Taxpayers shouldn't insure livestockIt's unclear whether the newly-converted conservative author of this excellent piece is upset over taxpayer funding or because this is one of those infamous "unfunded mandates" that conservatives love to hate.
An unfunded state mandate requires localities to pay compensation when dogs kill livestock.
A little-known Virginia law that passed in 1984 costs counties a few thousand dollars every year. Among unfunded mandates, the requirement that localities compensate people whose livestock or poultry are killed by dogs is not the most burdensome. But the rule is an unwarranted taxpayer handout.
When most people suffer property damage, they deal with the loss. If they were smart, they took out insurance and filed a claim. If not, well, they are out of luck.
People who keep livestock or poultry have a better option, one that does not require paying insurance premiums. If they can provide evidence that a dog or dog hybrid killed their animals and there is no owner to sue, then localities must compensate them. The law stipulates up to $400 per animal and up to $10 per fowl.
Montgomery County Supervisor Jim Politis likens the compensation to how shopkeepers receive law enforcement protection if someone robs them. The analogy is wrong. Law enforcement officers do not show up and hand public dollars to a shop owner who has been robbed. They investigate the incident and turn the alleged culprit over to prosecutors. [link]
In either case, we conservatives welcome the Roanoke Times editorial page to our side and congratulate it for having fought off the demons that have possessed its membership lo these many years.
Now, if they want to take this to its logical next level, and they want to denounce ObamaCare for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance or risk punishment, we'd be even more tickled.
Want to talk about the ultimate unfunded mandate?