So, once again, Republican State Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) wants to create another government “insurance policy” in which the many of us that are law abiding and have a dog or two must pay a penalty for bad commercial breeders? What is it with this guy that can’t seemingly leave any marketplace that he spies alone? And why is this Republican just bound and determined, like Democrats, force “the many to pay for the very few”? And why are the other elected Republicans giving him a rhetorical slap to the head and remind him “limited government, free marketplace”? Reformatted, emphasis mine:
Republican State Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), can rattle off the names of New Hampshire towns recently involved in costly animal abuse cases without hesitation — Wolfeboro, Croydon, Berlin, Marlborough, Exeter, Bristol. In the past two years those towns have faced the prospect of thousands of dollars in unanticipated costs to house, shelter and otherwise care for animals confiscated in high-profile cases of animal abuse or neglect, most involving dogs. In most cases, the local humane society or animal shelters stepped in and with help from donations enabled the towns to avoid budget-busting expenses, but that’s not likely to continue. Bradley has been working with stakeholders for the past two years in an attempt to address the situation. The House and Senate reached an impasse on the issue last year, and still appear to be deeply divided.
As well they should be. It should be up to the town to pay up and it shouldn’t be up to us to pay either. Yet, the Republicans leading the charge to MAKE US CARE about something we aren’t responsible are going to follow suit with the Democrat’s mandatory Family Medical Leave Act with a “Cost of Care Fund” – a mandatory “insurance” program
Sidenote: dontcha just hate it when Government officials call something “insurance” when something isn’t?
…The House amendment would create a Cost of Care Fund “to assist municipalities in covering the costs of care incurred from caring for animals pending the resolution of any action brought for animal cruelty.” The fund would be financed by taking 50 cents from every dog license issued by a municipality, combined with 50 percent of the registration fees collected by the state from distributors of commercial animal feed.
So simply because *I*, as an individual citizen that happens to have two dogs, is lumped in with commercial breeders??? What the heck are they thinking?!?!?!?!?! So you and I will be mandated to participate even though WE don’t breed our animals (my two dogs have been spayed). And get this “euphemism” that is supposed to make it more “palatable”?
“We felt this 50 cents the towns would be contributing would be giving them an insurance policy they could draw from,” said committee member Howard Pearl, R-Loudon. “That was the original intent of the dog licensing fees, but most towns are just putting it into their general fund.”
There is no “contribute”, NH Rep Pearl. Contribute has the nuance of a voluntary action with one in which one can give – or not. Laws do not connote the idea of “voluntary” (with few exceptions) – they are mandatory. In this case, you are declaring that all law abiding citizens must pay for law breakers simply because Jeb Bradley can’t leave well enough alone. Just like with Medicaid Expansion (again, siding with Democrat sentiments).
And yet, even with that last parenthetical phrase, I have to thank a Democrat for recognizing something:
Rep. Jane Beaulieu, D-Manchester, was the only committee member to vote against the amendment, citing the “downshifting” of costs to municipalities.
Immediately I thought “Article 28-A” – unfunded mandates where the State determines that the municipalities must pay costs they otherwise would not incur. Bradley is wanting to both have this a State level “thing” BUT have communities pay for it. The only way out of paying this new tax is to no longer own dogs. So why does Bradley hate dog owners by automatically impugning they are already guilty for the sins of others? Why are WE being drawn into this in the first place?
The committee had originally considered adding 50 cents to dog licensing fees, and taking it back for the Cost of Care Fund, but the prospect of a veto by Gov. Chris Sununu, who promised no new fees or taxes, put an end to that line of thinking. “We didn’t want the bill to go down because of a 50-cent increase, and we feel that the 50 cents the towns will be contributing will give them something to lean on if they get a cruelty case in their town,” said Pearl.
I’ll tell you – Governor Sununu ought to veto this right off.
Here’s the suggestion – let the industry itself support the costs. Let them create an investigative force that would sniff out who / where the breeders are and get them to ante up. Self-policing can and does work (like the UL for insurance / manufacturers). Let them create a fund that captures the money for their own bad apples.
“SB 77 clarifies the obligation of the animal’s owner to post a bond for the costs of care and enhances the municipality’s ability to draw from the bond. This certainly won’t ensure full reimbursement in all cases, but it should help,” said Johnston.
As written at the time of this post, SB77 makes it the consequence of the accused (and later, guilty) to pay for the cost of the animals that are rescued.
As it should be. Not the rest of us on an involuntarily basis.
(H/T: Union Leader)