Sham Hearing Produces Desired Results for Legislature & Lobbyists

The all-mighty telecommunications lobby continues to dictate to Nebraska legislators, who have followed Governor Dave Heineman's lead in forsaking our state's economic and technological progress by closing off every avenue to public high-speed Internet service. Under the guise of protecting competition and the free market, our elected representatives continue to leave the people of Nebraska under-served and over-charged with few options and no incentive for the telecommunications industry to improve upon their wretched rates and worse service - especially in rural parts of the state.

In 2005, NNN covered the legislature's first selling out to these corporations by imposing a hardly-debated ban on state and municipal governments - as well as public agencies (i.e. power companies with the infrastructure in place and bandwidth to spare) - providing retail or even wholesale Internet service. That ban was rammed down the people of Nebraska's throats by then-Speaker of the Legislature Kermit Brashear, who already worked for the telecommunications industry in his law practice and who now unsurprisingly works as one of their chief lobbyists seeing that State Senators stay bought and don't challenge this outrageous legislation.

In the two years since, the issue was to have been studied by a taskforce appointed by Gov. Heineman, although - of course - the makeup of that taskforce littered with self-interested industry executives made it a joke from the start. Again, it didn't come as much of a surprise when its final report read like a brochure from the telecommunications lobby protecting themselves from any possibility of the public's need being sensibly served by a public entity.

Now, this might be the lamest chapter yet in this still-developing controversy. The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Legislative efforts to allow Nebraska municipalities to provide wireless Internet service to residents appear likely to die for lack of interest, the chairman of the Legislature's Transportation and Telecommunications Committee said Monday.

State Sen. Deb Fischer of Valentine commented after the committee held a hearing on whether lawmakers should open the door to publicly provided wireless service.

"We scheduled the hearing to determine if there was any interest in municipal wireless service, and I didn't hear any interest," she said.

Two years ago, lawmakers passed Legislative Bill 645, which prohibited municipalities and other local governments from selling high-speed Internet service in competition with the private telecommunications industry.

Although the Legislature now appears unlikely to change the law, two Columbus Internet service providers are ready to mount a petition drive seeking to overturn the law in the November 2008 election.

Paul Schumacher and Linda Aerni said Monday that their petition should hit the streets in about a month.

Both said they were unaware of Monday's legislative hearing and were disappointed to have missed it. Three of the five people who testified at the hearing represented the private telecommunications industry, and all were strongly opposed to allowing competition from the public sector.

A sham hearing outside the legislative session to which no voices of opposition or dissent were even invited, orchestrated by industry lobbyists and the senators who do their bidding - have you ever heard anything more pathetic?

One day, this will stand as a defining issue for this dark period of Nebraska's one-sided, Republican-controlled government that confuses corporate profits and the public interest, refusing to distinguish the one from the other because it would so quickly reveal the full extent of their backwards and diseased agenda.

Go to full text...

Why is Dave Heineman So Scared of S - E - X ?

Gov. Dave Heineman has a son, so I guess we can assume that he and the First Lady do "make whoopee" - or, at least, have at one point. So, it might not be entirely fair to say Heineman is afraid of SEX. But, recent reports suggest that Heineman's administration has adopted a laughable-if-weren't-so-deadly puritanical policy against discussion of sex, even as a mattter of basic reproductive health amongst professionals in the Department of Health & Human Services.

More than sex per se, the Heineman Administration really seems to want to avoid any sort of controversy - with "controversy" defined as anything that might offend the farthest right-wing fringe of Christian fundamentalists.

Let's check in with the Lincoln Journal-Star to see who Heineman has been censoring:

Charles Housman said the notice came in late spring 2005: Gov. Dave Heineman’s office was clamping down on what state Health and Human Services System programs could say in communication with the public. And what they couldn’t.

No controversy. No sex. The governor’s office was to review everything before it was published or released, said Housman, who quit his state job last month as public education coordinator for HIV prevention....

Minutes from a public health management team meeting Nov. 4, 2005, confirmed the system’s adherence to a pro-life philosophy and to avoiding controversy.

Dr. Joann Schaefer, newly appointed chief medical officer and director of HHSS regulation and licensure, “reminded staff that this is a pro-life administration and she supports that,” the minutes read. “We have a process in place to look at anything that could be controversial.”

Sure enough, Housman said, over the next two years, communications and conference plans were scrutinized, sometimes changed and, in some cases, eliminated.

This spring, for example, planners of a conference for state public health workers on sexual health were notified they would have to change its name from “Issues Impacting Sexual Health” to “HIV, STDs and Reproductive Health: A Topical Update.”

“I thought it was a joke,” Housman said. “If we can’t say the word sexual in a sexual health conference, this is sad. It’s beyond sad”....

In addition to changing seminar titles, Housman and others said, workers have gotten the word that brochures, posters, Web sites and conference speakers must conform to the goal of avoiding controversy.

* Pat Tetreault, University of Nebraska-Lincoln sexuality education coordinator, was told by an HHSS staff member she was in danger of being dropped from a panel scheduled for the spring conference because the communications staff looked up her name on the Internet and saw she was associated with gay and lesbian issues....

* Dr. Bruce Trigg, a New Mexico public health physician and pediatrician with 19 years of experience in public health, was not allowed to participate in this year’s sexual health conference because Osterman Googled his name and found out he was involved in an abstinence-only controversy and dropped as a panelist at a national Centers for Disease Control conference. Trigg said he had planned to discuss recent scientific research that concluded abstinence-only programs were ineffective....

* A poster printed by HHSS’ reproductive health program to alert underage girls that having sex with a man 19 or older was against the law was not allowed to be distributed. It quoted a state law verbatim that used the word “sexual” but, workers said, officials did not want the word used on the poster.....

* A brochure for people with diabetes that had a list [of] possible symptoms eliminated “a change in sexual functioning.”

Said [Health and Human Services spokeswoman Kathie] Osterman: “We decided to take it out. … I don’t remember why. I suppose because that is kind of a personal issue. … We wondered, ‘What will people think?’”

* This spring, some members of two Health and Human Services diversity teams quit because department leaders removed a speaker from a family diversity forum who was in a same-sex partnership and stopped a program in which a panel was to focus on gay and lesbian issues....

* Housman said that as administrator of the state’s HIV prevention Web site, he was not allowed to post information about human sexuality week. Earlier, he said, he couldn’t post an announcement about National Condom Week.

Is it just me or did the credibility and maturity levels of our state government just drop to zero? They actually censored a list of symptoms of diabetes for mentioning "sexual functioning". What a contemptible violation of their duty to protect the public health.

And just imagine a team of bureaucrats Googling each and every speaker, researching their backgrounds, and eliminating anyone who might challenge the party line. That's not America. That sure as hell isn't medicine. This is a tactic straight out of George Orwell's Ministry of Propaganda.

Probably the worst is HHSS spokewoman Osterman's absurd attempt to justify these outrageous policies:

The public views and interprets information in different ways, she said, and the department has to be careful not to cross a line between information and advocacy.

“Our role isn’t advocacy,” Osterman said. “Our role is to provide information and education.”

That information, she said, has to be provided in such a way as to be inclusive and to not offend people....

“I don’t see it as political.”

If your chief medical officer declaring her support for Heineman's "pro-life administration" isn't an instance of advocacy, then I don't know what is. And, honestly, what could be more political than forsaking the public health to remove mention of sexual symptoms of diabetes for fear of offending fanatics who can't tolerate sex as an issue of public debate.

This was medicine. HHSS once had a mission of information and education. But, it's Heineman's administration that has perverted this noble mission and twisted it to serve their political agenda, no matter its cost to the people's health.

Ladies and gentlemen, the patients have taken over the asylum. What's even scarier is that they seem to be politicians as well.

Go to full text...

Dave Heineman: Corrupting the Young

Republican Governor Uses Strong Arm Tactics on Student Leaders

Recently, I wrote about Governor Dave Heineman's bullying and behind-the-scenes manipulation of the 2007 Nebraska Legislature. What we've seen is the work of man who's a seasoned Republican Party operative willing to use every trick he's learned along the way to have his way with the future of our state.

Having bitched (in prison slang) the cowardly majority of state senators by manipulating the committee system and by applying the basest partisan political pressures, Heineman has made a mockery of the legislature's institutional integrity. The man has an agenda, and he's not going to let democracy, our nonpartisan tradition, nor our state Constitution get in the way of that agenda.

