EDITORIAL: Raising age for mandatory driving tests an assault on common sense
May 30—Members of the House and Senate recently passed a bill that increases the age requiring an annual driving test from 79 to 87.
It's an obvious ploy designed to appeal to older voters. Unfortunately, it's also an affront to public safety.
It's probably unrealistic to expect Gov. J.B. Pritzker to veto this legislative monstrosity. After all, he's not above appealing to specific interest groups to collect a few extra votes.
But in the name of common sense, he needs to act responsibly. So what if he runs the risk of a veto override?
Under current law, a driver between 79 and 81 who seeks a license renewal must take a driver's test. Those between 81 and 86 are required to take a test every two years. Those 87 and older have to take a test every year.
Under proposed rules, drivers between 79 and 86 will only have to take a vision test and, if they have a driving violation, a written test. Mandatory testing is for those 87 and up.
The legislation is dubbed the "Road Safety and Fairness Act." Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with either.
It's no more unfair to require a super senior to take a mandatory test than it is unfair to ask new 16-year-old drivers to meet special conditions to obtain a license.
Further, what does public safety have to do with allowing those 79 and above not to have to prove their ability to drive in a safe manner?
Very young people suffer from immaturity, poor judgment and impulsive behavior. Very old people lack the physical strength, mental acuity and strong reflexes they enjoyed during their middle and older ages.
Those are just facts, whether people want to recognize them or not. Denying reality in this case is a prescription for easily avoidable danger on our roads and highways.
Those who foolishly defend this grant of deference to super seniors claim that they are, at least statistically, among the safest driving groups. That's mostly because they do not drive much, prefer not to drive at night and try to avoid heavily congested areas.
What does that tell the public?
Super seniors know, better than anyone, that they are not now what they once were.
Now, obviously, that does not apply across the board. There may well be many seniors who still have what it takes to drive in their 80s.
What's the harm in requiring them to demonstrate their capabilities? The current age of 79 for mandatory testing looks more than fair.
It's nonsensical to suggest, as some have, that it's unduly burdensome to require super seniors to show up at a license facility to take a test.
On the other hand, there's great potential of harm in allowing super seniors, willy nilly, to get behind the wheel, where they might pose a threat to themselves and others.
This new law represents a total abandonment of common sense for what appears to be a purely political purpose.
Please, Gov. Pritzker, save the pubic from what the yahoos in the House and Senate have wrought.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Let the countdown begin: One year until the California governor and L.A. mayor primaries
It's June in California, which means the jacarandas are magnificently in bloom, joyous graduates overfill school auditoriums and the weather is utterly unpredictable. Oh and one more thing: As of this week, we are exactly a year out from the 2026 primary election. Here's what you need to know. California is a country within a country — a cultural and economic behemoth where the future happens first. And with term limits forcing Gov. Gavin Newsom out, the world's fourth-largest economy will be picking a new leader at the end of 2026. There is already a crowded field of prominent Democrats vying to replace Newsom. They include former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Rep. Katie Porter, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa). Two notable Republicans are also in the fight: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. The biggest question mark remains whether former Vice President Kamala Harris will enter the race, a decision she plans to make by late summer. That waiting game has stalled the Democratic field: Candidates are continuing their frenetic campaigning, but many activists, donors and elected officials are holding off on further endorsements until Harris makes up her mind. (Though some are growing more frustrated with Harris, and the implicit message that governing California is a consolation prize that she can toy with for months.) California's affordability crisis — and varying views on how to solve it — will probably dominate the long slog of campaigning ahead. But given the wilderness the national Democratic Party currently finds itself in, competition for California's top job will also probably double as a referendum on the broader question of what a winning Democratic leader should sound like. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 in California. And what about billionaire Angeleno Rick Caruso, a relatively recent entrant to the Democratic Party? The Grove developer has been flirting with both a gubernatorial bid and another run at the Los Angeles mayor's race but remains undecided. His personal fortune affords him the luxury of some extra time, though self-funding a statewide campaign will be far more expensive than a mayoral one. Still, there could be a lane for a business-friendly centrist running California's sclerotic political system. And speaking of Caruso, he also looms large over the 2026 Los Angeles mayor's race. As of now, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is the only serious candidate in the race, meaning the first-term mayor could glide to reelection. But the former congresswoman has also taken a political beating in recent months. A catastrophic firestorm put her leadership under a national microscope, a bruising budget crisis left her in a no-win political puzzle and her strong-arm authority on homelessness has been threatened. Which is a long way of saying that Bass could certainly be vulnerable if a real challenger gets into the race, be it Caruso, or someone else. But that remains a big if. The nightmare scenario for Bass is a landscape that looks less like her predecessor Eric Garcetti's reelection romp in 2017 — where he ran virtually