Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unm-cvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!unm-cvax!burd
From: burd@unm-cvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto,net.consumers
Subject: Re: Re: Congressmen propose relaxation of 55mph speed limit in rural
Message-ID: <327@unm-cvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 11:58:26 EST
Article-I.D.: unm-cvax.327
Posted: Mon Apr  8 11:58:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 05:30:57 EST
References: <1545@ut-ngp.UUCP> <215@osiris.UUCP> <106@mb2c.UUCP>
Distribution: net.consumers
Organization: University Of New Mexico Computing Center, Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 47
Xref: linus net.legal:1138 net.auto:5176 net.consumers:1579

> > 
> > I would like to see the government drop its current blackmail policy and
> > allow speed limits to go back to whatever is appropriate for the road and
> > the conditions, rather than having to conform to yet another arbitrary
> > standard.  It seems, however, that the part of Ronnie's brain which knew
> > anything about his 1980 campaign promise regarding this is long since
> > defunct, so I'm not holding my breath.
> > 
> > 				Phil Kos
> > 				The Johns Hopkins Hospital
> > 				...!decvax!grendel!aplvax!osiris!phil
> 
> I really do not know which promise you think Ronnie has broken Phil.
> Give me a hint.  Then compare this to the other bills Reagan must
> tackle.  Is it better for Reagan to fight congress on this one,
> along with the rest?  Or do you think that the minimal amount of harm
> this does to speeders is not worth the presidential initiative.
>      Mark Reina

Quite simply, the promise that Ronnie broke was his commitment to
see that the federal government doesn't use federal funds to twist
the arms of local governments.  Based on this principle, he was
supposed to do away with things like highway funding cuts for states
who don't enforce 55, funding cuts for municipalities that don't
meet clean air standards, court ordered school bussing, etc.

However, Ronnie showed us that principle is all well and good
until it costs some votes.  The most classic example of this being
his recent support of legislation to cut highway funds to states
that don't raise their drinking age to 21 by the end of 1986.

As to whether or not this issue is worth expending political
capital on, why should anyone think that there's a cost involved.
The principle of "non-arm-twisting" has wide support from the
congress, the people, and local governments.  He can always
deal with this problem in the same way he dealt with all of those
"excessive" environmental regulations: cut the budget of the 
department that enforces these rules in half.

FROM:    Stephen D. Burd
USNAIL:  Anderson School of Management
         University of New Mexico
         Albuquerque, NM  87131

AT&T:    (505)-277-6418

UUCP:    {lanl,ucbvax,gatech,...}!unmvax!unm-cvax!burd