Do Democrats Know What A Nanny State Is?

Blue Hampshire today posted an amusing article in which they attempt to show how the Republicans are no better then Democrats in pushing for a nanny state.  Now I will be the first to admit there are times Republicans take the anti freedom side of issues but more often then not Democrats are the ones stripping away liberties while Republicans defend them.

For staters let us define what a Nanny State actually is. defines Nanny State as:

A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

In other words when government thinks it knows what's best for the public.

Now moving on let us break down several points made in the Blue Hampshire article in which they attempt to build the argument showing the Republics what Democrats do all too often.

There are 834 items for the legislature to deal with in 2010,including bills, 13 constitutional amendments, and approximately 20 resolutions.

Right from the start they are proving they fail to understand the point they attempt to make.  The number of bills being put up is insignificant.  If I were to put up 100 bills but each and everyone of them granted people more freedom and limited what government could do I would be working toward the complete polar opposite of a Nanny State.  Or I could put up one single bill that forces people to wear seat belts, which would be moving more toward a Nanny State.  In the two examples, the person putting up the fewer bills would be more of a Nanny State legislator then the one putting up the larger amount because the end goal of the larger amount would have been pro freedom.

CACR 25 would amend the constitution of our state to provide that the voters can veto laws by referendum.

While this legislation would create a majority rules situation would I agree is a bad thing, it would take power away from government and give it more to the people which would move further away from a Nanny State.  So while this is a good example of a bad piece of legislation it does not help build the case that the Republicans support a Nanny State as Democrats do.

Among the resolutions, a number of gems stand out. HCR 22 calls upon Congress to audit ACORN funding. ACORN is a community organization that
helps low income folks with issues like housing, and voter registration. They've been demonized by the far right and their media mouthpieces - and apparently Representatives Ulery, Haefner,Renzulo,
Hogan,and Villeneuve aren't aware that ACORN has been absolved of any wrong doing.

Here's a perfect example of just not getting it.  ACORN could be the cleanest community organization on the planet but forcing people to donate to a group against their will is the problem, not for the people who are being forced to contribute against their will to contribute to want strings associated with that forced contribution or as being discussed here for them to wish to audit that funding to see what it is actually being spent on.

HCR 26 affirms the state's religious heritage and the constitutional right to practice religion and free speech. Since none of this is under assault, this resolution is redundant - other than to affirm the views of the religious right, as deemed necessary by Representatives Hinckle, Bates, Palmer, Groen, and Ulery.

Again here is an example of a bill protecting people from the state which is a complete opposite of being a Nanny State.  I wrote in more detail about a bill submitted requesting the same thing as this resolution which you can read about HERE.

HB 1683 is "An act requiring random drug testing of public assistance recipients." This bill would require anyone receiving TANF benefits, or food stamps to undergo random urine tests. If a recipient failed a test, there would be a mandatory second test. If that test were failed, the recipient would be denied further benefits, and would not be able to reapply for 2 years.

This goes back to my point about forced donations.  Moving away from forced donations or attaching strings to those who accept them is a good thing, not bad.

The above point is then followed up by this foolish comment:

I think we should be drug testing all members of the NH legislature.

Moving on...

HB1666 calls for the licensing of outpatient abortion facilities. This is a long and odious
bill, that seems intended, not only to make abortions harder to get, but to get access to womens health records.

Now this bill is interesting because it highlights the fact that right now apparently you can have an unlicensed abortion facility.  An abortion is a medical procedure so unless you support other medical procedures being performed without a license then it would be a bit hypocritical to say abortions of all things should be the example.

I admit this one example is a pro Nanny State example but it is in par with what we allow from government, regulating medical facilities and accessing records to assure they are safe.  Having worked for a couple years in the Health Care field specifically analyzing data for the government I can tell you that government access to health records is already a requirements.  Democrats exclude abortions because they want to hide how many babies are murdered each year by different facilities.

HB 510 permits no fault divorce, only if there are no minor children involved. Representatives Hopper, Boyce, Groen, Bates, and O'Brien would like to make it even more difficult and painful for you to get a divorce, which by all accounts, would seem to be difficult and painful enough.

Having no experience with divorce I am not familiar with no fault vs fault divorce laws so I cannot say whether this is pro or anti Nanny State.  What I do find interesting is that Democrats who continually push for things "for the children" do not support a bill that would make divorce harder in cases when there are children involved.  Wouldn't we want to slow that divorce down and make sure what is best for the children is considered?

These are the same kind of Republicans who were positively enraged by a proposed seat-belt law a couple of years ago, loudly decrying the "nanny state."

Discouraging forced contributions is nothing even close to forcing people against their will to wear a seat belt.  One creates less government by making it more difficult for free loaders to have access to others wallets using the government gun and the other strips away a personal choice of whether or not to wear a seatbelt.

So having read the whole argument they fail to make their point of showing Republicans push for a Nanny State, if anything they demonstrate their failure to understand the difference between personal liberty and a Nanny State.