The Gov is killing the drunk driver licence [sic] revocation bill. He is saying he can not afford the 75 employees needed to process the information. I started to wonder. 75 people to type in a revocation of someones [sic] licence at the DMV? How many drunk drivers does the state catch in one year?
I did some simple math, lets just say it takes all of ten minutes to type one in. That is 6 per hour x 8 hours in a day x 5 days a week x 50 weeks a year x 75 employees that totaled 900,000 DUI arrests in one year. I did not realize that almost 1/6 of the states total population of 6 million (That includes every man, women, child and elderly person of the state. some who I doubt drive at all) get arrested every year for a DUI! Look out, our roads are more dangerous then I thought.
Fortunately, the Tennessee legislature doesn't pass bills based on simple-minded calculations such as these. Bills must have a "fiscal note" explaining the financial impact of the legislation.
The bill in question is HB4213/SB4196. The fiscal note for HB4213 says there are "34,000 DUI arrests and approximately 27,000 convictions per year," which answers Campfield's first question.
It goes on to say:
To implement the provisions of this bill [Department of Safety] will require the following additional resources: 44 additional positions in the Driver License Issuance Division; 17 additional positions in the Information Processing Division; two additional positions in the Human Resource Division; two additional positions in the Fiscal Services Division; three additional positions in Information Resources; and seven additional positions in the Legal Division. The total number of positions required is estimated to be 75.
It also estimates that three additional Chancellors with two support positions each will be needed to handle appeals, plus one additional Court of Appeals Judge with a staff of three support positions.
This bill appears to be a more comprehensive replacement for HB2882, which Campfield co-sponsored. The fiscal note for HB2882 says the Department of Safety would need 35 additional employees and that the Attorney General would need two additional lawyers and a paralegal.
So Rep. Campfield doesn't even read or understand the legislation he cosponsors and supports, or he would know that there is a lot more to it than hiring someone to "type in a revocation of someones [sic] licence at the DMV."
Drafting legislation is complicated business best suited for adults. Perhaps the simple-minded ought to find more suitable work.
Submitted by Terry Troll on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 11:07.
... they can get work in the Louisiana Legislature and feel right at home. We currently have bills pending to 1. allow concealed carry of guns on college and Jr. college campuses,2. repeal the motorcycle helmet law, 3.increase the Lege's salary over 300% and 4.gut the new strict building codes enacted after Rita and Katrina. See? Pinheads and the feeble minded welcome.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 15:14.
Legislators don't draft the legislation. The legal department does. Other people set the fiscal impact. Many times the estimate is high if it is not a wanted project. Many times positions are added that are not needed and could be done by the people already there. We are currently laying off 2011 people. Can you say what program can no longer be accomplished with the people we have left?
Commenting on legislation is complicated business best suited for adults. Perhaps the simple-minded ought to find more suitable work.
Whoever you are, you completely dodged the fact that the original bill that Campfield co-sponsored also called for additional personnel to administer it, and the new bill had a more thorough (and "corrected") analysis, and both involve a lot more than data entry clerks.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 23:27.
So do you think the Campfield version of the bill is better because it would cost half as much? Is that your point or is it that the people who make the estimates don't do a good job so their estimates and the estimation process should not be trusted by Campfield or any one else (as he points out). How are either situations Campfields fault?
I think the point is very clear, that the "low tax less government" people get all upset when one of their programs that would increase taxes and expand government (not to mention subvert due process) doesn't get the support of the governor at a time when he's forced to lay off 2000 state employees because of "low tax less government" policies, and that Campfield is using spurious math and misleading information to lay it all off on the governor. But now that I've explained it three times I still don't expect you go get it. Whatever.
They may not consciously be thinking about it, but when people cut spending they are making choices based on what they feel is most important to them. The result is that government gets less tax revenue. Despite an avalanche of headlines about how less retail spending means less tax money for the government, people still cut back on their spending.
Keeping government awash in cash simply isn’t their highest priority. As you put it, Bubba, people “stop shopping because they can’t afford the items they wish to purchase.”
One of the things they can afford less of these days is government.
... they can get work in the Louisiana Legislature and feel right at home. We currently have bills pending to 1. allow concealed carry of guns on college and Jr. college campuses,2. repeal the motorcycle helmet law, 3.increase the Lege's salary over 300% and 4.gut the new strict building codes enacted after Rita and Katrina. See? Pinheads and the feeble minded welcome.
Legislators don't draft the legislation. The legal department does. Other people set the fiscal impact. Many times the estimate is high if it is not a wanted project. Many times positions are added that are not needed and could be done by the people already there. We are currently laying off 2011 people. Can you say what program can no longer be accomplished with the people we have left?
Commenting on legislation is complicated business best suited for adults. Perhaps the simple-minded ought to find more suitable work.
That's exactly the message this blog is taking to Stacey Campfield.
__________________________________
Paid for by Slightly Silly Citizens for Tarquin Fintim Limbim Whimbim Lim Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit Barrel '08.
Is that you, Bill?
Whoever you are, you completely dodged the fact that the original bill that Campfield co-sponsored also called for additional personnel to administer it, and the new bill had a more thorough (and "corrected") analysis, and both involve a lot more than data entry clerks.
So do you think the Campfield version of the bill is better because it would cost half as much? Is that your point or is it that the people who make the estimates don't do a good job so their estimates and the estimation process should not be trusted by Campfield or any one else (as he points out). How are either situations Campfields fault?
I think the point is very clear, that the "low tax less government" people get all upset when one of their programs that would increase taxes and expand government (not to mention subvert due process) doesn't get the support of the governor at a time when he's forced to lay off 2000 state employees because of "low tax less government" policies, and that Campfield is using spurious math and misleading information to lay it all off on the governor. But now that I've explained it three times I still don't expect you go get it. Whatever.
Thus the problem with rigging state revenues to sales.
When people don't buy as much stuff, you don't take in as much money.
(And now some low-information Laffer acolyte will invent a fairy tale to explain why this is wildly off-point.)
__________________________________
Paid for by Slightly Silly Citizens for Tarquin Fintim Limbim Whimbim Lim Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé Biscuit Barrel '08.
Well, the upside as I noted the other day is that you can give yourself a tax break by just spending less!
Which gave Bill Hobbs an opening:
Tennessee’s Amazing Shrinking Tax Base
Brilliant!
Can you say, "Willfully Obtuse" Boy's and girls?