Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been the state's premier source of progressive online political commentary and community-building.
Please support our efforts by becoming engaged, spreading the word, and contributing what you can towards our continued growth as a voice for change in Nebraska politics.
I'm not going to waste 2010 responding to every silly attack against Democratic Congressional candidate Tom White by the Republican bloggers at Leavenworth Street and GOP State Chair Mark Fahleson. But, their latest attempts to inflate Congressman Lee Terry's position while deflating Democrats' hopes for White are so laughably transparent and outlandish that they can't go unchallenged and shouldn't be taken seriously.
According to Leavenworth, Tom White's most recent fundraising report reveal his campaign "getting that whiff of desperation." Why is that? Supposedly, it's because White hasn't raised as much money as Terry, made a personal loan to his campaign, and - apparently - isn't spending enough money on the campaign trail. Of course, that post is followed by the usual dose of unsupported allegations and baseless speculation readers have come to expect from our local, anonymous GOP operatives.
Fahleson jumps on one of these planted stories in accusing White of "deceptively inflat[ing] his fundraising" to the press. Fahleson also says White's daring to challenge Terry is an example of "arrogance" and "hubris." Finally, Fahleson declares, "[A]ny contribution to Tom White's campaign is wasted money. He will not and cannot win in 2010..."
Well, that's definitely what Fahleson wants people to believe. But, if it were really the case, there'd be no point in Fahleson's saying so. No matter how much Fahleson and his friends at Leavenworth might wish it were otherwise, Lee Terry remains one of the most endangered Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives. And, Tom White is the toughest Democratic challenger he's ever faced.
But, don't take my word for it. Let's look at the numbers for Terry's last three challengers compared to White's. At this point in their campaigns against Terry....
Nancy Thompson (2004) had raised $91,383.47 for the quarter, had raised $147,130.78 for the cycle, had loaned her campaign $0.00, had spent $46,739.13, and had $100,391.65 in cash on hand.
Jim Esch (2006) had raised $38,980.00 for the quarter, had raised $92,525.00 for the cycle, had loaned his campaign $31,511.52, had spent $111,319.87, and had $12,829.92 in cash on hand.
Jim Esch (2008) had not declared as a candidate, was not raising money, and had $111,511.52 in campaign debt.
Tom White (2010) has raised $125,535.42 for the quarter, has raised $329,521.67 for the cycle, has loaned his campaign $53,000.00, has spent $39,379.26, and has $343,142.41 in cash on hand.
Notice that White's expenditures aren't much less than Thompson's were at this point in the campaign. Also, even without White's loan to his campaign, he's raised $180,000 more than any previous challenger.
Now, it is true that Terry has ramped up his own fundraising after being scared by his dwindling performance in the last two elections. At this point in previous campaigns compared to this year's, Terry had. . .
2004 = $436,806.66 in cash on hand
2006 = $283,176.82 in cash on hand
2008 = $454,869.11 in cash on hand
2010 = $543,185.52 in cash on hand
Yes, Terry's definitely taking this race seriously. But, his $200,000 more in cash on hand than White isn't so impressive or so intimidating considering that Terry's a six-term incumbent with every institutional advantage.
In fact, the only place where Terry's totally dominated is in PAC contributions. Terry's taken in $350,000 more than White in PAC contributions this cycle ($431,811.67 to $81,953.00). Terry also got an additional $59,700.00 boost from the national Republican Party's "Patriots Day" program to protect its most endangered incumbents. That's more than White's loan to his campaign, but it similarly went unmentioned in the local press. When that much help is already needed from the national party, which campaign is it that's really got "that whiff of desperation"?
Of course, the 2010 election is going to have a different dynamic than the last two in which Terry's weakness was revealed. Admittedly, some of the big names in political forecasting have downgraded the 2nd Congressional District's competitiveness in 2010 - but that's entirely because of the national political climate and has had nothing at all to do with Terry improving his low standing with voters. Now facing the toughest challenge of his political career, Terry is counting on that national climate to make up for his own lack of accomplishments and weak representation of the 2nd District.
Will that be enough? I don't think so. Not against Tom White. But, I hope Mark Fahleson does think so. Same with Terry campaign manager David Boomer, all our friends at Leavenworth, and Terry himself. Please continue underestimating White. Please continue underestimating the 2nd Congressional District, imagining its voters will keep on tolerating Terry just because he's a Republican and has spent the last twelve years in Washington D.C. We'll just see how right you are come November 2nd.
