Conclusions:
HB 1: OPPOSE Rating: 3
HB 2: OPPOSE Rating: 2
HB 3: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 4: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 5: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 6: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 7: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 8: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 9: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 10: SUPPORT Rating: 8
Commentary:
HB 1is State Rep Bobby Franklin’s proposal to ban abortion and redefine it as ‘prenatal murder’ The exceptions are for a strict ‘life’ of mother whereby both baby and mother are attempted to be saved, and only the mother is successfully saved, and for miscarriage. Quite honestly, other than possibly SB 292, this is one of the most sweeping changes to GA law that I’ve seen this session. Rep Franklin actually makes a very strong Constitutional argument in this bill noting that the Federal government is Constitutionally limited in its jurisdiction and that defining murder is not a part of that jurisdiction. He also notes that even if murder were a part of the Federal jurisdiction, for the Federal government to have jurisdiction over the case essentially means that multiple states and/or nations would have to be involved in some way. After making this case, the bill moves on into the various definitions and the sweeping changes to GA law noted earlier. Basically, these changes completely eliminate any mention of ‘abortion’ or its technical term ‘induced pregnancy termination’.
While I LOVE the way he builds his case on the Constitutional issue, and even agree with him on a personal level about abortion in general, ultimately the science at this time is inconclusive and therefore the government should stay out of the issue altogether. This is one of the most personal decisions an individual can make, and only those who had a direct hand in creating the baby should be able to determine if it is carried to term. (Without going into that particular argument here, feel free to check out my personal site for a better explanation of my ideas there.) Because government should not be involved in dictating this decision either way, ultimately, I must OPPOSE this bill.
HB 1: OPPOSE
Rating: 3
HB 2 basically forces everyone in the State who is engaged in a ‘public benefit’ to use the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration status checking program. ‘Public benefit’ is very broadly defined in such a way that most businesses that operate in this State are covered under it in some fashion or another. In other words, this bill infringes on the right of contract and other private decisions. Then, it goes a step further and grants immunity to anyone who uses the system saying “No employer, agency, or political subdivision shall be subject to lawsuit or liability arising from any act to comply with the requirements of this chapter.” In other words, if they get your information ‘to verify your status’ and sell it to a spammer, there’s nothing you can do about it. Because it not only intereferes with private contract but also restricts an individual’s right to seek redress of greivances through the court system, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this bill.
HB 2: OPPOSE
Rating: 2
HB 3 would remove the ability for local boards of education to control their calendars, at least as far as Veteran’s Day is concerned. Instead, it would force a mandatory holiday for all public and secondary schools on Veteran’s Day. I’ve got no problem with people taking off on that day – or any other – and taking their kid with them. That is completely the individual’s choice as an individual and a parent. I DO have a problem with the State mandating that day be taken off, at least as far as K-12 students are concerned. Because it is a proposed State control of what is rightfully an individual parent’s decision, I OPPOSE this measure.
HB 3: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 4 would allow an income tax credit in the amount of the total ad valorem taxes paid so long as such a credit does not result in you getting a refund and so long as the Tax Commissioner determines there is at least $500 million in state reserve funds. In general, I object to tax ‘credits’ as I think that if the money isn’t needed, it shouldn’t be charged to begin with. That said, I’ll SUPPORT this bill because however you slice it, it is, in effect, a tax cut. (Also note here that corresponding spending cuts need to be made when taxes are cut, but I believe we are a balanced-budget state anyway, so this is not such a huge concern.)
HB 4: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 5 is HB 4, but removes ad valorem taxes on ‘any real or personal property used for business or commercial purposes’ from the credit. I’m still going to SUPPORT it, I’m just not going to rank it quite as high as HB 4.
HB 5: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 6 reauthorizes last year’s sales tax holiday for a variety of energy efficient appliances and products for the same weekend this year and adds insulation to the products that qualify for the exemption. Again noting my general philsophy on tax ‘credits’ and spending as seen in the commentary on HB 4, I’ll still SUPPORT this bill overall.
HB 6: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 7 significantly changes the laws regarding the Dekalb County chief executive officer, the executive assistant, and members of the county commission, but allows the citizens of Dekalb County the ultimate power to accept or reject these changes via the ballot box. While in general I object to the State having the authority to control local towns/counties in this fashion, this bill DOES allow for a local referendum on the issue as its determining factor, and therefore I SUPPORT this measure.