Now, though, comes a disturbing example of just how far Heineman is truly willing to go - making threats and promising retribution against the University to force student leaders to do his political bidding. David Solheim, President of the student body at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln explains:

Last week the University of Nebraska Board of Regents voted to increase tuition by six percent. For the 2007-2008 academic year, in-state students will now pay $169.60 per credit hour.

In the interest of accountability and transparency, I feel it is my responsibility as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's student regent to inform students why I voted "yes" for the latest tuition hike.....

In January, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman recommended only a 1.1 percent increase in state funding to the university. Had this recommendation carried, UNL students would be facing tuition increases in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 percent....

Luckily, members of the Legislature were wise enough to up the recommendation to a 4 percent increase in state funding, but that still left [the University] with a deficit of some $9 million. Worse yet, the governor has the ability to line-item veto parts of the state budget and in May it appeared that he might target [the University].

At that point, the four student regents, myself included, met with Heineman and consented that if he did not veto the state appropriation, we would support a tuition increase to cover the $9 million deficit. Heineman followed through, [the University] escaped his vetoes unscathed, and last week all four student regents honored our commitment by voting to increase tuition by 6 percent.

This is, of course, a sad follow-up to last week's report on Heineman's shameless hypocrisy talking about the importance of affordable and accessible higher education after pushing for his Brain Drain Budget throughout the 2007 legislative session.

Heineman has never paid anything but lip service to the fact that many talented young people are being priced out of Nebraska's universities and forced out of the entire state to seek better opportunities elsewhere. From his record, he honestly doesn't seem to give a damn about higher education, though he can pride himself for teaching a lesson to these student leaders in how to abuse their office and pull peoples' strings to achieve their political objectives.

I'm sure those students learned Heineman's lesson quite well. After all, the man is a master. It's just unfortunate more Nebraskans aren't paying attention to our Governor and how he really does business, so the people might learn a thing or two for themselves . . . before it is too late.

Go to full text...

The Brain Drain Budget: Gov. Heineman's Higher Education Hypocrisy

This is what reporting without context looks like, another press release from Governor Dave Heineman as published in today's Omaha World-Herald:

Gov. Dave Heineman issued a challenge Wednesday to get more Nebraska students into college....

Heineman noted that Nebraska ranks among the top five states for high school graduation, but barely exceeds the national average for the number of students who go on to college.

He challenged state education leaders to boost the college-going rate from its current 59.7 percent.

Increasing that rate by 5 percentage points would give Nebraska one of the top five college attendance rates in the country, Heineman said....

State Education Commissioner Doug Christensen said many students don't believe college is possible for them.

Those whose parents did not attend college or who come from lower-income families may feel the doors to higher education are closed, he said.

Christensen is absolutely correct that the doors to higher education have closed for many Nebraska students - except it's Heineman and his cohorts who've locked that door and thrown away the key.

In Heineman's 2-1/2 years in office, he's consistently paid lip-service to making higher education accesible and affordable, yet by his actions and his priorities before the state legsilature he's clearly a roadblock standing in the way of Nebraska's making any true progress on these fronts.

In the 2007 legislative session that just ended two weeks ago, Heineman's proposed budget included increases to the University of Nebrask's budget of only 1.1 percent in the first year and 2.2 percent in the second year. This is at a time of booming revenue for the state, after years of the University's funding becoming a smaller and smaller share of the state budget while rising costs of energy, facility maintenance, and health insurance have far, far outpaced the rate of inflation.

So, where have the burdens of those costs been shifted? On the backs of students and their families, of course, who've faced skyrocketing tuition rates and student fees each and every year.

When Gov. Heineman has had a real opportunity to lead and to commit this state towards investing in our youth - our most precious natural resource - he instead went precisely the opposite route, making a short-sighted and destructive budget proposal that should have had every student, parent, and Nebraska business leader up in arms. Heineman offered a brain drain budget that would have sacrificed many of our best and brightest students, practically forcing them out of the state to continue their education.

University leaders and a few bold members of the Legislature's Appropriations Committee fought tooth and nail against Heineman's brain drain budget, getting the legislature to increase state aid by an average of 4% annually over the next two years. Although Heineman ultimately acquiesced to this reasonable but still insufficient funding, he used it as a bargaining chip to convince those Republican State Senators who are in his pocket not to override his vetoes of increased funding for a wide range of social services targeted at Nebraska's neediest citizens - from the elderly who rely on the Meals on Wheels program, to prostitutes seeking rehabilitation, to anyone with mental illness, substance abuse problems, or developmental disabilities. Jesus Christ must be so proud!

Now, the University of Nebraska's Board of Regents has come forward with a plan that raises tuition by 6% in the next school year. One can only imagine how bad the tuition increase would have been had Heineman gotten his way with his original brain drain budget.

As is, this 6% increase is hardly a victory after a decade of Republican "leadership" in the Governor's Mansion that has turned a blind eye as tuition has more than doubled. Let's look at tuition rates (per credit hour) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln since 1997, the year before the Johanns/Heineman-machine took over our state government:

1997 $78.50 4.7%
1998 $82.75 5.4%
1999 $87.25 5.4%
2000 $92.00 5.4%
2001 $101.25 10.1%
2002 $111.50 10.1%
2003 $128.25 15.0%
2004 $143.75 12.1%
2005 $151.00 5.0%
2006 $160.00 6.0%
2007 $169.50 5.9%

What's saddest is that tuition increases have followed the same pattern across Nebraska's University system. Meanwhile, tuition at our state colleges in Wayne, Peru, and Chadron has also skyrocketed, with a 7% increase expected this year to $110 per credit hour.

In the midst of this crisis - to which Heineman's continued neglect, failed leadership, and lack of vision have been some of the worst contributing factors - it's simply outrageous that he would now act as if he gave a damn about making higher education more accessible and affordable. The numbers tell a different story, as does Heineman's actual record.

Everything we needed to know about Heineman's concern for higher education was revealed by his brain drain budget. Why no one will call him on his record, why he hasn't been exposed as the hypocrite and fraud his record reveals him to be, is a question each of us must ask of our leaders and of ourselves.

Go to full text...

Who Will Stand Up to Governor Heineman?

Coming out of the 2006 elections having vanquished Tom Osborne in the Republican primary before capitalizing on that momentum to achieve the widest margin of victory in Nebraska gubernatorial history, it's understandable that Governor Dave Heineman should be in a strong position politically. But, the loss of a record number of incumbent state senators to term limits, along with Heineman's behind the scenes manueverings as a seasoned political pro, allowed Heineman to exercise power and influence over the 2007 Nebraska Legislature that, by the end of the session, proved almost downright despotic in scope.

Nevertheless, rather than taking the legislature's power-brokers to task for abdicating their responsibilities to the people of Nebraska by subservience to the executive branch, a trio of editorials published on consecutive days in the Omaha World-Herald last week instead went out of their way to squash dissent to Heineman's de facto takeover of the Nebraska Unicameral.

OWH Editorial (06/03/2007)

The 2007 legislative session stands out as a historic one for the way that lawmakers and the Governor's Office worked to tackle [several key challenges], each of which was duanting in its complexity and difficulty:...

Lawmakers reached agreeement - despite self-indulgent excesses during floor debate - on a large if flawed tax reduction package.

OWH Editorial (06/04/2007)

[P]erhaps the most discouraging episode during the 2007 session was the Legislature's debate over tax policy. A few lawmakers displayed remarkable disrespect toward the Revenue Committee, its chairman, Sen. Ray Janssen, and the overall process by working to short-circuit the committee's work and by repeatedly trying to revive tax proposals even after they had been decisively rejected by the full Legislature.

In the wake of that sunseemly episode, some lawmakers need to ponder a few things:

How bombast and displays of egotism ill serve the Legislature and the state, for instance. How partisan machinations hold a particular danger for a nonpartisan Legislature. And how the highest compliment a Nebraka lawmaker can receive is "He's a workhorse," while one of the most damning insults is "He's just a show horse."

OWH Editorial (06/05/2007)

Partisan politics has, of course, played a role to some degree in the nominally nonpartisan Nebraka legislature as the two parties jostle to score points. But the partisan fervor this session was unusually pronounced at times.

The Nebraska Democratic Party probed for opportunites, for example, and in general appeared to have more success coordinating its partisans than did the GOP.

At times, the political manuevering grew frantic and particularly counterproductive, as during the raucous efforts to hijack the work of the Revenue Committee during the debate over tax policy.

