if your rep wasn't present to vote, that call
could be critical today if it comes up again.
You can locate your state representative here.
Tomorrow may be too late.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Absent rep vows to buckle down for seat belt vote
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
A push to toughen the state's mandatory seat belt law went down in defeat by a tie vote yesterday because a leading proponent was on the phone and missed
the House roll call.
But supporters of the so-called primary seat belt law will get another chance
today when the House is expected to reconsider its vote.
"I was on the phone with a constituent," said Rep. Colleen M. Garry
(D-Dracut). "I just missed it. It's an awful shame." She was seconds late
arriving in the House chamber.
The bill would allow police to pull over drivers solely because they aren't
wearing a seat belt. Currently, police can cite motorists for failing to buckle up,
but only after stopping the vehicle for another reason.
Two years ago, the measure went down to defeat because of a 76-76 tie vote.
Garry vowed to be ready to vote today.
Opponents of the new law, who say it gives too much power to police, were
surprised the vote was so close yesterday, at 73-73.
"I'm sure everyone who didn't vote the first time will be heavily lobbied by the
insurance industry before (today's) vote," said Rep. James H. Fagan
(D-Taunton).
Rep. Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading) voted against the measure but said
both sides were conflicted, trying to balance public safety concerns with worries
about individual rights.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Tie stalls a bid to bolster Mass. seat belt law
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
For the second time, the Massachusetts House of Representatives has deadlocked over a measure to strengthen the state's seat belt law.
The bill, which failed yesterday on a 73-73 vote, would allow police officers to pull motorists over for not wearing seat belts. Current law says police can cite a motorist for not buckling up only if the officer stops the vehicle for another reason.
Supporters of the measure shared gut-wrenching stories of deaths they said could have been prevented by seat belts. Opponents railed against what they called an erosion of freedom by an overzealous government. The impasse yesterday follows a House deadlock on the issue in 2001, when the measure failed, 76-76.
Yesterday's vote was marked by last-minute drama, as Representative Colleen M. Garry, a Dracut Democrat, rushed into the House Chamber minutes after the votes were counted, seeking to have her late ballot recorded. If her vote had been allowed, Garry, a strong supporter of the measure, would have broken the deadlock, clearing the path for approval. But the bill's most vociferous opponent, James H. Fagan, a Taunton Democrat, objected, so the measure did not pass. Backers vowed to bring it up again today.
"This is my fifth term and I have never seen a colleague object to another colleague being recorded," an angry Garry said yesterday afternoon. "Democracy is fine for some people, as long as it's on your side."
Garry said she arrived late because she was tied up on the phone with a constituent who had "a serious issue." Some of her colleagues argued with Fagan in the chamber, vowing to object to his late votes in the future, Garry said.
Fourteen House members did not vote on the measure yesterday. Several of them, including Garry, are expected to be present in the House chamber today, however. The Senate has previously supported the measure, and Romney also supports the bill.
Intense attention has been focused on the issue in the state, which has one of the lowest rates of seat belt usage in the nation. State police recently launched a campaign called "Click it or Ticket" and are aggressively issuing citations to those who fail to buckle up. Some drivers complain the effort is excessive.
On Saturday, the Globe reported after reviewing state records that despite the law that prohibits police from pulling over drivers for seat belt violations alone, tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers were ticketed and fined in the last two years for only that offense.
Supporters of the bill taken up yesterday, which is called a primary enforcement law, say there is no question it would save lives. According to the Massachusetts Safety Council, only 51 percent of Bay State motorists and their passengers use seat belts, compared with a national average of 75 percent. The primary enforcement law would increase usage by 10 to 15 percent, according to the Safety Council.
Under current law, police officers issue $25 tickets to motorists for not wearing seat belts. The offense does not go on a driver's record, and it does not increase insurance premiums as a speeding ticket would. That would not change under the proposed primary enforcement law.
"We have tried to enforce the law by secondary means for nine years. It is just not working," said Timothy J. Toomey Jr., a Cambridge Democrat. He said the primary enforcement law would merely make more motorists comply with the current law, which will remain essentially unchanged.
"What will change, however, is how many people will use their seat belt, and how many lives will be saved," he added.
