Senate Bill # 109: Insuring Tyranny by Doug Wrenn

Senate Bill # 109: Insuring Tyranny

By Doug Wrenn

April 19, 2007

I can't believe this. I must be sicker than I thought. I am actually about to defend both Governor Rell and the insurance industry! What's next, Hillary Clinton and the legal profession? I'm home sick today, nursing a bad cold. After watching the debate and vote on CT-N regarding S. B. 109, now I'm even sicker.

S.B. 109 mandates that insurance companies give a minimum 5% discount on any individual auto insurance policy, retroactive to July, 1, 1983, and in effect for 24 months for any driver of age 60 or older who passes a driver safety course.

On April 11th, this bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 35-1. The lone dissenter was Republican Minority Leader Sen. Louis DeLuca. Bravo, Senator DeLuca! As I recall today's vote in the House, the bill passed by (140 or) 144-1. At this early writing, I do not yet know who the lone hero of the House was in that chamber's vote, but to whomever it was, regardless of party affiliation, bravo to you, too! I don't know how Gov. Rell will decide on this vote, as to sign or veto it. As the Democrats now have a veto-proof majority, and considering the fact that both chambers almost unanimously affirmed the bill, it's a moot point anyway.

That's it! I don't ever again want to hear any pundit, conservative, pseudo-conservative or otherwise ever again condemning Gov. Rell for being a "RINO," or "Republican In Name Only." The problem is well beyond just the Governor. The problem is a broader, deeply entrenched and more systemic dysfunction of our current state Republican Party. Most Republican legislators, barring one, or possibly two, voted for this bill. I gave up on any hopes of social conservatives being elected in this state long ago, barring the few who do currently serve and are still somehow surviving in office, but now almost our entire state GOP has also succumbed to fiscal liberalism as well. Fiscal matters were collectively the last vestige of a boundary between state Republicans and Democrats. Attention conservatives and die-hard Republicans: The machine now reads, "TILT!" Game over.

I'm a big boy. I know how the real world works. In such liberal bastions as Connecticut, many incessantly invoke "the children," when in fact, most of these hypocrites couldn't care less about kids, and if they did, we wouldn't have abortion or embryonic stem cell research. Besides young people, age 18 and older, typically don't vote. The elderly, however, are a solidly reliable voting block. Elderly voters can make it rain or put your lights out. Our politicians know this too. I suspect much of this vote had much to do about wooing essential older voters as it did about subscribing to the socialist agenda and placating the socialist majority with the same defeatist mentality that has become the trademark of the Connecticut Republican Party. We also now have a consuming plethora of so-called "Citizen Legislators" in Hartford who have not only found a cozy career sinecure, but also now wish to infinitely renew it every two years and perpetually keep it all costs, hence their latest brainstorm to become a full time legislature. These people are no harder to read than the big letter "E" at the top of an eye chart.

Who, in the name of Joseph Stalin, does the State of Connecticut think it is to intrude and mandate that any commercial entity give any kind of a discount to its customers? This is the same hypocritical state that is currently debating over the fallacy of "responsible growth" and that just appointed a "business advocate." We pay the highest or near highest taxes, the highest energy costs, the highest insurance rates, (despite allegedly being "the Insurance Capital of the World") in comparison to the other states, and yet we rank lowest or near lowest in job growth, job retention and overall friendly fiscal climate to attract and retain business and industry in comparison to other states. The socialists under the big, tarnished dome just don't get it. Why don't they just cut to the chase, and implement a moratorium on all business and manufacturing? How many more lay-offs and downsizing does Aetna and some of the other major insurance companies in this state have to again endure before they either pack up and leave or the Comrades of the Kremlin wake up and smell the tea in the glass?

Bi-partisan collusion! Catching the latter part of the debate before the vote, I heard Rep, Brian O'Connor, a Democrat and Rep. Larry Miller, a Republican, both praise and support this bill, and citing that analysis of the bill indicates that to offset costs, insurance carriers will simply increase rates of other customers. Our Walking Widgets Of Socialist Wisdom from both sides of the no longer discernable partisan aisle believe that the cost shift is worth it because it will reduce and save long-term costs of emergency health care for crash victims.

I suppose that drivel makes sense if you subscribe to the socialist propaganda that it is the state's responsibility to pick up the tab for the lower class, uninsured and just plain deadbeats, who can't or won't pay their medical bills. Did I miss something? Have collection agencies gone out of business? Attorneys? Financial counselors? Lending institutions? Are liens now illegal? Lawsuits? Payment schedules? And if the individual cannot legitimately pay, how about his family or church? This so-called reasoning only makes sense to those who accept the socialist domino effect in government of cradle to grave entitlement. If these socialists are so concerned about safety on our highways, then why not offer incentives, not mandates to insurance companies, thus still promoting highway safety while also supporting our business economy? I know this sounds like a wild thought, but how about actually allowing personal initiative and the marketplace to support these ideals?