Lawmakers should go to the Capitol to serve the Legislature, not to make the Legislature a servant for one's personal political interests or those of a particular political pary. Otherwise, the legislative process is undermined.

Got to give the World-Herald credit for its ability to stay on message with its misdirection to cover for Heineman & Company, the real culprits behind the more partisan atmosphere taking hold in the Nebraska legislature. One can't help wondering if the World-Herald's rhetorical refrains aren't a result of their recently hiring Heineman's spokesman as an editorial writer.

Either way, I attempted to challenge the World-Herald's take, especially its obscuring of Heineman's hijacking of the legislature, with the following Letter to the Editor (appearing in Friday's edition, sanitized to remove any criticism of the newspaper itself):

The Omaha World-Herald has gone too far with its absurd attacks on several Democratic state senators for their supposedly legislating with a partisan agenda. Seriously, who does the World-Herald think it’s kidding?

This last session, we saw several Republican state senators flip-flop on the death penalty under heavy pressure from their party. We also saw Gov. Dave Heineman’s influence build to a point that it threatens the independence of our legislature as a separate branch of government.

Both in committee and on the statehouse floor, too many of our Republican state senators proved nothing more than puppets on Heineman’s string. For perfect examples, look no further than their rush to approve the budget with little substantial debate, their wholesale abandonment of promises to provide homeowners with significant property tax relief, and their unprincipled capitulation to Heineman’s veto pen.

This level of control in the governor's hands is a very disturbing development that is the true threat to Nebraska’s nonpartisan Unicameral, no matter the World-Herald’s partisan slight-of-hand.

If anything, we should be thanking those Democratic and Republican state senators who still have the courage – when necessary - to stand and fight against the "business-as-usual" status quo.

Kyle Michaelis

Of course, I regret that I wasn't able to provide more coverage of the legislature this spring. In particular, I failed to provide any real-time discussion of the tax-cut debate and completely neglected the appropriations side of things as soon as it became clear that the worst excesses of Heineman's budget weren't going to be enacted.

What's scariest about the 2007 legislative session is that Heineman has realized he can get away with almost anything without getting challenged directly by the legislature. He hasn't quite gotten to the point that he can dictate policy, but he can present a tax-cutting scheme fueled by deception and a radical, irresponsible budget that sets the tone for debate throughout the entire session without being called out for either offense.

Reading the World-Herald's editorials above, you'll notice that they talk about the need for State Senators to serve "the Legislature." They want service to decorum and slavishness to procedure and politeness. What the World-Herald doesn't want to see is State Senators who are actually willing to serve and to fight for the people they represent.

Yes, there is a need for respectfulness in law-making, but it cannot and should not come at the expense of actual democracy. We can't leave the truth unsaid just because it might ruffle some feathers. Nor can we allow Governor Heineman to bully the legislature just because he does so gently and behind-the-scenes - which is precisely what we've seen in the 2007 legislative session on a whole host of issues. Probably the only notable exception was the Omaha Public Schools debate in which it was Heineman himself who "undermined the legislative process."

Funny how the World-Herald never took him to task for that. Nor did any state senator but Ernie Chambers, whose "bombast and displays of egotism" have protected the people of Nebraska - especially the voters he represents - from any number of state actions that would have been directly against their interests.

Doing what's right and what's best for the state of Nebraska should not provide our state senators an excuse to forget the voters who elected them. Compromise is essential, but it's fundamentally undemocratic to expect senators to work always towards consensus. And, damn it, in a democracy there is a time and a place - maybe even a duty - to raise a little hell ... even if it is inconvenient for Heineman, the World-Herald, and those state senators whose hypocrisy and double-speak are thereby revealed.

It is not partisanship to do the job you were elected to do. There is no betrayal in having some balls and refusing to play this game of go-along-get-along that puts Gov. Heineman in the driver's seat working with a legislature over which he - constitutionally - has no authority.

This isn't about any single issue. This isn't about who's being more partisan, the Democrats or the Republicans. This is about the principles underlying our democracy - especially the separation of powers to which Heineman has displayed clear hostility while most state senators have demonstrated unforgiveable complicity - like so many puppets on so few strings.

This is one of those instances where, if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. The problem is that noone is paying attention - not the press, not our state senators, not the public. Dave Heineman, however, knows damn well the power now at his disposal and - unchecked - he's going to be having his way with this state for years to come.

That might be what the World-Herald wants to see. But, how about you?

Go to full text...

The Tax Cut Mish-Mash - When Compromise Fails

Revenue Committee's LB 367 a Mediocre Attempt at Pleasing Everyone

In legislation as in life, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Last week's Lincoln Journal-Star reported:

State Sen. Ray Janssen of Nickerson knows about making law and about making sausage. He’s a grocery store owner and butcher who also is chairman of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee.

It’s true, he told senators Wednesday as they worked on the state tax-cut package: It’s not very pleasant to watch sausage being made. “But the finished product isn’t too bad,” he added.

And there have been a lot of cooks stirring this tax-cut pot, he said, as senators changed some of the ingredients in the major tax-cut package during the second stage of debate Wednesday.

Sounds like an insult to sausage-making if you ask me. More on LB 367 in its current incarnation can be found in the LJS and in the Legislature's online update. The most recent amendments to this well-meaning but ultimately cowardly and convoluted tax cut package do away with its prior lowering of the income tax for those in the highest tax bracket and its reductions to the maximum levy available to school disticts on local property taxes. Instead, LB 367 now provides for repeal of Nebraska's estate tax and for increases to two tax credits targeting low-income families and property owners.

Unfortunately, all that's really being accomplished with LB 367 is a back-and-forth trade-off between competing priorities with no consistency at its heart. This legislation bodes ill for the entire state because it so clearly demonstrates the complete lack of leadership and vision in our state government.

In general, I support compromise, but compromise is not a good for its own sake. Compromise can just as easily be used as an excuse to avoid making tough choices. Frankly, it's downright foolish and ultimately quite dangerous to be setting a state's tax policy with a band-aid approach serving priorities no deeper and no more principled than looking to make a lot of people a little bit happy - which is precisely what we've seen in this year's supposed "debate."

The problem, of course, is that everyone has ideas for what taxes to cut and where the state's revenue should be coming from. But, the Legislature can't do everything. They can't make everyone happy - that's not their job. Yet, that's exactly what the Revenue Committee has been trying to do.

A lot of the blame falls on Gov. Heineman for ever having offered his bizarrely out-of-touch tax-cut plan leaving so giant a leadership gap on the issue that the Revenue Committee was left practically starting from scratch. This debate needed a strong guiding hand and an actual vision for true reform. Sadly, those Senators who tried to press forward with such proposals - largely responding to constituents' demands for property tax relief - met resistance for political reasons. This way, no substantial challenge could develop that might expose Heineman's failure and fracture his support.

The Revenue Committee had an obligation to take-on the Governor and to do what's best for the state. Rather, they spent most of the session on damage control. It's largely been a game of protecting the state from Heineman's bad ideas without offending Heineman in the process. What got lost was the development of a comprehensive tax cut proposal that served the people rather than an all-too-partisan political agenda.

Whether defending or simply explaining LB 367, Janssen has declared, "A compromise is a compromise." When that's the best that can be said for a bill, that should raise some very serious questions. But, instead we've seen assurances of LB 367's all-but-inevitable passage by a legislature more concerned with simply passing a tax cut than with passing one that is GOOD or SMART for Nebraska.

The media's inexplicable and unquestioning embrace of LB 367 when it first came out of committee certainly didn't help in this respect. Reporting on the tax cut plan like it was a Christmas present to taxpayers understandably stifled public scrutiny and betrayed the press' responsibilities to provide unbiased coverage and independent analysis. Yet, even while the bill's now undergone a massive restructuring leaving few of the previously ballyhooed proposals intact, there's been no real criticism. This speaks to an unsettling complacency and an undeserved trust that whatever the legislature decides will, of course, be for the best.

Which isn't to say that LB 367 is all bad. It's too convoluted to be all anything - except, maybe, all over the place. I would say, however, that this latest round of amendments has actually made the legislation worse.

Eliminating the estate tax isn't the end of the world, but it's a fairly fundamental repudiation of America's anti-aristocratic ideal. Meanwhile, an $84 property tax credit for the average Nebraska homeowner that will provide tens of thousands of dollars to wealthy, out-of-state landowners hardly seems in the state's best interests. At the same time, while I appreciate who the Earned Income Tax Credit helps (poor families), I believe these same people would be better served by a simple and straight-forward half-cent reduction in the ever-regressive sales tax, for which Sen. Ernie Chambers has been and promises to continue fighting.

