'MOMMY PARTY' LEGISLATION IRKS SOME IN STATE 'NANNY GOVERNMENT' PANNED.

Byline: EDWIN GARCIA

Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- Ban parents from spanking their toddlers. Force restaurants to disclose calories on menus. Forbid school cafeterias from cooking with trans fats. Prohibit smoking on state beaches. Make homeowners switch to energy-efficient light bulbs.

Legislators who have proposed these measures, mostly Democrats, have been on a tear in recent weeks, telling Californians, "Hey, we know what's best for you."

But enough already, say their mostly Republican opponents, who are increasingly railing against what they call "frivolous" proposals and embracing a term often repeated in the Capitol this legislative session:

Nanny government.

"Some people in that building believe we should have more government nose-wipers running around, intervening in every possible situation they can," said Doug LaMalfa, a Republican assemblyman who represents Northern California.

What's going on is not unusual for an Assembly and Senate controlled by Democrats, many of them with a leftward bent, who worry that if constituents are left to their own devices they won't make the right decisions.

California has seen this before. The Legislature in the 1980s made motorcyclists wear helmets and car occupants use seat belts -- laws that undoubtedly have saved thousands of lives.

But many people, especially Libertarians, think it's government run amok.

"Unfortunately, politicians believe they can run your life better than you can," said Aaron Starr, chairman of the California Libertarian Party. "They're a bunch of busybodies. They should all do us a favor and go home."

But the purveyors of so-called nanny government would like the public to consider another question: What's wrong with making the state a better, safer place to live?

"I guess the government is trying to be the nanny, or the parent, or the supervisor," acknowledged Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, author of legislation to ban the sale of energy-hogging incandescent light bulbs.

"And you know what? Sometimes the nanny is right, sometimes the parents are right ... oftentimes the parents are right."

So far, some of the measures are meant to protect children -- such as the anti-spanking proposal and another that would prohibit parents from smoking in cars when kids are present.

Other measures are meant to help people eat right -- such as bills to require chain restaurants to display the calorie content of meals and a bill to ban trans fats from restaurants and school cafeterias.

And then there are measures meant to protect the environment -- such as Levine's light bulb bill, which would cut greenhouse gas emissions by pushing people to use compact fluorescent bulbs.

All of the measures irk Republicans.

"If somebody wants to go ahead and choose to do something that may not always be in their best interest, hey, this is America, you get to choose those things," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster.

"If we're going to try to keep people safe all the time," Runner said, tongue-in-cheek, "then we ought to pass laws requiring them to wear helmets, safety goggles and shoulder pads."

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, disagrees.

"At some point our personal liberties bump into the need to keep the public safe," Simitian said, "and that's the balance we have to strike."

Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley and author of "Talking Right," credits Republicans with effectively using the phrase "nanny government" to make a point that appeals to the party's conservative base.

"It does everything the right wants it to do," said Nunberg. "It suggests these measures are not just officious meddling but there's something unmanly about them. It's the old story: The Republicans are the daddy party and the Democrats are the mommy party."

egarcia(at)mercurynews.com

[phone]