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...

LD-11: Contenders Emerging To Succeed Chambers

By: Dave Sund

A legislative giant of 38 years who drew strong feelings (both pro- and con-) throughout the state, Ernie Chambers will be forced out of the legislature due to term limits in 2008.
 Now, the race to succeed him in the legislature begins. So far, two candidates, both Democrats, one Democrat, and one independent, have emerged. The first is Preston Love, Jr.

Preston Love Jr. may become the first person to vie for the chance to succeed State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha in the Nebraska Legislature. Love has scheduled a Sept. 20 press conference to announce that he will run for the District 11 seat. Term limits will force Chambers, who has served in the Legislature since 1971, to vacate his seat in January 2009. Love, 65 and a registered Democrat, said Monday he sees the Legislature as his best chance to help north Omaha. "With the challenges and crises we're in, we need a major, major focus," on north Omaha, Love said. "I have weighed the alternatives, and this is where I could have the most impact." Love, a former University of Nebraska football player and the son of the late Omaha jazz great Preston Love Sr., has an impressive political resume. A former IBM executive, Love served as the Rev. Jesse Jackson's campaign manager in Jackson's 1984 bid for the presidency and was the first executive director of Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. He also worked in the late Harold Washington's 1983 and 1987 successful campaigns for mayor of Chicago. Along with those triumphs, however, Love suffered some embarrassing lows back home. He withdrew from a bid for the Metropolitan Utilities District board in 1992 after acknowledging an addiction to cocaine. He was arrested for shoplifting cigarettes during his unsuccessful bid for Omaha City Council in 1993. He got a $100 fine and 20 hours of community service after pleading no contest to the shoplifting charge.

The second is Matthew Stelly.

Matthew Stelly, 52, a consultant and doctoral student, said he is best-suited to protect Chambers' legacy. "I've studied Ernie Chambers more than anybody else," Stelly said Wednesday. "The person who succeeds Ernie should defend what Ernie built, what Ernie stood for, and make sure it stays in place." Stelly, a registered independent, joins Preston Love Jr., a Democrat who has scheduled a Sept. 20 press conference to officially announce his bid for the District 11 seat in next year's elections. However, Stelly would have to move to be able to file for the office. Stelly presently lives near 48th and Izard Streets, in District 8. In 2006, he ran for the District 8 legislative seat, finishing fifth in the primary election. Democrat Tom White was elected to the post in November. The Nebraska Constitution requires senators to have lived one year in their districts before their election. Stelly said he is willing to move. He said much is at stake for District 11. "Because of the demographic changes in north Omaha, somebody white" might win, said Stelly, who is black. Black lawmakers have represented the area since the 1950s. Chambers has held the seat since 1971 and must step down because of term limits. "The best politician we ever had, who wasn't compromising and stood for being black, was Ernie Chambers," Stelly said. Stelly said he feared that critical legislation passed by Chambers, such as district elections for the Omaha City Council, the Douglas County Board and the Omaha Public Schools board, could be undone by future Legislatures. "It could be open season on north Omaha," Stelly said.

Go to full text...

LD 27: Dan Marvin To Run For Legislature

By: Dave Sund

I mentioned before that this community creates an opportunity to expand our scope and dive in deeper to local races. Though the unicameral is officially nonpartisan, the reality is that partisan politics rule when it comes to standing up to Dave Heineman. A number of veterans of the unicameral will be term-limited out of office, and while it means we will be losing some dedicated public servants - and one controversial legislative giant - there is also a tremendous opportunity to gain ground and elect the next generation of progressive voices for Nebraska. There will be 26 legislative seats up for election in 2008. We'll do our best to cover them.

Dan Marvin, the city councilman who overcame some ugly Republican attacks to win his election in 2005, is running for legislature:

City Councilman Dan Marvin has worked on many of Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek's campaigns, but next spring he'll be working on his own legislative campaign.  

Marvin announced Tuesday that he intends to run for the District 27 seat that Schimek will leave next year because of term limits. She was elected in 1988 and has been re-elected every four years since.  

Marvin served on the planning commission from 2002 to 2005, when he was elected to the City Council. He said he had been thinking about running for the Legislature for a while because he feels he could represent the city's interests well on the state level.  

"If I'm a strong voice for the city of Lincoln and the citizens of Lincoln, I think I can do more there than if I'm on the City Council," he said.

Go to full text...

