In Brief: Milwaukee crime down, State Senate approves texting ban

  • Here’s some good news…crime in Milwaukee decreased 12.3% overall through the first nine months of this year when compared with the same period in 2008, marking the seventh consecutive quarter in which crime has dropped in the city, according to data released Monday by the Police Department. That’s certainly good news for Milwaukee, but there’s still a long way to go.
  • Yesterday the State Senate voted 27-5 to approve a ban on texting while driving. The vote in favor of the ban was bipartisan, and now the measure will head to the State Assembly. The opposition to the ban was also bipartisan, with Republican Sens. Neal Kedzie, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, and Joe Leibham joining Democrat Jeff Plale of South Milwaukee in opposing the measure. What I’m trying to figure out is why the five senators in question opposed the measure, which seems like a pretty common sense solution to the problem of drivers who text message while driving.
  • State Sens. Lazich, Leibham, and Grothman also opposed legislation to help curb bullying in schools. I’m not really sure what the reasoning was behind voting against a bill that would enact anti-bullying measures, but apparently Sens. Lazich, Leibham, and Grothman aren’t opposed to bullying. Heck, considering the fact that at least one of those senators has a bully on staff, I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked.
  • And in what should come as a shock to absolutely no one, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker has made it clear that if he’s elected governor, he’s going to make it his mission to cut pay and benefits for thousands of middle-class state employees, because Scott Walker isn’t really interested in helping the middle class.

Related Articles

1 thought on “In Brief: Milwaukee crime down, State Senate approves texting ban

  1. On texting: I believe the argument in opposition was that a specific ban would be redundant with the broader distracted driving law on the books. Sure it’s fun to make laws and pretend to address the problem, but if there are already existing laws that aren’t being enforced, what’s the point of making a new one?

    On bullying: way to jump to illogical conclusions. Because some senators didn’t support a bill on bullying means that they aren’t opposed to bullying? Absurd. Did you ever think that the bill might not effectively address the problem? Maybe they support a different approach? Maybe statewide legislation isn’t necessary to address this problem? I don’t know the specifics of this particular bill, but I am criticizing the attitude that if you don’t support some bill, then you are completely against the issue. Don’t support more governemnt control over health care? Well then you must not support any reforms at all.

    On Walker: Illogical conclusion #2. Because he wants to reign in the size and cost of government (i.e. some of the more generous benefits of state employees), you assume Mr. Walker is against the entire middle class ?! Don’t forget it is the middle class at large who pays the bills for those government paychecks and benefits. So just MAYBE he is looking out for the overwhelming majority of the middle class after all.

Comments are closed.