Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been Nebraska's online voice for progressive political change. Thank you for being part of the NNN community!
State Senator Deb Fischer's victory over Attorney General Jon Bruning in the Nebraska Senate primary was one of the biggest upsets in Nebraska political history and a bit of a fluke. Just how did a little known State Senator who didn't campaign full time and was substantially out raised by long time front runner Bruning pull off this monumental upset?
In my opinion, the biggest factor in the race was the spending of outside Super PACs. The Club For Growth and Senator Jim Demint's (R-SC) PAC - in an effort to elect Stenberg - dropped $2 million of negative advertising on Bruning. The coup de grace was the $300,000 in negative ads financed by Joe Ricketts over the weekend before the election that blasted Bruning's exploitation of his public service for vast financial gain. Those ads seemed to crystallize the doubts that many Republican voters had about Bruning.
What we have now is a Republican Senate nominee that was made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United that opened up the door to unlimited and secret spending by outside groups in political campaigns. Senator Ben Nelson said it best: "There's no question that special interest money won that election." Bob Kerrey said he wants to know what happens when Fischer hears from Joe Ricketts. "When he calls on her, what's he going to get," asked Kerrey. "What does (Rickett's) want, lower taxes? Probably," said Kerrey. "Does he want less regulation? Probably."
This massive intervention by the special interests make Fischer's victory a bit of a fluke. During most of the campaign, Fischer had the lowest name recognition among the three leading Republican candidates, the smallest amount of campaign money and she campaigned the least because she was tied down in Lincoln for more than three months during the 2012 legislative session. Fischer mainly won because outside money destroyed the frontrunner, not because of any particular thing she did or said during her campaign.
Fischer's upset of Bruning probably marks the end of Bruning's political career. Bruning was a politician who had never been in a tough race in his life. Due to his charmed political career, Bruning had faced little scrutiny or accountability until the 2012 campaign. Bruning took advantage of that lack of scrutiny by exploiting his public service to make himself a very, very wealthy man. Somehow Bruning was able to amass a net worth in the tens of millions of dollars on a government salary of $95,000.00 per year. Ultimately, it was Bruning's greed and exploitation of his public service that brought him down. Bruning's now tarnished reputation makes him politically radioactive and makes it very unlikely he can ever run for higher office again. Bruning's downfall is one of the most significant outcomes of this campaign.
What lies ahead in the general election? The Nebraska U.S. Senate race will be one of the marquee races in the country. What happens here in Nebraska could very well determine which party will control the Senate.
On the Republican side, we have a nominee who has served eight years in the Nebraska Legislature. Fischer's biggest "accomplishments" were raising the gas tax and diverting money from education to earmark for roads. The GOP nominee is also a bitter partisan. She has promised to draw a sharp contrast with Kerrey and failed to identify one Democratic Senator she could work with if she is elected.
On the other hand, Bob Kerrey is a genuine war hero who has served his country with distinction in the Navy SEALs, as Governor of Nebraska, in the U.S. Senate and on the 9/11 Commission. Kerrey has a record of accomplishment and reaching across party lines to get things done. As Kerrey said today: "I will not be a reliable vote for my caucus. I will be a reliable vote for Nebraskans. Now the voters of Nebraska face a simple choice - partisanship or leadership." In my opinion, most Nebraska voters are practical people - and not partisans - who want to see our great country move ahead and make progress. In the end, a majority of Nebraskans will choose Bob Kerrey because he has the best chance to help our country solve it's problems.
So, it's voting day and we get to see how Douglas County Election Commissioner Dave Phipps's polling-place consolidation plan plays out. Like many Douglas County voters, I was voting at a new location this year. I had an idea where that new location was, and drove around a bit looking for it. When I couldn't find it, I came home and looked it up on the internet. To their credit, the DCEC has made it easy to find your polling place.
The new location, of course, was a bit further away than the old one. My old polling place was just about four blocks away and I used to walk there. The new location is more than a mile away and the best walking route is along a major city street with lots of truck traffic. Driving isn't much better. The old location was no more than three blocks off of major streets to the North, South, and West, with multiple side streets off of each to take you there. The new location can only be accessed from the North and the South and the two streets from the North both wind through an industrial area. Still, getting to the new polling place was not a major inconvenience.