State Senator Mick Mines Resigns

If we really want to see more progressive voices in the Nebraska Unicameral, Legislative District 18 - running from Blair to Northwest Omaha - just became a prime pick-up opportunity in November 2008 after the resignation of State Sen. Mick Mines only one year into his second term.

As Eric reports, Mines will be leaving office to set-up shop with his own lobbying firm. It seems he couldn't wait any longer to cash-in like former Speaker Kermit Brashear on all the fat lobbying contracts and legislative inexperience that abound in the post-term limits environment.

Of course, District 18 voters should be annoyed - perhaps even outraged - that Mines would abandon their interests to exercise his legislative influence in the name of corporate profits. Every voter across the state, though, should heed the warnings of this situation, which so well illustrates the dangerous expansion in corporate influence that has consumed Nebraska politics under the reigns of Gov. Dave Heineman and his predecessor, Mike Johanns.

Heineman will appoint Mines' successor for the 2008 legislative session. The example Heineman set with the appointment of Tony Fulton in November 2006 suggests he will look for a long-time partisan ideologue who can be counted on to serve his corporate agenda.

If that again proves to be the case, this is a district ripe for change where we must give the people the chance to break Heineman's lock-grip on the legislature, restoring much-needed balance to our state's democracy.

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...

Preparing For 2008

by: Dave Sund

So, my first couple of posts here are going to be along these lines: what we're doing, where we're going, etc. I'm pretty excited about the possibilities of this website, and I feel that there's a lot of things we can do that we just couldn't do before. In 2006, the amount of attention paid to the races by our Nebraska blogosphere virtually mirrored the amount of coverage it got in the media. Jim Esch got a couple of mentions by Kyle, and I wrote a couple of diaries that got a few comments at Daily Kos, but for the most part, he didn't get much publicity even from the folks who were paying attention. Maxine Moul's campaign had a few problems getting media attention (the cookie-cutter campaign certainly didn't help), and didn't really distinguish herself. And there wasn't a mention of lower-ballot races. The vast majority of the focus from the two major progressive sources at the time was on Scott Kleeb and Ben Nelson, with David Hahn thrown in there for good measure. The reason for this? The limitations of the platform. Major media sources were saturated with Nelson vs. Ricketts, so it was pretty hard to ignore. As the summer months came, more and more progressives fell in love with Scott Kleeb as a candidate. One blogger can only do so much.  Which is why this is such a tremendous opportunity for growth, not only in the ideas and nature of Nebraska's progressive blogosphere, but in the progressive movement as a whole for this state. Instead of just Kyle, or Ryan, or myself, we have an entire community at our disposal. If there's a story out there that you feel isn't getting attention: bring it to our attention. If there's a candidate out there that needs our support, or if you are that candidate, post a diary. The best thing about this new platform is that you can contribute a great deal to the discussion. Strength in numbers.

For the past several months, I've had a laser focus on the U.S. Senate race, and I have, on more than one occasion, called it the single most important race in 2008 in Nebraska. But that is not to say that the other races are not important, and that's part of the point: we have an opportunity to look at the whole board, and shine a spotlight on races that might not get much attention otherwise. Our near-misses in 2006 should not be viewed as failures or aberrations, but as a sign of what can be done. Scott Kleeb fell short in a district where no one gave him a chance at all. But instead of writing this district off, and giving the seat to Adrian Smith for life, Democrats like Lisa Hannah of Smith Watch decided to get active, and hold Smith accountable. And though nothing is official, Scott Kleeb strongly hinted last week to the Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago that he is eying a rematch against Smith. There's the energy that came with Jim Esch's campaign, a desire for real change that fell just short. A cynic or an outsider could see that as a triumph of money in politics, but the reality is that the grassroots took a candidate with no money, no name recognition, an inexperienced staff, and a completely unconventional campaign strategy and propelled him to a better finish than anyone in this district had in about a decade. Can we capture the same energy with a different candidate? Time will tell, but I sincerely hope that we don't have to worry about it. Because Jim Esch is exactly the type of person who should represent us in Congress. The greatest opportunity for growth, though, comes in the way we cover the races for legislature. Even in the local media, there is very little in the way of coverage. There's little reason why we can't devote time to covering legislative races, now that we have the platform. In 2008, we are losing longtime veterans of the unicameral. But in their place we are beginning to see young, progressive individuals step up to answer the call. It's my hope that in the next several months, we can tell the story of all of our candidates, young and old alike.

Go to full text...

Sham Hearing Produces Desired Results for Legislature & Lobbyists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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...