We incessantly hear words like "equality," discrimination," and "fairness" thrown at us ad nauseum. In a state so dreadfully afraid of the elderly electorate and the powerful lobbying influence of AARP (The American Association of Retired Persons), we don't routinely test elderly drivers for fear of being accused of "age discrimination." Well, what is this? Under this tyrannical panacea, why should a 59 year-old driver be denied the same benefit as a 60 year-old driver in the same circumstances? This is age discrimination, as well as sheer political correctness, political expediency, rank hypocrisy and outright cowardice! Furthermore, this brainstorm only addresses the elderly drivers, who like experienced drivers of all ages, acquired some bad habits along the way in their driving careers. It does not address the far larger and more significant problem of elderly drivers who, for medical reasons, are no longer fit to be on the road any longer and who pose a far greater risk to themselves and all other motorists. These are the folks who are still legally licensed and who stubbornly and defiantly continue driving while simultaneously living in constant fear and/or denial of being stripped of their driving mobility and independence. These older drivers will most likely not take a safe driving course, and in such instances, it would not remedy their particular situations anyway. So to deter age discrimination, the legislature has enacted age discrimination of another variety and applied a knee-jerk, feel good band-aid to a minor problem while willfully turning a blind eye to a far graver problem. Typical! These elected hacks, cowards and connivers, with few exceptions, are about as useful as an elevator in an outhouse! In a state government as widely corrupt as it is inept, and so chock full of consistently bad legislation, this little standout piece of art actually deserves an award! (For some reason, an image of a mounted little star, hammer, or sickle on a red background seems to come to mind!)

Think about it. As powerful as the insurance lobby is in this state, to be so badly beaten in both legislative chambers on such a significant issue that impacts one of the chief industries of our state economy, besides one that so suffocates the ideals of preserving capitalism and prohibiting discrimination, this abomination of a bill is either a by-product of some pretty powerful back-room (but now smoke-free) wheeling and dealing, or our elderly actually have more clout than the mighty insurance industry. If the poor, oppressed souls being evicted from their homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London wielded that kind of juice and political leverage against the pharmaceutical industry, they could all remain in their homes and the rest of us would still think that "eminent domain" was just a square on a Monopoly game board and "Kelo" was a game played at the casinos.

I'm not ruling out that some decent legislators voted their consciences for whatever their reasons may have been. This bill was sponsored by Senators Crisco and Prague and Representatives Frey and Giuliano. With no disrespect intended toward either Senator Crisco or Senator Prague, the plain truth is that both senators are long in the tooth, both in terms of age and tenure. Both senators also have a history of affirmative support on elderly matters, and both senators would more than likely also personally benefit from this bill. I do not know Rep. Frey, nor can I intelligently comment on his record. I am acquainted with Representative Giuliano, whom I hold in very high regard, both as a person and as a legislator. Rep. Giuliano is an ordinarily solid conservative with deep compassion, faith, integrity, intelligence, character and ability. I do not know her motivation for sponsoring this bill, and while I respectfully disagree with Rep. Giuliano on this particular issue, I am willing to concede that in all probability, her reasons were based on study, reflection, and personal conscience. OK, maybe that's my bias, but for right or for wrong, I am willing to give Rep. Giuliano a pass on this bill and vote, and I am sure there were a few, albeit, very few, other legislators, who legitimately cast their affirmative votes for similar reasons.

Politics is the textbook illustration of incrementalism. I recall several years back, having a debate with a friend regarding the smoking ban. He was in favor of it. I argued that among other reasons, government-mandated smoking bans are wrong because they can and will open Pandora's Box to even more liberty infringements later on. My friend pooh-poohed my argument, but I was vindicated three weeks later, when the news reported that a California state legislator proposed a bill to ban the sale of Oreo Cookies to children due to the high fat content. Closer to home, we have since seen the tyrants under the big tarnished dome stick their snouts into issues effecting smoking (including in your own car), soda in schools, trans-fats, diapers, light bulbs, and on the sordid laundry list goes. I'm surprised they haven't yet gone after Baskin-Robbins for having too many flavors of ice cream. Now they are dictating prices of private businesses in the market place. The only firewall this state ever had against this new age radical socialist-Democrat Party was the woefully abysmal and impotent CT GOP. Fire drill, folks, the firewall is gone. The Republicans quietly and subtly slipped into the swamp when you weren't looking and have assimilated with the gators. The resurrected Vichy French are now alive and well in the Connecticut GOP. Not much has changed in this state that calls itself home to our first traitor, the late Benedict Arnold, who came back for a visit to New London with torches for mass arson instead of olive branches for unified peace. (That was before we had the more effective tools of anarchy like eminent domain and activist courts!) Then, like now, we're all still prey!

Undoubtedly, we all have an elderly family member or relative, and maybe a very young child as well. It's tough to say no to either group of people who so tug at our heartstrings. That is what liberals focus on and manipulate as a tactic, emotion, every bit as much as the very alluring Sirens of Greek mythology used their charm and sexuality. But when excessive emotion displaces it delicate balance with logic and principle, the end result is just as devastating to our citizens individually and our state collectively, as it was to the distracted ship captains who so myopically crashed their ships on the rocky shoals just short of the deceptive and dangerous images they so zealously sought and desired. In the deservedly dubbed "State Of Corrupticut," once again, tyranny has usurped liberty and gray hair has apparently outwitted gray matter. Yet I still don't get it; why do these gray-haired folks still migrate to Florida in droves? Don't they know that, given their way, the same socialists who cut their insurance rates when they were still here will only recoup that temporarily saved money in tolls later when they try to leave, or more appropriately, evacuate their cherished Draconian utopia?

Despite whatever the answer may be, will the last person of any age, departing Connecticut please turn off the "Energy Saving Long Life" lights before you go? Oh yeah, and while you're protecting our environment, watch out for that mercury! As for me, I've had enough aggravation for now. I'm going back to bed, and no more TV for today. Goodnight.