Gov. Dave Heineman is an immoral man. His is an immoral administration that, quite frankly, makes me ashamed to be a Nebraskan. That is a new feeling for me. It's a terrible feeling. But, it's one shared by any Nebraskan with a conscience after the continuing revelations of the Heineman Administration's efforts to balance the state budget by cheating an estimated 6,000 pregnant women and their unborn children out of prenatal medical care.
It was only on January 21st that the Lincoln Journal-Star broke the story that Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services had received notice from the federal government that the state could no longer rely upon unborn children for determining Medicaid eligibility. As such, women near the income-based threshold who only qualified because of their pregnancy would no longer be eligible for Medicaid - including its prenatal care. Expecting mothers who illegally immigrated would also lose such coverage because they could no longer qualify through their unborn children - who will attain U.S. citizenship just by being born in the country.
The timeline is a little fuzzy, but it appears that DHHS and the Heineman Administration learned that the state was out of compliance with Medicaid regulations in late November. At that time, federal officials made clear to DHHS that options were available to the state to ensure that every low-income family still received prenatal care. The simplest and most cost-effective of these options would be expanding eligibility for Kids Connection, Nebraska's State Childrens Health Insurance Program, to include unborn children.
Now, DHHS filed its annual report on reforms and changes in the state's Medicaid program on December 1st, so it's understandable that this information wouldn't be included in that report. But, a change of such consequence to thousands of Nebraska families should have been communicated to the Legislature immediately - well before the start of its 2010 session. However, State Senators received no notice of this change until a January 15th letter from Vivianne Chaumont, Director of Nebraska's Medicaid program.
At this point, there were only three days remaining for bill introductions. By the time the contents of this letter were reported by the Journal-Star - and notice was effectively made to the public - it was the final day of bill introductions and really too late for any action to be taken. This timing demonstrates the Heineman Administration's intent that no action would be taken - at least none outside of its administrative control.
Even more troubling than their timing is the Heineman Administration's misleading the Legislature as to its options and framing their choices as an immigration issue. Chaumont's letter made no mention of the state's ability to cover unborn children under Kids Connection. Instead, the Journal-Star paraprhased her as stating:
If senators want to provide prenatal care for pregnant mothers who are illegal residents, the Legislature will have to create a separate non-Medicaid program in state statute.
This dehumanizing focus on the immigration issue has persisted ever since at every level of the Heineman Administration. Both Chaumont and Kerry Winterer, CEO of Nebraska's DHHS, have chosen to construe last year's LB 403 - and its broad prohibition of public benefits for illegal immigrants - as preventing them from extending prenatal care to their unborn children. This contradicts their own administrative authority while flying in the face of floor debate on LB 403 under which it was assured that prenatal care would not be jeopardized.
At the same time, State Senators have found no support from Heineman for a legislative fix. In his initial reaction, Heineman's spokesperson simply stated, "The Governor is not going to speculate on hypothetical legislation. There are no plans at this time for the Governor to introduce legislation."Heineman has since stated, "We support prenatal care. The issue involves those who are here legally and those who are here illegally."
States have had the option of covering unborn children under SCHIP since November 1st, 2002. At the time, the Bush Administration's change in federal regulations to allow recognition of the unborn was perceived as a major victory for the pro-life community. Of course, pro-choice groups were wary of the change because it was seen as one more instance of chipping away at abortion rights. Immigrants' rights groups took a more measured approach to this new option for the states, recognizing the value in expanding prenatal care but worrying that it would justify excluding low-income immigrant women from a wider range of health care services.
It's instructive to note that in the Federal Register, the Bush Administration's Department of Health and Human Services specifically responded to the issue of expanding SCHIP eligibility to the unborn children of illegal immigrants. They wrote:
[R]equiring exclusion of unborn children on the basis of immigration status is neither legally mandated nor desirable. Unborn children do not have immigration status as ``aliens'' and thus are not precluded from receiving Federal means-tested benefits under the provisions of Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law No. 104-193. Under PRWORA, these restrictions apply only to ``aliens'' who are not ``qualified aliens''; since unborn children are not ``aliens,'' they are not within the scope of this preclusion nor are unborn children subject to the 5-year bar.