Dave Heineman: Corrupting the Young

Republican Governor Uses Strong Arm Tactics on Student Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Who Will Stand Up to Governor Heineman?

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

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

OWH Editorial (06/03/2007)

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

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

OWH Editorial (06/04/2007)

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

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

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

OWH Editorial (06/05/2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle Michaelis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go to full text...

Omaha: One City, Period.

Schools Controversy Highlights Nebraska's Political Shortcomings

I'll admit LB 641 was an imperfect and messy solution to a poorly defined problem. It's frustrating that compromise required the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, and there's certainly no guarantee that the separate districts will keep their promises to cooperate in a way that minimizes redundancy and waste.

Actually, there's no guarantee that any of the provisions in this bill will do what they were intended to do and eliminate the shameful achievement gap between black and white, wealthy and impoverished. It's probably fair to characterize this law, as one recent letter to the editor did (OWH, 6/2/07), as a "social experiment with no basis for guaranteed success." There are no guarantees here. This is a gamble. But considering the magnitude of the problem and the absence of any solution offering "guaranteed success", a gamble was precisely what the doctor ordered.

The few alternatives the Legislature could seriously consider -either ignoring the problem entirely, or funding study after study while allowing more and more kids to fall through the cracks- were morally unacceptable. There is at least some hope that any serious overhaul of the status quo might produce the grassroots optimism, innovation and dedication necessary to make our schools work. But by embracing a bold and equitable plan to confront the issues of race and wealth, the Unicameral has given their bill a fantastic chance to succeed, and that is reason enough for our enthusiasm and praise.

But even if I thought these concerns were legitimate, they wouldn't explain the size and volume of 641's opposition. No, there is a bigger issue at work here, one that's more familiar and more universal to Nebraska politics in general. Let's take another look at those letters to the editor:

I moved to Gretna years ago to avoid the big-school problems of the Omaha Public Schools, and I dislike being dragged into it now. The schools in towns like Gretna or Springfield have nothing in common with OPS and shouldn't be a part of it. (OWH, 6/2/07)

The message the Legislature has sent to Sarpy County students is clear: Those who reside in a district that values education and produces high-achieving students will work hard and be rewarded by having funds seized from their district and given to districts that need it more. That concept is straight from Karl Marx: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Sarpy County needs to find a legal way to kill this awful plan or look into seceding from Nebraska. (OWH, 6/1/07)

Sound familiar? This is the "rugged individualism", the "my way, my money, my rights" attitude that has defined Nebraska politics to a greater extent than either conservatism or Republicanism.

The problem with this attitude, in part, is that I hesitate to even call it a problem. Frankly, it's endearing. It's the very quality that makes this state "home". And it's done a lot of good for politics on both a state and a national level, in both parties and in every decade.

Without this attitude and our subsequent identification with the loner and the iconoclast, we may never have produced figures like Democrat William Jennings Bryan or Republican George Norris, statesmen who played invaluable roles in the Progressive reforms of the early 20th century and the passage of the New Deal. And yes, if any solution should ever arise from this mess in Iraq, it may come in large part thanks to the efforts of current mavericks like Senators Hagel, Nelson and Kerrey, all of whom demonstrate a unique willingness not only to cross party lines, but to break them down.

But even when the lone wolf shows remarkable success at building consensus, he cannot by his very nature build a community. That is the nature of Nebraska: politically, culturally, at every level and in every corner of the state. LB 641 is an affront to that sense.

That's the only real gamble. Our schools will work for us when we work for each other. But, frankly, that's asking a lot. It's asking us to overcome history and inertia. To part with the very quality that makes this state home.

Is there some middle ground, some way we can build that sense of community while maintaining our individualistic identity? Maybe, but it starts with us recognizing the need for that same consensus building and risk taking in a realm outside our government.

It's not enough to just win elections. If it were, Omaha would be in far better shape than it is today. Policy can only do so much, it is we the people who must find that optimism, innovation and dedication necessary to make this city work. We must find it in ourselves. Our rugged, egotistical selves.

Go to full text...

LB 641: An Unlikely Mission Accomplished

On sale now (via Paging Power)

At the start of this legislative session I outlined my significant doubts that a Unicameral this inexperienced could successfully tackle an issue as laden with tripwires and land mines as the Omaha schools boundary dispute. I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

LB 641 confronts the two most urgent issues at hand -money and race- with courage, common sense and innovation. Inevitably, with so many different chefs seeking to put their individual stamp on this effort, the result is imperfect and a little messy. But the legislature kept their eye on the prize and managed a compromise that contained the best ideas of all proposals. I am especially fond of the "focus schools" concept (weird as it seems) - your best chance of combating institutionalized attitudes of ignorance and bias are the construction of communities small enough and cooperative enough to forge a new identity, an identity not tied to race or geography but to common need and interest.

