The Wisconsin State Legislature threw a party last week. Democrats and Republicans held hands and frolicked through the hallways in fits of bipartisan glee. Fred Risser and Scott Suder were hitting it off over drinks. The lion lay down with the lamb. It was a great time for a great cause under the dome.
But someone forgot to invite one important guest — common sense.
Thursday's seemingly innocuous festivities resulted in the passage of legislation that requires all cheese-head children up to the age of eight to be strapped into a child safety seat every time they ride in a vehicle. Why? Well, safety, of course. Who can argue against safety? Governor Doyle certainly can't; he's poised to sign the bill into law.
Brilliant. Thanks, State Legislature. Next time you decide to get chummy and cross the aisle, can you mandate chain mail for college students? I would feel much safer at Madhatters if I knew everyone would be wearing a full suit of armor for FAC. I might even have a chance if Booker Stanley showed up.
Hyperbole aside, this is simply bad public policy. Prior to the philosopher kings' decision to improve our lives, the law required children to be secured in car seats up to the age of four. Kids between the ages of four and eight had to wear seat belts. Things made sense. Parents could actually take all of the little tyke's friends home from a bumper bowling birthday party.
But the nanny state knows better. State Senators Carol Roessler, R-Oshkosh, and Judy Robson, D-Beloit, led a bizarre coalition of odd political bedfellows that included everyone from Scott Jensen, R-Waukesha, to Jennifer Shilling, D-LaCrosse, in passing what one dissenting state senator aptly called "an enforcement nightmare." The new law creates a complex tiered system of weight, height and age classes that might, one senator suggested on the floor, require police officers to carry scales in their trunks.
Under the bill's language, a child younger than one who weighs less than 20 pounds must be in a rear-facing booster seat in the back seat of the vehicle — if the vehicle has a back seat. If the child is older than one, but younger than four years of age or weighs less than 40 pounds, he or she must be restrained in a forward-facing booster seat in the back seat of the vehicle — again, if there is a back seat. If the child is over four, but younger than eight years and between 40 and 80 pounds … yeah, you get the idea. Or maybe you don't. I, for one, am baffled by the impracticality of it all. I can't wait to see how the state's Amish community implements this one.
Instead of forcing constituents to buy a bevy of child safety seats, the legislature should give parents a bit of credit. Let adults make decisions in the best interest of their children. By and large, people want to keep their children safe. Institutionalizing that desire in feel-good legislation, however, raises questions about how far the state is willing to go to dictate the intricacies of child rearing. Dean and Pam Schneider in Tomah don't need a bicameral entity to instruct them in parenting. They can set the potty training schedule themselves.
Mandating child safety seats up to the age of eight seems a tad ironic, given the fact that the legislature is considering a bill that would allow eight-year-olds to hunt with a mentor. Some might find the latter legislation as appalling as the grand safety seat mandate. Yet teaching a child the ways of the woods is at least drawn from the deep tradition in some parts of the state (urbanites may not be able to fathom it, but in some areas of Wisconsin, hunting has been and is family, community and a way of life). The safety seat requirement, conversely, is nothing but a symptom of a disturbing trend in the past decade.
Shackling a seven-year-old child in a child safety seat is a glaring example of the growing tendency to keep kids from growing up. Graduated licensing is another. Both measures subordinate pragmatism and principle to a stifling insistence on safety above all else. The legislation is a nightmare in more than enforcement terms. How does one keep a seven-year-old in a safety seat and one's sanity?
Some legislative Republicans objected to the grand safety seat mandate as it passed the State Senate by a vote of 23-10. It's too bad they couldn't muster a majority. Now it looks like next November might bring us a scene in northern Wisconsin where little Timmy's father has to swing around the front of the Chevy S-10 and unbuckle him before handing him the .20 gauge and tromping off into the forest.
Of course, the S-10 doesn't have a back seat, so things might be complicated.
The passage of the child safety seat mandate, on the other hand, was a simple affair. Judging by the cups and cans on the floor of the legislature after its party last week, it's quite obvious that most of our representatives were drunk.
Brad Vogel ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
