The 'conservative' Congress is eager to meddle -- again

Here they go again.
Members of the United States Congress are busy attempting to work their collective will on the individual states in ways that would have had conservatives up in arms not too long ago. Instead, today it is often the conservatives who are leading the charge against state's rights.
We have editorialized before against efforts by Congress to impose tort reform on the states. If the amount that a plaintiff can receive in a lawsuit is to be limited to a dollar amount, that is the kind of public policy issue that is best argued at the state level.
Congress should be no more inclined to tell the 50 states that they must have a specific limit on jury awards than it should be inclined to tell the states that they may have no limit.
We also strongly objected late last year when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist used the threat of a bird flu pandemic as the rationale for giving drug companies that produce vaccines immunity from suits filed in state courts.
Scare tactics are commonly used by legislators in Washington who insist that they know better than individual taxpayers or individual states what is best for them. And it is strange to see conservatives arguing to take power away from state courts and give it to federal courts, which we've been told are controlled by liberal activist judges.
What's up now
The most recent congressional attempt to usurp the ability of state lawmakers to protect their citizens involves how consumers can best protect themselves against identity theft and whether states should be allowed to give their residents the best level of protection.
As a column on the page opposite this by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., pointed out yesterday, 20 states have laws that give residents the ability to "freeze" access to their credit reports whenever they choose. A freeze makes it virtually impossible for anyone to open a new credit card account or take out a loan in someone else's name. Ohio is among the states considering such legislation.
That sounds like the kind of protection consumers might want, but until H.R. 3997 started getting public attention, Congress was ready to prohibit the states from allowing credit freezes -- in the name of having a nationwide system of credit that would be easier and cheaper for credit providers. This passes for consumer protection in this Congress because, we're assured, savings enjoyed by credit companies would be passed on to the consumers.
U.S. Rep. Steve LaTourette, a Republican who represents Ohio's 19th District, has said he's considering changing the freeze portion of his bill and the bill, which was due for House action is week, probably won't be voted on now until September.
When the bill is heard, it probably won't contain a blanket prohibition of credit freezes, but it will contain other restrictions on how states can regulate the credit industry and lending institutions. And it will all be done in the name of consumerism.
These are just a few examples of how Congress -- which ought to be tending to its own knitting, given an on-going war, budget deficits and the fall-out from natural disasters -- seems intent on expanding its reach from Washington into the nation's 50 state capitals. For another, read the editorial below from Tuesday's Washington Post.