There are many people to thank for this effort (which, while unproven, offers real promise and a rare opportunity for large-scale change), but give credit especially to Senator Chambers for forcing everyone back to the drawing board. I have been especially critical of his proposal to divide OPS along racial lines, but considering his strategic willingness to embrace compromise and surrender earlier demands of racial division, I have to wonder if this isn't exactly the result he intended all along.

What's that you say? Far-fetched? Inconceivable? Sure, but if any legislator invites such "cloak-and-dagger" fantasies it's the parliamentary giant from North O. I may not agree with Chambers' vision of what race relations in this nation could be or should be, but I have to admit his uncannily accurate sense of what they are. He understands this powder keg better than just about anyone, and at times he can be downright brilliant in the use of its explosive power for productive purposes.

After all, demolition is often the first step in construction.

So, my hats off to Chambers and the rest of the legislature for a job well done. And thanks also to the Governor and those Senators who supported LB 1024 for playing the necessary but unenviable role of "the stooge". Without your petty opportunism, this would have never been possible.

Go to full text...

State Senator Brad Ashford: The Best Republican in the Bunch

Returning as a State Senator 12 years after serving two terms in the late 1980s/early 1990s, Omaha's Brad Ashford has definitely impressed with his leadership of the Nebraska Legislature's Judiciary Committee. I'll refrain from singing any further accolades and simply let the man speak for himself, as quoted in a Sunday Lincoln Journal-Star profile:

Having grown up in Omaha, I’ve always really enjoyed the diversity of the people. Many, many different ethnic groups......

I’m committed to social justice. I grew up in a family that was grounded in that....

We need to constantly be vigilant against intolerance....

I think we ought to get back to our roots. We are, at our roots, a secular society that believes passionately about the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. It’s a wonderful mixture where people have the right to believe and say what they will.

At the same time, we should be careful not to impose our views or our religion on others.

Not your usual Republican themes, there. But, damn if it isn't refreshing to see someone who really doesn't fit into modern political stereotypes.....who uses the supposed independence afforded by our nonpartisan legislative environment to answer to principle rather than any one side's partisan extremists.

Our hats off to Sen. Ashford, with thanks for the example he has set this legislative session.

Go to full text...

Dishonest and Disgusting: The Debate Over LB 475

Look, I don't always envy our state legislators. Theirs is a tough job filled with tough decisions about complex issues and half-baked compromises. But that's not LB 475. In the legislative world, this is a gimme, a no-brainer: "Should employers be allowed to discriminate against applicants and employees based on sexual orientation alone?"

No, they shouldn't.

And a majority of Nebraskans agree. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Nebraskans in every single legislative district in the state reached that conclusion a long time ago. Why then is our legislature so far behind?

Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek said she couldn’t remember how many times the bill or a similar one had come before the Legislature.

“Every year I hope and think that this might be the year that we can pass it,” she said. “I think this is an important bill.”

I agree, Senator. And the people of Nebraska agree. It's your damn loony peers in the Unicameral who haven't figured it out just yet. People like this:

Sen. Pat Engel of South Sioux City, who said he had a gay nephew who died of AIDS, could not support the bill, he said. By giving homosexuals protected status, he said, the state could be taking away employers’ rights.

If a gay employee was not performing his duties, and the employer fired him, Engel said, the person could claim discrimination. “That’s what concerns me,” he said.

“I do not have anything against them. I do not appreciate their lifestyle, but it’s their business, not mine,” he said.

Presumably, Senator Engel would prefer to repeal the Fair Employment Practice Act all together. That way we wouldn't have to deal with all those frivolous lawsuits from disgruntled racial and religious minorities... not to mention the disabled. Seriously, is anyone taking this down? South Sioux City, is this really the representation you deserve?

Or how about this gem from Southeast Lincoln:

Lincoln Senator Tony Fulton cited a 1991 report from the Wall Street Journal that listed the national average annual income of homosexual households as significantly higher than those averages of other minorities. Based on that, Fulton said LB 475 is not necessary because homosexuals are able to earn comparable incomes.