Once I got to the polling location, I pulled up to the front of the building near the sidewalk with the "Polling Place" banner. I walked up to the front door and it was locked. I looked around a bit and found a small sign on the next building with an arrow that led to a small alleyway between buildings. The polling place was at the back of the building adjacent to the parking lot. It would have been nice if there were signs directing vehicles to the parking lot. I don't know if a wheelchair could have made it through that alley.
The first thing I noticed about the polling place was that it was much smaller than the old one. The old location was a large room with a bank of carrels and three or four rows of four tables. The new location had a bank of carrels and two tables in the corner. There was one person at each table, so there was no room for privacy. There weren't many people there so I voted at one of the carrels. I cannot imagine the general election being held there.
Overall, I'd have to rate the new location as inadequate.
So, Douglas County voters, how would you rate your polling place?
It's been an interesting couple of days in Nebraska's Republican Senate primary. It pains me that I've been too busy with my own campaign to give this race the attention it deserves.
We've all seen for months as outside groups have kept Don Stenberg's campaign alive, touting him as if he's some sort of national hero while tearing down Jon Bruning at the same time. That effort may have been successful chipping away at Bruning's support, but it doesn't seem to have boosted Stenberg's chances (which is sad because it would have been great to see him try that "patriot" nonsense against Bob Kerrey). Instead, it appears the window of opportunity may have opened for Deb Fischer, and she's making a hard push to capitalize in the closing week of the campaign.
Last weekend, word began trickling out of a poll by the Fischer campaign showing their candidate less than 5 points down to Bruning, 25.6% - 29.8%, with Stenberg having fallen to third at 18% and 24% remaining undecided. Then, on Wednesday, Fischer produced a letter from Sarah Palin endorsing her campaign. The next day, 1st District Republican Congressman Jeff Fortenberry put up an online video endorsing her as well.
Then, just last night, word hit the street of Joe Ricketts (Pete's dad) making a major ad buy for unknown purposes. That had to cause a bit of panic for the Bruning campaign - rightfully so as the fruits of Ricketts' fortune have hit the airwaves, pointing a big finger explicitly stating "FOR CHARACTER, ANYONE BUT BRUNING":
Interestingly, another Ricketts ad directly supports Fischer, touts Palin's endorsement, and paints Bruning and Stenberg with the same broad brush as "two lifetime politicians." The ad then calls upon voters to "surprise the world" by supporting "one of us" - Deb Fischer:
Where does all this leave us? Honestly, your guess is as good as mine. But, this is all coming together pretty late, and I have to think there's a pretty good chance it's happening too late to change the outcome of this race. Yes, Fischer could succeed in this attempt to "Surprise the World", but that concurrent message of "Anyone But Bruning" has to be cause for concern because it only serves to split the anti-Bruning vote. And, a lot of those votes will still go to Stenberg.
I still think it most likely that a much damaged and tarnished Bruning emerges from this primary. He's the candidate with an actual campaign, and the vote against him is simply split in too (i.e. "two") many ways. But, we'll know soon enough. Stay tuned!
That's right. When Johanns, Fortenberry, Terry and Smith voted for the Paul Ryan budget plan, they all voted in favor of allowing corporations to shift their profits to overseas tax havens in order to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. (GOP Senate front runner Jon Bruning is also a supporter of the Ryan plan.) That's because there is a provision tucked away in the Paul Ryan budget plan called a "territorial tax" that is getting virtually no attention. Just what is a territorial tax and why should we be concerned about it?
Under a territorial tax system, the offshore profits of a U.S. corporation would be exempt from U.S. taxes. The Ryan plan's territorial tax would encourage companies to shift all of their intellectual property out of the U.S. so that even if they actually earn profits in the U.S., they then can magically send those profits to some off shore tax have like the Cayman Islands. So even if they are making things here in the U.S., they`ll be able to move profits out of the country by moving their intellectual property out of the country. In other words, the Ryan plan would allow U.S. corporations to disguise U.S. profits as foreign profits. The IRS would then never see a dime of U.S. corporate profits and corporations would pay the low corporate rates they pay in notorious foreign tax havens like Switzerland and Luxembourg.
Tax experts also say that the Ryan plan's territorial tax would give corporations a greater incentive to shift actual operations - and American jobs - to other countries.
The losers in the Ryan plan's territorial tax are the workers, farmers and senior citizens of Nebraska. Nebraskans would end up paying for this outrageous and unnecessary corporate welfare in the way of larger deficits and the cuts the Ryan plan makes in Medicare and programs that help the poor. It's obvious that the Ryan plan radically redistributes income upwards.
