Heineman's "Property Tax Relief" Targets Ted Turner For Biggest Benefits

The Omaha World-Herald finally publishes some of the criticism of the 2007 Nebraska Legislature's Heineman-approved package for property tax relief, 5 months after robbing voters of the debate they honestly deserved.

State tax officials notified counties Friday to trim their 2007 property tax bills by $83.22 for every $100,000 of real estate subject to taxation.

Instead of sending more money to local governments to spend, the Legislature and Gov. Dave Heineman decided this year to use $105 million in state funds to pay part of Nebraskans' 2007 property tax bills....

State Sen. Tom White of Omaha said the program spreads the dollars too thinly. He also said the plan pays out sales- and income-tax revenue to people who pay little or no sales and income taxes in Nebraska. "It's lousy economics," White said. "Far too much money is going out of state. Ted Turner, as the biggest private property owner in the state, is going to make out like a bandit."

The media mogul and CNN founder has about 425,000 acres - about 625 square miles - in multiple counties. He also is the nation's largest landowner, with some 2 million acres in seven states. White said the $105 million - had it been limited to Nebraska homeowners - could have resulted in $250 going toward their property tax bills.

During the legislative session, White called for a $500 income tax credit for homeowners - but his measure stalled when other lawmakers wanted to make sure farmers and commercial property owners got a share of any reduction.

State Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler said the Legislature settled on the fairest approach. "It seems fair to tax everybody in the state, yet some of the ideas to give money back would have excluded certain groups," he said.

I'm sure a billionaire like Ted Turner appreciates Langemeier and Heineman looking out for his interests rather than those of the working people who actually live, work, and raise their families in Nebraska.

The true measure of a tax cut or the politicians who support them is less a question of how much than who benefits. It should come as little surprise, then, that Nebraska's destructive legacy of one party Republican domination would work to Ted Turner's favor over the common Cornhusker fan's.  In 2007, Heineman promised "middle class tax relief." Now, we see what he meant - forsaking his obligation to the people of Nebraska to help Ted Turner recoup past alimony payments to Jane Fonda.  Heineman and Langemeier may find this "the fairest approach," but it amounts to a tax giveaway to Nebraska's wealthiest landowners with the least actual need for assistance. It is sad to think that's where so many of our politicians' priorities lie rather than with the homeowners who invest not just their money but their lives in Nebraska's future.

Go to full text...

The Hidden Numbers Behind Heineman's Corporate Welfare

Following up on Gov. Dave Heineman's celebrating the success of the Nebraska Advantage Act, it was suggested to me by a reader that we whip out our trusty NNN Calculator and take a closer look at the actual numbers.  The press release from Heineman's own office reads: The Nebraska Advantage was designed to encourage new capital investment and job creation in communities throughout the state. The program took effect on Jan. 1, 2006. By the end of July, 116 applications had been received from businesses expecting to invest a potential $4.06 billion in the state and create more than 10,400 new jobs during the next several years. Gov. Heineman adds: "We knew one of the most powerful issues for our state and for the young people attending our colleges and universities was to create good quality jobs right here in Nebraska. The Nebraska Advantage is creating real jobs and real results for Nebraska." But, remember that whole part about the program being "more popular" and, thus, "more expensive" to the state - perhaps more than double original estimates (which the Associated Press reported but the Omaha World-Herald neglected entirely): OWH: Richard Baier, the state's economic development director, said he does not know how much the business incentive tax credits equal, but he estimated them at about 12 percent to 15 percent of the value of investments made. AP: The total value of the tax breaks for the businesses that have applied through the end of last month could hover around $600 million. The $600 million in tax breaks falls squarely in line with Baier's 12-15% estimate of the $4 billion in potential investment Heineman's credited to Nebraska Advantage. But, let's not forget about all those "good quality jobs" Heineman promises as the true cornerstone of the entire program - "more than 10,400 new jobs during the next several years." Well, this is where the NNN Calculator comes in handy: Cost: $600 million Benefit: 10,400 jobs Total tax credits per job created = $57,692.30 It's funny how that number never found its way into Heineman's press release, nor the media reports that followed. Of course, there are ancillary benefits to our communities if this program actually encourages $4 billion in capital investments, but - as a tool for job creation - it's plain to see that Heineman's Nebraska Advantage appears to be nothing more than an instrument for corporations to take advantage of Nebraska taxpayers. Under this program, the state is handing out $57,692.30 in tax credits for every job that's supposedly being created.  And, I would love to know how many of these potential jobs will pay an annual wage that comes anywhere even close to that amount. You can bet that it's not many. Heineman is reporting numbers like these and hailing them as a success???? Is he crazy? Or, maybe Heineman just knows he can afford to be so shameless and deceptive because the Nebraska press will publish his spin without subjecting the facts to even the most basic level of scrutiny. The people of Nebraska need to see these numbers for themselves. Seem a little funny, don't they? Seem a little stupid and short-sighted, wouldn't you say? Unless Nebraska taxpayers are so soundly in favor of corporate welfare - handing out $57,692.30 to create a $30,000 per year job - Heineman should have some serious explaining to do. But, who will ask the questions? Who will demand the answers? Will you?