Honestly, I have to question those so enamored with tax credits. At the end of the day, they convolute an already complicated system and stink of bureaucracy. There are more direct, more practical, and more honest ways of achieving these same objectives - whether a property tax exemption on homesteads, the aforementioned reduction of the state sales tax, or - yes - REASONABLE REFORMS of the state's income tax.

Just because Heineman's income tax plan was utterly appalling and because his attempts to hype the need for changing the system fell entirely flat does not mean that the income tax cannot and should not be improved. Frankly, it is absurd that the highest tax bracket begins at $52,000 - meaning a middle class family earning $55,000 is being taxed at the same marginal rate as Warren Buffett. If Heineman had really offered his promised plan targeting tax relief to the middle class, it would have been hard to argue with a simple and entirely justified expansion of Nebraska's middle income tax brackets.

Even if the income tax has not been voters' #1 priority, a good idea is a good idea. Unfortunately, those were lacking in Heineman's actual plan - just as they're lacking from LB 367.

But, Janssen promises, "The finished product isn't too bad." I'd probably argue that point on LB 367, and I think I'd win. Regardless, should not being "too bad" really be good enough?

Go to full text...

NNN Special Report: "Nebraska Politics in the New Media"

The following is a speech I presented to the Nebraska Associated Press Broadcaster's Association at their annual awards banquet on Friday, April 13th. It was an honor and a pleasure to have the opportunity - as a humble blogger - to address some of the most powerful and respected people in Nebraska television and radio news. The thrust of my 15 minute remarks, followed by another 10 minutes of Q & A, was the role of the blogger and the future of Nebraska's traditional news media.

I have done a lot of complaining about the media in Nebraska since NNN was founded more than two years ago. Understanding that this was my first - and perhaps last - real chance to deliver a call to action to those whom I have faulted and held responsible, I spoke more bluntly than was probably expected by those attending to receive an award for the quality of their journalism. But, the NAPBA was a better than gracious audience, and I certainly appreciated that its members seemed to take what criticism I offered in stride - hopefully without taking offense.

That being said, I'm proud to present:

Kyle Michaelis on
"Nebraska Politics in the New Media"


[After some brief attempts at humor in introducing myself]....

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a blogger.

That isn’t always easy for me to admit. I have a background in journalism and – first and foremost – I consider myself a writer. If I had to choose a title, I would call myself a citizen journalist. The work I do is unpaid. The site is free-for-all, has no budget, and has spread entirely by word of mouth. And, to those of you who have never seen the New Nebraska Network, I’ll be perfectly honest that it really isn’t much to look at.

Why do I sometimes bristle at being labeled a blogger?. It isn’t that “blogger” is any great insult, but it does suggest a certain flippancy that undermines my every purpose. That’s not a problem when a blogger is using his or her site as an online diary. But, when I write about Nebraska politics, which has been the sole focus of the New Nebraska Network since it began, I am not writing for personal satisfaction. I am not writing to amuse my friends. I am writing to make a difference.

My words and my ideas are all I have. They are my only source of credibility, and each time I write I stake my reputation and my readership upon them. People don’t tune into a website like they do the radio on their way to work or television while sitting down for supper. Now, there’s a pretty good chance my readers are just wasting time at work, but at that desk - on that computer screen - my voice is one in a backdrop of millions. The competition may not be as fierce as that between newsrooms in the same market, but it’s global in scale and infinite in number.

The one thing I have going for me is that I do have a fairly specific niche. Nebraska’s blog community has been relatively slow developing, and the number of bloggers who actually focus on Nebraska politics with any regularity can probably be counted on one hand. But, even with these other sites – whether they lean Republican or lean Democrat - I like to think the New Nebraska Network stands apart by offering substantive and insightful commentary that readers aren’t going to find anywhere else.

Now, that’s a bold statement, and I don’t make it lightly. It’s also a statement I wish I didn’t feel compelled to make. Still, after years of following the Nebraska media – the last two with an almost ridiculous level of intensity - I do feel there is something essential that we are undeniably lacking. Mainly, the Nebraska media – and those of us in this room - have failed the people of Nebraska by not asking more tough questions that challenge the status quo.

It’s easy to put myself on a pedestal. I’m accountable to no one – I have no advertisers, no editors, and no station managers I need to keep happy. My audience is limited to those strange people with enough passion for Nebraska politics that they’re going to read a website dedicated entirely to the subject. I also don’t have to worry about the appearance of political bias because I’ve never been anything but up front that I am a progressive and I am a Democrat. I do not deny that this shapes my thinking and colors my articles. So, there’s no doubt this affords me certain freedoms that allow me to be more openly critical of our elected representatives …. who just happen to be mostly Republicans.

But, let’s not forget one more important thing – I’m not getting paid to do this. Asking questions and informing the public isn’t my job. It’s yours, and I’m begging you to take it more seriously.

I’m not here alleging any great political bias in the Nebraska media - just a general complacency that might be even more dangerous and disastrous for our democracy.

For instance, let’s take a moment to consider the tax cuts that are all the rage in the Nebraska legislature this year. Governor Dave Heineman presented his tax plan in LB 331 with promises of simplifying the income tax and providing relief to the middle class. But, where were his claims and his numbers actually subjected to even the most basic scrutiny?

Why was it never reported that the most basic structural change Heineman proposed – reducing the income tax brackets from 4 brackets to 3 – would have been accomplished entirely by eliminating the lowest tax bracket? Heineman had just proposed a higher tax rate for Nebraska’s poorest population and no one said so. At the same time, it didn’t take an economist to point out that Heineman’s proposals to eliminate the estate tax and to phase-in a massive rate reduction for Nebraska’s wealthiest taxpayers weren’t intended to help the middle class.

The numbers were out there, but no one challenged Heineman on them. When he testified on behalf of his tax plan before the Revenue Committee, only one state senator even asked him a question. Heineman is a smart enough politician to have stayed on script with his answer – as he’s done whenever the cameras are rolling and microphones are in his face. The man is a walking, talking soundbyte – I’ve got to give him credit for that. But, the Nebraska media should be ashamed for letting those soundbytes so completely set the tone of their coverage.

This is not about whether Heineman’s original tax cut plan was a good or bad idea – even if I personally found it appalling. This is about the fact that Heineman’s statements and Heineman’s press releases completely dominated the media’s reporting on the issue. I don’t doubt that there was some independent fact-checking, but that’s not enough. When Heineman is armed with cherry-picked numbers to put his plan in the best possible light, it’s not enough to say that his numbers are accurate. What this state needed was independent analysis that might actually portray the proposal in an honest and complete light that a good politician like Heineman will do every sort of dance to avoid.

Honestly, who can blame them? If the media is willing to let itself be manipulated by regurgitating selective figures and well-rehearsed soundbytes, you’d be a fool not to take advantage of that fact.

A politician can save you the trouble of doing research. He can save you the expense. He can save you the time. But, he’s not doing your job for you. Your job isn’t getting done. The truth isn’t being reported. Suddenly, the public is getting nothing more than secondhand press releases, and – too often – that’s exactly what’s happening in Nebraska.

This isn’t a result of bias. This is the result of laziness, and I’d go so far as to call it the prevailing characteristic of Nebraska’s political press corp.

Which brings us to blogs and this hard-to-define concept of “the new media.”

There are many people who believe that we’re witnessing the dawn of a new age in politics and in journalism. There are many who believe that the rise of the blog and online communities will radically transform not only the relationship between politicians and voters but also the relationship between the media and its audience.

While I don’t doubt that new mediums and new means of communication will change these relationships, I’m actually quite skeptical that these changes will result in a more democratic society or a more informed public. The potential is there – God, there is so much potential – but so far, when I step back and look at this online universe in which I inhabit and invest so much of my time, all I really see is a new playground for the same games.

Now, I may not fit the bill, but there is a certain “coolness” factor surrounding blogs at the moment. They’ve been around for years, but the news media - both nationally and locally – have really embraced them in the last year or two – particularly in the realm of politics.

There are blogs dedicated to every subject under the sun, so it does seem odd that political blogs receive as much attention as they do. They’ve got their own corner of Newsweek. They’ve got their own segment on CNN. Just here in Nebraska, I’ve personally been interviewed on TV, cited in the newspapers, and even asked to speak at this dinner. Not bad considering that many people in our state have never and will never read a blog – let alone one about Nebraska politics.