Why in the world did the Nebraska Congressional delegation vote in favor of this free lunch for U.S. corporations which are making record profits? Why does Bruning support this ridiculous give away? Did these guys even read the bill? Or is this corporate tax give away something they genuinely believe in? It's time for the voters and the press to ask them about this vote and to get some answers.
It's obvious that once again, the likes of Bruning, Johanns, Fortenberry, Terry and Smith don't represent Nebraska values. We all here believe in people paying their fair share of taxes, a secure retirement for seniors and a safety net for the less fortunate in our society. It's clear that these radical Republicans either have rejected the values of the people who sent them to Washington or they negligently failed to read and understand the Ryan plan. It's time for new leadership in Washington. Let's send these guys home and replace them with Kerrey, Ewing, Howard and Reiman - who will truly represent us and our values in Washington.
One of the most tired talking points from the Republican Party is that the 2009 stimulus bill was a failure and that it didn't create any jobs. A Republican can't talk about the stimulus bill without putting the word "failed" in front of it. However, as well all know here at New Nebraska, there frequently is a big gap between reality and what the Republicans tell us. That is certainly the case with the 2009 stimulus bill.
According to a recent study by Fitch Ratings, the recession might still be going on in the absence of the the TARP bill, the $831-billion stimulus package passed by the Congress in 2009 and the Federal Reserve's near-zero interest rates.
The boost from those policies helped the nation's gross domestic product increase 3% in 2010 and 1.7% last year. As a matter of fact, absent the stimulus, the U.S. "might still be mired in a recession," according to this study, done in conjunction with Oxford Economics.
The U.S. economy would have seen little or no growth the last two years without the policies, the report says, and those actions appear "to have significantly softened the severity of the decline" in GDP in the year immediately after the recession ended in mid-2009.
Though the Fed's monetary policy actions were helpful, the 2009 stimulus bill "had the strongest positive impact on consumption during the recent recovery," the study found. This conclusion by Fitch Ratings corroborates findings in February by the Congressional Budget Office and a 2010 study by former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder about the positive economic effects of the $831-billion stimulus package, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Proof of the success of the stimulus bill can be found closer to home here in Nebraska. In 2009 and 2010, Governor Dave Heineman balanced the State's budget with hundreds of millions of dollars in stimulus funds. This federal money prevented the layoff of Nebraska state employees and even more severe program cuts. The federal stimulus money tided Nebraska over until the economy began to improve in 2011-12. Despite that success, Heineman hypocritically claimed that he was opposed to the 2009 stimulus bill. However, the fact remains that Heineman took the stimulus money and ran - making the State's balanced budget the centerpiece of his 2010 re-election campaign. I would say to Governor Dave that actions speaker louder than words.
In other states, Republican members of Congress said the stimulus didn't create any jobs and termed it a failure. Nevertheless, many of those same Republicans sought stimulus money behind the scenes and said that it would create permanent jobs in their district. For example, Right Wing firebrand Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) quietly sent at least six letters to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood urging stimulus funding for transportation projects in her district. In one of them, in support of $300 million in spending for the $700 milliion replacement-bridge project crossing the St. Croix River, Bachmann cited a MnDOT estimate that the project would create nearly 3,000 jobs. In others, she noted that the projects would have economic benefits beyond just the projects in question, spurring development and private sector hiring in the communities surrounding the proposed stimulus projects.
If one of your Republican friends tells you that the 2009 stimulus bill was a "failure," please cite the examples here of the hypocrisy of Heineman and Bachmann. The actions of these Republicans who took the stimulus money and ran is strong evidence that the 2009 stimulus bill was actually a success.
On the issue of the 2009 stimulus bill, we can once again thank Senator Ben Nelson for supporting this vital legislation. At the time of the vote on the stimulus bill, there were 58 Democratic Senators. The Democrats didn't have a 60 vote filibuster proof majority. That means that every vote counted. It is evident that Senator Nelson recognized the gravity of the economic crisis and made the wise decision to support legislation ended the recession and has benefited the economy to this very day. Ben Nelson's vote in favor of the 2009 stimulus bill will be an important part of his positive legacy as our U.S. Senator.
Nebraskans needing a little inspiration before getting involved and making a difference in the 2012 election need look no farther than Eugene Browning, an 84 year-old from Omaha whose amazing volunteer efforts were just featured on President Barack Obama's campaign website.
