Public Pulse Taken Over by Republican Spin in Omaha Budget Battle

Ten days ago, Omaha Republican City Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson attempted to embarrass Democratic Mayor Mike Fahey and to pin the blame on him for not doing enough to prevent Omaha's rash of gun violence this summer. To do so, they leaked a letter they'd sent last December recommending a temporary increase in property taxes to fund a temporary increase in the number of police officers. Leaving out the obvious but highly-relevant fact of who had released this letter in the first place, the Omaha World-Herald reported: Fahey's chief of staff, Paul Landow, said the...council members privately sent the letter to Fahey but didn't push the issue further. "If they were really interested in adding 50 police officers, why didn't they say it publicly at the time?" Landow asked.....   Landow also said Fahey has been steadily increasing the number of police officers, including adding 15 officers in 2007 and another 15 next year. But Fahey won't be calling for a temporary surge in police officers, Landow said.   In their letter, the council members suggested that the number of officers increase by 40 to 50, then decrease after three years, or after violence in north Omaha has lessened. Under the plan, the tax increase that would fund the officers would also be rolled back.   Landow said the idea of a temporary surge in police officers is unworkable. "What are we supposed to do at the end of the three years? Fire all the additional cops?" So, essentially, Fahey is planning a permanent addition of 30 police officers rather than the 40 - 50 temporary officers Vokal and Sigerson had recommended. And, Fahey is budgeting for these new officers without relying on the property tax increases Vokal and Sigerson had called for last December. It's rather ridiculous that they would even attempt to milk that difference for political gain, particularly when Omaha's Police Chief, Thomas Warren, had just told the Council, "I'm comfortable with the personnel allocation that we are proposing for the 2008 budget." Honestly, it's sad that the World-Herald even printed this sad bit of partisan spin attacking Fahey and playing on people's increased fears about local crime. But, having opened that door, it was only fair that Fahey's office decided to fight back:

Mayor Mike Fahey's chief of staff is accusing two City Council members of playing politics when it comes to addressing gun violence. Chief of Staff Paul Landow said Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson have alternately advocated in letters to the mayor for both an increase and a decrease in the city's property tax rate....   Vokal and Sigerson...wrote Fahey last December that they would support a tax rate increase in 2008 to hire an additional 40 to 50 police officers. Then in June, Sigerson and Vokal wrote Fahey asking him to lower the property tax rate in response to what was projected to be a significant increase in property valuations....   "It's clearly disingenuous, political nonsense," Landow said. "One minute they are calling for a tax increase, and the next they want a decrease. Which is it?"..... Landow said the shifting positions were intended to bolster Vokal's possible mayoral bid in 2009. "This is all being done in the name of political ambition." Thoroughly established as opportunists and flip-floppers taking advantage of the surge in gun violence for their own political purposes, you'd expect Vokal and Sigerson to shut up. Instead, today's World-Herald ran three curiously-timed and similar-sounding letters in the Public Pulse that attempt one last time to shamelessly spin the fears and heartache of Omaha families to the Republican Party's advantage: Mayor Mike Fahey claims to want input from community leaders in an effort to solve Omaha's crime wave. But where was this concern in December when City Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson offered to work with the mayor on addressing the sudden increase in gun violence in Omaha? Omaha has again seen a dramatic increase in violent crime this summer. Now, Fahey accuses the councilmen, through his Chief of Staff Paul Landow, of playing politics. If Fahey had been attentive to Omaha's needs and responded to the councilmen's ideas in December, maybe he wouldn't need to play politics now. Possible solutions already would have been in the works.   Joe Risko, Omaha ------------------- Landow called the efforts by Vokal and Sigerson politically ambitious. This is ridiculous. Landown's attempt to twist the facts of the situation and turn it into a political attack is abhorrent. In December, Vokal and Sigerson proposed increasing the number of police officers in Omaha by 40 to 50 and were willing to authorize additional funding to do so. But Fahey refused this offer. In June, Vokal and Sigerson responded to the de facto tax increase caused by property valuation increases by demanding a tax cut. These two positions are entirely consistent. Vokal and Sigerson are in favor of using additional funding to curb violence in Omaha with additional police officers. They are not in favor of raising tax revenues through higher assessments just to pad city coffers. It is time for Landow and Fahey to quit playing politics and start doing something to keep our children from dying on the streets of Omaha.   Scott Knudsen, Omaha ------------------- It seems to me that when these councilmen sent a letter to Fahey back in December, they were putting the interests of the people of Omaha above their own political futures. When it became clear to the them that their suggestion to add more police to stifle a crime wave was rejected, they were free to move on to resolve another increasing problem: Douglas County Assessor Roger Morrissey's desire to increase taxable property valuations. As a voter, I prefer leadership that is sensitive to the changing landscape of the city, not oblivious to it.   Pete D. Pedersen, Omaha I always hate to see the opinion page littered with these faux-letters pre-manufactured by party hacks and signed with the names of loyal Republican footsoldiers. It's sort of amusing, however, how each of these three letters contains its own carefully-crafted message attempting to obscure Vokal and Sigerson's hypocrisy while turning the tables on Fahey and Landow for who's really "playing politics." Of course, in this little skirmish, the real question of who was "playing politics" begins and ends with who first tried to use this issue for their partisan advantage. Clearly, that was Vokal and Sigerson. They simply got out-played, despite the World-Herald giving them every possible advantage. The facts speak for themselves. Sadly, the World-Herald appears to be concerned very little with Letters to the Editors adhering to those facts, instead allowing fabrication by repetition on its own opinion page.