So, why do people care? Why do blogs receive this attention? Again, why am I here?

The beauty of blogs is that they do have a way of leveling the playing field. They might be the purest example of the marketplace of ideas that our country has ever seen. There is little-to-no cost of entry. There is no corporate censorship and, for better and worse, there isn’t much in the way of self-censorship either. It’s an emerging form of communication without any specific bounds or standards, so there’s still the perception that anyone with something worthwhile to say who’s able to say it effectively can find an audience.

Still, the question of why the news media seems so fascinated with blogs is a legitimate one. For some, I think it’s an admission that they haven’t done enough to integrate diverse viewpoints and perspectives into their reporting. For others, I think it’s a simple matter of following the hype and giving the people what they seem to want.

It might just make good economic sense. The audience for traditional media – whether the people in this room want to hear it or not – has been stagnant for years. It’s understood that, in the coming years, increased emphasis on more engaging online content is probably going to be essential just to maintain a market share foothold. From an advertising standpoint, who wouldn’t want to attract those who read blogs and watch video clips on YouTube – they’re young, they’re tech-savvy, they’re educated, and – whether to an ideology or just to John Stewart – they already tend to be loyal. They may not reflect the larger population but that’s still a demographic any advertiser wants on board.

The problem is that this idea that the new media can serve as a supplement to the traditional media seems to underestimate that the online world really is a new medium that needs to be thought about in new ways.

Then again, I wasn’t asked here to offer my thoughts on the 21st Century marketplace. That I have opinions on the matter and am only too happy to share them without invitation, however, is very reflective of my role as a blogger.

Basically, the only requirement for blogging about politics is an abundance of opinions. Writing skills come in handy. Being informed is generally a good idea. But, by and large, we are commentators.

Despite my pretenses to the contrary, bloggers are not journalists. Many of us adopt a vaguely journalistic, truth-seeking mission. Some of us do our best to uphold journalistic standards of form and objectivity. But, the only real checks are the ones we impose upon ourselves, and those can change day-to-day or as the situation dictates.

Maybe I’m projecting my own faults and my own weaknesses onto the blog community with that assessment. But, from what I’ve seen and from what I’ve written myself, there’s a critical stage of fact-checking essential in journalism that is not expected of a blogger. For lack of resources – mindful that this isn’t a job – a blogger has the latitude and might even be encouraged to rush to judgment and jump to conclusions.

Speed is a factor, but not in the same marking your territory sense as scooping your rivals. No, on a blog, the speed with which you respond is essential to the relationship with your readers. There is an intimacy born of blogging’s instantaneous and immediate nature. Bloggers are not in a position of authority. They stand in the place of the reader, the viewer, the listener – except they don’t do so passively.

Personally, I write when I hear something on the radio, read something in the paper, or see something on TV and feel the real story has not been told. When some critical bit of context has been left out, when there are obvious questions that remain to be asked – that’s when I log-in to the New Nebraska Network and share my two cents with the world.

Blogs can flesh out a story. They can provide the context that most people will not piece together themselves because they’re busy living their lives and have other priorities. Now, I think the best journalists do a good job of building that context into their own reporting. This may invite charges of bias, but it’s called informing the public. What could be more unethical and in greater violation of the public’s trust than remaining silent on an important point just to avoid the appearance of bias.

Blogs are less concerned about appearance. We’re expected to be biased, and there certainly isn’t any pressure to be polite.

While these are all strengths, they aren’t without their drawbacks. As much as it pains me and insults my fellow bloggers, I’m very concerned with the parallels between blogging and what’s become of cable news. There is definitely a level at which Bill O’Reilly serves as the televised template for what many people consider good blogging. There’s a point at which every blogger seems to declare his or her own personal “No Spin Zone” – where a single truth prevails and the fools who disagree will no longer be suffered. I find this ironic because, like O’Reilly, spin is all most bloggers really have to offer. Spin is what we do.

The difference is that your average blogger is not presenting his or her work as something that it’s not. They’re partisan and proud of it. Their readers come for the spin that caters to them or challenges them from a perspective they might not otherwise consider. This spin is not an active attempt to mislead in the worst sense of the word, but it does require that one be willing to go out on limbs and not shy away from innuendo.

I’ll be perfectly honest that I take comfort in the fact that I can be wrong and can be misled because, like anyone else, I’m relying on the news media for the facts that inform what I write. If you don’t do your job providing unbiased, in-depth, investigative reporting, the bloggers of the world will still have their opinions, but they’ll be a whole lot more ignorant and ill-informed – just like the public at large.

The people in this room, you have legitimacy. You have credibility. You have the people’s trust – whether it’s deserved or not. Take that responsibility seriously, or it will be no time at all before the talking heads, the talking points, and the worst excesses of our dueling political dichotomy have completely taken over.

Blogs can be part of the problem, or they can be part of the solution. Regardless, I think it goes without saying that blogs are here to stay. Eventually, the topic won’t be so trendy, but the medium itself will continue to develop. How much good they’ll do – what size of audience they’ll actually reach – I can’t really say. But, they’ll be around. And I expect certain voices will emerge online that become quite credible and influential – probably even here in Nebraska.

They’ll criticize bad reporting. They’ll claim bias from the left and from the right. They’ll mock our politicians and try their best to hold them accountable.

The traditional media will do what it can to co-opt the new media – to make a buck, to broaden its audience, and to keep a check on the competition. Meanwhile, politicians and their staff – who are so obsessed with image and message control – will no doubt find new and evermore creative ways to manipulate the online community for their own purposes. It’s already ridiculous now, and it will only get more ridiculous with time.

As for me and the New Nebraska Network, I’m not sure how much longer we’ll be in the blogging game. The only reason I’ve stuck with it as long as I have is because I truly believe those who share a progressive vision for this state have been horribly under-represented and their issues under-reported by the media. Also, there are important debates about Nebraska’s future that simply aren’t being discussed or even acknowledged as they should.

I have no delusions that the New Nebraska Network is going to single-handedly change Nebraska politics. But, I’m happy to have been in on the ground floor as this new medium develops, and I hope – when I’ve finally gotten sick of the sound of my own typing – there will be a few other voices to step up and follow in the New Nebraska Network’s footsteps.

There are so many important things to be said and no one way to say them – just so long as someone believes enough in the power of ideas and the strength of democracy that they’re at least willing to try.

Go to full text...

Ken Svoboda's Stupidity Reveals Republicans Don't Give a Damn About Rural Nebraska

I don't like making brash declarations and relying on the politics of us vs. them, but, if the following story does not piss you off, you are either not a true Nebraskan or you are simply a damn fool.

From the front page of the Nebraska Republican Party's website:

Svoboda unveils Lincoln roads plan

Believing that an adequate and serviceable road system is vital for the city’s future economic development, mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda has advanced a forward-looking road and street construction plan for Lincoln.

Road improvement dollars have not been allocated as broadly or effectively as they might have been in recent years, Svoboda said....

“In 2003 the residents of Lancaster County, 90 percent of whom are Lincoln residents, paid over $88 million in road construction dollars to the state and received only $24 million dollars in return,” Svoboda said. “That just 29 cents on the dollar.”

As Lincoln’s next mayor, Svoboda pledges to work with the Lincoln delegation to the Nebraska Legislature to negotiate a better deal for Lincoln taxpayers.

“We’re state residents, and we don’t mind subsidizing road construction in the western two-thirds of the state to a certain degree,” he said. “But there’s more economic development benefit in having roads built in the eastern third of the state than in the western two thirds.”

During his chairmanship of the I-80 Commission, Svoboda proposed a seven-year moratorium on new, non-Interstate-related road construction in the western two-thirds of Nebraska. During that time, more dollars would go to the eastern one-third of the state, especially Lincoln and Omaha.

“The state would get a much better return through economic development and jobs created,” Svoboda said. “At the end of the moratorium, you could probably return to the western part of the state twice what they gave up during the seven years.”

The Lincoln Journal-Star adds of Svoboda's proposed moratorium:

Mayoral candidate Ken Svoboda called for a seven-year moratorium on new road construction in the western two-thirds of Nebraska, except for on the interstate.

If more state road construction dollars flowed into eastern Nebraska, namely Lincoln and Omaha, those two economic engines would be able to produce even more revenue for the rest of the state, he reasoned.

Svoboda said he first proposed the admittedly “politically incorrect” idea as chairman of the I-80 Commission....

