Legislative Follies
by Senator Bob Margett

California's state government is not in the best of shape these days. We are running a huge budget deficit and are not delivering the quality of state services Californians deserve. It is no surprise then that public opinion polls rate the Legislature and the Governor very poorly. We, your state representatives, have only ourselves to blame. Instead of tackling the issues mattering most to people, we distract ourselves by debating bills that are irrelevant and downright dumb.

One such nonsensical bill is AB 1634, better known as the pet neutering bill. This is a prime example of a zombie bill that just will not die. Originally, the intent of the bill was to control the number of stray pets in California by mandating all cats and dogs in the state over four months old had to be spayed or neutered, unless the owner had been issued a permit that allows the animal to remain unaltered.

AB 1634 proved to be highly unpopular and upset thousands of pet owners. However, rather than shelve the measure, the author has amended the bill numerous times in an attempt to keep it alive. Now it bares little resemblance to the author's original vision and merely mandates spaying and neutering of pets that have been a subject of a complaint, written or oral. The bill now pits neighbors against neighbors, and in the long run does little to control the population of pets. Sadly, the author feels it is imperative the Legislature continue to take up valuable time to debate the merits of his highly unpopular bill rather than spend time debating more important issues such as our failing schools or rapidly growing budget problems.

Senate Bill 1598 is another example of a bill amended beyond the author's original intent. As introduced, the bill sought to clarify smoking regulations in rental properties. The author hoped this measure would motivate property owners to ban or limit smoking by tenants and persuade more Californians to stop smoking. Due to strong opposition, the bill was modified to the point it will have the opposite effect and make smoking laws even more convoluted. This has led many of the original sponsors of the bill to withdrawal their support saying now the bill is "worse than existing law and will impede efforts to address tobacco smoke exposure in multi-unit housing." The measure has stalled in the Assembly Judiciary Committee but remains in contention for possible action this legislative session.

Every year the Legislature wants to ban or add extra regulations to consumer products that it deems harmful. Senate Bill 1712 seeks to add a warning label to lipstick if it contains more than a trace amount of lead. While this may sound harmless, the federal government already sets guidelines on lead in consumer products, including lipstick, and they are very stringent. The amount allowed is far below what is considered harmful to humans. Once again, rather than debating the merits of something more important, legislators must sit through countless hearings on topics such as this.

Last, but not least, is SB 1499. This measure would have made it an infraction to sell metallic type balloons because the author contends metallic balloons are a "serious" threat to power lines. The threat was never fully justified as it turned out. The author relied on the word of the sponsors of the bill and not specific evidence. Consequently, after numerous committee hearings, SB 1499 has morphed into a study bill to study the very issue it was supposed to resolve.

So why do legislators create so many bills of little consequence? That is a good question for which I do not have an answer. I cannot pretend to look into the hearts of my fellow legislators. Regardless, the system is supposed to weed out these types of bills. Unfortunately, the system is broken. As a result Californians are much poorer for it because legislators waste their time and your money in deliberating measures that do not help the people of California.