HB 7: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 8 is a local tax bill regarding allowing DeKalb County and homestead exemptions. Again, because it ultimately allows the voters to decide on this issue, I will SUPPORT it.
HB 8: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 9 deals with procedures relating to habitual violators having the driver’s license suspended. Without going into the anti-Drug War stuff, I will note here that my problem with this bill is two fold, and both are pretty massive: 1) the person only has 13 days to surrender their license from the time it was mailed out of the department via first class mail. We all know how slow USPS can be at times, and 13 days just isn’t enough time. Give them another week, or better yet give them the standard 30 days that is so common in the laws for other things. 2) Here’s the kicker: The Department doesn’t have to prove that they did in fact mail the letter, and there is NOTHING the defendant can do about it! In other words, if the Department says they mailed it, their word is law – even if they never even typed the letter to begin with! In all criminal matters, the State should have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite honestly, I would consider it reasonable to doubt that nothing falls through the cracks when government is concerned, and therefore I think the Department should have to keep records of when this letter was mailed. It is a simple procedure that takes all of two seconds – stamp the file ‘mailed on XXXXX’ – and provides a level of proof that I find reasonable to expect. Because of these provisions, particularly the second one, I must strongly OPPOSE this bill.
Just so everyone is crystal clear, this is the provision I reference in 2):
The department shall not be required to file or prove notice of mailing made pursuant to this subsection but shall note in the driving history of such person the date on which the notice was mailed. Service of the notice shall be considered complete three days following the date of mailing, and the records of the department shall be presumed to be correct as to the date of mailing. A person challenging the date of the mailing of the notice shall be required to produce prima-facie evidence that the notice was not mailed; provided, however, that no new or additional burden or duty shall be imposed upon the department regarding such challenge, including, without limitation, a burden of production of records not otherwise provided by law.
HB 9: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 10 does a decent amount of stuff in relation to criminal records and their access. On the one hand, it opens up misdemeanors to be released on criminal records and grants immunity to local agencies releasing this information to the same level that the State enjoys. On the other hand, it also specifies that only Georgia records are to be released and that “provide records of juveniles adjudicated delinquent or records otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to law” shall not be released. Overall, I think the loopholes closed off outweigh the things it opens up, and therefore I will SUPPORT this bill.
HB 10: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
State House Bills I Find Interesting (HB1 – HB10)
Conclusions:
HB 1: OPPOSE Rating: 3
HB 2: OPPOSE Rating: 2
HB 3: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 4: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 5: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 6: SUPPORT Rating: 8
HB 7: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 8: SUPPORT Rating: 7
HB 9: OPPOSE Rating: 1
HB 10: SUPPORT Rating: 8
Commentary:
HB 1is State Rep Bobby Franklin’s proposal to ban abortion and redefine it as ‘prenatal murder’ The exceptions are for a strict ‘life’ of mother whereby both baby and mother are attempted to be saved, and only the mother is successfully saved, and for miscarriage. Quite honestly, other than possibly SB 292, this is one of the most sweeping changes to GA law that I’ve seen this session. Rep Franklin actually makes a very strong Constitutional argument in this bill noting that the Federal government is Constitutionally limited in its jurisdiction and that defining murder is not a part of that jurisdiction. He also notes that even if murder were a part of the Federal jurisdiction, for the Federal government to have jurisdiction over the case essentially means that multiple states and/or nations would have to be involved in some way. After making this case, the bill moves on into the various definitions and the sweeping changes to GA law noted earlier. Basically, these changes completely eliminate any mention of ‘abortion’ or its technical term ‘induced pregnancy termination’.
While I LOVE the way he builds his case on the Constitutional issue, and even agree with him on a personal level about abortion in general, ultimately the science at this time is inconclusive and therefore the government should stay out of the issue altogether. This is one of the most personal decisions an individual can make, and only those who had a direct hand in creating the baby should be able to determine if it is carried to term. (Without going into that particular argument here, feel free to check out my personal site for a better explanation of my ideas there.) Because government should not be involved in dictating this decision either way, ultimately, I must OPPOSE this bill.
