Walker convinces Van Hollen on DNA samples; Trust us, we’re Republicans. What could go wrong?

Under a Democratic governor, J.B. Van Hollen opposed DNA sampling of felony arrests for a multitude of reasons. All those reasons disappeared, magically, when the Republicans took control of the iron fist of government in Wisconsin.

jsonline: Gov. Scott Walker and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen backed a plan Monday to take DNA samples from people when they are arrested for felonies, instead of when they are convicted … 2½ years after Van Hollen raised reservations about a similar proposal when it was touted by Jim Doyle, the Democrat who was then serving as governor.

Even more surreal; there’s an actual group advocating DNA sampling of Americans at the point of arrest, and not just after convictions, called DNA Saves. They claim citizens will “feel” safer when such laws are passed.  

"Wisconsin needs to be the 26th state," said Jayann Sepich, a co-founder of the group.

I can't wait? I don’t know if you’ve been keeping track, but the Walker administration is dramatically expanding what will now be considered a felony violation, for instance; shoplifters stealing anything over $500 (once $2500) will now be treated as felons. You can thank the raving lunatic of the Assembly, Joel Kleefisch for that one.

So the cost to taxpayers will go through the roof, right? Yes, but in the upside down world of conservatism, it could possibly save money:

The two Republicans acknowledged it would have upfront costs but said it would ultimately save money because the program would identify some suspects more quickly. The 2009 bill to take DNA at arrest would have cost $6.4 million in its first year and $4.1 million a year thereafter (samples taken from all felony arrests, which is not the current Walker plan, maybe).

Back then, Van Hollen worried about the constitutionality of DNA sampling. But since then, Republicans have shown they can be trusted more than Democrats with a new DNA data base of innocent citizens.

"Part of the reason why I'm reserved on the bill is because I, like many people, do realize that there comes a point where we cross a line," he said then. "As we start to collect DNA samples from more and more individuals under more circumstances, you come closer to that line."

Hell, once we get first offense drunk driving listed as a felony, who knows what law will be next.