As the year ends I like to reflect upon some laws that have taken effect and will take effect . In California there are more laws made thatare useless & wasteful. .The State of California has many new laws for 2012. Handgun open-carry, LGBT rights, online privacy, child abuse, social media, identity theft, criminal records, Internet sales tax, employment credit checks, human trafficking and slavery are all in the mix of 2012 California laws.What are the most controversial new California laws that everyone's buzzing about? Let's look at some of the things Californians can and cannot do in 2012. Most of all every year we all get a set of laws that hardly anyone knows about , what flying in my face now is the new law on January 1st that you can't get anymore plastic bags from your grocery store , yes they want to do away with plastic bags all in the name of environmentalism & least of all any practicality on the consumer . Hardly enough it sounds to me like a money making scam on part city to charge for the bags , I don't think that 10 to 25 Cents is going over with anyone for a paper bag . I do agree that there is a littering problem , but to single out plastic bags alone to wipe them out is outrageous and blind sided , if bags are littering the streets , highways . Why can't the city get to work and clean up the streets , and highways full of litter? The city wastefully solves the problem by BANNING ! . A few years back we had the SPARE THE AIR laws that took effect that prohibited wood burning , while that law says that it's up to you to comply , they can't enforce the law, and there are no air police on patrol . So the average citizen has to report his or her neighbors who might get a hefty fine . The same law on plastic bags fines retailers in the same way .
Here is a POLL on the Plastic Bag issue that will surprise YOU.
A large majority of American consumers opposes efforts by big-government bureaucrats to regulate the type of bags they use to carry groceries home. These poll numbers arrive at a critical time when cash-strapped states and municipalities are trying to plug budget holes with burdensome plastic-bag taxes.According to the poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation in early March, more than 65% of Americans “oppose proposals that seek to ban or place a tax on plastic bags.” Specifically, the poll reveals:93% of Americans report that they already reuse their regular plastic bags for household tasks such as lining trash cans, cleaning up after pets, and carrying lunches.
85% of Americans agree that “consumers should have the choice of what kind of bag they would like to use.”
67% of Americans oppose a five-cent tax on plastic grocery bags.
65% oppose a complete ban on plastic bags that would push consumers to purchase canvas or plastic, fabric-like reusable bags.“Consumers should be free to carry home their groceries in whatever bags they choose, without being forced to pay a hefty tax,” we told the media Tuesday. “Instead of banning or taxing plastic bags, lawmakers should do a better job educating the general public about recycling their plastic bags.”Some lawmakers have cloaked their revenue-generating schemes under the guise of going green. Ironically, such efforts to reduce ecological harm might actually trade one environmental threat for another.Our January report showed that eco-chic reusable bags often contain excessive levels of lead, which can be toxic to the environment (and to your family). Even more troubling, our December 2010 polling found that 56% of Americans say they “are not at all aware that their reusable grocery bags may contain lead and bacteria.”“Forcing [consumers] to use lead-laden bags potentially harboring bacteria will never be popular public policy,” we are warning lawmakers tempted to side with special interests over their own constituents who have made their concerns clear. “Consumers don’t want to be told how they should take their groceries home.
NOTES & COMMENTS:
Congress was busy all year with horrible laws . Here is a list of them for your enjoyment!
Most Bizarre (HR 2112)
One of Congress’ strangest moves was to pass an agricultural spending bill containing a provision to lift the ban on the horse-slaughter industry. The ban had been imposed in 2006 when Congress defunded the government’s ability to inspect plants that butchered horses for consumption. Without inspections, the meat wasn’t sold, the industry withered, and many U.S. horse meat processors moved their operations to Mexico and Canada. Supporters claimed lifting the ban would curb cases of animal neglect and create much-needed U.S. jobs. Apparently, the ban led many struggling owners to abandon their horses and let them starve. As cruel as that is, reviving the horse-slaughter industry doesn’t sound a whole lot better. Overall, a pretty wacky way to create jobs.
Most Third-World (HR 2112)
Not only were horses slaughtered by the new agricultural spending law. The same law cut $685 million from the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), which provides food aid to low-income women and young children at risk for malnutrition. The cuts basically kicked out 475,000 eligible mothers, infants, and children from a successful national program. As Rep. Stephen Cohen (D-TN) put it: “If we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we could pay for the entire WIC program for a year.” Instead, thousands of children will suffer from malnutrition.