We should all take heart from Eugene's explaining why he's worked so hard and will keep on working as long as he is able:
My name is Eugene Browning. I was in the U.S. Army for seven years, and was a paratrooper during the Korean War. I'm 84 years old, and I'm dedicating the rest of my life to Democratic causes like President Obama's campaign here in Omaha.
During Barack Obama's first campaign, I made telephone calls six days a week. This time around, I haven't been able to make as many phone calls, but I've been writing all kinds of letters to the editor.
The state of Nebraska is very conservative, which can be frustrating. Currently the worst thing I'm seeing is their attitude about women's rights-I just can't stand still for that. So I'm doing everything I can to support the candidate who is working to help average people like me-the one who knows that health care should never be something only the wealthiest Americans can afford, and people who are out there working hard should get paid a fair wage.
I recently helped out at a rally by passing out an information sheet about President Obama's top 50 accomplishments-there are so many. He's done so much that he doesn't have time to stop and publicize it; that's where we come in. I love getting the word out about health care reform, student loan reform, and tightening the rules on Wall Street and the financial industry. During the recession, he helped states keep teachers, firefighters, and police officers on the job, and helped repair sidewalks and roads all over the country. I'm always happy when I can get out there and explain the situation to people.
That's where you'll find me for the next six months: making more phone calls, doing whatever needs to be done. I just hope everybody stays on the same page and doesn't relax. We need to keep our heads down from here to November, because we can't afford to lose all of the progress we've made.
We all know that frustration Eugene talks about living in a conservative state. But, Eugene hasn't let that deter him. Fellow Nebraska progressives need to follow his lead in this year's election. Nationally, we have a responsibility to help defend against a disastrous step backwards from which America's working families and the middle class might never recover. At the same time, we have lots of opportunities to advance a better, more progressive vision for our state.
On Tuesday night, the three top-tier Republican candidates for Nebraska's 2012 Senate race - Attorney General Jon Bruning, State Treasurer Don Stenberg, and State Senator Deb Fischer - participated in their final debate before the May 15th primary. The debate was sponsored by the Omaha World-Herald and can be viewed on its website. However, it's unfortunate that the World-Herald's coverage of the debate didn't even report on its most telling exchange.
With the last question of the night (skip to 53:00), NET's Fred Knapp asked, "The Congressional Budget Office says that - between 1979 and 2007 - the income of the top 1% increased by 275%, the bottom 20% increased by 18%. Is income inequality a problem and should government address it?"
You could at least get a taste of the candidates' answers - or lack thereof - from the Lincoln Journal-Star:
The debate's concluding question about whether any of the candidates view growing income inequality in America as a problem drew no takers.
"Equality of opportunity is what's important," Stenberg said.
The focus should be on opportunity, "not class warfare," Bruning said.
"It's very disturbing to pit one American against another," Fischer said.
So, to a very simple question, not one of the three Republican Senate candidates would admit that income inequality is a problem in American society. Rather than offering solutions, the candidates offered mere platitudes extolling an "equality of opportunity" that becomes more of a myth for each successive generation as wealth and power are consolidated in the hands of the few.
Honestly, the candidates seemed to resent the mere asking of this question. They resented the central premise and could not even bring themselves to acknowledge the central fact at its heart, staring them right in the face.
In his full response, Stenberg fell back on a talking point opposing "government redisributing wealth." With that one used up, Bruning went with the "class warfare" angle:
Bruning: "I don't want to see this class warfare go on. I don't think it's useful because there are so many people in America who started with nothing and became something because of the opportunity provided in this great country."
Apparently, the "class warfare" Bruning was referring to was Knapp's question. You know, the one that was rooted in the fact that income inequality in America has skyrocketed over the last three decades. There was no place for such inconvenient truths on this stage.
Still, Fischer's response was even most insulting. She wasn't content to just disregard the facts. For her, the question wasn't even worth discussing:
Fischer: "I believe we need to have discussion on the important issues.....I find it very disturbing when we have discussions that try to pit one American against another. That doesn't benefit anybody. We need to look at the facts in this and not the emotion or trying to divert the attention to something that is not an issue that needs to be solved."
The obvious implication from Fischer's response is that income inequality is NOT an important issue. Fischer is "disturbed" that it would even be discussed, suggesting that it is not only divisive but also a diversion from the real problems that need to be solved. Again, there's no place in her ideological bubble for the realization that unfairness and imbalance in our current policies could be contributing to a widening and increasingly destructive chasm between the rich and everyone else.