Go to full text...

Dave Heineman: "Corporate Welfare Works for Nebraska"

No, that isn't a direct quote, but it's certainly the gist of Gov. Heineman's announcement on Monday that the Nebraska Advantage tax incentive program is a stunning success. In fact, it's so successful that it appears likely to cost the state more than double the program's original estimates - already somewhere in the ballpark of $600 million in lost revenue. The Associated Press reports: Businesses tapping the state's tax break program designed to create jobs could invest more than $4 billion over the next several years and create about 10,400 jobs....   The figures, touted Monday by Gov. Dave Heineman, represent the cumulative investment and job growth plans of businesses that have filed 116 applications for tax breaks through the end of July....   The program thus far has been more popular, and could be more expensive, than officials predicted. They had estimated that once fully operational in 2014, the tax break bill would provide an estimated $200 million a year in breaks to qualifying companies.   But the actual cost of providing the breaks under the new system, called Nebraska Advantage, could be more than double.   The total value of the tax breaks for the businesses that have applied through the end of last month could hover around $600 million. And the total payout from the state could exceed $500 million for applications from last year alone. There are a lot of questions and little evidence to support how well these sorts of tax incentive programs actually work for economic development and job creation. Nebraska Advantage does contain some reporting and assessment requirements by which we might gather some measure of its ultimate costs and benefits, but there's never any knowing which investment was actually spurred by the program and which would have occurred regardless. In the latter cases, these incentives can hardly be understood as anything but government funding of the private sector - in other words, corporate welfare. I don't say that to demonize the program - only to call it what it is. Honestly, this might be the best thing the state of Nebraska has ever done. Or, it might be one of its worst boondoggles. The real problem is that - with Gov. Heineman - it's hard to see how we can trust our state government to do the thorough investigation and research into Nebraska Advantage to see that it's actually working to Nebraska's advantage rather than serving as a tool for corporations to take advantage of Nebraska's taxpayers. The potential for oversight doesn't do a whole lot of good when those doing the overseeing are more interested in political victories than honest results. After a decade of mostly the same people running the show - with the legislature bending to Heineman's will so completely in the 2007 session - there just aren't enough independent voices in state government who can be trusted to serve with integrity and maintain accountability. When we're talking about a program that hands-out hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations, that lack of accountability is very, very dangerous. In fact, it's probably a recipe for disaster.

Go to full text...

Smith and the Farm Bill

by: Lisa Hannah

(We know her. We love her. By now, she has to know as much about Adrian Smith as his own mother. She's done absolutely wonderful work with her Smith Watch site, and I couldn't be happier that she's joined us at NNN. Enough from me - let's let Lisa do her thing. - promoted by Kyle Michaelis) Before I get this going, I first want to say that I think what Kyle has started with NNN 2.0 is fantastic. This really takes the progressive Nebraska Blogosphere to a whole new level. Through this medium, bloggers can really work together to move Nebraska forward, and I am honored to be a part of it…… Much has been said about the passing of the House's version of the Farm Bill. Whatever your feelings on the final product, my focus was on the actions of Adrian Smith. Adrian Smith showed no leadership on the Farm Bill issue. He contributed only two ideas for the bill, and only one was accepted. He talked big about things needing to be different or better, but never did anything to make those changes or differences that he hinted at. Matter of fact, you'd be pressed to find anything that he was specifically focusing on with his blanket statements. Smith then joined right in with the party leadership in decrying what they chose to call a "tax increase". What they were upset about was the fact that the House Way and Means Committee closed a tax loophole on multination companies doing business in the US, but that are based in countries we have no treaties with (such as the Caribbean Islands). In closing this loophole, they would have to pay the taxes they SHOULD be paying, but are avoiding through using safe havens. Smith argued this would harm such companies as Swift and McCains, who have manufacturing plants in Grand Island and cost 3rd District residents their jobs. This assertion was false. Those companies are based in countries we have treaties with. During this outcry, I voted to try and adjourn, and when that failed, he voted to prevent the passage of the resolution that set for that tax increase, along with all the rules for the debate of the Farm Bill. If either had succeeded, the Farm Bill would have been delayed. In the end, though, that effort failed. Smith and the rest of the Republicans failed to acknowledge that needed provisions, such as increases in the nutrition programs, had to be paid for. They failed to offer their own suggestions. They failed to realize that most Americans have actually thought that those companies that find loopholes to avoid paying their taxes SHOULD have to pay their fair share. After all, American businesses have to pay their taxes, why not those companies that base themselves in non-treatied countries in order to avoid those taxes while making a profit off the American people? They failed to acknowledge that those WITH treaties would see little, and more likely, NO impact from this change in the tax code. Yes, Smith eventually voted for the Farm Bill despite the tax provision, but from moment one he made sure to let everyone know that he's against this tax provision, that it was labeled "partisan" and repeatedly talked about the fact it could be removed in the Conference Committee. Of course, he's right about that, and if it does, so be it. As long as the PAYGO principals are applied and the end result is still a strong Farm Bill, that will be okay. But if it isn't, Smith will have to face a choice.