[Mayoral candidate Chris Beutler] said he agrees that more road dollars should go to Lincoln, but said Svoboda’s call for a moratorium would just alienate western lawmakers.

The plan put forward by Svoboda and the Republican Party should not just "alientate western lawmakers." Rather, this plan should be denounced and apology demanded by every political leader, every agricultural worker, and every community activist in the state.

Honestly, I don't know who Svoboda thinks he's fooling. There's nothing "politically incorrect" about this selfish, stupid and short-sighted political insanity.

This all calls to mind the editorial pictured at right from last month's Scottsbluff Star-Herald lamenting their realization of Gov. Dave Heineman and Congressman Adrian Smith's empty promises on the 2006 campaign trail.

Read it. Seriously.

What you see are just the latest examples of a pattern of betrayal and a history of neglect by Republican politicians who have abandoned Western Nebraska at its most desperate hour.

Now, not only Republican politicians but also the Nebraska Republican Party itself have proven just how hollow their concern for rural and Western Nebraska truly is by advancing Svoboda's ludicrous and insulting proposal on their own website.

This is an outrage. To help a single failing campaign, the Nebraska Republican Party has shown its willingness to sacrifice the future and the economic well-being of 2/3rds of our state. Any and every Nebraskan - living in Norfolk or McCook; Chadron or Omaha - should take offense and take the offensive against such crass and destructive political posturing.

The backbone of our state's economy - not to mention its heart and its soul - rests in the fields and pastures of rural Nebraska. By pushing this moratorium on highway construction, Svoboda and the Nebraska Republican Party risk condemning those Nebraskans who are already struggling the most to what would essentially be life in an economic Stone Age.

Through Heineman, they have already shown complete disregard to the need for new technological infrastructure (i.e. public broadband). With rural Nebraska's road infrasture now being targeted for disrepair and destruction, those most in need of our investment would see even the possibility of renewed development and economic progress vanish right before their very eyes.

We can not allow that to happen. That it should be suggested - even by a foolish and desperate candidate searching vainly for a message - is utterly appalling and an absolute insult to Nebraska's people and their shared heritage.

I can't imagine what proof voters could ask for that would better demonstrate just how little Republican politicians and the Republican Party really care about rural Nebraska. For decades, they have offered nothing but lip service - delivering on none of it while an entire way of life dwindled and whole counties fell into despair.

This is the Nebraska Republican Party's legacy. Of course, voters bear some responsibility because, rather than staying true to the independence for which they pride themselves, they have allowed petty partisanship and scare tactics to blind them to their own self-interest and self-worth. It's a game that's gone on long enough - maybe so long that the damage has become permanent.

But, it's never too late to change. It's never too late to hope and to fight for your family, your community, and your fellow Nebraskans.

Today, we can see the enemy. Not just Ken Svoboda. Not just Heineman or Smith. No, the blame begins with the cakewalk campaigns, the controlled media and the voters' complacency that have made possible the Republican Party's endless litany of failed promises.

Regardles of where you live in Nebraska, I hope this story drives home that even the race for Lincoln's mayor does affect you. In this state, with the odds we are up against, we really are all in this together. For now, that means writing a letter to the editor, challenging rural Republicans with evidence of their own Party's betrayal and - yes - making a contribution to progressive visionary Chris Beutler's Mayoral campaign.

Then, after May 1st, all bets are off, and our battle for the future of the entire state of Nebraska begins anew.

Go to full text...

"The Fix Is In" On Unicameral's Tax Cut Plan

I can't apologize enough to readers for being unable to focus on Nebraska's ongoing tax cut debate these last few weeks. The Revenue Committee advanced its plan to the full legislature on March 29th and the next day's headlines were so outrageously one-sided that I still haven't fully recovered from the shock.

The Omaha World-Herald read:

Tax Cut Plan Called Good Balance
A proposal advances that would set aside $100 million in 2007-08 to pay property taxes.

The Lincoln Journal-Star read:

Tax Cuts: Everyone Benefits
Governor offers support to proposal that provides more than $200 million in tax relief.

I can't compete with that. It's not journalism - it's advocacy. And, it's not a damn bit objective by any stretch of the imagination.

Right then and there, the state's two largest newspapers decided for the people of Nebraska that the Revenue Committee's plan was going to go through. For almost three weeks now, I've been meaning to dissect the Revenue Committee's proposal - acknowledging that it's nowhere near as hideous and appalling as Gov. Dave Heineman's original tax cut plan but that it's also nowhere near as beneficial or equitable as the headlines would let on.

Now that the debate has actually begun on the floor of the legislature, it's probably too late to really make any attempt to beat back all the hype and the one-sided coverage likely to carry the Revenue Committee's plan through the legislature.

Only yesterday did the Lincoln Journal-Star finally carry an article admitting "there are winners and losers with the plan." But, guess what - that admission came in an article entitled:

Tax Cut Package: A Bit For Everybody

Maybe it's not the journalists - just the copy editors - who are using the full force of the press to curry favor with Gov. Heineman and to prevent an honest assessment of the weaknesses of the current proposal.

And, what of "the losers" under this tax cut plan? Who will speak for them? Who has even acknowledged that they exist in the Nebraska media but as a throwaway line in a heap of spin? They are the unmarried. They are the working poor. They are anyone in the middle-class who owns their own home because they would see so much more benefit under alternative proposals (that, polling shows, people actually prefer).

I haven't spoken up for them these last three weeks. No one else has either. And, in the rush to go along and get along with a plan specifically crafted to please everyone....so long as there is no critical analysis and no questions are asked, I doubt that anyone will be able to truly make a stand for the quiet majority of Nebraska voters who have been deliberately silenced and manipulated by the media and by the politicians in whom they place their trust.

Go to full text...

Behind the Headlines: The Death Penalty Debate

Last week saw the first real debate of Nebraska's death penalty on the floor of the legislature in almost 20 years. The crucial vote to move Sen. Ernie Chambers' repeal of the death penalty (LB 476) out of the first round of debate failed by a single vote, 24 For to 25 Against. As the Omaha World-Herald highlighted in its coverage, that deciding vote was cast by State Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, who initially did not register a vote in hopes that his vote "would not be needed."

Of course, moving the bill to the next round of debate would not by any means have assured its ultimate passage. But, the people of Nebraska seem to have been genuinely surprised by the level of support that was demonstrated for repealing Nebraska's death penalty. The fact that the vote was so close assures that the issue will be raised again, likely in the 2008 session. There has been talk of less drastic restrictions on the death penalty being brought to the floor this year to capitalize on the apparent momentum behind outright repeal, but one wonders if Chambers wouldn't stand in the way of such proposals to force a prolonged public debate and a final showdown next year on the ultimate issue of capital punishment.

Then again, at this point last year, the people of Nebraska were still completely in the dark about Chambers' controversial plan to divide Omaha Public Schools into three racially-distinct school districts, so there's really no knowing what card the legendary firebrand might have up his T-shirt's metaphorical sleeves.

From everything I've seen and read, the debate of LB 476 was a very honest, impassioned, and - for some Senators - an understandably painful demonstration of democracy in action. Having personally wrestled with the death penalty in a very abstract way for years, I do not envy anyone having to make a choice influenced by so many competing emotions raising such fundamental questions of who we are as a people and what we stand for as a society. But it's the decisions such as this that are the true test of elected office - decisions from which a politician cannot hide before the voters, before the judgment of future generations, and before the dictates of his or her own conscience.

Although I'm not philosophically opposed to capital punishment, there is no overcoming the mountains of evidence of economic disparity, racial bias, and outright injustice in its actual application. Although I can not say that the people and the state have no right to execute the most heinous of criminals, this is so great a power that it brings shame upon us all in its current conception. Until we can absolutely avoid the proven error and inequality that makes such mockery of our justice system, we do not deserve and should not exercise this right to kill.

So, I applaud Chambers and the other 23 Senators who voted for repeal of capital punishment. And, I call on readers to join the Lincoln Journal-Star and the New Nebraska Network - amongst others - in demanding that those Senators who succeeded in defending the status quo wake up to the inexcusable reality of the death penalty in practice. The right to execute does not overcome our higher responsibilities to justice and to our own humanity that cannot be reconciled with our current system.

