Budget work starts slowly
-
Feb 27, 2006 Posted by Bill Luckett
Legislators began their budget work today, but it wasn't as exciting as it's going to get. I focused on the Senate, where they had all of four amendments on their first reading of the budget, and they were all "technical amendments," according to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman John Hines, R-Gillette, who sponsored all four amendments. That means the amendments weren't very interesting as far as policy questions go.
Tomorrow (Tuesday), they'll continue with first reading of the budget in the Senate. Most of what it involves is different members of the Appropriations Committee describing each of the agencies' budget requests. So apparently, they won't get to second reading of the budget in the Senate until Wednesday, which is when we'll see the interesting amendments introduced for votes.
I didn't listen to the House work on the budget today, but I understand that they didn't get very far either. However, unlike the Senate, the House apparently is entertaining amendments from all its members on first reading, so there could be some interesting news to report from the House tomorrow. I'[ve heard they have at least 30 amendments prepared. Stay tuned.
Just a technical note here, when I say "first reading," what I'm really referring to is called "Committee of the Whole." For every bill, the "first reading" is actually just the bill being introduced, and then it gets referred to a committee. Then, if the committee votes in favor of the bill, it goes to the full chamber (House or Senate) for the first time the full chamber gets to discuss it, but that's technically called "Committee of the Whole." Then, the following day, the bill comes up for second reading, and then third reading on the next day. Maybe I'm picking nits here, but I've always considered "Committee of the Whole" to be first reading, even though technically that's not what it's called. On to something more interesting.
There are a couple of other bills working their way through the Legislature that I should probably mention. One comes from the request of Rep. Floyd Esquibel, D-Cheyenne, who has been working on this issue for years. It is House Bill 62, and its purpose is to ban the use of cell phones while someone is driving. Rep. Esquibel has tried this for years unsuccessfully, but he has a good point. Bottom line is, talking on a cell phone while driving causes a distraction for the driver, and distractions cause accidents. That's a fact. Of course, changing the radio station or rolling down a window also cause a driver's attention to be focused somewhere other than on the road, and these activities also can cause accidents. Rep. Esquibel's not alone in this line of thinking. I know I've seen bumper stickers that say, "Hang up and drive." However, his bill did not make it out of committee this year, but it's worth thinking about, because if I know Rep. Esquibel, he'll bring this bill back again.
The other bill I wanted to mention is House Bill 78, which would allow basically anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. The bill cleared third reading in the House so is now moving on to the Senate. The state association of sheriffs and police chiefs is against it, but among its 11 Republican sponsors are Rep. Becket Hinckley, R-Cheyenne (the chief sponsor) and Rep. Steve Watt, a former sheriff's deputy. I can understand why law enforcement would like to know, when they pull someone over, if that person has a concealed weapons permit, for officer safety purposes. But I didn't understand why Rep. Hinckley, a prosecuting attorney in Laramie County, would sponsor this. So I talked to him tonight, and he made an interesting point. The right to keep and bear arms is in our U.S. Constitution, so Rep. Hinckley argues that we shouldn't have to go through any hoops to obtain a license to exercise that right. One of his arguments - and I admit, as a former newspaper reporter, I found it very powerful - was that, should people have to obtain a license to exercise their rights to freedom of speech or the press? That would mean that I would need a license to write this blog. I have a feeling most people would be against that. Still, although one can argue that the pen is mightier than the sword, I think people understand that weapons possession is different than publishing. No matter what the Second Amendment says, none of us has the right to carry around a nuclear weapon. In any event, it's an interesting bill that raises some interesting philosophical questions, and its next stop will be in a Senate committee, probably Judiciary, so again, stay tuned.