But why just cell phones? If real intent of law is to eliminate distractions from our roadways, why not ban them all? Summers could justifiably expand proposal to include a ban on smoking in car, adjusting radio or inserting a Britney Spears CD, eating fast food, scolding rug rats in backseat, talking with your spouse, shaving or applying makeup, doing crossword puzzle, using a laptop computer, calling for on-screen directions to Starbucks, and rehearsing your excuse that explains your tardiness to boss.

Could we really ban Britney Spears CDs? I digress.

Before law is done with revisions, no common person will be able to read and understand it, and mainly, drivers will just continue to take their chances.

This begs significant philosophical question: Why bother?

Isn’t it sufficient that citations can already be issued if use of a cell phone is cause of an accident? Why pile on? No harm, no foul: If use of a cell phone isn’t endangering anyone in moment, why penalize for harm that was not caused?

Ah, law is to be a deterrent, to eliminate possibility of harm. But won’t it also become more than that? How much of a stretch is it to envision police pulling over drivers who endanger nobody on a deserted road at 11pm, but who are guilty of making a cell call, just so officer can meet his monthly quota? Isn’t that a harm all its own?

Say, if police pull a driver over to side of road, isn’t that sort of distraction that could cause an accident? It should be banned!

Let’s hope this Bill dies in committee. If it passes, Summers will run for re-election in 2006 on basis of having produced this wonderful law… and of having been suitably busy.

Then we can look at Federal Government's refusal to fund Investigative department of agency who reviews ongoing disability cases and determines if there is a heath improvement and removes claimants from payroll who otherwise may receive unmerited benefits for many years or life. Not to mention fact that if claimant is paid there is no review by Appeals Council and claimant is paid ongoing for life.

These are just a few of areas that can save tax payers a ton of money and get money to where it is really needed. Setting aside two percent of my contributed six percent to a "Private Investment" may net me a few more dollars when I'm 67 years old but at what risk. Fixing broken internal problems are much more likely to ensure that in 17 years there will be a retirement Social Security check.