A Question for Texans
[Guest post by DRJ]
Tell me one good reason Texans should support this proposed policy change:
“The Texas Department of Public Safety today proposed new rules for easing the burden on low-income people who are fined under the state’s Driver Responsibility Program.
Under the proposed rules, drivers who are fined and live at or below 125 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for a reduction in charges.
The Driver Responsibility Program, which was approved by lawmakers in 2003, imposes hefty charges on people who violate certain traffic laws. If they do not pay those fines their licenses could be suspended.
The money from the surcharges is primarily dedicated to hospital trauma centers and road construction.
Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, has long been a critic of the program because he says it hurts poor Texans who cannot afford to pay the fines. He unsuccessfully attempted to do away with the program through legislation last year.”
The Driver Responsibility Program adds surcharges for driving without insurance, an invalid license or DUIs. The change would allow eligible persons to apply online or over the phone for indigent status and would grant an extension of 90 days to pay any fine.
— DRJ
I remain a Texan only by virtue of birth, but I can’t think of one.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:19 pm“Only” by birth? In my book, you are now and will always be a Texan.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:29 pmWell, I’m not a Texan by birth but by choice.
I’m from CA, and where I’m from if a politician is talking the way this guy is talking, he’s really talking about illegal aliens in particular. Not the poor in general.
Illegal aliens are far more unlikely not to have a license or insurance than your the rest of the poor.
In CA, they used to impound your car if you were caught driving without a license. Illegal aliens were constantly being caught driving without licenses at DUI checkpoints. The car was impounded and the driver couldn’t get it back without paying a hefty fine.
Illegal alien advocates (erroniously self-labelled “Immigration advocates”) eventually influenced municipalities to stop or curtail both DUI checkpoints and impounding cars of unlicensed drivers.
Thus compromising the safety of the public at large.
So, no, there isn’t one reason to support this. And lot’s of reasons to oppose it.
See, now aren’t you Texicans glad Californios like me mover here? To translate this stuff for you?
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:29 pmBirth or not — the more, the merrier when it comes to Texans.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:35 pmProgressive traffic fines?
Considering that state/county/muni governments are hiking traffic fines everywhere to make up for the huge deficits due to unbridled spending, this is one more way for them to transfer a bigger burden onto the rich and middle class.
The libs will be trying this everywhere if it succeeds
harkin (f92f52) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:35 pmSen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, has long been a critic of the program because he says it hurts poor Texans who cannot afford to pay the fines.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
— Tony Baretta
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (5ef35b) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:47 pmOh, yeah. Count on it!
Don’t think they aren’t looking at Europe. There, they look at your income and assets before fining people for traffic violations.
A guy in Switzerland made the news a couple of months back for getting a several hundred thousand dollar speeding ticket.
Our brave new world. Draconian taxes and fines. Unless you belong to a priveleged constituency group.
P.S. Forgive any misspellings. The “Live Preview” function isn’t working for me, and I can hardly ever spot typos in this text window.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:48 pmUninsured motorists cost the rest of us. It is like a tax. I see no reason to pay tax so someone else can evade. from Lewisville, TX.
Sy (db03c8) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:52 pmThe article says the DPS is accepting comments:
I’m sure they would appreciate hearing polite pro and con comments from Texans.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:13 pmI support the idea for the first two, but not the last…
The first two are those sorts of things that the poor bump into all the time. – insurance ain’t cheap, and if it’s a matter of food or rent over insurance, I loudly say “fuck the insurance”.
But the third one? They willingly, knowingly get boozed up. If they can afford to get blitzed, they can afford the God Damn fines.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:19 pmDRJ,
The main reason I’ve seen in support of this is that the surcharge is currently structured in such a way as to make it extremely difficult to meet. And most people who get hit with it and can’t/don’t pay don’t stop driving, instead they drive without insurance or a license. TX is getting something like a 30% collection rate right now. So the thinking is that it would be better if these folks were actually paying for auto insurance rather than getting hounded by the state and collections agencies.
Soronel Haetir (ed9110) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:21 pmIf the Alamo didn’t have a back door, there wouldn’t be a Texas.
That said, Texas is slowly being taken over by squatters. Lowering the rates won’t improve safety or revenue. It will just hide the problem a little longer.