Furthermore, as we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the goal is to permit States to ensure that needed services are ``available to benefit unborn children independent of the mother's eligibility status'' (67 FR 9937). Because prenatal care is a key element to ensuring healthy infants and children, this goal would maximize the availability of prenatal care and, consequently, promote the overall health of infants and children. It would be inconsistent with this goal to tie services for prenatal care to the immigration status of the mother. (emphasis added)
Again, that was the policy set forth by the Republican Bush Administration. Sadly, they appear to have been light years ahead of the Heineman Administration, for whom the issue of providing prenatal care for unborn children is all about "those who are here legally and those who are here illegally." In fact, Chaumont is still asking, "Can you provide care to the unborn without giving the mother care?" - as if that were the only question worth asking and it had not already been answered.
Nancy Hicks of the Journal-Star wrote an excellent column on Heineman's refusing to lead on this issue. However, that's too generous a take on he and his administrative lackeys, who have been working against these unborn children from the start.
I suspect that a lot of this has to do with the state budget. According to the Legislature's fiscal office, $7 million could be saved next year by simply conforming to Medicaid regulations and refusing to expand other programs to include prenatal care. Those savings are only $1.3 million if SCHIP coverage is extended to unborn children. It appears the Heineman Administration is looking for something in between - something it can control - that will protect the Governor's image as a hard-liner against illegal immigration. That way, Heineman can take credit for any budget savings while laying their human and moral consequences at the federal government's door - as if the state had no other choice in the matter.
This is an ugly way of looking at politics. It's an even uglier way of leading state government. Heineman escaped a lot of the blame for the shameful neglect and abuse at the Beatrice State Development Center - and the tens of millions of dollars it cost the state - because the problems began before he took office. But, here, we see the Heineman administration's handling of a problem that's entirely its own, and they fail every standard of reasonableness and human decency. They're so bad that they make the Bush Administration look good.
This politicking over prenatal care is even worse than all the blunders at the BSDC. It is disgusting and shows the true face of the most dominant force in Nebraska politics. A moral imperative rests on every person in this state to rise up against the likes of Heineman and demand better from our state government. Otherwise, God have mercy on us all.
On Wednesday afternoon (Feb. 3), the Nebraska Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee will be holding its public hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment (LR 289CA) that would prohibit health insurance mandates. According to the Associated Press, similar proposals are being orchestrated in 33 other states by right-wing legislators hoping to score political points and erect roadblocks to Congressional health care reform legislation.
If passed by the Nebraska Legislature and approved by voters in the November 2010 election, LR 289CA would add the following to the state constitution:
Because all people should have the right to make decisions about their health care, no law shall be passed that:
(1) Restricts a person's freedom of choice of private health care systems or private health plans of any type;
(2) Interferes with a person's or an entity's right to pay directly for lawful medical services; or
(3) Imposes a penalty or fine of any type for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or health plan.
Introduced by State Senator Beau McCoy, LR 289CA currently has eleven cosponsors: Tom Carlson, Mark Christensen, Colby Coash, Tony Fulton, John Harms, Charlie Janssen, Bob Krist, Scott Lautenbaugh, Scott Price, Ken Schilz, and Dennis Utter. Ironically, one has to wonder whether these State Senators even know what they've signed their names to after all but one of them cast a vote on Tuesday in support of an insurance mandate that would likely be unconstitutional under their own amendment.
See, our old friend Charlie Janssen is absolutely desperate to pass his bill repealing the state's motorcycle helment law (LB 200). At this point, he's willing to try practically anything to get the 25 votes needed for passage - including a five year sunset after which the current helmet requirement would go back into effect. But, it's Janssen's amendment requiring that motorcyclists have "medical reimbursement insurance coverage of no less than one million dollars" that really demonstrates the hypocrisy and shallowness of those State Senators opposing health care reform.
So far, Janssen's insurance mandate for motorcyclists hasn't come to a vote. However, there was a vote on Tuesday on expanding this mandate to include "long term care insurance" as well. Guess what, this additional mandate was proposed by Colby Coash - another of those State Senators who are supposed to want insurance mandates prohibited in the state constitution.
Proving that their hypocrisy truly knows no bounds, all but one of the State Senators cosponsoring LR 289CA voted FOR Coash's insurance mandate for motorcyclists. That lone State Senator was John Harms. The rest - McCoy, Carlson, Christensen, Coash, Fulton, Janssen, Krist, Lautenbaugh, Price, Schilz, Utter - all showed that the only health insurance mandates they have a problem with are those written by a Democratic Congress.