Most Senseless (HR 674)
During the same year Congress slashed funding for low-income children, it spent billions protecting government contractors. You may have heard about the “Hire a Veteran” law, which provides tax credits to corporations that hire unemployed vets. While that’s commendable, the same law also contains a provision repealing a 3 percent withholding requirement made against vendors’ income taxes. The original law, which had yet to take effect, was intended to discourage tax evasion by government contractors. Repealing the requirement will reduce revenues by an estimated $11.2 billion over the 2012-2021 period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. One has to ask why our Congressional leaders would do such a thing – and why now, given their supposed concerns about the national debt.
Most Intrusive (S 990)
Speaking of bad judgment, of all the bad laws passed in 2011, one of the worst was the four-year extension of The Patriot Act. The law was passed just before the midnight expiration of the existing law, after proposed revisions aimed at protecting individual liberties were shot down. Roving wiretaps. Court-ordered searches of business records. Surveillance of non-American “lone wolf” suspects without confirmed ties to terrorist groups. Whatever happened to laws protecting our individual privacy? Sounds pretty unpatriotic to me.
Most Anti-American (HR 3078, HR 3079, HR 3080)
While thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters took to the streets to protest the lack of jobs, Congress was busy passing three free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Although proponents say these deals will increase foreign sales of American goods and services, many trade unions opposed the legislation, fearing the loss of more jobs to foreign competition. Indeed, the U.S. International Trade Commission said these deals could eliminate some manufacturing jobs, especially those in the textile industry. But, hey, if you’re a textile worker that’s nothing new to worry about. With all those “Made in China” labels peeking out of people’s sweaters, chances are you’ve already been laid off.
Most Confusing (HR 1249)
The “most confusing law” award goes to the America Invents Act. The so-called patent-reform legislation essentially switches the patent application process from the current “first to invent” system to a “first to file” system. In so doing, we’re to believe the approval process will be stepped up so American entrepreneurs can bring their inventions to market more quickly. The problem is that the language in the law is so confusing, even patent lawyers have trouble interpreting it. As one patent attorney blogger wrote: “The Act is dense, language choices from section to section in some places change and in other places remains the same, making you suspect that different terms must mean different things but the same term in different places has to mean the same thing, right?” The blogger recommended that patent attorneys read through the legislation about 10 times to fully understand it. Wow!
Most Environmentally Damaging (HR 1473)
You may remember the budget standoff that nearly forced a government shutdown back in April. After all the drama, Congress ended up passing HR 1473, which funded the federal government through fiscal year 2011. The spending bill slashed nearly $40 billion in domestic programs, the largest non-defense funding cut in our nation’s history. Many of the programs cut were designed to protect the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For example, the bill sliced the Environmental Protection Agency budget by 17 percent, hampering efforts to protect our air and water. It also cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, climate-change funding, and the green jobs innovation fund. The message to Americans: pollute all you want.
Most Short-Sighted (HR 1473)
Not only did Congress stick it to the environment; students were shafted, too. Despite soaring national dropout rates, Congress cut or eliminated numerous education programs, including those seeking to boost literacy, offer support for the gifted and talented, and prepare students for technical careers. It also slashed financial aid for low-income college students attending summer sessions, as well as state job-training grants for adults, youth, and dislocated workers. Think higher unemployment and a less competitive workforce. Nice job, Congress.
The Worst of the Worst (S 365)
Now for the worst of the worst. In previous years, no matter who was in control of the House or the Senate, Congress always voted to increase the debt limit. Why? Because most economists agree that defaulting on our debt would create an economic catastrophe. Not this year. Instead, the Republicans refused to agree to raise the debt limit unless the Democrats agreed to deep spending cuts. And guess what? They got their way.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 raised the U.S. debt limit by $2.4 trillion through 2012, cut more than $900 billion from social programs and military spending without specifying which programs would be cut, and created a bi-partisan commission – the so-called Super Committee – to propose an additional $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings. Well, we all heard about the Super Committee’s super failure. The committee’s deadline came and went without agreement. So what looms ahead? Without changes to the existing law, expect $1.2 trillion in cuts to be automatically enacted. Brace yourselves; the giant axe is about to fall.