In the past, when faced with issues that would benefit the constituents in his district, but would possibly affect his campaign contributors in a way they didn't like, he ALWAYS voted against his constituents. Most of the First 100 Hours agenda was like this. He voted against minimum wage increase, negotiating for better prices on drugs for seniors, reductions in student loan rates, and even voted, the first time, against implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Not once did he say "well, I'll vote for it even though I'm not quite happy with it, and hope the Conference Committee will make the right changes". Nope, he voted against them on principal - and because he was expected to by his biggest campaign contributors. But then Smith was faced with the Farm Bill. He knew the pressure was on that he would HAVE to vote for it no matter what because he had been forced to reassure voters he would despite the monetary influence of the anti-ag Club for Growth. But then the tax provision was thrown in. That really put him in a bad position. Smith had to come out speaking loudly against this tax provision, and standing with the Republicans on that matter. But he also had no choice in voting the way he did. It would be political suicide in Nebraska if he did. However, he's now set the stage with all his statements that, should the tax provision remain, he will be justified in voting AGAINST THE FARM BILL. That's right. That's my prediction. He's talked long and hard about the "partisanship", regardless of the fact that the most non-partisan people - the many ag groups that were intent on watching this - are generally fine with the provision. The only "partisanship" that has come out has been the Republicans in this outcry against it. But the fact is that he will then be able to go back to the people of Nebraska and say: "See - the Democrats made me do this with their partisanship", and will blame the other side for forcing him to vote "NO". In doing so, many will fall blindly in behind him and say "yeah, he's standing on principle". That is - those hardcore in-state Republicans that will never consider voting for anyone with a "D" by the name. Smith will also, then, appease the campaign contributors that are putting pressure on him to reject this Farm Bill, and they will, in turn, promise to pay for over half his reelection campaign. As Nebraska Farmers Union President John Hansen stated: "The Republicans are looking for a reason to not get this farm bill passed because it makes it harder for them to win back those rural seats they lost in the last election. Partisan politics is playing a role here." If the Farm Bill does not pass because of this partisan gamesmanship, many will suffer. Especially the farmers, ranchers, and working poor of the 3rd District of Nebraska. I hope I'm proved wrong. It will be a good day if I am. But if I'm not, let's hope people will have been prepared and will not fall for the spin put forth by Smith and his biggest backers.

Go to full text...

GOP: Desperate Already?

Sen. Tom White's barely into his first term in office, his promising Nebraska Leadership Project has only just begun, but already this titan-in-training has the Nebraska GOP running scared: whooping and hollering and trying every lame trick in the book to kill this revolution in its crib.

The source of their consternation? White's unsuccessful but politically brilliant effort to reframe the tax debate, challenging Governor Heineman's attempt to package regressive income tax reform as "middle class relief" by offering real relief to the real burden of Nebraska's middle class: property taxes. White's bill would've offered every homeowner a $500 tax credit to help offset the rising cost of local and county government, a plan Nebraskan taxpayers support by an overwhelming 85-13%.

How do you kill something that popular? A few boogeymen might help:

Sen. White, who is a high-priced trial attorney from Omaha and a long time Democrat activist, had every opportunity this year to put aside his partisanship and help eliminate the tax-and-spend mentality that has so brutally stifled economic growth in Nebraska. But rather than do what’s best for our middle-class, working families, Sen. White teamed up with Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy and assumed their nationwide Democrat strategy of unproductive negative criticism.

