It's like one of those zombie movies. The damned things keeps coming back.

You know, I think the legislature is infested with Zombies this year.

First they kill the tan ban. Then it's resurrected by the liberals on the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Tonight, I was just informed of another one that refuses to stay dead.

And it would be so bad, but it's more legislation trying to take South Dakota from a red-state to a nanny-state.

Democratic Representative Ahlers had brought HB 1134 which required that kids be in car booster seats until they're eight. Thankfully, the people in House Transportation had some sense, and killed that one.

But just like one of those late night movies, we're again being revisited by "the bad legislation which wouldn't die" and this stupid nanny-state measure is back in another form. This time, it's not HB 1134 - it's HB 1189 as introduced by Mark Willadsen who must be trying to show how he embraces government looking over everyone's shoulder.

And what's with the other Republicans on this ridiculous thing? Don't we have any conservatives left in the party?

If this onerous measure passes, I'll have to have three kids in seats. Despite the fact that right now I have one, and none of my other kids managed to be greviously harmed by government not mandating that they be strapped in one until age 8.

As I did when I gave my plea to kill 1134, I'd give the same one now:
At what point are we allowed to be responsible for ourselves? Has personal responsibility gone out the window? In my car, I make sure my kids are strapped in safely and appropriately. No one is jumping around, and all are adequately safe.

But this bill seems to insist that, "no, that's not good enough." And so, the nanny state must come into play. What a load of crap. Are we so lost in the wilderness that we have to have state mandates telling us when to do everything? What's next, no-trans fats, and mandating when we have to go to the bathroom?

I suspect that if this passes, we can expect that next year the measure will raise the booster seat age to 14. What's after that? Any legislation thereafter will require that everyone be wrapped in bubble wrap until we hit age 21. (Although, if we say the bubble wrap is like a big condom, we might get the measure killed at that point.)

I can understand the Democrats on this measure, but good conservatives? It's disheartening.

Please, please. Can we recover some sanity in the process? Take this legislation out and give it a Russian execution behind the Capitol building.

We need less government regulation in our lives, not more.
Take that to heart those who say they believe in less government.


Anonymous said…
Are you forgetting that this child seat law is Gov. Rounds project. He's been toting project 8 around the state for more than a year.
Anonymous said…
This whole thing is beyond belief.

I have to admit listening to the committee meetings and with the members prasing each other all the time is way over done. At this point it doesn't seem honest. Wanting to and be willing to work together on both sides of the isle is one thing but it is starting to sound cheep.

From what it seems many of the legislators want a nanny state. To many bills look like nanny legislations.

O where - o where - has South Dakota gone?????????????
What a let down....
jones girl said…
Well, here’s your bleeding heart liberal rising to the bait:

The point at which we are allowed to be responsible for ourselves is that at which the taxpayer isn’t stuck for the social costs when people make stupid decisions (i.e. smoking, riding motorcycles without helmets, stuffing their kids in the car they way they see fit, unemployable tanning bed aficionado and Medicaid patient or prison inmate afflicted with skin cancer).

And perhaps, that point moves even further once we’re convinced (for instance, through serving as a state legislator and being forced to learn what our state government REALLY spends money on) that a certain percentage of the population won’t do what’s best for their own welfare without a law that tells them to, and that in spite of that unsavory personality quirk, WE care about what happens to them... Or maybe we don’t care, but since they’re costing us money, we’ll reluctantly make another stupid law.

These laws aren’t written for the benefit of PP and your kids; they’re written for people who haven’t had the educational and financial advantages and solid family values background with which you’ve been blessed. They’re written to fulfill one of the basic functions of government. And as long as our society continues to divide itself along lines of the haves and have-nots, the number of people without your advantages will continue to grow, and so will the need for such stupid laws.
nonnie said…
To Jones girl:
Not having a lot of money doesn't equate necessarily with being stupid. If you pass laws based on your reasoning above, you forget the majority of people these stupid laws also affect. And just passing a law isn't going to make those same people obey it anyway. Are you also going to use taxpayer money to buy the car seats for everyone under age 8? Actually, probably you are.

There comes a point where people have to take responsibility for themselves.

BTW, mandating pre-K education is another example of this nanny-state mentality.
Anonymous said…
Hurray to Al Koistinen, the only one in committee to vote against it.
PP said…
At what point are we banning soft drinks, trans fats, alcohol, ammunition, or even beef?

There are plenty of people out there who think any and all of those can be bad for you, and will show up in a legislative committee to testify to that fact.

As one of the colonies, New Hampshire lived under a monarchy which had utter control over their daily lives. Their motto is "Live Free or Die."

In a way, it's too bad South Dakotans don't have that kind of history as a reference point. Because we're continuing to slide down a path where government controls every aspect of our lives with admonishments that they're doing it because "it's good for us."

Damn us for not valuing our personal freedoms more.
Anonymous said…
When you eat a cheeseburger, go tanning, forget to put on your seat belt it does not effect the health of another person, it might cost the state's citizens in medical terms but that's a whole seperate issue. When someone smokes in an enclosed area it does effect other people, none of these other issues does.

Yes personal freedom is important but when you are physically harming another person that is where the state needs to step in a control the issue. I don't get to serve dirty water or bacteria laced food.
Anonymous said…
As a resident of North Dakota and former resident of South Dakota, I find it extremely interesting how many of the same bills are being introduced in both legislatures. Tanning, abortion, etc..the list goes on.
One of the inherent problems with these legislators is this: These goofy dorks go to these conventions of state legislators. They get all sorts of ideas from legislators in other states, and from lobbyists trying to promote their agenda. Then they come back home and try to "solve a problem".
A great example: In North Dakota the legislature spent valuble time banning alcohol devices that allow you to inhale the vapor rather than ingest alcohol by drinking. This is in light of the fact that not a single device of that nature was in use in ND. The sponsor of the bill stated that he learned of the devices during a seminar at the National Association of State Legislators.
Keep these goofy guys home, and maybe we won't have so many bills introduced.
foxgrandma said…
Of my four grandchildren there is only one that might have fit into a car seat when they were 8 years old. When my kids were little there was no such thing as car seats or for that matter when I was a kid. Imagine how much a car seat that large would cost. When is the government going to get their noses out of our business.
Anonymous said…
How does one contact our representatives at?
Anonymous said…
Too late to contact the reps. you have to contact your senators. It passed the house today by 2 votes, 37-33. 36 is needed to pass.

Contact your senators by emailing their last name, such as: or
Anonymous said…
Several have mentioned the cost of the actual booster seat. You can get one at Walmart for $14.99. A booster can be a simple backless booster (looks like a small stool). A child needs to be 4'9" (57 inches) before being tall enough to fit the adult seat belt - Read the car manual, for one. The bill going up is to require boosters until 52 inches tall (4'4") - actually 5 inches smaller than car manufacturers and the Child Passenger Safety organization recommend. Why does everyone seem to have a hard time wanting to protect the safety of their children? Because of $14.99 or the "no one is going to tell me what to do" mentality?
Anonymous said…
All of my kids are now 9, at least that is what I will tell any officer who pulls me over. How can they prove they are younger? "Small for their age" I will say.

Oh wait next session we will need mandatory ID cards for everyone. Can that be far off anyway? I hear it is already being talked about in Washington.

Oh wait lets just implant a chip at birth in every person and we can track everything they do. Fiction? - WE ARE HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION!

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long