Go to full text...

Partisan Sensationialism at the Lincoln Journal-Star?

Yesterday's Lincoln Journal-Star ran a Letter to the Editor that pretty well nailed the paper for framing the city's budget process as nothing more than a partisan showdown: I watched much of the City Council budget meetings Aug. 6 and 8. I found the seven members of our Council to be voting for themselves (or, rather, their constituents) more so than down their respective political lines.   Why, then, must Journal Star coverage mislead us where partisan politics are concerned? The Aug. 9 article on the budget mentioned the dreaded R & D words nearly 10 times. Might we remind the reporter that mayoral elections are not partisan and nowhere on the general ballot was there an R, D or any other letter by the candidates' names.   I wish the paper would report the news, not create it. That's why we have FOX News.   Barbara Arendt, Lincoln Maybe we should look at the article Ms. Arendt was talking about to understand the merit of her accusation: It came down to streets, police officers and firefighters Wednesday, as the Lincoln City Council spent several hours putting the final touches on the municipal budget. Campaign promises not to increase the city's property tax rate made for difficult decisions.....   As usual, the fire department budget provided fodder for controversy. In July, Councilman Jon Camp proposed cutting its budget by $175,000. Wednesday, he reduced that to $100,000. The four Republicans on the council went along with that, over the objections of the three Democrats....   Republicans rebuffed a last-minute attempt by Councilman Jonathan Cook to restore the money by using several revenue sources that materialized since the mayor prepared his budget - such as money from a new StarTran advertising contract. Instead, Republicans moved the unallocated money into the city's contingency fund.   Cook said later he was shocked they refused to restore money to the fire department after doing so for the aging and police departments. "What does that say?" Cook said. "I don't believe many councils nationwide would refuse to appropriate that money to its fire department"....   Democrats were unable to dissuade Republicans from cutting the Affirmative Action office in half and folding it into the personnel office.... Republicans on the council were dogged about diverting more money toward street construction and maintenance, and had succeeded in moving about $800,000 toward that end until the end of the meeting. But in a last-minute move, Cook convinced two Republicans to instead move a portion of that - the general revenue - to the police department. After the meeting, Budget Officer Steve Hubka said it amounted to nearly $328,000. In all fairnes, there does appear to be a partisan divide in Lincoln politics where the Fire Department is concerned - as their union has been an important source of support for local Democrats with Republicans frequently targeting the Fire Dept. because of that relationship. But, otherwise, the letter writer makes an excellent point. There seems to be a general trend in the Nebraska press towards over-emphasizing party labels at the local level in an attempt to make local politics (hence, local news) more sexy. While the subjective interpretation of local politics through the prism of partisanship sometimes has merit, this isn't the first time a reporter's laziness has resulted in some spin and manufactured conflict along artificial lines. Then, at the same time, reporters continue to turn a blind eye to the decade-old Republican political machine running our state government that derives its whole power from that label. Ironic, don't you think?

Go to full text...

Ernie Chambers on Baseball Records, Barry Bonds & Racism

Ladies and gentlemen....from the pages of today's Public Pulse in the Omaha World-Herald....Sen. Ernie Chambers: All of this hypocritical bleating and yakety-yakking by white sports commentators, writers and cartoonists about an asterisk accompanying Barry Bonds' breaking of Hank Aaron's home-run record is cloying in the extreme. First of all, these critics have no genuine respect or regard for Aaron, having been content to let him languish in obscurity until he could be dusted off and set in opposition to a black man whom they dislike because he refuses to allow them to "run" him.   Secondly, if asterisks are to become the order of the day in the realm of sports records, one should accompany every so-called record established by any white athlete in any sport while black athletes were locked out of competition due to their race. This, of course, would include records held by Babe Ruth, who was quite comfortable with racial segregation in his sport.   Every record set during the period(s) of racial exclusion is bogus. Let's set that record straight. Racism, impure and simple, drives this nonsense about asterisking Bonds' phenomenal feat of athletic greatness.    Barry Bonds is to baseball what Muhammad Ali is to boxing: "The greatest." And don't you racists forget it.   Ernie Chambers, Omaha Nebraska State Senator, District 11 I think there's more than racism behind the unanswered questions surrounding Bond's supposed use of performance-enhancing drugs. But, I have to give Sen. Chambers credit for making a hell of a point about the illegitimacy of every record set when only whites were allowed to play professional sports. That's something I've never before considered but which is hard to argue with on principle. It's funny that just across from Chambers' letter a World-Herald editorial celebrates how little the Bonds controversy has to do with race - as testament to how far we've come as a society since Aaron's original home run chase. Clearly, Chambers disagrees. What do you think?

Go to full text...