Jama Oliver

It’s been a busy several days, so I’m just getting around to digging through news stories from late last week. One of the interesting little bits I just came across was that the Republican-sponsored DUI bills we’ve been discussing for the last few weeks were killed by Democrats in the House…right after they passed several identical Democrat-sponsored bills.

I knew fairly early on that these bills had widespread support in the House and, if they didn’t make it through committee, it would be due to certain lawmakers wanting credit for the bills. That, apparently, is exactly what happened.

I can’t say I’m upset that the bills failed, but the way they failed makes me a little sick to my stomach. The bills didn’t fail because they’re bad law, but because certain politicians wanted credit. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, identical or nearly identical Democrat-sponsored legislation did make it out of committee. So we’re not out of the woods yet.

A House panel killed the Republican-sponsored “administrative license revocation” measure, while the Criminal Practice Subcommittee approved a virtually identical bill backed by the Bredesen administration.

As Rep. Tom Dubois (R-Columbia), the sponsor of many of the Republicans’ DUI bills in the House, waited to have his bills reviewed by the panel, he saw the panel approve several Democrat-backed bills that were exactly the same as his DUI package.

While I don’t like these bills, I also don’t like to see a waste of time, money, and effort just so certain lawmakers get a pat on the back. Why, if particular legislation has already been submitted, would one go through the effort of submitting identical proposals? Makes me sick to my stomach…

In the wake of the mortgage “crisis” we all should have expected the government to come riding in on a white horse to save the day and then promptly take over what we individuals are so clearly incapable of handling ourselves. Bailouts have been proposed (for people too stupid to realize that they can’t afford a $750,000 mortgage on a $30,000 per year income) and now Treasury Chief Paulson is proposing a vast expansion of government oversight of the financial markets.

Paulson said, “Government has a responsibility to make sure our financial system is regulated effectively.” Really? Hmmm…I don’t have my copy of the Constitution handy, but I don’t remember the part about government responsibility to make sure greed and stupidity don’t combine to create a financial mess. I suppose that public school education is failing me…

Not unlike parents rushing in to make sure their kids don’t suffer the consequences of their behavior, Paulson proposes that “the Fed would essentially serve as a financial markets moderator, stepping in if the nation’s markets were again threatened by an episode like the near collapse of Bear Stearns” (cnn.com).

The fact of the matter is, thanks to government bailouts and band-aids on the financial markets, the mortgage crisis or something similar is bound to happen again. We haven’t learned our lesson, and no amount of government regulation is going to help. As much as it pains me to say it, we’re going to have to face economic collapse before those in power figure out that what we need is less government, not more.

But, it’s an election year. So I’m sure we can expect further bailouts, payoffs, and regulatory proposals in order to convince the idiot citizenry that the government is “doing something.” All at the expense of future economic stability.

The State of Tennessee today rejected the Certificate of Need (CON) for a new Wellmont-owned emergency care center in Boone’s Creek.

This means that those of us living in Washington County will still be faced with only one option when in need of emergency care. Well, two, I suppose: go to a MSHA facility or drive to Kingsport, Bristol, or Greeneville. Or I guess we could just die instead (which is actually what my brother-in-law ordered my sister to allow, rather than take him to the Johnson City Medical Center).

While MSHA isn’t all bad – I had a wonderful experience at Sycamore Shoals in Elizabethton – their quality of care in Johnson City is unbelievably bad. That is why, I believe, they are so adamantly opposed to competition of any sort in Washington County – another hospital might just offer better care, thus costing MSHA precious dollars.

So, the Wellmont fight goes on while Washington Countians continue to spend 13 or so hours waiting for care at JCMCH’s emergency room.

Be sure to check out my “Upcoming Events” page!

I’m going to get the hubby to work on integrating a calendar into my site, but, for now, I’ll keep the “Upcoming Events” page updated with, well, upcoming events.

You’ll find this informative page on the left side of the screen under “Pages.”

Candidate for Second District State House, Tony Shipley, will be holding a fundraiser on April 4.

Special guest will be former Senator Bill Frist.

Appearing with Frist will be Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, Minority Leader Jason Mumpower, Rep Jon Lundberg, Sullivan County Mayor Steve Godsey, Sullivan County Highway Commissioner Allan Pope, and several County Commissioners.

For more information visit www.tonyshipley.com.

Despite word that incumbent Matthew Hill, Bob Patton, Todd Smith, Fred Phillips, and newcomer D. Michael Williams have all picked up papers to enter the race for the Seventh District State House seat, Hill is still the only candidate on the ballot.

With the April 3 deadline fast approaching, Hill is the only candidate to have turned in papers to the election commission. With his papers already certified, Hill’s name will be appearing on the primary ballot.

Williams has, according to the election commission, petitioned to withdraw his papers from the Republican ticket, and has now picked up papers to run as an Independent. These papers are, too, still MIA.

Smith is holding a Jonesborough fundraiser this week, despite the fact that his name, as of today, will not be on the ballot. What I find interesting about Smith’s fundraiser is that the JC Press listed it as sponsored by Toby Bledsoe (a Jonesborough Democrat) and catered by Red Pig Barbecue (whose owner is a prominent Johnson City Democrat). Funny that a couple of Democrats would take such an interest in a “Republican” candidate.