In all three responses, these candidates showed themselves so completely lost to rightwing fundamentalism that they couldn't even admit that staggering levels of income inequality growing unchecked for decades pose a genuine challenge for America's future. The idea that consolidated wealth might be at odds with our cherished "equality of opportunity" wasn't just foreign to these candidates - it was anathema.
For Bruning, Stenberg and Fischer, just opening their eyes would be an act of ideological impurity and class warfare. Nebraskans have to open our eyes and see that, which ever of these candidates gets the GOP nomination, they can't offer any genuine solutions because they don't care about facts and refuse to acknowledge the truth.
As we all know, Johanns, Bruning, Stenberg, Fischer, Fortenberry, Terry and Smith all support the repeal of the landmark 2010 health care reform law. These guys promised a "replacement" plan in 2010 but they still haven't produced one. Apparently, these Nebraska Republicans would be content to return to the unacceptable status quo.
A return to the past failed health care system would be very costly for Nebraska's senior citizens. This is because the Medicare agency recently reported that in the first two years since Obamacare was signed, Medicare reforms in the law saved seniors a total of $3.4 billion in prescription drug costs. Over 220,000 beneficiaries have saved an average of $837 in the first three months of 2012. That's in addition to the $3.2 billion in savings enjoyed by some 5.1 million seniors in 2010 and 2011 thanks to Obama Care.
The savings were wrung through a combination of discounts on Medicare prescription drugs - 50 percent on brand names, 7 percent on generics - and rebates for seniors who fell under a coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole." "The Affordable Care Act is helping millions on Medicare save billions of dollars on care and prescription drugs," top Medicare official Marilyn Tavenner said in a statement. "The Affordable Care Act gives people on Medicare the relief they need from medical costs and more resources to stay healthy."
Apparently, our Nebraska Republican candidates for the Senate and the House would prefer that the pharmaceutical industry keep these discounts rather than see them benefit Nebraska's senior citizens. Why do these Republicans think it is bad for Nebraskans to receive rebates from the very lucrative pharmaceutical industry?
It's obvious that once again, the Nebraska Republican candidates for federal office place a higher priority on protecting corporate welfare rather than our senior citizens. These guys simply don't represent seniors and don't reflect our values.
In contrast, Bob Kerrey, John Ewing, Gwen Howard and Korey Reiman all support the retention of Obama Care. If they're sent to Washington, we can count on them to support Nebraska senior citizens rather than the well heeled, corporate special interests who support the Republicans. These people would be fighters for seniors and the middle class - rather than the corporations and the wealthy.
As I've discussed here before, just about all of the focus on Obama Care has been on the costs and the individual mandate. There has been little discussion of the benefits of this law. The only way the American people are ever going to learn about the benefits of this law is to re-elect President Obama and send our fine slate of Democratic candidates to Washington. I predict that once Obama Care is fully implemented in 2014, it will prove to be popular. That's why the Republicans are so desperate to win this year's elections. Let's work hard for our Democratic candidates so we can kill all the GOP zombie lies about Obama Care and let the American people learn about the benefits of this landmark law.
That is the question I'm posing to Bruning, Stenberg, Fischer, Terry and Fortenberry because they are on record in support of the repeal of Obama Care. Do you stand with the people of Nebraska or do you stand with the insurance industry? That will be a key issue in this election cycle.
I presented this question because the non-partisan and respected Kaiser Family Foundation issued a report that indicates that insurance companies will have to return more than $1.3 billion this year to consumers and businesses, thanks to a new requirement in President Barack Obama's landmark 2010 health care reform law. These rebates are the result of a rule in the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent or 85 percent of premium earnings on health care - as opposed to marketing and administrative activities - or otherwise provide rebates to their consumers. White House spokesman Jay Carney cited this welcome development as "yet another sign of how the Affordable Care Act is already strengthening the health care system for millions of Americans."
Supporters of Obama Care contend that an efficiently-run insurer should not have any problem earning a healthy return after devoting 80 percent of premiums to medical care. Indeed, the law sets an 85 percent requirement for plans that serve large employers. "Millions are benefiting because health insurance companies are spending less money on executive salaries and administrative costs, and more on patient care," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., a leading advocate of the rebate provision.