You see? What's good for the gander is good for the goose. Homosexuals, as a group, were doing better than other minorities, as a group, sixteen years ago... and that was before Nebraska had a law protecting them from employment discrimination. Imagine what they'd do if 475 actually passed! They might even compete with the majority!

Oh, the humanity...

Well, Senators, I got some bad news for you: somebody is taking all this down. Somebody is listening. And those of us who are have a duty to let our friends and neighbors know just what their legislative leaders are doing.

Maybe this won't be the year to make it happen. But it won't happen, ever, until and unless the rest of us get fed up enough to write our Senators, call our Senators, visit the capitol... anything and everything we can to make this the last year we have to hope, and hope, and get nothing in return.

Go to full text...

Our Town

I don't have much to add to Kyle's post on " State Agency Bans Discussion About Gay Parenting", but this comment at the Nebraska Democratic Party's blog is a real eye-opener:

At first my emotions were on the sensationalist level (“BE AN ACTIVIST AND GO TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THIS….”). Now that I [had] time to be collective about this, I am just saddened by the level of bigotry exuding in Nebraska. Maybe my peers are correct to tell me that there is no hope for me here?! I always scoffed at that notion because Nebraska is my home and I have such a huge affection for my home. However the bigots in this state truly do make me second guess that I am worthy of being an ordinary tax-paying citizen of America. And that is why I am distraught about this situation. Why must I be demonized in the place I call “home?”

-Luke Peterson (college student and Member of the Nebraska LGBT Democratic Caucus, with permission)

At their most logical, these assaults on gay rights and the "gay lifestyle" are meant to make members of the LGBT community rethink their own identity... to second guess themselves. And in this sense they have succeeded: they have convinced many bright young men and women to question their identity as Nebraskans.

And who can blame them? If the wingnuts leading this anti-homosexual crusade really believed their rhetoric (that gay marriage is a threat to civilization itself, that gay adoption is a pox upon the children) there would be no need to silence this discussion. Those confident of their positions don't shy away from debate, they embrace the opportunity to respond and persuade.

But the anti-gay rights movement isn't about discussion; isn't about debate. It isn't really about anything. It's a senseless and classless attempt to use the law to bully a population that makes some people uncomfortable.

And it's worked. Discrimination is enshrined in our state constitution. It is a cornerstone of our campaign rhetoric. It is the undeniable, unquestionable, fundamental truth of Cornhusker politics.

But it is not Nebraska. Not the Nebraska I know. And not the place I call home.

Look, America is not an ethnic nation or a tribal nation. It is a creedal nation, and we belong to that community because we subscribe to that creed: that "all men are created equal" and, in Nebraska, "Equality Before the Law". That is our creed, and hence this is our home.

It is not the bigots that must go, it is their bigotry. And it is not us progressives that don't belong; it is our fears and our doubts. We can't afford them, and we cannot allow the bullies that final victory: to elbow us out, to disappear us into another community, another state, another country. To surrender to them a state and a creed that they don't deserve.

I understand the feelings of hopelessness, of feeling lost in a place called "home". But we need to stick together, and we need to celebrate each small success. The Congressional candidate who boldly challenges the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Mayor who advocates a "live and let live" community. The state party that cares enough to cover these issues, prominently, on the front page of their website.

Someday soon these triumphs (small as they are) will have to translate into victory at the ballot box. And for that, we will need every person who loves this state to fight for it. But let's try to remember: this isn't about taking over, and it's not about 'taking it back'. Because you don't have to take what is already yours.

You need only to remember, and to remind.

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...

State Agency Bans Discussion About Gay Parenting

This is a pretty damn fine display of the right-wing whack-jobs who are pulling the strings in state government. Leaders of Nebraska Health and Human Services seem to think by prohibiting discussion of the troubles faced by Nebraska families with gay parents, the problems - or maybe even the families themselves - will simply disappear.

The Lincoln Journal-Star reports:

[S]tate HHS leaders recently ordered a Lincoln-based diversity committee to remove one speaker from an informational forum focusing on family diversity because the woman was in a same-sex partnership....

The team was told to remove the speaker involved in same-sex parenting from the lineup, even though the agency policy statement says the team should promote and encourage the appreciation of human diversity in the workplace and communities served by HHS, said Cathy Kingery, diversity committee co-chairwoman.

The forum was neither condoning nor condemning gay life but simply recognizing its existence and the special circumstances families may encounter, Kingery said in an e-mail description of the issue. The administration was unwilling to waiver, she said.