As drafted, LR 289CA says "no law shall be passed" that would interfere with "a person's ... right to pay directly for lawful medical services" or that would impose "a penalty or fine of any type for choosing to ... decline health care coverage." With such broad provisions against health insurance mandates, it's hard to see how Janssen and Coash's requirements for motorcyclists could possibly pass muster.
Of course, LR 289CA isn't about smart public policy and those supporting it never had any intergrity on the issue in the first place. It's the general consensus in the legal community that federal health care reform efforts are constitutional and will trump any state-based opposition. Offering LR 289CA was always a political gesture - and a quite partisan one at that. These State Senators have done it to make a point. Unfortuntely for them, the only thing they've really established is their own shameless hypocrisy as they carry water for the insurance companies and for powerful special interest groups opposed to any real health care reform.
President's proposed budget more than doubles the debt, increases our deficit and raises taxes. 'Spend now pay later' mentality must stop.
Mr. Terry might have some credibility on the issue, except that on his watch:
An annual surplus of $86 billion in 2000 was quickly squandered and turned into an annual deficit from 2001 to 2006. In 2004, the deficit reached a then record $568 billion.
The national debt increased from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $8.5 trillion in 2006, a 52 percent increase.
Moreover, the simple fact is that for 98 percent of Americans don't make more than $250,000 and would not see any tax increase.
Indeed, President Obama has already cut taxes for most Americans via the stimulus bill.
That's a lot of misleading hypocrisy from Lee Terry in only 140 characters.
After the first six months of 2009, Gallup released an astonishing poll showing more Nebraskans identifying with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party by a margin of 43% to 42%. Nebraska GOP Chair Mark Fahleson immediately dismissed the poll as "a post-election euphoric snapshot" and declared, "I think these poll results would be tremendously different if the poll was taken today."
Well, lucky for us, Gallup continued its state-by-state polling through the last half of 2009, and - now that the results for the full year are in - we can test Fahleson's hypothesis. Yes, Republicans retook the party ID advantage in Nebraska - but only by a margin of 43.7% to 41.1%. That's hardly the "tremendous difference" Fahleson imagined.
While no longer so mind-blowing that every assumption about Nebraska politics would literally be turned on its head, these updated results offer little comfort for local Republicans as we see further evidence of a fundamental shift in the political identity of Nebraska voters. Here's an illuminating look at Gallup's tracking poll of Nebraskans' party identification over the years:
After a decade-plus in the political wilderness, Nebraska Democrats appear to hold the same standing they did with voters in 1993. The difference is that Democrats then held the Governor's mansion, both U.S. Senate seats, and a U.S. House seat. Obviously, we're a long ways from that when the Democratic Party hasn't yet produced a gubernatorial candidate for the 2010 election. But, the environment at least appears ripe for progress - if we only had the candidates willing to step up, take a chance, and give Nebraska voters a choice.
Even more encouraging than the Democratic Party's supposed resurgence is the undeniable collapse of the Republican Party with Nebraska voters - which has continued through President Barack Obama's first year in office. Besides losing their grip on more than 13% of Nebraska voters since their party identification high point in 2005, the Republican Party's standing is also considerably weaker than it was in 1993. Although Republicans still hold a slight advantage in Nebraskans' party identification, a growing number are simply abandoning the GOP. On paper, this leaves Nebraska Democrats in their best position in years - if not decades.
In this, Nebraska's actually going against the national trend. After two national elections totally dominated by the Democratic Party, Gallup's 2009 polling showed a balancing in the Republican Party's favor in 39 states during the last year. That left four states where there was no change and only seven states where Democrats gained. Of these, Nebraska's four point swing in the Democratic Party's favor was the Democrats' biggest gain in the entire country.
Of course, even after this four point swing, Nebraska remains the 7th most Republican state in the country. But, after being listed as "leaning Republican" in last year's poll, Nebraska is now firmly listed as "competitive" at a time when American politics is more competitive in general. That's a trend the people of our state would definitely benefit from being a part of - if only it translated into more and better Democratic candidates on their 2010 ballots.
Gov. Dave Heineman was very successful in the 2006 Republican primary attacking then-Congressman Tom Osborne over his support for providing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant children who graduate from Nebraska high schools. This taught a very ugly and dangerous lesson to our state's most ambitious politicians, and they learned it only too well.
State Senator Charlie Janssen of Fremont has been particularly shameless in targeting these few dozen children who are seeking education and working for a better life for his own political gain. Last year, he did everything he could to inject this divisive issue into the debate of LB 403. That effort ultimately failed, so he's come back this year with a bill of his own, LB 1001, to repeal the 2006 law that granted these students in-state tuition benefits.