The Kaiser Foundation report also says the rebates are only one of the ways in which consumers may benefit from tighter scrutiny of the health insurance industry under the federal law, which provides funding for state regulators to monitor the companies more closely. Self-conscious insurers may be hesitating to push state regulators for premium increases as large as they were able to win in the past. "This 'sentinel' effect on premiums has likely produced more savings for consumers and employers than the rebates themselves," the report said.
As well know here at New Nebraska, the Republican candidates for the Senate and the U.S. House stand for a complete repeal of Obama Care and have yet to present a coherent "replacement" plan that they promised us two years ago. What this means is that if the likes of Bruning, Fortenberry and Terry get their way, hard working, middle class Nebraskans will not receive these rebates in the future and their insurance premiums are likely to increase at a faster rate. Apparently, these Republicans would prefer that the insurance industry have the rebates rather than Nebraska workers, farmers and small business owners. Why do these Republicans think it is bad for Nebraskans to receive rebates from the very profitable insurance industry?
I would also add that Bruning, Fortenberry and Terry all support a tax cut for the insurance industry since they all support the Rep. Paul Ryan/GOP budget plan. As we've discussed here, the Ryan plan cuts the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
In contrast, Bob Kerrey, Korey Reiman, John Ewing and Gwen Howard all stand with the people of Nebraska since they support Obama Care. (I would also like to take this occasion to give some love to Senator Ben Nelson for making a politically courageous vote in favor of Obama Care in 2010.) It's obvious that our excellent slate of Democratic candidates stand with the people - and not with the insurance industry. The insurance companies already have more than enough people to represent them in Washington - it's time we get some representatives that will tell them "no" and act for the good of the people of Nebraska.
If the Republicans get their way and Obama Care is repealed, the results will be devastating for millions of Americans. Insurance premiums will soar, small businesses will get hit with a tax increase, 2.5 million young people will lose their insurance and 50,000 people with pre-existing conditions will lose their coverage. Why would anybody support that kind of result? It makes no sense to me.
It's obvious that the Republican candidates for federal office here in Nebraska don't stand with the people. Instead, they are more in tune with the interests of the wealthy out of state special interests that fund their campaigns. These guys don't represent Nebraska values.
The Republicans are also counting on us Democrats not getting the message out on the benefits of Obama Care. Since the beginning of the health care debate in 2009, the GOP has badly out spun the Democrats. All of the focus has been on the individual mandate and the costs of Obama Care. It's time we take the offensive and tell the people of Nebraska that Obama Care is in their best interests and the repeal of this law would only comfort the already comfortable.
I've been very busy lately and I haven't had time to chime in here about the remarkable conclusion to the most recent session of the Nebraska Legislature. What we saw was the Unicameral standing up to Governor Dave Heineman's bullying and bluster on the key issues of tax cuts, allowing the state to resume paying for prenatal care for pregnant women who are illegal immigrants, and allowing cities to increase their sales tax rates by a half-cent.
The session started with Heineman making a big tax cut his top priority. Initially, Heineman proposed a budget busting tax cut that would have lowered corporate and individual income taxes and eliminated a county inheritance tax, at a three-year cost of $327 million. Heineman kept dishonestly insisting that his tax cut plan mostly benefited "middle class" Nebraskans but the reality was that 55% of the income tax cuts would've gone to the top 20% of earners.
The Senators correctly perceived that the State couldn't afford such a large tax cut in light of obligations it had to fix the broken child welfare system and fund projects that would benefit the University of Nebraska system. Heineman's plan faced resistance from lawmakers, and was scaled back twice - first to $148 million, then to $97 million. The plan to eliminate the inheritance tax was also removed. Heineman was eventually forced to sign a significantly smaller version of his tax cut plan.
Heineman, of course, blamed the Senators for the slimmed down tax cut plan but ultimately Heineman should bear all of the blame for the trimmed down plan. Thanks to the incompetence of his Administration, his attempt to privatize the child welfare system was a miserable failure and the Legislature acted responsibly by allocating the necessary money to clean up the Governor's mess. The State simply couldn't afford to both fix Heineman's child welfare mess and give the wealthy a big tax cut at the same time.
The biggest flash points in the session were the overrides of Heineman's vetoes of bills allowing the state to resume paying for prenatal care for pregnant women who are illegal immigrants, and allowing cities to increase their sales tax rates by a half-cent.