Several members told emotional stories of people in their communities who died or were permanently disabled because they were not wearing seat belts. One legislator said she had a constituent who was financially ruined after an accident with another motorist, who was killed because she had not been wearing a seat belt. Another legislator said he survived an accident caused by a driver not wearing a seat belt who fell asleep -- and died in the crash.
"It is easy to look at this situation simply as one of statistics and numbers," said John W.
Scibak, a South Hadley Democrat who said he had worked for five years with victims of severe head injuries. "But there are individuals involved; there are people affected by this."
"The goal here is not more tickets," said Representative Reed V. Hillman, a Sturbridge Republican and former state trooper. "It's greater compliance with a law already on the books."
But some legislators were incensed at what they called an attempt to give police officers more authority on the roads, and government more ways to regulate Massachusetts residents' lives. They argued the measure would infringe on citizens' freedoms. Said Eugene L. O'Flaherty, a Chelsea Democrat: "What's next? They're going to tell me I can't eat cheeseburgers? I, for one, like to go unobstructed without the government sticking its face into my business."
"How many more laws do we need?" asked Fagan. "Do we tell everyone they are too stupid to make the mistake . . . to make the decision for themselves? I am filled with disgust and contempt that we would suggest for one minute that freedom is a false issue. [The law] attacks an essential right of people to travel freely. This law gives the police the unbridled right to stop your vehicle . . . just for a suspicion, just on the hunch, just on the possibility."
Fagan accused the measure's supporters of being too cozy with insurance companies and their powerful lobbyists.
"This is the unholy alliance of the people with money combining with law enforcement," he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the measure, contending it would provide police officers with too much discretion and potentially allowing racial profiling, said executive director Carol Rose.
"We're not against seat belt laws per se," she said. "Our concern is when you make [it] a primary enforcement law, you end up giving the police an opportunity to use the seat belt as pretext for pulling over a person of color."
But Arthur Moriarty, president of the Massachusetts Safety Council, scoffed at the argument that the measure would impinge on motorists' rights.
"Show me where in the Constitution it gives you the right to drive," he said. "Licensing is not a right. It's a privilege the state puts lots of other restrictions on, and if more people buckle up, we're going to have fewer people killed, and to me it's that simple."
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, May 29, 2003
House deadlocked on seat belt bill
By Jennifer Peter / Associated Press
For the second session in a row, a sharply divided House of Representatives deadlocked yesterday on a bill that would have allowed for stronger enforcement of the state's seat belt law.
The measure was defeated by a tie vote, 73-73, nearly two years to the day after a similar initiative died in a 76-76 vote -- a rare occurrence in a chamber where lopsided decisions are the norm.
"This is probably one for the record books," said state Rep. Timothy Toomey, D-Cambridge, chairman of the Public Safety Committee, which championed the initiative.
The bill, which pitted individual freedom against the state's responsibility to protect the public safety, would have directed Massachusetts to join 18 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing police to stop drivers solely because they are not buckled up.
Under current law, drivers can only be cited for not wearing a seat belt after they are pulled over for another reason, such as speeding or reckless driving.
A motion was made to reconsider the bill at the beginning of today's session. Reconsiderations are frequently requested but rarely granted.
"But because it's a tie vote, I have no idea what will happen," said Charles Rasmussen, a spokesman for House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston.
State Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, who said she would have supported the measure, was late getting to the chamber and did not cast a vote.
Her request for a special exception to be recorded after the machine was closed -- a request that is typically granted -- was denied after at least two lawmakers objected.
"In the nine years I've been here, I've never seen anyone denied their right to be recorded," Garry said. "I think it's a real shame. I would have supported the bill as I have in the past."
The unusually close vote reflects a bitter division in the chamber, which debated the bill for nearly three hours.
Opponents argued that allowing officers to pull over drivers for not wearing their seat belts would infringe upon individual liberties, giving law enforcement more leeway to abuse their power.
Proponents of the bill argued that safety, and not freedom, is what's really at stake.
"At the end of the day, if we can save a life, that's the ultimate goal," said state Rep. Stephen
LeDuc, D-Marlborough. "I feel strongly about the freedoms of individuals to make decisions for themselves, but this has proven to be an effective deterrent to decreasing fatalities in other states."
State Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, an ardent opponent, lashed out at this statement in a red-faced tirade.
"I heard someone say that freedom is a false issue," Fagan said. "Every single person in this commonwealth should be offended by that comment.