In particular, I would recommend that constituents of Tony Fulton (LD 29), Russ Karpisek (LD 32), Arnie Stuthman (LD 22), and Tom White (LD 8) contact their State Senator and ask that he reconsider his position. As the World-Herald reported of Sen. White, his father signed the 1994 death warrant for Harold "Walking Willy" Otey, and the murderer of his wife's brother-in-law 27 years ago remains on death row in Nevada. But, it's the following connection that should be all the convincing White needs to change his vote:

White's brother is a public defender in Cook County, Ill. In Illinois, more than 50 people were released from death row after DNA tests showed their innocence.

A system fraught with that much error is a broken system that can not be allowed to continue. And, anyone who thinks these mistakes are confined to Illinois has another thing coming.

This vote is over, but the debate has just begun. Get out there and be heard. Sure, there's an almost certain veto by Gov. Dave Heineman looming that would require an unlikely 30 votes to override. Such veto might even play to Heineman's advantage with many voters.

But, the politics of the issue are secondary to the principles for which we must stand. At last, on this issue of life and death, let us find the strength to be true to our better selves.

As published by the Lincoln Journal-Star and NealO.com

Go to full text...

Organized Labor Must Fight Back Against 'Pro-Business' Agenda

Following up on my earlier post, today's Omaha World-Herald published a great letter to the editor challenging all the cheerleading about Nebraska's newfound ranking in the Top 10 pro-business states:

According to the Pollina Corporate Real Estate Inc. rankings, Nebraska is now in the top 10 of pro-business states.

Pollina directs businesses to the cheapest places to operate. How sad it is to be ranked with Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alabama and Georgia. Evidently, our business leaders and the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry believe low wages will attract businesses to our state.

This state needs high-paying jobs that will reduce the taxes for all residents. Readers should note that the Pollina study, which compares states based on 29 facts, excludes property taxes. How convenient.

I was among the labor leaders who supported the 2005 Nebraska Advantage Act, which offers a variety of tax credits, exemptions and refunds to encourage businesses to expand or locate in Nebraska. I was assured that the intent was to attract good jobs to Nebraska. It looks like we now need to makes some changes in that law.

Jim Sheard, Papillion

I'm glad Sheard was willing to take-on the prevailing, misguided notion that whatever benefits corporations must be a plus for Nebraska's economy. That just isn't the case, and low wages are a legitimate example of one place where the people's agenda is very, very different from the agenda of the business community.

The fact that the Nebraska Advantage Act is credited with our rising the ranks of pro-business states should be cause for suspicion. This seems to suggest the state's job incentives carry some imbalance in the corporations' favor - some angle that they're completely able and only to happy to exploit. Of course, the harm of these programs is no more firmly established than their supposed benefits, but there's already a reasonable inference to be made that Nebraska taxpayers are getting screwed.

And, more alarming than just the fact of Nebraska's pro-business ranking is the purpose to which it's being used in the Nebraska press. I'd previously mentioned Heineman using it to bolster his plans to end the estate tax on Nebraska's wealthiest citizens and to focus massive tax cuts on the top income bracket. But, as revealed in the subtext of the Lincoln Journal-Star's Tuesday coverage, that's only the beginning of how these numbers are being used against the interests of working families and organized labor:

Nebraska has jumped into the top 10 pro-businesss states....

Nebraska...does well because it is a right-to-work state, which means unions represent bargaining units of people who can't be required to join the union....

For those in the know about what's going on in the Nebraska Legislature, that right there is an interesting justification for Nebraska's pro-business ranking because it's being directly challenged by State Sen. Don Preister's LB57. This legislation would provide for Fair Share representation in which non-Union members would be expected to pay for some of the costs of a Union's collective bargaining efforts that they currently benefit from without contributing a dime.

The business community carefully selected its "Right-to-Work" terminology, but it's quite misleading. Rather than Fair Share vs. Right-to-Work, the real debate here is between Fair Share and a Free Ride.

LB57 breezed through Committee but has been held-up by the full Legislature. There's been some suggestion that it won't make it any further this session. But, this is a change organized labor has been seeking for a long time, and they can't stay quiet on it if it's to have any realistic chance at passage.

Heineman and business leaders are already using this conveniently-timed pro-business ranking to undermine LB57, and organized labor has to fight back. My suggestion - admit that LB57 might hurt our standing with corporations but only because it restores some much-needed balance and benefit to the working men and women who make Nebraska great.

That's a debate I want to see. That's a debate we can win.

In other words, let's tell Heineman, Pollina, and the Chamber of Commerce - on behalf of Nebraska's working families - to take this Top 10 ranking and shove it!

Go to full text...

Nebraska Joins Pro-Business 'Top 10' - Really Something to Celebrate?

In a Monday news conference that also served as an advertisement for Gov. Dave Heineman's tax-cut agenda, Heineman was joined over the phone by Ronald Pollina, a corporate site selection consultant also responsible for compiling the annual, self-titled list of the "Pollina Corporate Top 10 Pro-Business States." Together they announced that, for the first time ever, Nebraska had cracked Pollina's Top 10.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Nebraska's new business tax incentives program has pushed the state into the No. 10 ranking of pro-business states, Gov. Dave Heineman announced Monday....

But he said the new ranking doesn't reduce the need for the Legislature to pass tax cuts to encourage economic growth....

"I still think we have work to do, obviously, on the income tax side," Heineman said.

The 2007 Pollina list was unveiled Monday at the International Economic Development Council in Arlington, Va. Nebraska had ranked 17th last year and 18th the two previous years. The report is in its fourth year....

Pollina said the state could rank even higher if income and sales taxes were reduced. Nebraska ranked 34th on corporate taxes and 32nd on individual income taxes. Pollina said his study does not look at property taxes as a separate category.

I am by no means a reactionary in opposition to all things corporate. But, that said, I'm not ready to join in Heineman's hopeful celebration that Nebraska might soon be viewed as the promised land for big business.

I don't doubt that corporations can be a strong engine for economic progress that can ultimately lead to job creation and higher incomes. But, that's a long ways from saying what's good for the corporations is automatically good for the people of Nebraska. It's this distinction that rankings fail to grasp and that a politician like Heineman refuses to acknowledge.

It's pretty simple really - corporations are not people, and it's the people to whom Heineman should owe his allegiance. If that were the case, though, there are far better indicators in terms of employment, wages, and cost of living that say a lot more about how people are actually doing than some overhyped survey of the business climate.

Of course, on some level, all these roads do lead together, but our priorities as a state are being dictated by a path far removed from that walked by the common man. To celebrate the effect of Nebraska's corporate tax incentives without considering the resulting loss of revenue and services - not to mention the shifting of the tax burden onto real people, often in the form of property taxes for which Pollina takes no account - is to selectively blind ones self to our economic reality.

Again, corporations are not people, and its the peoples' interests that should predominate, if not be a democracy's sole concern. That isn't to say that corporations desrve no consideration but only to the extent that they truly serve - and can be shown to serve - the common good.

Nebraska's ranking as the 10th most pro-businesss state doesn't even come close to clearing this most basic hurdle. In fact, in many ways, being pro-business can be practically defined as being anti-people and anti-democratic.

Corporations may play an essential role in the modern economy, but government should not be made to serve their bottom line. The work of government cannot be stated purely in terms of dollars and cents. Nor can any true plan for economic development be grounded in tax incentives that remain unproven but as evidence of the Chamber of Commerce's influence in the legislature.

As with Heineman's tax plan, the true story here is one of priorities. And, whether its tax giveaways for corporations or targeting the bulk of a tax cut towards the state's highest income bracket, there is ridiculously little concern for doing what's best for the average Nebraska family or for the people as a whole.

So, we're now in the top 10 pro-business states. That can be a good thing. That can have some positive effects. But, don't forget that there have been plenty of trade-offs along the way. And, don't assume they've been worth it just because they're not reported.

Heineman may be right to celebrate. He's been fairly upfront about his agenda favoring corporations and the wealthy, and this shows he's got at least someone convinced that progress is underway. But, the progress of Heineman's agenda has little in common with progress in general. In fact, they might have nothing in common at all.

Go to full text...

Dave Heineman's Funny Idea of Sacrifice

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Nebraskans will get "meaningful and sustainable and permanent" tax relief this year, Gov. Dave Heineman predicted Friday.

Speaking to the Nebraska Tax Research Council's annual meeting, Heineman voiced confidence that he and the Legislature would reach agreement on a tax cut plan before lawmakers go home at the end of May.

"The question is not whether we're going to get tax relief, it's just what kind," Heineman said....

Heineman said he is pursuing tax cuts as part of a long-term strategy for attracting and keeping more young people in the state....