TimesDisliker (ce7887) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:26 pmPlease remember the real fear here: that driving, which is truly “necessary” in life for many reasons, will become a “RIGHT” and the fines will be waived for the indigent.
reff (176333) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:33 pmSoronel Haetir,
I’m sure that’s why the DPS has proposed it but I don’t think it will work that way.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:34 pmIt’s not just Texas… family and I were checking out at WalMart in Council Bluffs Iowa tonight, waiting for an immigrant family in front of us. They rung up a full cart load of groceries and struggled to use their Iowa foodstamp card (for legal citizens only) due to their inability to understand a single word of English. They couldn’t manage the ATM interface, couldn’t speak with the check-out clerk, and finally required a spanish-speaking supervisor to come over and explain it.
Of course, they had plenty of cash for the beer, cigarettes, a playstation video game for the kids and a few discount DVDs. Apparently things are so damn good in Iowa, the cash in my pocket is being lifted in order to give illegals cash for staples so they can buy junk with their money.
If you’re paying taxes like me, you’re a stupid schmuck.
Hatless Hessian (cca288) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:37 pmI’ve never grasped the logic behind fines for uninsured motorists anyway. It’s just an excuse for the government to take money away from people while not doing anything for the insured public in return.
NOT saying there isn’t a thing to be done here, just that the system as-is doesn’t do anything about the problem it’s purportedly dealing with — kind of like the tobacco settlements, levied purportedly because of the states having disproportionate expenses due to smokers (ignoring that state taxes were usually more than the cost of the cigs themselves, and that smokers die earlier, meaning that the system takes money in from them for SSec and doesn’t pay much of it back out) that were tossed into the general revenue, and NOT used to deal with any of those purported expenses.
The fairly obvious solution is that the state should arrange for insurance if the owner of the car doesn’t have proof of it. Such moneys to be extracted when you renew your tag (thereby making an obvious connection between the car and its insurance status). The state just contracts with someone to provide insurance to anyone uninsured, in such a way that the collected/uncollected revenues balance out to whatever the insurance company would have made. The individual is encouraged to buy their own insurance by the fact that the state is under no obligation to find the best price for the owner. This would pretty much end up with everyone covered by insurance.
IgotBupkis (79d71d) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:10 pmSo they are going to improve the Driver Responsibility Program by absolving violators of…responsibility.
Look out, Texas, the progressives are coming to get you!
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:19 pmEasy peasy.
Federal poverty level is arbitrary and set way too high anyway.
Anything that would allow people to pay less money to the government (thereby crippling the governments ability to expand its reach) I support.
Any of you making support of a reduction in giving money to the government an equality, immigration, or poverty issue need to rethink your support of giving more money to the government.
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:15 pm#12 What does that even mean? Only one person escaped from the Alamo alive and the controversy raged as to whether he was a coward or an emissary until modern times when they finally found the letter.
In any event no one came to save them in time because the leaders of the armies dithered.
I’m confused now.
We have a Texas regardless of whether there was a back door on the Alamo or not.
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:30 pm#19, sorry should have read “if it HAD a back door.” phumphered my own joke, thank you for keeping my comedy pure.
TimesDisliker (6144aa) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:18 amI oppose this proposed law!!! Texas is, for all
A Texan (21f1b4) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:34 ampractical purposes, a sanctuary state full of un-
insured motorists. It also has one of the highest rates of DUIs of all the states. Under this proposal, guess who will benefit if this
becomes law??????
Auto insurance is a tax on good drivers and should not be “required by law”.
Thomas (b5d255) — 3/8/2010 @ 9:04 amAs a native Texan, all I can say to Mr. Shapleigh is “No Effin’ Way, mofo!”
I’m not a lawyer, but how could such a proposal pass the Equal Protection test? Or does that only apply to the trial, and not the “sentence”?
Tex Lovera (456ded) — 3/8/2010 @ 9:14 am“…So they are going to improve the Driver Responsibility Program by absolving violators of…responsibility…”
That which government taxes, it gets less of;
That which government subsidizes, it gets more of.
This is a subsidy for non-responsibility!
AD - RtR/OS! (3a472f) — 3/8/2010 @ 10:17 amThis is similar to what they do in many European countries. I think I saw an article about some poor guy in Holland speeding in his Maserati or Lamborhini–they fined him according to his ability to pay, and I think the fine was something in the six figure neighborhood. If you reduce fines for poor people, can increased fines for wealthy people be far behind?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 3/8/2010 @ 11:45 amThe average fine for a seat-belt violation in CA is now approx $150!; and, it can’t be discharged via “Traffic School”.
