Paved with good intentions….

During any session of the Texas Legislature the sheer volume of bills that are brought to a vote makes it easy for many of them to pass with little thought or scrutiny.  One such bill is today’s effort by State Senator Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso) seeking to raise the fines and penalties for municipal traffic violations by $10, while also tacking $2 onto the state’s marriage fee. There’s a companion bill in the house, filed by State Rep. Naomi Gonzales (D-El Paso) that would raise the traffic fee by $15. The goal of these two bills is, in the eyes of the State’s progressive minority, obviously noble. After all, who could possibly be against using fines paid by law-breakers (albeit misdemeanor-breakers) to help fund legal fees for the poor?

Well, State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) for one, as quoted in the following:

[Senate votes to increase traffic fines. Mike Ward, Postcards from the Lege, Austin American-Statesman]

“Don’t you think a fee is just another tax?” he asked. “I applaud your intentions but I really think you’re fixing to put another fee on top of other fees … I don’t think that’s how we ought to operate.”

Now, granted, what Whitmire would probably advocate for is a new tax (preferably on business or the “rich”) whose proceeds are solely directed to providing legal support for the poor, but what was left unsaid in this article, and quite often is missing altogether when taxes are discussed in the Main Stream Media, is that these “fees” would disproportionately impact the very people it’s designed to help.

A more efficient plan would be to lower, or eliminate all-together, the State imposed extra fee on municipal traffic tickets, thus giving people more of their own money to fund their defense. Instead the State is suggesting it set itself up as a great middle-man. A middle-man whose ‘cut’ of the windfall is skimmed off the top before it’s returned to those who paid it in the first place.

If the circular-logic of taking money from the poor to then turn around and provide state-ran services for their healthcare doesn’t strike you as odd, then imagine this: Let’s say you needed to build a new fence for your back-yard. Probably, your preferred course of action would be to shop around, find the best fence possible that’s within your set budget, and then price compare with companies to provide the service. Under a system similar to the one being proposed, you’d be forced to pay your fencing money (and then some extra) to the State, who would then provide you with a fencing company “for free” who would then come out and build the fence in your backyard. Of course, the company wouldn’t be answerable to you, they’d be answerable to the State. They’d be paid by them and have to report to them. Since the contractor is now in a “public-private partnership” with the State they’d have to keep costs down to ensure they didn’t end up on the ratty side of a television news, sweeps-week story about the poor and indigent receiving $10,000 fences on the taxpayer dime. What this means is that you’ll get an inferior product, at more cost to you. It’s the same with almost every government program that’s designed to “help the poor”, a misnomer if ever there was one.

In a perfect media world, there’d be a quote from someone with a free-market lean who would point this out. In the world of modern-day Texas political media, you get a quote from a representative of the Texas Municipal League, whose main mission is making sure Texas cities receive as much funding as possible. It’s not that the TML opposes increasing the fine, it’s that they want the money sent to the States.

As with most political news stories, the center-right perspective is completely ignored.

Leave A Comment...

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*