2011-10-18 "Cain OK With Drunk Driving If It Means Corporate Profits" by Sam Taxy
With his poll numbers surging, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is finally finding his beliefs and actions under the microscope. This had led to some terrifying revelations: a plan that doubles taxes on the middle class [http://www.care2.com/causes/did-cains-9-9-9-plan-come-from-a-video-game.html] and his desire to kill all people who try to enter the US illegally [http://www.care2.com/causes/cain-proposes-electric-fence-to-kill-illegal-immigrants.html] come to mind. Today, though, we learned yet another way that Cain completely disregards the lives of the people he wants to lead: he used to lobby against life-saving drunk driving laws so that restaurants could make more of a profit, reports Talking Points Memo [http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/herman-cain-fought-stricter-drunk-driving-laws-at-nra.php].
This all stems from Cain’s time as the head of the National Restaurant Association, where he lobbied on behalf of restaurant owners. Since restaurant owners make a lot of profit from liquor sales, they support any laws that make it easier for customers to drink as much as they can, even if the consumers then go out and drive home. Siding with corporate profits over innocent lives, Cain lobbied for lax restrictions on how much one could drink before driving, essentially arguing that streets should be less safe if that means that his trade group could make more money.
In his most public move, Cain argued that people with Blood-Alcohol-Concentration below .10 should not be stopped or convicted of drunk driving, setting himself against a Congress that ultimately revised the legal limit down to .08. He claimed that the restrictions would not save lives, and would hurt “responsible” drinkers. Mothers Against Drunk Driving countered that at the time more than 20% of all deaths due to drunk driving — 3,700 people annually — were killed by drunk drivers who were below the .10 limit.
This position tells us a lot about Cain’s priorities. When he was faced with a tough decision — one that actually affected the safety of the American people — he stood on the side of corporate greed. This just makes him yet another Republican candidate who will put money ahead of people if elected president.