Right now, LB 1001 has 14 co-sponsors: Deb Fischer, Mike Flood, Tony Fulton, Mike Gloor, Tom Hansen, Russ Karpisek, Bob Krist, Scott Lautenbaugh, Beau McCoy, John Nelson, Rich Pahls, Scott Price, Ken Schilz, and Dennis Utter. To be perfectly honest, if this bill ever makes it to the floor of the Legislature, I expect that it will pass. That's a sad commentary on the current state of Nebraska politics just four years after a supermajority of State Senators overrode Heineman's veto to open the door just a little bit wider for the hopes and dreams of these innocent children.
Still, there is a chance that this bill can be stopped. If so, I fear it has to happen in the Legislature's Education Committee, which will be hearing testimony on LB 1001 on Monday afternoon. Normally, I oppose the use of the Unicameral's committee process to frustrate the will of the majority. But, here, the Education Committee has a special obligation to look beyond the politics of this issue and to do what's right for Nebraska's children - ALL of Nebraska's children.
The children who benefit from Nebraska's "DREAM Act" have gone to school right alongside any other Nebraska student. Many of them have lived in this country as long as they remember and are practically indistinguishable from their native-born friends and classmates. They may very well have siblings just a year or two younger who are actually American citizens. Neither has committed any crime. The only thing different about them is on what side of a border they were born.
Like it or not, our society has already made an investment in these children. If they're graduating from a Nebraska high school and planning to go to a Nebraska college, that's an investment that's paying off. To throw that away - to throw these children away - would not only be spiteful and petty but also just plain stupid.
The Education Committee's public hearing on LB 1001 begins Monday afternoon (02/01) at 1:30 pm at the State Capitol. Members of the committee are Greg Adams (Chair), Brad Ashford, Bill Avery, Abbie Cornett, Bob Giese, Ken Haar, Gwen Howard, and Kate Sullivan. The hopes of these immigrant children rest on at least four of these State Senators being willing to stand up and fight for their futures. Nebraska's education leaders have already spoken up in these children's defense. Now, we need some courageous elected leaders to do the same by killing LB 1001.
As linked above, the Center For People In Need has put together a great resource for easily contacting members of the Education Committee with your opposition to LB 1001. Remind our State Senators that these children have committed no crime. They had no choice. They're only guilty of following their families to our country - and to Nebraska - in search of a better life.
These children are rising above adversity. In fact, they are prospering. Our investment in them is paying off. Their success will be our success, with all of Nebraska benefitting from their contributions. We can say goodbye to all of that if LB 1001 passes. The children lose. Our state loses. The only people who win are self-serving politicians like Janssen and Heineman who are only too happy trading children's hope for misery if it benefits them politically.
Sadly, there isn't the will or the strength to fight that battle on the floor of the Legislature. The only hope these children have now rests with the Education Committee. Please don't give up on them now. Please don't give in to the worst in ourselves.
This past week has been full of speculation about the future of health care reform which has been frustrating for health care reform advocates. Many of us have worked tirelessly this past year to make comprehensive health care reform a reality, coming further than any previous generation. The recent shift in the Senate should not and does not mean the end of reform.
The status of health care in our country is exactly the same today as it was before the Massachusetts election. Our broken health care system remains unaffordable and unsustainable for millions of Americans. And the fierce need for comprehensive health reform remains unchanged.
Today, there are still more than 220,000 Nebraskans - over 45,000 of which are children - who remain uninsured. The many Nebraskans who have insurance continue to face soaring premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs. Too many Nebraskans pay their annual premiums and still have to fight for the coverage they paid for. Too many face denials of coverage altogether, or risk medical bankruptcy. Those who have lost their jobs, and thus their employer provided coverage, struggle to find affordable insurance, particularly those with pre-existing health conditions.
These are not just statistics or generalizations. This past year, we've met so many Nebraskans who have shared with us their stories and exemplified why our leaders cannot hesitate or balk at enacting comprehensive reform.
Coverage is truly unaffordable for even those who are lucky enough to have it. Jeanne, an Omaha native, despite having employer provided insurance, can barely afford the combined costs of her monthly diabetes, blood pressure, and cholesterol medications and her co-pays for regular health screenings. The effects of pre-existing condition denials are real. Darwin, a Vietnam veteran, cannot retire or move jobs because he must maintain his private health insurance to cover his wife who cannot qualify for insurance in the private market because she has diabetes.