Sadly, that emphasis is theirs, not mine. Odd that they didn't bold "trial attorney" and "Democrat activist" as well, but maybe the names Dean and Kennedy have lost some luster since their unsuccessful deployment against Ben Nelson last spring.

Sloppy as these scare tactics may be, the NE-GOP remains a master at that other classic move: playing dumb.

Governor Heineman led the effort to eliminate the Estate Tax which Senator White believes only benefits the wealthy. Apparently, Senator White hasn’t ventured outside his comfy confines of Omaha to talk to middle-class Nebraska farmers who can’t afford to leave the family farm to their children due to the unjust and punitive Estate Tax.

Uh-huh, except White's proposal also included a provision to eliminate the estate tax. On this issue, the Republican "fact-checkers" weren't even close. This isn't just spin, this is lies.

A property tax cut was not “scuttled by the Governor and his allies.” This is a flat out distortion. Property tax relief was incorporated into the largest tax relief package in the history of the state. This package was permanent, lasting, and curbed uncontrolled government spending....

Senator White suggested an income tax credit for homeowners, not a property tax cut. So a homeowner would still pay the same amount in property taxes, but later get an income tax credit paid for by a surplus in the cash reserve. Sound confusing? That was Sen. White’s intent.

Sound confusing? Really? Does anyone out there really not understand the concept of an income tax credit for people who pay property taxes? I mean, anyone who isn't on the Republican Party payroll?

In fact, Sen White's proposal offered relief far more effectively and directly than Governor Heineman's plan, which repreated the tried-but-not-true tactic of diverting more state funds into county coffers in the hopes that rates will come down. Of course, that's exactly the same strategy that Heineman so vocally denounced as a "tax shift" and not a "tax cut".

Confused? That was their intent.

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...

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...

Promises & Priorities: Unicameral Tax Cut Plans Coming Into View

On Tuesday, the Lincoln Journal-Star's Around the Rotunda column reminded the people of Nebraska that behind the scenes in the state legislature there's a very important but little-talked-about battle going on over what sorts of tax cut options will make their way out of the Revenue Committee and to the full Unicameral for debate.

There's enough momentum behind the general principle of cutting taxes - with a healthy enough forecast for the state's short-term revenue prospects - that some sort of tax cut is all but inevitable. You'll hear no complaint here. Yet, in the eyes of the New Nebraska Network, what's more important now than raw dollar amounts are the priorities we reveal as a people - demonstrated not only by the populations to whom we target tax relief but also by the quality of services maintained and provided by the state.

Unfortunately, it's hard to get much of a sense of what to expect from the legislature at this point. One expects that Gov. Dave Heineman's LB331 will make it out of committee at least somewhat intact considering that it was introduced on Heineman's behalf by its chairman, State Sen. Ray Janssen.

Yet, Janssen has expressed a genuine interest in the legislature's hands not being tied too much to any single tax cut proposal. Thank God for that because the Heineman plan is not only contrary to the will of the people for its neglect of their property tax concerns but is also against the interests of the state with its regressive shifting of the tax burden onto those least able to carry the weight.

According to the Journal-Star, the cornerstone of Heineman's argument for cutting income taxes is job creation. Looking at the actual evidence, however, this argument fails to persuade and is completely lacking in merit:

Tax cuts equals more jobs has become a mantra for Heineman, who is trying to convince the Legislature to return more than $200 million a year in income and other tax cuts.

Heineman’s belief in the power of tax cuts is based on research done by the Nebraska Department of Revenue.

The governor’s income tax cuts would result in an additional 1,500 to 2,560 jobs the first year. By 2011 the total job growth could range from 2,837 to 4,837 jobs, based on an analysis of how the additional income would move through the economy.

The department used a computer model originally developed by the Legislature’s fiscal office to determine how the state’s business incentives might affect the economy. The computer model shows how the money might move through the economy and thus create additional jobs....

The department did not look at how other tax cut options might affect the economy — including a half-cent sales tax [reduction]....

Not everyone believes the Department of Revenue study is the final word on tax cuts and economic growth.

The Nebraska State Education Association has a report on its Web site indicating there is little direct relationship between income taxes and economic development.

“In the last decade there was no difference in average growth in the top 10 most business tax friendly and the 10 least friendly states, according to Richard G. Sims from the Sierra Institute on Applied Economics.