"Freedom was born in this state. This issue is about freedom. This is very much about freedom. This law would allow police to stop drivers just on the suspicion, just on the hunch, just on the possibility."
State Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford, said she agrees with critics who argue that the bill infringes on people's freedoms.
"One person said to me, 'Before you know it, we'll have to wear helmets in cars.' I'm not buying the argument that we're doing this for safety reasons," she added.
Parente was one of only four House members from MetroWest who opposed the bill. State Reps. Karyn
Polito, R-Shrewsbury; Susan Pope, R-Wayland; and James Vallee, D-Franklin; also voted against the measure.
The bill's supporters included LeDuc and state Reps. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham; Alice
Peisch, D-Wellesley; Patricia Walrath, D-Stow; Ruth Balser, D-Newton; David
Linsky, D-Natick; James Eldridge, D-Acton; Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington; Kay Khan, D-Newton; Cory Atkins, D-Concord; Karen
Spilka, D-Ashland; and Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston.
Linsky said buckling up saves more than lives.
"All of us pay more for those injuries through spiraling health-care and insurance costs," he said. "Wearing your seat belt is a very small price to pay."
State Rep. Peter Koutoujian, D-Newton, is traveling overseas and didn't cast a vote.
According to the SAFE Coalition, an advocacy group that includes AAA, several hospitals and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, just 51 percent of Massachusetts drivers comply with the state's mandatory seat belt law, compared to 75 percent nationwide.
In states that have adopted the primary enforcement law, the coalition said, compliance was 80 percent in 2002.
"I believe we have an obligation, and more importantly an opportunity, to save lives," said state Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich.
Several members of the black caucus voted against the measure due to long-standing concerns that black motorists are disproportionately the target of traffic stops. The law, they argue, would give police one more way to violate their civil rights.
"Most people of color are not eager to have additional primary abilities for stopping drivers," said state Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston. "That comes because of this long history of being stopped."
Lawmakers could remember few other tie votes in the past decade and certainly never two on the same bill. Perhaps the most memorable tie vote came in 1997, when a representative changed his vote from "yes" to "no" on a bill that would have reinstated the death penalty, turning an 81-79 victory into an 80-80 deadlock.
News Staff Writer Michael Kunzelman contributed to this report.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 29, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Taxpayers crying 'uncle' in new poll
OK, it's not just the weather that's making people around here grumpy, although that is high on the list.
No, the results of a new survey on the quality of life in Massachusetts are more sobering than a harsh winter followed by a rainy spring.
When a quarter of those surveyed say they would move out of state if given the chance and that number increased to a third for "newcomers" (those who have lived in the region a decade or less) that's a lot of unhappy people out there.
There is much in the study commissioned by MassINC and sponsored by Citizens Bank that merely confirms the things people say to each other every day around the water cooler. The top five areas in need of "major improvement," according to the 1,001-person survey, were affordability of housing (rated tops by 54 percent), the road and traffic situation (50 percent), the way the health-care system is working (49 percent), affordability of a college education (48 percent) and coming in at No. 5 "the amount of taxes an average family has to pay" (47 percent).
Now we should have been able to guess at the latter by the exceedingly narrow loss (45 percent) of the ballot question calling for total repeal of the state income tax and by the rate at which middle-class and blue-collar communities are turning down property tax overrides this spring. In fact, the most intriguing thing about the concerns over taxes expressed in the poll was where it was coming from.
"The opinion that average families need major tax relief is most commonly held by minorities (57 percent), working mothers (57 percent) and those who identify themselves as working class or poor (54 percent)," the MassINC report noted.
Take that, all you limousine liberals - and you know who you are - who are forever wanting to spend other people's money on their so-called worthy causes. They, of course, will remain forever oblivious to the fact that sometimes the best thing you can do for people on the margins is to let them keep more of their hard-earned money. They may be oblivious, but the political powers that be on Beacon Hill ought not to be.
The election of Mitt Romney - whose no-new-taxes stand was as clear as could be - was no political accident. Even Senate President Robert Travaglini and House Speaker Tom Finneran seem to have gotten religion on the issue of tax hikes (at least the most obvious ones). The MassINC poll should give them further evidence - if any were really needed - that taxes hurt the very people some claim they want to help. That argument just won't fly any more.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|