SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
March 3, 2010
Exclusive: Big Government – Saving You from Yourself
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has found what is being described as his signature issue: texting while driving. He wants to institute a nationwide ban and goes so far as to say he wants to eliminate all distractions while driving.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Problem is, it’s not quite the crisis LaHood wants it to be. According to the article linked above, even though there has been a tremendous spike in cell phone usage between 1998 and 2008, fatalities reported by the DOT over the same period were flat. In other words, there isn’t an appreciable increase in fatalities caused by cell phone distractions, despite the fact that cell phone usage in the last decade is way up.
But what about the states? Can’t they deal with this themselves? Nineteen, plus D.C., have already instituted bans on texting while driving. Is there really a need for the federal government to step in and throw its weight around?
According to nanny staters, yes. Why trust the states – or, heaven forbid, the individual – when the feds can come in with legislative guns blazing to save the day?
Let’s face it: texting while driving is a really bad idea. I know people who do it, and I scold them all the time. Yet, being the grownups that they are, they continue to do it even though they know the risk involved. True, texting or otherwise using a cell phone while driving can cause accidents that not only affect the driver, but others on the road. But if we let the feds legislate texting, what else will they target?
After all, LaHood wants to eliminate all distractions from driving. He could, therefore, conceivably ban eating, listening to the radio, talking and even children while driving. I mean, how many of you have had to take your eyes off the road, however briefly, to threaten your children with imminent peril if they didn’t stop squabbling in the back seat? Sure, that last one was a bit silly, but children being brats in the back seat can be a distraction.
In other words, who decides what the distraction is? And how long will the list become?
When I was a teen, my grandfather was visiting from Florida and he and I took a short trip in the car on some errand or other. A seatbelt law had recently been passed. As I dutifully buckled up, I noticed my grandfather did not, and I reminded him of the law. He responded that it wasn’t the government’s business whether he buckled up or not. Looking back, he was right. As an adult, he knew the risk involved with not buckling up and yet chose not to. Was it really the government’s place to interfere in that decision?
My grandfather also predicted that unions would someday ruin this country. He was a wise man.
I certainly don’t advocate driving without wearing a seatbelt. I happen to think it’s a wise precaution that saves countless lives on the road. But isn’t that a decision I should be making for myself? Do I really need Big Brother watching over me, making sure I make the “right” decisions? Heck, just look at New York’s Michael Bloomberg, who managed to wrangle a third term because he’s not done yet telling New Yorkers how to live their lives. From smoking to trans fat to salt, Michael has the cure for what ails – government regulation.
LaHood wants people to be safe. I understand. But endless regulations, which end up with even bigger government, isn’t always the way to do it.
Our Founders believed that the individual could best determine how to live his life, which is why they embraced the notion of a federal government that interfered as little as possible with the day to day living of its citizens. The “pursuit of happiness” isn’t always perfect. But then, neither is man, something else the Founders understood.
Unfortunately, liberals who believe in a nanny state utopia believe that perfection of the individual and society can be achieved if we all just listen to the people in charge who know so much more than we do about ourselves. And right now, too many of those nanny libs are not only in elected office, but in unelected bureaucratic positions.
When I moved out of my parents’ house, I was on my own as far as making decisions about my life and reaping the consequences, be they good or bad.
Or so I thought.
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (1) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
Ah, yes, Big Daddy to the rescue.
Consider this from Albert Camus: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
posted by: Buzz Gunning
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 08:53 AM
