In his latest attempt to feel his constituents' pain, President Clinton has taken a measure to Capitol Hill that would effectively force states to toughen their drunk driving laws.
The measure, passed by the Senate and slated to go before the House later this month, encourages states to lower the legally drunk blood alcohol limit to .08 from .1 percent. If the states choose not to do so, the central government will hold back some highway funding.
His proposal comes in the wake of the death of a Maryland girl who was struck by a drunk driver while waiting for the school bus.
While we support a tougher stance on drunk driving, and while the loss of the girl was unfortunate, the decision to lower the legal limit should be the states', not Washington's.
Federal highway funds, after all, come from the states. For the federal government to withhold those funds is an intrusion on states' rights.
Fifteen states currently use the .08 percent level, while the other 35, including Texas, use .1 percent. If states feel that it is necessary to change their drunk driving laws, their legislatures - not Congress - should have the power and responsibility do to so.
And Texas has not proven itself lenient on drunk drivers. It's true that a measure to change the legal limit here to .08 was defeated, but the legislature did pass a zero-tolerance law for drunk drivers under the age of 21.
We hope the House will understand that this is an unnecessary intrusion into state government and will strike down the proposal. And, in turn, we hope that states will take this opportunity to examine, and possibly toughen, their individual laws.
The gray-box editorials reflect the opinion of The Daily Cougar editorial board and editorial staff. All other opinions, letters, commentaries and cartoons reflect the viewpoint of the writer. Letters to the editor reflect only the opinion of the individual writers. No opinions expressed in The Daily Cougar necessarily reflect those of the University of Houston administration or the student body at large.