It was pretty evident in the final days of the session that the Legislature was going to thwart Heineman on these two hot button issues. The Governor didn't respond well to being challenged by the Senators. He launched a blistering personal attack on Speaker Mike Flood and made a series of dishonest allegations about these bills. For example, Heineman alleged that allocating money for prenatal care would help Planned Parenthood and that the sales tax bill would result in a tax increase. Apparently, the Senators saw through Heineman's dishonest statements and overrode his vetoes of these two bills on the last day of the session.
Heineman doubled down on his petulant and childish behavior during the session by issuing a dishonest statement after the overrides contending that the Legislature decided its priorities are "providing taxpayer funded benefits to illegal immigrants" and "increasing the sales tax rate on the citizens of Nebraska." Heineman then kept digging when he snubbed the Senators by refusing to give the traditional end-of-the session speech.
It's pretty obvious that a strong majority of the Senators were not impressed with Heineman's erratic behavior during the most recent session and won't be reluctant to stand up to him again in the future. It's pretty clear that Heineman is arrogant and simply out of touch with Nebraska values after these many years in office. I believe this most recent session of the Legislature has exposed Heineman for the petty person that he is and has cemented his status as a lame duck. Quack. Quack.
A dangerous extremism has taken hold in rightwing American politics. Unfortunately, my opponent in the District 27 legislative race - Lincoln State Senator Colby Coash - has invited one of its most outspoken and spiteful representatives into Nebraska. Not only has Coash rolled out the welcome mat for Ted Nugent - he's also expecting to be very well-rewarded for doing so, featuring Nugent at a lucrative campaign fundraising event next month in Omaha.
This weekend, Nugent earned his way back into the national news with a new round of hateful and threatening remarks towards President Barack Obama. The Kyle Michaelis For Legislature campaign immediately responded with the following press release:
District 27 legislative candidate Kyle Michaelis calls upon State Senator Colby Coash to denounce the hateful political rhetoric of former rock star and gun rights fanatic Ted Nugent. Coash recently announced a $500 per person fundraising reception featuring Nugent despite his guest's long history of highly offensive verbal assaults towards elected leaders and U.S. Supreme Court justices.
Nugent escalated these attacks at this weekend's National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, where he attacked President Barack Obama's "vile, evil, America-hating administration" and promised "I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" if Obama is re-elected. Nugent then called on NRA members to "chop their heads off in November."
Michaelis responds, "As an entertainer, Ted Nugent can get away with saying a lot of dumb things. But, Senator Coash is supposed to be a public servant and should hold himself to a higher standard. There's no place in Nebraska for Nugent's hate-filled politics."
In 2007, Nugent made national headlines delivering a vicious, obscenity-laden, on-stage rant against then-candidate Obama and his primary opponent Hillary Clinton. Holding two assault weapons in front of a cheering crowd, Nugent said Obama should "suck on my machine gun" and told Clinton to "ride one of these into the sunset." Nugent has since built a career as a rightwing commentator making similarly outrageous and insulting remarks.
"Money is a powerful force in any campaign, but it shouldn't overpower common sense, decency, and mutual respect," states Michaelis. "Senator Coash might be able to make $500 per person selling autographed pictures with Nugent but only by trading away any claim to Nebraska values."
If Coash continues endorsing rightwing extremism and the politics of hate by holding this event, the Michaelis for Legislature campaign asks that a portion of the proceeds support gun violence prevention in Lincoln and Omaha, where the fundraiser is scheduled for May 10th.
It's strange being a candidate in a local legislative race that's suddenly taken on national relevance. Since the above press release was sent to Lincoln and Omaha media, the Secret Service has taken an interest in Nugent's threatening language. The DNC has also posted an online video and online petition targeting GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his connections to Nugent and his refusing to denounce Nugent's most recent attacks against President Obama in support of his own campaign.
Still, Coash has embraced Nugent much more closely in our nonpartisan contest, featuring him at this $500 per person fundraising event. That's a whole lot of money for a state legislative campaign. While it shows he's taking this race very seriously, it should also demand a host of questions about Coash's relationship to the special interests most closely allied with Nugent's work.
Right now, the Nebraska press doesn't seem very interested in asking those questions or in holding Coash accountable for inviting Nugent's rightwing extremism into our state. The Michaelis For Legislature campaign is doing what it can to bridge that gap. I will be able to do even more with your support.
