So I understand cell phone usage while operating a moving vehicle is distracting, and therefore dangerous. What I don’t understand is why we are focusing on cell phones, and not:

(1) Eating – “Eating while driving seems marginally more dangerous than talking on a cellphone (1.6 to 1 odds vs. 1.3 to 1)”

(2) Changing the radio station – “National Highway Safety Traffic Administration reports that most drivers engage in activities that take their attention away from the road. These activities include:
- Talking with other passengers: 81%
- Playing with the radio or CD: 68%
- Eating or drinking: 49%
- Using a cell phone: 25%”

(3) Applying make up (sorry girls) – “According to the NHTSA and VTTI study, the principal actions that cause distracted driving and lead to vehicle crashes are:

– cell phone use.
- reaching for a moving object inside the vehicle.
- looking at an object or event outside of the vehicle.
- reading.
- applying makeup.”

(4) Multiple Teens – “Two teens in a car increases the likelihood of a crash by 86 percent, three teens by 182 percent, according to research conducted by Johns Hopkins University”

(5) Navigation Systems – While I could not find research conducted on this subject, watching the driver in front of me swerving in the lane while typing into the nav system tells me this activity is dangerous as well. Heaven forbid you are doing this on your mobile device and are pulled over for “texting.”

Passing this law was illogical…why not prohibit the radio station from being changed, make up from being applied, navigation systems (non voice activated) from being used, or big macs from being eaten as these are all known to increase the distractions that drivers face? (“Driver distractions are the leading cause of most vehicle crashes and near-crashes. According to a study released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), 80% of crashes and 65% of near-crashes involve some form of driver distraction”) Because something tells us this is infringes on our liberties and is too restrictive to our freedoms. Because we are giving the government too much power that constricts our ability to make and have choices. Yet, it is socially acceptable (probably in large part from the university research) to isolate and focus on cell phones, when we know eating is more dangerous. I applaud Oregonian’s (and other states) efforts to save lives with safer streets, but the laser beam focus on cell phones does not make sense, and should not have passed (unless the others above were included as well).

With an upcoming special election (in Oregon) that is attempting to increase taxes for higher income professionals as well as increasing taxes on business (based on sales), I am concerned there is potential for voters to employ the same laser beam focus without considering the ramifications.

The first issue regards the funding for this program. Questions arise regarding where the funding stems from as well as what is being sacrificed in order to allocate funds to this program. As Newsweek points out in this article, the Department of Energy will have less funding to spend on new technology for renewable energy initiatives. Personally, I would prefer to see funding spent on renewable energy as I believe that both the short and long term affects are more environmentally beneficial than the CARS program (especially when considering the waste of the “clunker” and what could be extremely marginal improvements in mpg).

The second issue regards personal finances. One of the reasons the housing bubble and the current economic crises occurred is the fact that government provided certain incentives to purchase housing. There was a strong push to get Americans in a house, starting with Clinton (given there are many other factors occurred that caused the current economic crises). Consumers in the residential housing market stretched themselves beyond their means. Unfortunately, the cash for clunker program is an incentive to consume more than what is affordable. The government has now created an incentive (and added another $2B to the program) for folks to trade in a presumably paid-off car that is not worth much, for a new(er) car that requires financing. Given the instability of employment in the current economic climate, it does not seem prudent to increase consumer debt by thousands of dollars. Of utmost concern is the perception that the government is the backstop should something unplanned occur, and I am not comfortable with this precedent (which has already been created with the bailout of the banks) existing any longer.

Insightful perspective on AIG by Michael Lewis

A take on Coumo’s release on executive compensation for the banks receiving TARP funding

And to wrap it up, and round it out with some law related issues, is an issue I have been following since District of Columbia v. Heller. This is in regard to the second amendment, or a citizens right to bear arms. Overview of present day courts determining how to interpret the decision and from the same source an opinion on Scalia’s opinion

An example of this is if I donated $100 to an entity that was a tax deductible entity as determined by the IRS, I would pay $35 less on my taxes. The proposed change would result in only receiving the benefit of a $28 reduction on my taxes, a $7 dollar “reallocation” from me, to the government. Which appears to be a smart move (on first look) by the government to raise income. However, this article suggests for every 10% increase in tax deductability, it “raises the amount that a person gives by about 10%.”

A visual representation of the change in tax structure is seen below. The real impact is felt by the charity, who deals with a 20% reduction in income, while the government sees a 6% increase in tax revenue, and the individual sees a 7% increase in discretionary spending. It was probably not the intent to re-allocate dollars from charities to the government , but without considering the relationship between tax deductions and amount donated, this is exactly what capital hill has proposed.

Welcome to Reasonable Inference!

This site has been created to critically think about and discuss current topics.

Future material you should expect down the pipeline is:

-supreme court cases being heard this session

-Madoff not purchasing any securities in the last 13 years

-the stimulus package – pros and cons