Anywho, 9 1/2 days to get those papers in, boys, and then we’ll have ourselves a race!

In other state election news, I’ve gotten word that Sixth District representative, Dale Ford, will also have a little competition this year. Local Real Estate Agent, Lee Sowers, who ran in the Sixth District in 2006, will be running again this year.

Elizabethton - State Representative Candidate Jerome Cochran (R-Elizabethton) announced today that he will oppose all legislation aimed at restricting our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and pointed to his past endorsements from the National Rife Association as evidence of his commitment to the issue.

Cochran also spoke out against Democratic Speaker of the House Jimmy Naifeh’s efforts to disallow any pro-gun bills to reach the House floor for a vote and reaffirmed his vow to never vote for Naifeh to lead the House of Representatives as his opponent – Kent Williams – has done.

“The events that transpired in Nashville this week involving Speaker Naifeh’s opposition to the rights of gun owners are disheartening to say the least,” said Cochran. “Jimmy Naifeh doesn’t care about the gun owners of Tennessee and that is exactly why Carter County must elect a Republican who will stand up for our right to keep and bear arms by voting for a Republican to lead the House of Representatives.”

“I dare say that these important bills to protect our gun owners would have certainly made it to the House floor for a fair up or down vote had state Representatives elected a Republican Speaker of the House who respects the Second Amendment. I have repeatedly been endorsed by the NRA for my staunch support of the Second Amendment and will continue fighting for our right to keep and bear arms if I’m sent back to Nashville.”

“Recent events at some of our country’s educational institutions have demonstrated the need to stand up for the Second Amendment right of teachers and other faculty and staff members of these institutions. I also see no reason to take away this fundamental right from someone just because they visit a restaurant or a state park. Citizens have a constitutional right to defend themselves and their families under all of these circumstances and I want to go to Nashville and make sure Tennesseans can do just that.”

I’m not sure what I expected from the DUI Town Hall meeting hosted by State Representative Matthew Hill. I suppose I thought it would be a bunch of politicians and party activists sitting around, patting themselves on the back for the glorious legislation that they were pushing through the House. Boy, was I surprised.

The only “politician” present was Hill, and I saw no “party activists.” There were a couple of “Matthew Hill haters,” there, I’m sure, to gain fuel for their “I hate Matthew” fire. Few members of the press were present – NewsChannel 11, a representative from the Johnson City Press, and myself (if you want to consider me “press”). The rest of the 70 or so in attendance were actually concerned citizens, many of whom have lost children or other family members to drunk driving. This is what led to the emotional outbursts rather than reasoned debate on the issues.

The first emotional explosion occurred when a quiet, old lady had the nerve to suggest that part of the drunk driving problem is the fact that there are no alternative means of transportation in the area. When she mentioned “young people going out for an evening of relaxation,” I thought a couple of people might accost the poor woman. After such an outburst, I decided to keep my big mouth shut until after the presentation, when the more excitable citizens had headed home.

While I can’t imagine the heartache from which these parents and loved ones must suffer, I had hoped that consideration for the law would have been a factor in the “debate.” There was, however, little debate, and certainly no consideration for the law and how it applies to all citizens. As I said before, despite the fact that I merely had questions concerning some of the specifics of the bills, I kept my big trap shut for fear of being yelled at and called a drunk. Hill, to be fair, did a great job of moderating the meeting and trying to keep the conversation on track and as civil as possible, despite the emotional appeals.

The point of the Town Hall meeting was to make citizens aware of several pieces of legislation that are working their way through the House and Senate in Tennessee, and Hill provided a rundown of these bills. I’ll go over them briefly, providing links to the full text of the bills, and offer my concerns at the end.

HB2877/SB3037 A comprehensive bill requiring ignition interlock for DUI offenders; lowers threshold to .02 for repeat DUI offenders (beginning with the 2nd offense); lowers “extreme DUI” from .2 to .15; provides for Automatic License Revocation; stiffens penalties for refusing a Breathalyzer test.

HB2876/SB3041 Creates Class D felony for fifth and subsequent DUI offenders (with a prescribed prison term of 2-12 years) with a minimum of 360 consecutive day sentence; counts all convictions within 10 years of DUI date when calculating prior offenses and includes convictions of vehicular assault, vehicular homicide while intoxicated, and aggravated vehicular homicide.

HB2881/SB3040 Prohibits District Attorney from plea bargaining with person charged with DUI to any offense that does not involve unlawful operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

HB3059/SB3042 Creates Class B misdemeanor offense (prescribed sentence of 6 months in prison) of consuming alcoholic beverage while driving motor vehicle on public highway and Class C misdemeanor offense (prescribed sentence of 30 days in prison) of possessing open container of alcoholic beverage within passenger area of motor vehicle on public highway.

HB2875/SB3043 Requires healthcare providers to notify law enforcement officer at hospital if results of tests performed on driver of vehicle involved in collision indicate that the driver had a .08 percent BAC or was under the influence of drugs.