And the effects on our small businesses are real. We hear from many people like Todd, a self-employed auto mechanic, whose premiums have more than doubled since he first purchased his policy. Dennis, another small business owner, knows personally that our health system fails both small business owners and families. As a business owner, he can't afford to provide his part-time or full-time employees health coverage. With his family policy, Dennis's deductible more than doubled with his previous insurer. After he switched insurers he endured the cruel act of having his insurer pre-approve his wife's $15,000 surgery only to have that same insurer deny coverage after the surgery was done. His insurer suddenly claimed she had a "pre-existing condition."
A large part of Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle's appeal is that he's supposed to be an engineer rather than a politician. Sadly, it appears he's moving away from that promise with his recent posturing against State Senator Tom White and his bill to exempt certain utility fees from the sales tax.
Although it's broader in construction and would exempt any utilities fees collected for infrastructure replacement, the motive behind White's bill (LB952) is to prevent the double-taxation of Omaha residents who are picking up the tab for a multi-billion dollar sewer improvement project mandated by the federal government. Whether the costs of this federal mandate are considered a true tax or not, the end result is the same for the people who are paying the bill. Recognizing that additional state and local taxes shouldn't be tacked onto these fees, 15 State Senators have already cosponsored White's legislation - most from the Omaha-metro area.
Now, it's important to note that the city of Omaha is in the middle of a budget crisis with no end in sight. Mayor Suttle's faced a terrible predicament in the city's finances since the first day he took office and has so far found little assistance from the Legislature. In fact, Suttle's hope that city voters might be allowed to consider raising the sales tax by an additional half-cent died this year without such a bill even being introduced.
After that rejection, it probably shouldn't surprise that Suttle would resent any action by the Legislature cutting into potential revenue that the city desperately needs. There's a lot to be said for the possibility that any lost revenue is only going to increase the burden on local property owners in the form of higher property taxes. It's this shift onto property taxes that Suttle is struggling to avoid - or, at least, to minimize. Still, in this instance, Suttle is just plain wrong to oppose White's sales tax exemption. Suttle is being petty, short-sighted, and self-serving - all things you'd expect from a politician but not from a man who campaigned on his engineers' approach to problem-solving.
If Suttle were remaining true to this approach, you'd expect him to focus on the numbers. You'd expect him to focus on dollars and cents, while maximizing the benefit for the people of Omaha. Instead, he's willfully blinded himself to any concern but the immediate political consequences of a 3-cent hike in the property tax required to make up the anticipated loss in sales tax revenue.
This is where Suttle appears to be shamelessly turning his back on his training as an engineer and his responsibility to the people of Omaha. With sales taxes, almost four dollars go to the state for every one dollar received by the city of Omaha. Yes, there's long-standing dissatisfaction over high property taxes in Omaha - as is the case all across the state. But, that doesn't mean anyone in their right mind would prefer to pay five dollars to the government in other taxes and fees rather than a single dollar more in local property taxes.
No tax exists in a vacuum. Suttle understood this when he wrote in a letter to White that his bill would really be "a tax shift." This is a familiar argument - and not one wholly without merit. However, the shift away from the sales tax could go towards a number of other potential sources of revenue besides the property tax. The real tax shift in White's bill is geographic - offering relief to Omaha-area taxpayers from an unfair share of state government's expenses. Suttle should recognize that this frees up resources at the local level rather than foolishly embracing a status quo that overburdens his own constituents.
I'm not saying that Suttle would have an easy sell in convincing Omaha taxpayers that other taxes and fees would be acceptable because of this sales tax exemption. But, the numbers don't lie. Dollar-for-dollar, there's no doubt the city and the surrounding communities benefit from keeping that money closer to home rather than sending it off to Lincoln never to be seen again. And, whatever form it takes, we're talking fewer dollars in total tax as well. All it takes is a Mayor able to communicate and to make his case - which Suttle should already be laying the groundwork for rather than going off half-cocked with criticism of White and LB952.
Suttle's attempt to lay any future property tax increase at White's door is an especially disturbing example of internecine warfare in light of fellow Democrat White's campaign for Congress against Republican Lee Terry. This is a gift to Terry, plain and simple. No matter what animosity may exist between Suttle and White, this is a clear betrayal of the many Democrats who've supported both.
