Three Examples of Bad Policy Holding Up New York’s Budget (Opinion)

Once again the New York State budget is ridiculously late and once again, the majority has filled the budget with all sorts of policy. Do you want money for this important initiative? If so, you're going to have to live with the fact that it comes with some crazy policy that we'll most likely regret down the road.

One example is Discovery. Law enforcement and District Attorneys all across the state say they need the law to swing back to the middle because their offices can't keep up with the paperwork and criminals who committed violent crimes are being released on paperwork technicalities. It looks like the DAs and Sheriff's associations have endorsed the Governor's solution as a step in the right direction, but there are still plenty on the left who don't want any changes. The ridiculous part here is there probably were some changes that needed to be made, but like The HALT Act and Bail Reform, New York went way too far in the other direction, creating new problems instead of listening to the experts, and tweaking the rules carefully.

Then there are a couple of ridiculous "nanny state" laws that some Democrats are trying to pass, which are also being debated and said to be holding up the budget.

One, that seems ridiculous to me, is the ban on cell phones in schools. It's proposed that schools will have to buy bags to put phones in during class hours, and then students get their phones back after school. This would be mandated in all New York Schools and oh, by the way, so far none of this is being paid for. The schools would have to figure it out financially. My disagreement with the proposed law is that we already have a system in place to handle cell phone abuse. It's each individual school district's board of education and superintendent of schools. Schools already have rules on cell phones based on each district's cell phone situation in their school community. Decide this at the local level and stop with the micromanaging and overreach. If parents disagree with the local rules, there are board members to call, board meetings to attend, and board member elections where anyone can run for public office. I say, let each community pass the rules that best suit their community.

The final aggravating and ridiculous law that should remain off the books is the mask ban. Don't you find it ironic that some of the same politicians who made us mask up during COVID, are now trying to mandate masks can't be worn. Understandably, the ban is intended to stop people who are protesting from wearing masks so that if they break the law, we'll have a photo of them so they can be arrested. Let's just think about this logically. First, there will be an exemption for medical and religious issues. How in the world will police be able to enforce this? One person might be immunocompromised while another's religion requires their face is covered. What's a cop to say? How's a cop to know? Furthermore, does the First Amendment specify that your freedom of speech, expression and right to assemble is only guaranteed if you show your face? What idc it's really cold and you're trying to avoid frostbite? Finally, if a person is a demonstrator who is about to break the law, do you think this is the type of person who is going to follow the law and take off their mask to reveal their face at the very moment they're breaking the law?

It's no surprise that mask bans around the country are being challenged by rights groups, and even by members of - wait for it - the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), who have been marching and demonstrating with stupid pillow cases over their heads for 160 years. Will the mask ban apply to these redneck bigots? There are several cases that are actually being argued in courts across America, as we speak.

I understand the thought that if someone is going to shatter a business's window or steal a television during a demonstration and they're wearing a mask, it makes it more difficult for police to identify them. I also understand that our Constitutional rights are not absolute and there can be restrictions. The classic shouting fire when there isn't a fire in a crowded theatre is an example of something that's not protected by free speech or expression. However, in this country we have a history of hiding our faces as we demonstrate; it's certainly not anything new. Adding a mask ban, while I understand the intent, seems to me unenforceable by police, especially with the exemptions, and probably it's unconstitutional.

Hey, as long as we're at it, maybe we should pass a law that says we can no longer criticize the government online unless we sign our real name at the end of the post. Newspapers require a name and address for letters to the editor, although they're private businesses who can set their own restrictions. I wonder if we have reached a point in our history where we're really willing to give up our freedoms so that we can all live in a near-perfect world that is safe?

Many years ago in 1755, Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin makes the argument that warns people who willingly exchange their fundamental freedoms in the name of safety will ultimately end up with neither. We should really think about this in New York.

Bill Keeler is host of First News with Keeler in the Morning, weekdays from 6-9 a.m. on WIBX.