There have been three bad laws in this country. If there is a bad law, shouldn't we disobey the law and get rid of it, or just live with bad laws?
The first bad law was the legality of owning slaves. We didn't go to court to get it overturned, we fought a war to get rid of the right to own slaves. The second bad law was making it illegal for women to vote. Here it is years later and we now see how bad these two laws were. The third (major) bad law is the mandatory auto insurance law (if you are poor, you cannot drive on public roads). According to a food stamp survey done in Billings, MT, 12 of 96 food stamp applicants listed auto insurance as a reason for needing food stamps. I have found 18 food stamp skyrockets linked to mandatory auto insurance laws (some of these are on www.foodstampstudy.com Dr Maril (head of the Eastern Carolina University sociology dept) did a study in which 44% of the respondents said they could not buy food or rent due to auto insurance "The Impact of Mandatory Auto Insurance Upon Low Income Americans" (How many of those went on food stamps?) Since there is mounting evidence the mandatory auto insurance laws are increasing the nrs on food stamps, that means the expenses of the DPHHS are increased and this is required to be included in the fiscal notes of the mandatory auto insurance laws. Since this information is not being included in the fiscal notes, the budget directors are breaking the law. If the budget directors are going to break the law, why should I not break the law also? Maybe we should confisticate his auto, driver's license, license plates, registration, fine him 500$, send him to jail if he refuses to obey the law and tell the lawmakers in the fiscal note that these laws are causing an increase in the nrs on food stamps (increasing your taxes) And we should also establish a database on the nrs on food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance, similar to the database with those not having insurance. Don Birkholz 901 west 212 Broadus, MT 59317 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