HB927/SB1081 Lowers the blood alcohol level for an “extreme DUI” offense from .20 percent to .15 percent.

HB3091/SB2869 Adds vehicular homicide as a result of the driver’s intoxication and aggravated vehicular homicide to offenses requiring at least 85 percent service of sentence prior to release eligibility.

My concerns, which I voiced to Representative Hill last night, are rather specific. We can get into the logic behind DUI laws in general, as I’m sure some of you will want to, but I want to begin with my concerns with these particular bills.

First, I asked Hill what is the point of lowering the BAC threshold to .02 for “repeat offenders.” According to Hill, the way the law is currently written, it is not how many DUI’s you’ve had that “count,” it’s how drunk you were when you got pulled over this time. So, someone who has had 8 DUI’s at .1 will be treated the same as someone who is facing his first DUI offense at the same BAC. The idea behind lowering the threshold is to, I suppose, give those repeat offenders a stiffer penalty.

My concern with this is mainly something that was discussed a bit in the comments section of my previous post on this meeting. Say, for example, some 21-year-old frat guy gets pulled over for a DUI in college. Can he not, 10 years later, go out with his wife and kids and have a beer with dinner and then drive home, without fear of becoming a “repeat offender?” Hill agreed with my concern, and suggested a set period of time in which the previous DUI would drop off the offender’s record.

My second major concern is the notion, which I again mentioned in my earlier post, of mandatory sentencing. I told Hill of my opposition to such measures, noting that, if judges are not handing down appropriate sentences, then we need to get new judges. Hill’s concern is that judges are in office for 8 year terms. While that does appear to be a long time, I believe that the “discretionary wiggle room” offered to judges is an important piece of our justice system that need not be circumvented by our legislature.

Despite a few other minor concerns, the bills, for one who supports DUI legislation at all, seem reasonable. It does, however, raise some philosophical questions concerning the singling out in the law of these particular dangerous drivers. While DUI fatalities seem to statistically significant, I wonder how deaths in alcohol-related crashes compare to deaths in crashes due to text messaging, eating, DWE (driving while elderly), or just being a selfish, careless driver. How many times have I seen tailgaters blaze past my car, passing me on double lines, clearly endangering the lives of all those nearby? I have nearly as much disdain (maybe just as much!) for tailgaters, speeders, and passers-on-double-lines as I do those who are so selfish that they can’t get a designated driver when they’ve had too much to drink.

So, why is it – and I’m not being disrespectful, merely asking a question – that we single out those who drink and drive, and not those who are too old, too stupid, too sleepy, or in too big a hurry to safely be on the road?

Former Representative Bob Patton, according to an anonymous source, is planning to challenge incumbent Matthew Hill in the Seventh State House District.

Word is that Patton will be conducting polling to determine whether or not to run.

Pro-income tax Patton, you recall, was defeated by Hill in 2004. This is the same Bob Patton who, during the 2006 election was featured in a cover story in the Johnson City Press (despite the fact that he was not running for office during that year) speaking poorly of “far-right Republicans.”

There is talk of a political newcomer from Jonesborough challenging Hill, as well. This would bring the total to four in the Republican primary, including Hill, Patton, and Johnson City’s Todd Smith.

To you Republicans who decided to “reach across the aisle” and vote for Jimmy Naifeh for House Speaker – thanks a lot.

In an unusual move yesterday, House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh visited several subcommittee hearings to cast influential votes on four bills. While this move is allowed, it is a rare action, and I am curious why Naifeh chose these particular bills to kill.

The first bill Naifeh voted against was one that would have allowed faculty and staff (with concealed carry permits) in public schools to carry handguns. Although I’m sure this bill would have been controversial, it would have been nice for it to make it’s way out of subcommittee.

The second bill was one that would have allowed those with permits to carry handguns in state parks. Well, considering how rarely you need a gun when camping or hiking, I guess this bill was just silly (note my sarcasm). I’m sure I could kill a bear with my bare hands, or face a psycho killer ravaging my tent in the middle of the night with my Swiss Army knife. Thanks, Speaker Naifeh, for keeping those silly legislators from wasting time on such a useless bill! (continued sarcasm)

Bill number three that was killed by Naifeh would have allowed those voluntarily committed to mental institutions to obtain handguns. Again, possibly controversial, but it would have been nice for there to have been widespread discussion on the issue.

Finally, Naifeh killed a bill that would have allowed diners in restaurants to carry their firearm to dinner (or breakfast or lunch), so long as they have a concealed carry permit (you know, that little card that supposedly allows you to carry a firearm in this state?). Gee, I’d hate to think I might go crazy while having dinner with my family and shoot the cook over a bad steak. It’s a good thing Naifeh made sure I’m not allowed to carry my gun into such a volatile situation! (if you’re not reading my sarcasm yet, it’s time to find a new blog).

Addison Pate, the spokesman for the House Democrats, stated that “good legislation passes, bad legislation fails, regardless of the partisan side that the sponsor may be on.”

Really? That’s strange. I thought politicians went to Nashville with agendas. Little did I know that they have “good legislation radar” and only vote for the “good stuff,” rather than that which boosts their agenda. Silly me!