AD - RtR/OS! (3a472f) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:16 pmMaybe the Driver Responsibility Program is only supposed to apply to responsible people. Indigent people tend to be irresponsible; so . . .
Icy Texan (b3eb37) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:27 pmTexas: Where Irresponsibility is State-Subsidized!
Cicero (8db983) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:10 pmI sent my email to oppose the changes. The uninsured are bad enough now. This will just make it worse.
Bill M (17c1e8) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:15 pmThis past Saturday morning, at 7:30 a.m., Erick Armando Nuncio-Moreno was sitting at a stop light when he reved his Toyota Celica engine indicating to another driver he wanted to race. The other driver ignored Nunci-Moreno, and refused to race.
Nunci-Moreno, 19, then sped off, taking a corner of the downtown Austin street, at a speed police estimate to have been approximated 80 miles an hour when he plowed into a bus stop where he killed two women waiting for the bus to take them to work.
Whatta you wanna bet this clown had been cited before for traffic violations and whould probably fall within the guidelines for reduced fine?
That’s just what we need; more idiots who get reduced fines because they are “poor”. Yet people like me who have never had one damn ticket in all the years I have beeb driving have watched my “uninsured motorist” rates go sky high. And you can bet this 19 year old who just killed two women probably didn’t have a dime’s worth of insurance.
The trick is as old as the book. Pay the first 30 days worth of insurance when you renew your driver’s licence or your license plates, and then let it lapse until you need it again a year later.
Here’s my suggestion: you get caught driving without a license, or valid insurance, you go to jail for a month. No, ifs, ands or buts. You get caught driving drunk, one year. If you get a speeding ticket, you don’t get your license back until you prove you have paid the full price of a high risk policy that is good through the period until your license expires.
If poor people want to avoid traffic fines there is one sure way to do it; don’t violate traffic laws.
But hey, that’s just my opinion. I guess it doesn’t help that my father was killed by a drunk driver in LaMarque by a guy that had two previous DWIs and four speeding tickents in less than six months.
retire05 (1e885c) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:23 pmWell I’m not a Texan by birth or residency, but one of my relations died at the Alamo so I’ve skin in the game. In my opinion a progressive penalty is unconstitutional, thwarting the 14th amendment denying equal protection under the law.
My fair state has been polluted by an influx of californios such as #3. Californication is an ugly sight, bound to get worse as the rats flee the sinking ship. Continuing with the unconstitutional meme, the DWI checkpoints mentioned by the transplanted californian are an assault upon individual liberty and an affront to the 4th amendment. Individual liberty meaning not a right to drink and drive but a right to have one’s person and effects be secure against unreasonable searches without a warrant. Driving down the road is not probable cause.
Granted not a popular idea, depriving law enforcement of a tool they covet, at the site of a prosecutor and his disciples. Yet the founders envisioned a nation of freedom and liberty not a police state. Giving police a checkpoint to fish for crimes and the additional revenue they produce is the antithesis of the state being servant to the people.
Amused Observer (3e1bcf) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:26 pmSome guy in Europe got a six figure fine for speeding in his Ferrari (he was really hauling, but it was a progressive fine system). I guess that’s where this is going.
I am sorry poor people have a hard time affording insurance, but it’s critical that every Texan driver have insurance. A progressive fine system for that particular violation is nothing short of dangerous. It’s encouraging the most at-risk group of offenders. It should be clear that not having insurance is more expensive than having it.
I am not a big fan of checkpoints, and I have been annoyed with traffic fines all the time. In the Ross Perot Trophy Club area, property taxation is extremely low because of a system of aggressive fines. I think that creates a bad incentive system for government. But this is nation where all people should be equal before the court. That’s pretty much the most important kind of equality there is.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:25 pmHey, watch yourself, Amused Observer. You’d be lucky if your state was “polluted” with Californios like me. Opening businesses, profiding jobs, and warning everyone like Paul Revere just what a bad idea this crap is and not to take one step down this road.
Because I know where it leads. Keep it the hell away from me and my state.
Steve (e4b848) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:31 pm“… Nuncio-Moreno was sitting at a stop light when he reved his Toyota Celica engine…”
Obviously, a case of unintended acceleration.
AD - RtR/OS! (a1afa2) — 3/8/2010 @ 8:45 pmAnd the estates of the two deceased will sue Toyota because N-M is suit-proof (ain’t got $hit).
No Steve,
Amused Observer (ba6a37) — 3/10/2010 @ 2:58 pmCalifornians are not a net positive. The bad outweighs the good.