To put it back on the path to fiscal responsibility, the city of Omaha needs someone looking at its problems from more than just a political perspective. That's what Suttle promised on the campaign trail, and I still have hope it's what he will deliver. But, right now, he's carrying water for Gov. Dave Heineman, allowing he and his legislative allies to pad the state budget with the people of Omaha's paychecks because it's easier than doing the hard work of leading. Omaha deserves better, and Tom White deserves an apology.
After the hottest decade on record, Ben Nelson gave his support to an effort to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that "greenhouse gases . . . endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations."
Nelson's attempt to legislatively derail a scientific finding based on decades of climate research is misguided and harmful to Nebraska, the nation, and the planet. But first, let's take a look at Nelson's statement:
"Controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of Congress. We don't need EPA looking over Congress' shoulder telling us we're not moving fast enough."
Wrong on both counts, Ben.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) states that the EPA "shall" regulate air pollutants which are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The CAA also defines air pollutant, and the Supreme Court held in 2007 that this definition includes greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The EPA must regulate greenhouse gases because Congress gave it that job in the first place.
On the second point, you (and the rest of the Senate) need as many people as possible telling you that the Senate is not moving fast enough. Climate change is already happening. The longer we wait the more dramatic our response has to be. Also, we can't stop climate change on our own. The United States needs to act now to set the stage for future binding international agreements on greenhouse gases. China and India will not agree to limits until we show that we are willing to do so ourselves. Delay on our part means delay on international efforts.
The Omaha World-Herald's new poll of 500 registered Nebraska voters does not appear to have asked a single question about this year's 2nd Congressional District race between six-term Republican incumbent Lee Terry and Democratic State Senator Tom White. Still, the results published alongside three articles earlier in the week (1, 2, 3) reveal an electoral picture that's actually quite promising for White's chances at a major upset in the 2010 election.
Of course, the lead story from this poll was focused on Senator Ben Nelson's job approval after casting an unpopular but courageous vote for the Senate's health care reform legislation. The numbers from a Rassmussen Reports survey conducted two weeks earlier showed only 40% of Nebraskans holding a favorable impression of Nelson in the immediate aftermath of his health care reform vote. 55% reported an unfavorable impression.
The new World-Herald poll tests Nelson by a different standard - job approval - normally a tougher standard that will somewhat lag a politicians' personal favorability. That's why the following may be cause for minor celebration:
SEN. BEN NELSON'S JOB APPROVAL 42% Approve
48% Disapprove
09% No Opinion/Not Sure
If nothing else, these job approval numbers suggest that Nelson may have seen the worst from his health care vote. The slight bump from 40% favorability to 42% job approval is nothing to brag about, but the more significant 7-point drop from disfavor to disapproval definitely suggests that some of the initial anger has subsided. I would suggest that the World-Herald's poll bears out this notion in the response to its questions specifically on Nelson's health care vote and the underlying reform legislation:
CURRENT HEALTH CARE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL 27% Favor
62% Oppose
11% No Opinion/Not Sure
NELSON'S HEALTH CARE VOTE 35% Approve
53% Disapprove
12% No Opinion/Not Sure
HOW WOULD [NELSON'S STAND ON HEALTH CARE] INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE IF HE RUNS FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2012? 10% Strongly Favorable
15% Moderately Favorable
28% Neutral
13% Mildly Negative
31% Strongly Negative
03% Don't Know
By now, it's not at all surprising that strong opposition exists (62%) to the current health care reform legislation. However, opposing a bill can mean different things to different people - as illustrated by the 9-point drop to 53% who disapproved of Nelson's vote in support of that very legislation. A similar 8-point bump was seen between those who favor the legislation (27%) and those who approve of Nelson's vote (35%). Presumably, this represents those Nebraskans who may oppose certain particulars of the bill but who support the larger reform effort.
The most encouraging sign for Nelson, though, has to be the questions this poll raises about the true depth of the opposition to health care reform. On the question of how Nelson's position would influence voters if he seeks re-election in 2012, there is that firm 31% who say it would factor very negatively. But, no one should kid themselves that they're going to find a whole lot of traditional Ben Nelson voters in that number. By and large, these are going to be partisan Republicans and the occasional independent who even voted for Pete Ricketts back in 2006.