unchallenged and leapt to victory with more than 80% of the vote — and more like then-Mayor James K. Hahn's reelection dogfight in 2005. Hahn, a badly wounded incumbent, only barely eked his way into second place in the primary and ultimately rode a wave of voter discontent right out of City Hall, losing to Antonio Villaraigosa that May. Beyond Caruso, a few other names have been bandied about as potential challengers to Bass. As my colleague David Zahniser and I reported a few months ago, that list includes Councilmember Monica Rodriguez (an iconoclastic force who has been openly critical of Bass), L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath (another politician who has sparred with the mayor) and City Controller Kenneth Mejia (a digitally savvy leftist who, you guessed it, has also taken shots at the city's current direction). Whether any take the leap remains to be seen. Read some of the best stories from our archives Few stories published by the Times in recent years have hit a nerve as forcefully as Julissa James' essay from 2021, 'Lonely in L.A.? These 21 places and experiences will help you embrace it.' Julia Wick, staff writerKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew J. Campa, reporterKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up So it's basically a wash. Advertisement That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. Advertisement 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Advertisement Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. Advertisement 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Derek Dooley, former Tennessee coach and Vince Dooley's son, eyes GOP Senate run in Georgia
Derek Dooley, a former University of Tennessee football coach, said Friday that he is considering a Republican run for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2026 against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff. The trial balloon shows how Gov. Brian Kemp's decision not to run for the seat has left Georgia Republicans looking for other options to face off against Ossoff, considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent up for reelection next year. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Dooley, 56, said he would decide on a bid in coming weeks. 'Georgia deserves stronger common-sense leadership in the U.S. Senate that represents all Georgians and focuses on results — not headlines,' Dooley said in a statement. 'I believe our state needs a political outsider in Washington — not another career politician — to cut through the noise and partisanship and get back to real problem solving.' The announcement, first reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, came as other declared candidates stumped before the state Republican convention in the northwest Georgia city of Dalton. Among Republicans who have declared their candidacies are U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, Insurance Commissioner John King and activist Reagan Box. Other Republicans who could run include U.S. Reps. Mike Collins and Rich McCormick, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and state Sen. Greg Dolezal. Attacks on Ossoff were among the most reliable applause lines during Friday afternoon speeches at the convention. 'Folks, President Trump needs backup, he needs backup in the Senate,' King said. RELATED STORIES: Gov. Kemp announces decision on Senate run in 2026, ending speculation Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rules out run against Ossoff for Senate With Brian Kemp not running for Senate, which Georgia Republicans could challenge Jon Ossoff? Dooley has never run for office before. His appeal wouldn't be based on his career 32-41 record at Louisiana Tech and Tennessee, but his status as the son of legendary University Georgia coach Vince Dooley and Kemp's long ties to the Dooley family. As a teenager, Kemp was a frequent guest in the Dooley home, and roomed with Derek's older brother, Daniel Dooley, at the University of Georgia. Kemp has the most effective Republican political organization in Georgia, and he would likely give Dooley a big credibility boost. Kemp and President Donald Trump have been trying to agree on a mutual candidate to back for Senate in 2026, hoping to avoid the conflict that plagued Kelly Loeffler's unsuccessful run, where she lost to Democrat Raphael Warnock in a 2021 runoff. That, along with Republican David Perdue's loss to Ossoff on the same day handed control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats. Trump had preferred then U.S. Rep Doug Collins instead of Loeffler. Then in 2022, Trump anointed Georgia football legend Herschel Walker as the Republican nominee, but Warnock turned back Walker's flawed candidacy in another runoff. Kemp only swung in to help Walker in the runoff. The effort to screen 2026 candidates has already produced some results, with U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene saying she wouldn't bring her right-wing positions to the Senate campaign trail. Dooley would be far from the first sports figure to run for office. His father was frequently discussed as a possible candidate, but never took the plunge. But other coaches have gone far. Former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville was elected to the Senate in 2020 from Alabama and is now running for governor. Former Ohio State University coach Jim Tressel is currently that state's lieutenant governor. And University of Nebraska coaching legend Tom Osborne served three terms in the U.S. House. Dooley walked on in football at the University of Virginia and earned a scholarship as a wide receiver. He earned a law degree from the University of Georgia and briefly practiced law in Atlanta before working his way up the college coaching ladder, becoming head coach for three years at Louisiana Tech and then moving on to Tennessee. Dooley recorded three consecutive losing seasons in Knoxville before he was fired in 2012 after losing to in-state rival Vanderbilt. After that, he has worked as an assistant coach for the NFL's Miami Dolphins and Dallas Cowboys, the University of Missouri and the New York Giants. Most recently, Dooley was an offensive analyst with the University of Alabama. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
