Time to LOCK THE CLOCK?

Early Sunday morning, Americans participated in the dreaded bi-annual changing of the clocks. Much debate has occurred in Congress and in state governments over the years as to whether or not we should bother changing our clocks. The pros and cons are complicated and interestingly regional preferences come into play. 

The original reason for changing the clocks was, as many know, due to wars. In 1918 during WWI, the United States adopted the Standard Time Act as a wartime measure to save on fuel. Post war, it was repealed only to be reinstated in 1942 but called “War Time”. This changing of the clock was repealed post-WWII and stayed as such until 1966 when the Uniform Time Act passed standardizing the dates for the bi-annual change.

What many may not know is that in 1975-1976, a year-round Daylight Savings Time was attempted to save energy during the oil embargo, but it was very unpopular due to the dark winter mornings and was promptly ended. So, the real question is this: if we were to lock the clock, should we be on Permanent Standard Time or Daylight Savings Time? 

The interesting thing is there are arguments for both. The sacrifices for both revolve around whether the sun rises earlier in the morning or sets later in the evenings. The real issue here isn’t whether we should or should not change the clocks. Most of us agree, this whip lash of time change should end. Earlier this year, Senator Rick Scott of Florida tried to fast-track a bill titled the “Sunshine Protection Act” which would give states the option to move to permanent Daylight Savings Time. However, it was prohibited from being advanced by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas who argued the health benefits of Standard Time. Even in a chamber of only 100, there is disagreement on which time we should make permanent. 

At least for now in Congress, the debate continues…