In general, states with high economic growth had relatively higher taxes, he says. Of the 15 fastest growing states, eight had above average individual income taxes and seven had below average income taxes. Three were in the highest 10 taxing states and four were in the lowest 10 taxing state, Sims says.

Of the 15 slowest growing states, four had above average individual income taxes and 11 had below average income taxes. Four were in no income tax states.

To be honest, it's quite appalling that the Journal-Star would even dare to suggest that Heineman's argument is rooted in a "Department of Revenue study." All he offers is a computer simulation that divines some magical number of jobs created under his proposal that would remain utterly preposterous even with some basis for comparison Heineman did not see fit to provide.

Compare that to the real study cited by the NSEA - one relying on actual facts, figures, and state-by-state comparisons - completely debunking the relationship between income taxes and job creation on which Heineman so expressly relies.

The Journal-Star has put Heineman playing a game of SimCity on par with actual science and economics - demonstrating either no understanding of the issues or no respect for the truth.

Over the last two months, the New Nebraska Network has, of course, devoted considerable efforts to challenging the faulty assumptions and unprincipled priorities underlying Heineman's LB 331.

For starters, even accepting the notion that ours is a high tax state, the income tax is one of Nebraska's least burdensome in comparison with other states.

Moreover, any talk of Heineman's simplifying the income tax structure by reducing the number of brackets from 4 to 3 must be seen in light of what he truly proposes - the wholesale elimination of the lowest tax bracket, subjecting our state's youngest and most disadvantaged population to an across-the-board tax hike.

At the same time, there's no denying that under Heineman's proposal the bulk of the benefit is reserved for those currently in the highest tax bracket, particularly those economic elites who benefit most from the outright elimination of the estate tax.

It should not surprise that these same economic elites would continue to see their taxes fall bit-by-bit over the next four years, as Heineman uses a phased-in tax cut for the rich to mask the long-term liability and dangerousness of his proposal when its $240 million in lost revenues balloons to an annual loss of $310 million. That's an additional $70 million giveaway - each and every year - to no one but the state's wealthiest citizens.

Now, as the New Nebraska Network has stated before, there is room for reasonable reform of Nebraska's income tax structure. Heineman's plan just happens to be nothing of the sort. It's true that the middle class should be broadened - but to make the system more progressive, not less so. Cutting rates might even be agreeable if the ultimate benefits were distributed more fairly across the entire population.

Even with these more reasonable proposals, though, income tax reform should not stand in the way of the more essential and immediate task of reducing our heavy reliance on property taxes - hopefully introducing some progressive mechanism to protect homeowners or to at least make the property tax burden more manageable for those on fixed incomes.

A whole host of bills have been introduced proposing property tax reforms, and I regret that the New Nebraska Network has not had the opportunity to delve into them in any real detail - be they Sen. Tom White's highly-touted $500 rebate (LB 453) or a variety of exemptions, shifted expenses, and so-called "circuit-breakers."

Regardless of what ulimately survives committee, at the start of this legislative session it seemed quite clear state senators understood that property taxes are where the voters' interests lie and that they should share those same priorities.

There has been pretty intense pressure from Heineman and the Omaha World-Herald to break this lockgrip of voters' real world concerns. There has even been some suggestion in the press that a few of the more partisan Republicans in the legislature have given up listening to their constituents on property taxes and now plan to fall in-line with Heineman's proposal. Still, it's hard to believe that Heineman could possibly have the political capital to hoodwink a majority of state senators into similarly betraying the people who elected them.

I guess we'll see how it all plays out soon enough, but now is most definitely not the time to sit back and enjoy the show.

The Nebraska media has been totally irresponsible in its coverage and concessions to Heineman on this issue. Substantive analysis has been lacking as has criticism in any but the tamest and most general sense. Last month, there was even a very disturbing sign that the legislature might follow the same weak trajectory when Heineman made the rarest of appearance before the Revenue Committe - arguing on LB 331's behalf - and was only asked a single softball question by its members.

When our public opinion and policy leaders will not offer more scrutiny than that, it is incumbent upon the people to stand up and assert themselves - protecting their own interests when nobody else will.

If you are disturbed at all by the plan Heineman's put forward, the time has come to contact your state senator and to crank out those letters to the editor. There are shapes forming in the haze of legislative process off in the distance. Battle lines are being drawn behind closed doors. The facts are on our side, as is the will of the people. Let us use them both - without fail and without flinching - in defense of the greater future it falls upon us to pave the way for all Nebraskans.

Go to full text...