HB 1: OPPOSE
Rating: 3
HB 2 basically forces everyone in the State who is engaged in a ‘public benefit’ to use the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration status checking program. ‘Public benefit’ is very broadly defined in such a way that most businesses that operate in this State are covered under it in some fashion or another. In other words, this bill infringes on the right of contract and other private decisions. Then, it goes a step further and grants immunity to anyone who uses the system saying “No employer, agency, or political subdivision shall be subject to lawsuit or liability arising from any act to comply with the requirements of this chapter.” In other words, if they get your information ‘to verify your status’ and sell it to a spammer, there’s nothing you can do about it. Because it not only intereferes with private contract but also restricts an individual’s right to seek redress of greivances through the court system, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this bill.
HB 2: OPPOSE
Rating: 2
HB 3 would remove the ability for local boards of education to control their calendars, at least as far as Veteran’s Day is concerned. Instead, it would force a mandatory holiday for all public and secondary schools on Veteran’s Day. I’ve got no problem with people taking off on that day – or any other – and taking their kid with them. That is completely the individual’s choice as an individual and a parent. I DO have a problem with the State mandating that day be taken off, at least as far as K-12 students are concerned. Because it is a proposed State control of what is rightfully an individual parent’s decision, I OPPOSE this measure.
HB 3: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 4 would allow an income tax credit in the amount of the total ad valorem taxes paid so long as such a credit does not result in you getting a refund and so long as the Tax Commissioner determines there is at least $500 million in state reserve funds. In general, I object to tax ‘credits’ as I think that if the money isn’t needed, it shouldn’t be charged to begin with. That said, I’ll SUPPORT this bill because however you slice it, it is, in effect, a tax cut. (Also note here that corresponding spending cuts need to be made when taxes are cut, but I believe we are a balanced-budget state anyway, so this is not such a huge concern.)
HB 4: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 5 is HB 4, but removes ad valorem taxes on ‘any real or personal property used for business or commercial purposes’ from the credit. I’m still going to SUPPORT it, I’m just not going to rank it quite as high as HB 4.
HB 5: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 6 reauthorizes last year’s sales tax holiday for a variety of energy efficient appliances and products for the same weekend this year and adds insulation to the products that qualify for the exemption. Again noting my general philsophy on tax ‘credits’ and spending as seen in the commentary on HB 4, I’ll still SUPPORT this bill overall.
HB 6: SUPPORT
Rating: 8
HB 7 significantly changes the laws regarding the Dekalb County chief executive officer, the executive assistant, and members of the county commission, but allows the citizens of Dekalb County the ultimate power to accept or reject these changes via the ballot box. While in general I object to the State having the authority to control local towns/counties in this fashion, this bill DOES allow for a local referendum on the issue as its determining factor, and therefore I SUPPORT this measure.
HB 7: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 8 is a local tax bill regarding allowing DeKalb County and homestead exemptions. Again, because it ultimately allows the voters to decide on this issue, I will SUPPORT it.
HB 8: SUPPORT
Rating: 7
HB 9 deals with procedures relating to habitual violators having the driver’s license suspended. Without going into the anti-Drug War stuff, I will note here that my problem with this bill is two fold, and both are pretty massive: 1) the person only has 13 days to surrender their license from the time it was mailed out of the department via first class mail. We all know how slow USPS can be at times, and 13 days just isn’t enough time. Give them another week, or better yet give them the standard 30 days that is so common in the laws for other things. 2) Here’s the kicker: The Department doesn’t have to prove that they did in fact mail the letter, and there is NOTHING the defendant can do about it! In other words, if the Department says they mailed it, their word is law – even if they never even typed the letter to begin with! In all criminal matters, the State should have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite honestly, I would consider it reasonable to doubt that nothing falls through the cracks when government is concerned, and therefore I think the Department should have to keep records of when this letter was mailed. It is a simple procedure that takes all of two seconds – stamp the file ‘mailed on XXXXX’ – and provides a level of proof that I find reasonable to expect. Because of these provisions, particularly the second one, I must strongly OPPOSE this bill.
Just so everyone is crystal clear, this is the provision I reference in 2):
HB 9: OPPOSE
Rating: 1
HB 10 does a decent amount of stuff in relation to criminal records and their access. On the one hand, it opens up misdemeanors to be released on criminal records and grants immunity to local agencies releasing this information to the same level that the State enjoys. On the other hand, it also specifies that only Georgia records are to be released and that “provide records of juveniles adjudicated delinquent or records otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to law” shall not be released. Overall, I think the loopholes closed off outweigh the things it opens up, and therefore I will SUPPORT this bill.
HB 10: SUPPORT
Rating: 8