State Senate Bills I Find Interesting (SB154 – SB164)

Conclusions:
SB154: OPPOSE
SB155: SUPPORT
SB156: OPPOSE
SB157: OPPOSE
SB158: OPPOSE
SB159: OPPOSE
SB160: OPPOSE
SB161: OPPOSE
SB162: OPPOSE
SB163: OPPOSE
SB164: OPPOSE

SB154 would dictate what each member county of the Coweta Judicial Circuit shall pay each Superior Court judge each year. This is a supplement to the base salary of these judges. Although I assume this is commonly accepted practice for the State to dictate such supplemental salaries, I’m going to OPPOSE this measure on the grounds that it is NOT the State’s job to do so, and that if each of the counties in question feels the judges have earned this, it should be a contract between the counties in question and the judges in question, with no State involvement at all.

SB154: OPPOSE

SB155 would provide an ‘ephemeral stream’ exception to the 25′ buffer around all state waters for soil erosion control purposes. Because it provides some minimal amount of regulatory relief and allows private property owners at least some power to control their own lands, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB155: SUPPORT

SB156 adds another layer to the state bureaucracy in that it creates the State Office of EMS/Trauma. I OPPOSE on the grounds that the State needs to be removing itself from health care, not increasing its presence in the field.

SB156: OPPOSE

SB157 relates to sexual offenders and does a TON of things. On the one hand, it allows offenders to be released from having to register upon completion of their sentence, but they would first have to petition the local Superior Court and it would be at the discretion of the court. Everything else the bill does is designed to make life harder for sex offenders. (Such as more strict registration requirements, more evidence is admissible in court, palm prints would now be required in addition to finger prints, etc.) Because the bill still does not differentiate between sexual ‘offenders’ and genuine sexual ‘predators’, I must strenuously OPPOSE this bill.

SB157: OPPOSE

SB158 would require a fiscal note on any bill that would significantly impact any state agency’s revenues or expenditures, but would exempt amendments to bills from this requirement unless a majority of the committee asks for one. This basically means that while you have to have a financial impact statement on any bill you propose, you can slide in pet projects on amendments and not have to have said financial impact statements. Because of the opaque nature of the bill, I must OPPOSE.

SB158: OPPOSE

SB159 would expand the State health care bureaucracy by creating the Hemophilia Advisory Board. Again, the State needs to be removing itself from this field, not getting deeper into it, and therefore I OPPOSE this measure.

SB159: OPPOSE

SB160 would have all public K-12 schools close on Veterans Day. Because education is a local decision not to be unduly interfered with at the State level, I must OPPOSE this bill.

SB160: OPPOSE

SB161 would require insurance providers to provide coverage for autism spectrum disorders. The State has no business interfering in the private contracts of insurance companies and their clients, and therefore I OPPOSE this bill. Please note here that I have a personal reason for wanting autism spectrum disorder to be covered under insurance, as my own brother has Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of autism. But even knowing this, I still must take my stance of saying the State has no right to interfere with private contract.

SB161: OPPOSE

SB162 would force private security guards/ detectives to obtain individual licensure and complete pre-licensure training. Because it adds additional government mandates to private businesses, I must OPPOSE this measure.

SB162: OPPOSE

SB163 would authorize the Department of Human Services to create a Coordinator of Diabetes. Again, the State needs to be removing itself from health care, not digging further into the industry. Additionally, assuming this Coordinator is a new position and not simply an additional title being placed on someone who will continue to do everything they currently do as well, this is an extra government position in a time of severe budget cuts. Because of these factors, I must OPPOSE.

SB163: OPPOSE

SB164 further limits private property owners in relation to any outdoor advertising they have on their property. It restricts both the height of this advertising and the upkeep a property owner can do to the land surrounding the advertising. Because of these restrictions, I must OPPOSE.

SB164:OPPOSE

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Greetings
    I believe you may misunderstand the effect and purpose of SB162. The bill must be viewed in light of 43-38 as a whole. Currently security officers must compleat 40 hours of training. They are then licensed through a company. The license is non-transferable. To change companies they must again relicense. This takes in excess of 90 days and costs over 100 dollars not counting training expense. This bill simply allows guards and detectives to take their license to a new company and does away with the current state of indentured servitude. Considering this new information we hope you will change your opinion of the legislation.
    Thank You, http://www.gasoa.org

  2. Kristi:

    I’m more objecting on the fact that they have to be licensed to begin with.

    Upon further study of this bill and from watching the debate in the Senate, I can see your point and I agree that it is better than the current law.

    But I must still OPPOSE the measure overall as unnecessary government intrusion into private business decisions.

  3. I agree that the market should rule and the buyer be ware. However, I do not see that as a posibility at this time. Although this does not remove goverment involvement it does reduce the governments involvement. As a side note Alabama and Mississippi do not regulate the security industry, and of the states that do regulate security Georgia is probably the most inconvenient to deal with. You have to ask how much regulation can a $10.00 an hour job with a 400% turnover tolerate. As you might expect there is a great deal of unlicensed practice in Georgia. This bill hopes to resolve some of that.

  4. Actually, I’ve been meaning to post a new post on your measure specifically, noting your comments and the new decision I’ve made:

    I’ve thought about your comments earlier, and I agree, a solid incremental step to removing licensing altogether would be to at least allow individual rather than corporate licensing. Honestly, I know of no other licensed job that requires corporate rather than individual licensure.

    Because of these reasons, I have changed my OPPOSE to a SUPPORT.

    Remind me via southwestgalibertarian@gmail.com to post that soon. I leave a week from now for a week long (and at this point, much needed) vacation.

  5. […] Find Interesting (SB154 – SB164) Written by Jeff on February 16, 2009 – 8:26 pm Conclusions: SB154: OPPOSE SB155: SUPPORT SB156: OPPOSE SB157: OPPOSE SB158: OPPOSE SB159: OPPOSE SB160: OPPOSE SB161: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: