On 10/23/08, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think this has anything to do with any "nanny states" though. > My take is that it's about federal versus state funding and about who > bears liability in the event of an incident. It's about an overly > litigious society that has to protect its ass against every possible > contingency lest it gets its ass hauled into court for a multi-million > dollar lawsuit. It's about whose deep pocket will get picked by some > slug who was on the roadway not wearing a bright vest (why didn't you > ~make~ me wear a vest Mr. or Ms. Legislator?).
It's about the Fed passing yet another law that puts the financial burden of enforcement on the States. It's a strong arm tactic. "Either you enforce it, or we pull your highway funding." Unfortunately, most States just roll over when threatened with funding. If we had any sense at all, all of our taxes would be paid through the States and the Fed would have to beg them for money. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
