Cell Phone Ban for Papa Bear and Mama Bear, Too
…says the Roanoke Times.

Look for the worse in Jerry Kilgore’s campaign.

…can get you 10 years. These kinds of stories (here and here) have gotta make you chuckle at how silly the job of lawmaker often is.

More than 50 years his junior.

The Armstrong Williams flap over his accepting nearly a quarter of a million dollars from the Bush administration to tout the No Child Left Behind Act while posing as a dispassionate pundit has led one conservative media critic to accuse the press of racial bigotry. Tim Graham of the Media Research Center thinks it’s much ado about nothing.

I’ve argued often that the preponderance of media bias is against liberals, not for them. It’s just that the right has been much more effective in raising that old canard to keep the mainstream press on the defensive, ever eager to bend over backwards to prove they are not liberal elitists.

But here’s a case of bias that sullies all journalism. Apparently, small town newspapers are upset with Wal-Mart for not using them for advertising. So their association writes an open letter to Wal-Mart that, in effect, tells the big-box retailer: if you want us to cover stories about you, you better advertise with us. That may not be the intent, but that sure is a valid interpretation, and one that debunks that old saw newspapers want to perpetuate that there is a “Chinese wall” between advertising and news.

Looks like the patchwork, band-aid approach to transportation is the best we can expect this year, as the Senate majority Leader John Chichester threw up his hands and declared that the long-awaited Senate plan will be much like the House’s and the Governor’s. But wait ‘til next year.

Chichester yesterday proposed returning to the transportation trust fund revenues from an existing tax on automobile insurance premiums, beginning July 2006. He said that would annually generate at least $106 million, money lawmakers have used for other purposes.

…Several years ago, legislators passed a law stating that an estimated one-third of total insurance-premium taxes would go to the transportation fund.

Since then, lawmakers have actually transferred the money only once.

…However, Chichester and other Senate Republican leaders are urging an off-season investigation of increasing transportation needs, largely focusing on how to pay for them. It would fall to the 2006 General Assembly to enact a remedy.

Chichester, Senate Republican Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch of Henrico and Sen. Charles R. Hawkins, R-Pittsylvania, head of the finance subcommittee on transportation, did not specifically rule out higher taxes.

“I’m not saying no new taxes or increase them,” said Hawkins, arguing against another “quick fix, rabbit out of the hat.”

… Chichester’s tactics in this year’s transportation debate are changing as suddenly as the weather. Before the session he said the Senate would largely react to programs advanced by delegates and Warner; last week, he said the Senate would have a plan of its own.

The latest about-face, Chichester said, reflects divisions among senators on how to proceed and that “I was in bed for four days” — a reference to his bout with flu.

At the core of the Senate’s latest position: cleaning up the highway department’s books; preventing the use of road dollars for other purposes or commandeering for transportation general-fund revenues that support education, human services and law enforcement.

While many have advocated protecting the Transportation Trust Fund from raids by lawmakers to fund other budget items, Chichester wants to prohibit using general funds for transportation.

House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, repeated he has no problem using general funds for roads: “The general fund is general. To say you can’t use it for other purposes defies the purpose of the fund.”

The Chichester approach may help the other party, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch report.

The approach outlined by Senate Republicans generally reflects that of the likely Democratic nominee for governor, Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. The presumed Republican nominee, Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, opposes new taxes for transportation.

So, here are the three proposals:

Senate: Sen. John H. Chichester (R-Stafford) proposes creating a permanent funding source for transportation by using taxes on auto insurance premiums, for about $106 million a year. A law passed in 2000 shifted those taxes to transportation, but tight budgets have since led lawmakers to spend the money on education, health care and other needs.

Gov. Mark R. Warner: The Democratic governor proposes spending $824 million on roads, transit and matching funds to encourage public-private partnership. Most of this is one-time-only spending.

House: Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) proposes spending $938 million. Like Warner’s plan, it’s mostly a one-time infusion of money, but it also includes about $100 million a year collected by increasing fines for drivers who speed and break other road rules. Howell’s plan also would divert the tax on auto insurance premiums this year to transportation projects, but he has made no guarantees that he would do so in the future.

Let the games begin while the traffic stalls.

Update: I neglected originally to add two op-eds on transportation matters. One complains about the mess but offers no solutions; the other, by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax), lays out the issue with cogent facts.

There are at least now two bills on the charter schools idea — The Senate’s SB 1327 and the House’s HB 2866. But the may be just “placeholders” while the debate ensues. The sponsor of the Senate bill, Thomas Norment (R-James City) says of his bill, “I haven’t even read it, yet.

Del. Mitch Van Yahres (D-Charlottesville) wants to address the ratio of in-state to out-of-state students.

[Van Yahres] said UVa, Virginia Tech and William & Mary probably will be required to cap out-of-state enrollments at 30 percent to 33 percent of their student bodies. “Those three schools have the advantage of bringing in out-of-state students who are profitable,” Van Yahres said. “Out-of-state students are paying 120 percent of the cost of their educations. That’s a 20 percent markup, which is great” for the schools that attract them in large numbers.

The Hampton Roads Daily Press’ editorial page generally likes the idea and opened its op-ed pages to both pro and con opinions.

Doctors and lawyers agreed to a compromise bill aimed at reducing physicians’ insurance premiums.

Certain elements seem silly, like requiring lawyers to get an outside expert to opine that malpractice occurred; try winning a case without it. Other provisions make sense, like allowing a doctor to express sympathy for an unfortunate outcome without it being used against her as an admission of culpability.

But nowhere in the story is the phrase “insurance company.” I wonder if they aren’t using the president’s campaign against “frivolous lawsuits as a cover for gouging doctors.

The bill passed a senate committee. A vote by the full senate is expected next week.

A bill that would ban the use of cell phones by teen drivers passed the Senate Transportation Committee yesterday on a 13-0 vote with one abstention (Sen. Yvonne Miller (D-Norfolk)). The bill was incorporated into SB 966 , which also makes certain penalties primary ones, meaning a police officer can stop a teen for, say, driving with too many underage occupants, instead of needing a primary cause, such as speeding, before issuing citations.

But the cell phone ban advocate, Sen. Bill Mims (R-Loudoun) makes some assertions I’d like to see proof for.

Youngsters have not developed the ability to multitask, Sen. Bill Mims, R-Leesburg, said while defending his bill that bans drivers younger than 18 from using a cell phone – even one equipped with a hands-free set or speaker phone – while driving.

“Their attention is on that phone call even if it’s a hands-free device,” he said, which could distract them for the two or three seconds it takes to avoid an accident. “That amount of time is sufficient for a dangerous accident.”

Adults, he said, have developed the multitasking ability and can refocus their attention almost immediately from the phone conversation to the dangerous situation.

Qualifying as an adult (with somewhat arrested development), I think adults aren’t much better at multi-tasking, at least with cell phones while driving. I do it and wish I didn’t. I clearly know my attention is diverted. It’s not the act of holding a phone, although with a manual transmission I literally can’t drive, hold the phone and change gears. My reaction times to certain events is definitely hampered by the phones. I don’t suffer from ADD. … (What was I talking about?) … And I don’t think I’m alone on this issue. Still, with three teenage drivers in my house, I welcome the bill. (Donations to my automobile insurance relief fund can be sent directly to my insurer.)