The Republican governor told the group that controlling state spending is essential to making tax cuts possible. He said he believes he has support from the public, even if it means saying "no" to a number of spending requests.

"I don't think there's a person in Nebraska who isn't willing to sacrifice in the short term for their son or daughter's future," he said.

Sounds good, Mr. Governor. There's just one problem - short-changing higher education is one of the essential components of Heineman's plan to control state spending. So, instead of asking the people of Nebraska to sacrifice for their children's future, what Heineman's really doing is sacrificing our children's future to fund massive tax cuts for the upper-class.

The Lincoln Journal-Star reports:

Tuition will go up. Academic programs will be cut. And everyone will feel a bit more stressed out.

At least, that’s what state and community college leaders say will happen if the Legislature doesn’t grant them the dollars they say they desperately need.

Monday, they got a chance to plead their cases before the budget-crafting Appropriations Committee, nearly two months after Gov. Dave Heineman proposed funding allocations that were far less than what the higher education world had hoped for.

“If we want to maintain rural Nebraska, we have to make sure those students have access to our institutions,” Nebraska State College System Chancellor Stan Carpenter told committee members.

The state colleges, with a current state allocation of $40.9 million, had requested funding increases of 12.3 percent and 6 percent the next two years.

Heineman gave them 2.1 percent and 2.3 percent increases.

If his recommendations stand, the state colleges — which have campuses in Chadron, Wayne and Peru — would have to raise tuition 18 percent next year alone to generate enough revenue to help cover fixed costs like faculty salary increases, utilities and office supplies, Carpenter said.

That's what Nebraska's state colleges have to say. Meanwhile, the University system chimes-in:

NU is facing a tough battle for precious state dollars as Gov. Dave Heineman stands firm on his goal to increase spending by just 3.8 percent.

Originally, NU requested funding increases of 6.5 percent and 4 percent in the next two years, funds [NU President J.B.] Milliken and others said were necessary to maintain competitive faculty salaries, invest in priority programs and keep tuition reasonable.

Heineman proposed 1.1 percent and 2.2 percent increases, amounts he said would allow for growth but keep spending in check.

Appropriations Committee members appear to be slightly more sympathetic to NU — they’re leaning toward bumping funding increases up to 2.1 percent and 3.2 percent in the next biennium — but Milliken said that’s still not enough.

Such small increases, he said, won’t even cover NU’s unavoidable expenses, like faculty salaries, utilities and equipment maintenance.

Those alone would require funding increases of 5.7 percent and 5 percent, he said.

If the committee sticks with its current numbers, he warned, tuition increases would be more than the 5 percent jump he’s shooting for, and far more than average Nebraska families can handle.

Of course, higher education is only one front in the competition for scarce resources inherent to the budgeting process. This particular budget battle is probably the most deserving of the public's attention and outrage, though, because it offers such a clear example of Gov. Heineman's shameless hypocrisy.

You can not reconcile Heineman's rhetoric with the true priorities his plan actually reveals. While claiming "I don't think there's a person in Nebraska who isn't willing to sacrifice in the short term for their son or daughter's future," Heineman's plan forces astonomical tuition hikes and program cuts asking sacrifice of no one but students and their families.

When Nebraska should be focused on increasing the accessibility and affordability of higher education, Heineman has completely blinded himself to higher education's obvious and inextricable link to our state's future economic well-being. Rather than asking citizens to sacrifice for this cause, he asks for nothing but our silence while he sacrifices our children and their futures to fund his tax cut proposal.

From the evidence, the only future on Heineman's mind is his own political future. He's promising hundreds of millions of dollars to those currently in Nebraska's top tax bracket while short-changing a population too young to vote or - at least - too young to have much of a say.

Sort of a funny idea of "sacrifice", wouldn't you say?

Go to full text...

Success of Public Power Begs the Question: Why Not Public Broadband?

Sunday's Omaha World-Herald editorialized:

A key selling point for Nebraska remains its low electrical rates, a product of the sound management shown by the state's publicly owned utilities. Federal figures through October 2006 show that Nebraska's average residential electrical rate was below that of all its negihbors (7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 7.5 cents in Wyomian and Missour, 7.8 cents in South Dakota, 8.3 cents in Kansas, 9.1 cents in Colorado and 9. cents in Iowa). In fact, nationwide Nebraska's rate was lower than that in all but five states - a notable plus for the Cornhusker State.

With the legacy and successful example of public power in Nebraska illustrated by the above figures, one can't help but wonder why our elected officials have sold out the people's best interests by blocking the development of essential public broadband services that could open a new world of economic and educational opportunities for our rural population.

For a quick overview of this continuing legislative atrocity on behalf of Nebraska's powerful telecommunications lobby, allow me to recommend the following:

1. The Broadband Betrayal (06/2005)
2. The Broadband Betrayal Revisited (05/2006)
3. The Broadband Betrayal Continues (08/2006)

This winter, a "broadband services task force" comprised of self-interested corporate stooges with Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy as their head gave the expected recommendation that the Nebraska legislature make permanent its backwards ban on public broadband - even in a wholesale capacity:

A special task force whose work could help shape the future of high-speed Internet in the state will recommend to lawmakers that power companies and other public entities not be allowed to spread the technology....

Approving public-sector involvement, the task force concluded, could dampen private investment in broadband services.

“Allowing the public in the private sector is a no-no,” said task force member Mark Graham, executive of a market-research company and owner of a company that advises business on how to better use data....

“We didn’t want government in private-sector business,” he said. “Nobody on the public side, quite honestly, has put forth a business plan on how they would do it,” he said about public groups helping to provide broadband.

If this had been an honest committee with any true concern for the public's interest, Nebraska's power grid would have offered all the evidence for which one could ever hope that public broadband might prove an incredible success. Instead, its members voted to tie the hands of Nebraska's communities and to close the door on an entire technology for which the basic infrastructure already exists and could readily be put to work for the peoples' benefit.

They don't want testing. They don't want efficiency or competition. Under the guise of protecting "private investment," all they really want is to protect their profits and their monopoly power over a captive population with no other options available.

There has been talk of an initiative petition giving voters the opportunity to overturn the legislative betrayal and blunder that was this permanent ban of public broadband service to customers and its temporary ban on public-private partnerships.

The problem is - as demonstrated in 2005 when LB645 was passed and signed into law by Gov. Dave Heineman with almost no debate on the floor or in the media - there are some very powerful interests with very huge profit margins with a lot at stake on this issue. Despite the clear arguments for people having a public choice - in one form or another - the corporations would be difficult to defeat at the ballot box with the entire arsenal of lies and deception they could afford and would most certainly unleash on unsuspecting and under-informed voters.

Alas, because they actually answer to the people, public utilities aren't going to spend a fortune for the right to better serve their customers. A petition measure along these lines would either take a true grassroots movement that is not yet in evidence or some serious cash from wealthy benefactors who are willing to take on the telecommunications industry no one else has the money to touch.

It would be far easier if some change/repeal of the law were just enacted by our young Legislature - awakening to the failure of their predecessors and revolting against the fix-is-in recommendation from Sheehy's joke of a task force. Unfortunately, it's quite unclear where the majority actually stands with a pre-session questionnaire by the AP showing the Unicameral evenly split with more than half of its number "undecided" or "not answering."

Oddly enough, I've been unable to find a bill before the 2007 Legislature that actually addresses the question of public utilities' ability to sell bandwidth on a wholesale basis to private Internet service providers. With the temporary ban on such public-private cooperation losing effect at the end of this year, this could be a calculated choice to let so extreme a measure fade to protect the more general prohibition against direct public broadband. Either that or some procedure is available to the telecommunications lobby and its bought-and-paid-for politicians to slip-by an even broader permanent ban than they managed with then-Speaker of the Legislature Kermit Brashear on their payroll with LB645. I assume the latter but would be delighted if some knowledgeable reader could clarify what possibilities exist or even draw my attention to relevant legislation of which I am not currently aware.

Meanwhile, if you're interested in what other states are doing to embrace the future that our elected officials' slavish obedience to their corporate masters has so far cost us, please see the Progressive States Network and marvel at just how backwards and offensive our state's current policy is, particularly with Nebraska's proud tradition of practical and progressive public power.

Have we really changed so much? Have we forgotten that better part of ourselves that once believed in the strength of community? Or, is it only our elected officials who have so lost their way?

Hopefully, time will tell a different story than what we've seen these last two years. Our future is counting on it.

Go to full text...