On Friday, Gov. Dave Heineman and the Nebraska Republican Party showed themselves to be more desperate than ever to stop the Legislature from restoring our state's 30-year commitment to prenatal care for every Nebraska child. For seven years, Heineman has expertly manipulated Nebraskans' opposition to illegal immigration to serve his political purposes. It must come as quite a shock that he's so far been unable to kill LB599 by shamelessly reducing it to nothing more than a bill to provide taxpayer-funded benefits for undocumented families. Upon delivering his veto, Heineman pushed a new grounds for opposition - fabricating the far-fetched hypothetical that it could send taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood.
This is a familiar and normally foolproof tactic in the rightwing political arsenal. It's a testament to our state's belief that every Nebraska baby deserves to be born healthy that our political leaders don't show signs of succumbing to such a cynical and obvious attempt to undermine LB599's bona fides as "pro-life" legislation.
We've already touched upon the NEGOP's selective reading of its own platform to justify rallying against prenatal care for every Nebraska child. We've also touched upon the understandable resentment this is sure to have engendered among 14 State Senators - now 15 with the addition of a recuperated Les Seiler on LB599's final vote - who are registered Republicans and have been unfairly targeted by their party because of its slavish devotion to Heineman's agenda. But, there's one more Republican Heineman and the NEGOP have put themselves completely at odds with - none other than their Heineman-endorsed, de facto presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
Last week, when Heineman was insisting that LB599 would make Nebraska "a magnet" for illegal immigration, the Omaha World-Herald reported on the other states providing prenatal care regardless of the mother's immigration status. Among these was the state of Massachusetts. What was never mentioned in that story was the fact that Massachusetts was approved to provide such care - under the same federal waiver to which Nebraska now hopes to apply - in 2003, when Romney was the state's governor.
Romney was elected in November of 2002 when Massachusetts was facing a severe budget crisis. The state had provided prenatal care for every child under its "Healthy Start" program since 1985. Nebraska had actually adopted the same policy several years earlier. The difference is that Nebraska abandoned this principle when the Heineman Administration saw an opportunity to do so in 2010. Massachusetts followed a different course.
With a rule change by the Bush White House in 2002, Massachusetts recognized the opportunity to maintain its commitment to prenatal care with unused federal matching funds in th SCHIP program paying a large chunk of the expense. Massachusetts children and taxpayers benefitted when the following announcement was made by U.S. Health and Human Services:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Sept. 15, 2003
HHS APPROVES MASSACHUSETTS PLAN TO EXPAND PRENATAL CARE TO PREGNANT WOMEN AND UNBORN CHILDREN
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today approved a Massachusetts plan to expand health coverage to low-income pregnant women and their unborn children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The state expects nearly 4,000 people to receive coverage as a result of the change.
"This new coverage will give thousands of children in Massachusetts a healthy start by providing access to prenatal care," Secretary Thompson said. "Prenatal care is crucial to the health and well-being of both mother and child. Vital services during pregnancy can be a life-long determinant of health and we should do everything possible to make this care available to everyone."
With today's approval, Massachusetts becomes the fifth state to take advantage of a new HHS regulation that allows states to expand prenatal services through the SCHIP program. Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Rhode Island are the other states offering this coverage.
Under the new regulation, states can offer prenatal care to pregnant women and their unborn children who would not otherwise be eligible for coverage. This allows states to quickly expand coverage of prenatal care to pregnant women and their unborn children, who otherwise would be eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP coverage only after they are born.
This was a Republican HHS Secretary serving a Republican President announcing that the federal government was now helping a state with a Republican Governor provide prenatal care to every child. There was no thought of turning this into an immigration issue because it had nothing at all to do with it. Never has. Never will.
That Governor is now going to be the Republican Presidential nominee. Yet, Heineman and the Nebraska GOP have turned their backs on this legacy - injecting very ugly anti-immigrant politics where their party had previously acted so resolute in their commitment to the interests of the child. That is a shameful turn-about that speaks to just how extremist the Republican Party has become in a few short years.
Of course, we all know the Mitt Romney that's running for President today isn't the same Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts. He's abandoned any pretense of principle so many times that he may well be the ultimate example of the sickness that has taken hold of Heineman and the NEGOP in their blind pursuit of political power no matter the human costs.
Romney has pulled the Etch-a-sketch routine many times since 2003. There's no reason to think he believed in anything he did then or anything he says today. But, that doesn't change the fact that he did some good by maintaining prenatal care for every child in his state - a policy that continues to this day and a principle Nebraska would be right embracing once again on Wednesday when our State Senators vote on overriding Gov. Heineman's veto of LB599.