HHS administrators say the diversity team strayed from agency guidelines that limit diversity issues to groups protected under federal law. They include race, religion, national origin, gender and handicaps, but not sexual orientation, said HHS spokeswoman Kathie Osterman....

[Kingery] said committee members were aware that previous diversity committees had been told they couldn’t discuss same-sex issues, but they had seen nothing in writing.

Concerned they were being asked to discriminate when their goal was to recognize and encourage appreciation of diversity, 11 of 18 committee members, including the two co-chairmen, resigned.

After reporters began inquiring on Friday about the guidelines limiting diversity issues, HHS system CEO Chris Peterson said she wanted to meet with committee members....

Kingery said she and others would be happy to talk with Peterson, and she might be willing to rejoin the group if members had the right to discuss any diversity issue.

“But I’m not willing to just give lip service to diversity. We can’t blatantly discriminate against one group of people just because the administration doesn’t want us to acknowledge they exist.”

In answer to questions, Peterson said the guideline was not established to avoid political controversy but to provide a way of managing programs. She also said the agency does not discriminate against employees because they are gay.

This is just outrageously pathetic and backwards. It's also a pretty ugly reminder of the adversity faced by non-traditional, same-sex parent families, who currently have no recognition or protection under state law and who are supposedly so dangerous a threat to our society that they can't even be discussed in state government.

Sadly, I believe LB 571, which would have provided some measure of protection to same-sex parents and their children, won't be going anywhere this legislative session. It also remains unlikely that LB 475 can muster the support it needs to affirm the decency of Nebraska's citizens by ending discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.

But, we know that the principles of equality raised by these issues are right and true and that our common humanity shall eventually prevail. Alas, change in democracy does take time. This embarrassing prohibition of even discussing gay parents in a forum on diversity is a testament to the fear and weakness of those who support the shameful status quo.

For forcing this issue and exposing this horrible policy for what it is, the New Nebraska Network salutes Cathy Kingery and all those representatives on HHS' Lincoln Diversity Committee who have made a stand for a just cause and a greater Nebraska.

Go to full text...

Nebraska's "Common Cause" in Lobbyist Reform

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in Sunday's Lincoln Journal-Star and raises an excellent point about our state's failure to regulate Unicameral campaign contributions by registered lobbyists:

The Legislature is in session and 350 lobbyists are eager to win favor. What a perfect time to hold a fundraiser breakfast at Billy's or the Nebraska Club....

A restaurant like Billy's is closed to the public for breakfast. The public and the press are not permitted to witness the transactions. Lobbyists and senators send out private invitations usually asking lobbyists for a $100 contribution at the door while fellow senators get complimentary passes. Individual contributions must be kept under $250 so the contributor's names will not have to be reported. A Public Service commissioner appears to hold the record by raising more than $19,000 at a Billy's fundraiser. Only the total amount raised has to be reported.

The invitations clearly point out: "If unable to attend, please mail your contribution to: (Senator’s name)." Some senators actually take attendance and follow up with a letter and a return envelope to non-attending lobbyists. The implication is, if you don't come across you are not likely to influence me. Is extortion too strong a word?....

It is clear that incumbents have a great advantage over any challenger by employing the in-session fundraiser. The lobbyists are handy, the legislative leverage is in place, and the geographic location is perfect. Even better, you don't have to make a campaign speech or any promises to the press or the public.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 16 states prohibit any campaign contributions during their legislative sessions. Twelve more states prohibit registered lobbyists from making contributions during legislative sessions. Nebraska, obviously, isn't one of those states.

Jack Gould, Valparaiso
Common Cause Nebraska

Gould's characterization of these fundraising efforts as "extortion" seems a needless exaggeration and a somewhat unfair accusation. But, the issue he raises about these private breakfasts and luncheons leaving our state legislature susceptible to corruption and influence-peddling is a perfectly legitimate one.

Restriction - perhaps even prohibition - of campaign contributions during the legislative session and by registered lobbyists are both worthy ideas deserving of enactment here in Nebraska. Not that such reforms would cure the ultimate problem, but the worst possibilities for impropriety would at least be mitigated.

Still, there's no removing money from politics. With these changes, senators, contributors and lobbyists would just have to be more creative and better prepared (i.e. getting their 'ducks in a row' before the session begins). There will still be the scratching of each other's backs, the leaning on one another for this or that, the same winking assurances that there has been no quid pro quo. But - damn it - they'd at least have to work harder as they play their games at the public's expense.

That's a start. If nothing else, it's a better system with greater protections than what we have now.

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...