At the same time, a full 53% of Nebraskans report being favorable (25%) or neutral (28%) on supporting Nelson for re-election in light of his position on health care reform. Personally, I'd say this already shows some vindication for Nelson's vote, although the motives behind those claiming to be neutral are rather difficult to read. Some are going to be progressives who refuse to give Nelson credit after his role opposing a public insurance option and toughening abortion restrictions. There might even be a few die-hard Republicans in the mix honestly stating that they never would have voted for Nelson in the first place. But, most of these people are looking down the road 34 months from now and simply admitting that they don't expect the uproar over Nelson's support for health care reform to have very much influence on their final vote.
Last Thursday, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman delivered an embarrassing State of the State address that was wholly devoid of new ideas or a vision for Nebraska's future. The sad thing is that he's none the worse for it. In fact, he's just one step closer to an easy re-election that should shame every Democrat and progressive in the state.
In the absence of a credible Democratic challenger offering a competing vision in the 2010 election, Heineman benefits politically by offering nothing more than the bland cheerleading and warmed-over talking points that filled his 2010 State of the State address. Genuine leadership means making tough choices that are probably going to offend someone. Why would the Governor dare risk that when he can instead oversee our state's continued muddling through the last half of the Heineman decade?
According to his speech, Heineman's three big priorities are job creation, strengthening our education system, and developing a more efficient government through the use of technology. To achieve these goals, the closest thing to a bold idea Heineman even discussed was a grant application for $20 million in federal stimulus dollars to fund a virtual high school. While it's the right idea to use the Internet to expand access to higher level education across the state, it's hard to understand Heineman's overselling this proposal as a tool for keeping kids from getting involved in drugs and gang activities. If that were the case, the Playstation and X-Box would have taken care of these problems long, long ago.
Other than that, Heineman talked about updated graduation requirements, called high truancy rates "unacceptable," and spoke against schools spending money on lawyers and lobbyists rather than in the classroom. On this meager basis, the Lincoln Journal-Star obnoxiously pronounced, "Gov. Dave Heineman asked for nothing less than transformation of the state's education system in Thursday's State of the State address." Such statement goes beyond unprofessional journalistic hyperbole to the realm of outright political propaganda. But, this is Nebraska, what else is new?
Of course, what was most telling in Heineman's State of the State was what went unsaid - in fact, even unmentioned. Although Heineman began the speech praising the Legislature for its swift response to the state's $335 million revenue shortfall in the special session last November, he turned a convenient blind eye to those projections anticipating a much larger gap in the state budget ranging from $600 million to $1 billion in the next biennium.
State Senators Jeremy Nordquist and Heath Mello made at least some efforts to reveal Heineman's stunning display of political cowardice and fiscal neglect. Nordquist told the Omaha World-Herald he was "disappointed by the lack of details about potential budget cuts." Meanwhile, Mello noted to the Journal-Star that "[Heineman] didn't mention the word deficit or budget deficit one time, knowing that this is the biggest issue in the state."
I suppose we should have expected no better from Heineman after he told the World-Herald two weeks ago that this year's legislative session would focus on "philosophical issues." It should have been absolutely shocking to the people of Nebraska when our governor summed up his approach to the state's budget problems as simply "hoping that the worst is behind us." Rather than taking proactive steps to face an oncoming and inevitable budget crisis, Heineman appeared to be actively encouraging divisive diversions and political power plays.
My real fear is that all of this really does further a vision for our state - one so extreme that Heineman refuses to articulate it for fear of offending the conscience of the Nebraska people. Instead, Heineman relies on Pete Ricketts' money, a complacent, conservative media, and the most far-right ideologues in the Legislature to drive the state in the same general direction. No real leadership is required, only careful overseeing of the political landscape to ensure no threats emerge to one-party control and the prevailing status quo. Then, when things get bad enough that drastic action becomes necessary, it's a simple matter of being in a strong enough position politically to remake state government along the most radical lines, unchecked by any real opposition and able to pretend as if there was no other choice.
If this is the plan, it's working quite beautifully. No organized resistance. No voice of dissent. No Democratic challenger. No ideas. No vision. No problems. It's Dave Heineman's state. We just live in it...and should apparently just get used to it.
Finally, an ad that tells the truth from a real doctor in our state.
This week, Vote Kids, launched an ad campaign featuring Dr.McKinney and bringing some needed common sense to the airwaves.
The ad explains that families will save on average $2,500.
The ad also reminds Nebraskans that Senator Nelson has a history of standing up for kids with creating Kids Connection, which now covers almost 50,000 kids in our state.
We are proud of Dr. McKinney. She is a voice of reason in the middle of all the ads that just mislead Nebraskans.
