Tom White's "Bailout For Nebraska's Middle Class"

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 23:08:17 PM CST

This weekend's Omaha World-Herald provided some details, but Senator White's office was happy to send along more information that boldly proclaims the proposal "a bailout for Nebraska's middle class."

Tom White's Property Tax Relief Proposal Summary

At the beginning of the upcoming session, State Senator Tom White will introduce a bill to give every homeowner around $275 in property tax relief annually by exempting the first $13,000 of home values.

White's proposal would amend the existing property tax credit program developed by the Governor and the Legislature in 2007. As currently structured, this program distributes tax relief based on valuation. This dilutes its effectiveness for homeowners by sending huge amounts of money to big businesses and large out-of-state landowners. Constitutionally, a homestead exemption is the only way to use the current program to exclusively help homeowners.

As currently structured, the property tax credit program takes Nebraskans' sales and income tax dollars and uses them to subsidize tax breaks for large landowners like Ted Turner (the largest owner of land in Nebraska). This is irresponsible and does nothing to stimulate the state's economy. Under the current program, less than half of the money appropriated to the fund goes to people who own their own homes.

Sen. White's proposal is a bailout for Nebraska's middle class. It directs all tax relief to homeowners, keeping the money in the state's economy.  Homeowners will receive about $275 in property tax relief annually. The current property tax credit program gives relief of only around $85 per $100,000 of valuation.

This proposal contains no new spending. The cost - $115 million - is already budgeted for the existing property tax credit program.

While it's been suggested that White's plan will result in "a battle between urban and rural factions in the Legislature," that's an outrageous oversimplification of the real debate and the real issues at the heart of this proposal.  Yes, major property holders benefit more from the current, across-the-board tax credit program, but their powerful political voice should not be confused for the voice of rural Nebraska.

In my understanding, it's actually small town homeowners in rural Nebraska who stand to gain the most from White's proposal because their homes have substantially lower valuations than their urban counterparts.  In fact, those who own homes valued at less than $100,000 - which is a lot of homeowners in our rural communities - are likely to see their tax credit triple if White's amendments become law.

In other words, this is hardly a plan that pits urban Nebraskans vs. rural Nebraskans.  It's a plan that forces our State Senators to take a good hard look at the problems faced by homeowners all across the state and decide whether it might not be time to finally focus relief towards Nebraska families and our forgotten middle class.

Although they're all the rage in Washington D.C., I actually don't see this proposal as "a bailout" of anyone.  It's a long overdue refund to those who are the true backbone of our state's communities and our economy.  And, I can't wait to see what ridiculous arguments Heineman and his Henchmen will rely upon in their attempts to defeat it.

Anonymous Republican Operative Proposes RACIST Redistricting Plan

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:00:00 AM CST

With that in mind, the Lincoln Journal-Star's Don Walton writes in his weekly column:

Wild idea.  A 2nd District Republican operative tossed another 2011 congressional redistricting idea on my platter last week.  It'll take your breath away.

Because Washington County already is in the 1st District and bounds Douglas County on the north, why not extend the 1st District boundaries southward and snatch Omaha's 1st and 2nd Wards?

Move north Omaha's African-American voters into the Lincoln district to balance population among the House districts, thus avoiding the alternative prospect of considering separation of Bellevue and Offutt Air Force Base from the Omaha district.

Just an idea, he says.  All designed, of course, to make the 2nd District safer for Republicans in congressional elections.  Of course, it also would change the 2nd District presidential electoral vote battleground when Obama seeks re-election in 2012.

That's thinking outside the box.  Somewhere between bold and brazen.  You may resume breathing now.

Target Property Tax Relief To Ted Turner Or To Nebraska Homeowners???

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 00:41:35 AM CST

That's an argument with some merit, but it lost any credibility amidst their obvious and transparent attempts to advance, instead, a corporate-friendly cut in the state income tax targeted towards the wealthiest Nebraskans.  Of course, they also wanted to eliminate the estate tax, which - surprise, surprise - helped the exact same people.

As things turned out, State Senators still listened to constituents and refused to entirely give up their focus on property taxes.  Heineman got the repeal of the estate tax he wanted but was otherwise left signing a bill comprising a hodgepodge of proposals thrown together by the Legislature's Revenue Committee.

What was disappointing about that whole package was the fact that several alternatives had been offered to the Revenue Committee that would have offered much more targeted relief to those who actually needed it the most.  Chief among these was a proposal by State Senator Tom White that would have provided Nebraska homeowners a property tax credit up to $500.

White's plan would have directed most relief towards middle and working class Nebraskans.  Instead of that, we saw targeted benefits for the wealthy in the elimination of the estate tax and targeted benefits for the poor in the expansion of the state Earned Income Tax Credit.  The middle class, though, was generally left out in the cold except for a blanket, across-the-board program for property tax credits that I challenged immediately for providing tens of thousands of dollars to wealthy, out-of-state landowners while providing only $84 in relief for the average Nebraska homeowner.

Thankfully, in 2009, this property tax credit program comes up for reauthorization.  It's future promises to be one of the defining issues of the legislative session as State Sen. White has again emerged with a proposal that would take the same amount of property tax relief and actually focus it towards the middle class and Nebraska homeowners through a $13,000 tax exemption.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Funding for Gov. Dave Heineman's $115 million-a-year property tax credit program, passed in 2007, is up for reauthorization this year.  State Sen. Tom White of Omaha plans to take another stab at amending the program, a debate likely to ignite a battle between urban and rural factions in the Legislature....

White said he will push to focus the $115 million program on people he says need it most: homeowners in urban areas and small towns.  He said more than half of Heineman's property tax credit goes to owners of large tracts of agricultural land, including many out-of-state land owners such as billionaire bison rancher Ted Turner, the largest landowner in Nebraska.

"How do you justify giving Ted Turner over $1 million over the last two years?" White said.  He said shipping tax relief to out-of-state landowners makes no economic sense.

White's proposal would grant a homestead tax exemption on the first $13,000 of a home's valuation. He said that would result in an average reduction in property taxes of $275 for every homeowner.....

The World-Herald's Monopoly-in-the-Making

by: Kyle Michaelis

Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:46:23 PM CST

Daily Newspaper Circulation Rankings
(provided by Nebraska Press Association

1. Omaha World-Herald
2. Lincoln Journal-Star
3. Grand Island Independent
4. **Norfolk Daily News
5. Scottsbluff Star-Herald
6. North Platte Telegraph
7. Kearney Hub

italics - World-Herald owned
** - member of World-Herald News Service

A Vote Of No Confidence In Press Handling Of Latest Johanns Scandal

by: Kyle Michaelis

Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 17:59:00 PM CST

This story has cost Peterson his job on Johanns' Senate staff, but it otherwise appears the Nebraska press isn't all that interested in investigating it any further.  That is extremely distressing - an affront to our democracy - but not at all surprising.

Right now, the only things we know are what Johanns has told us.  The people of Nebraska have seen no documentary evidence to support ANYTHING that he's said - meaning we have no reason to believe anything about this latest story.  We only know that there has been fraud and there have been lies.  Nothing else can be taken for granted, and we can't be satisfied until a full accounting of events (and amounts) has been constructed from scratch and supported by facts.  

The official story is that Tydd Rohrbaugh gave an envelope full of cash to the Johanns campaign at a February 2008 fundraiser.  Other than that, we really don't know a damn thing.  Peterson is taking responsibility for the fraudulent reporting, but the idea of that somehow closing the book on the story is utterly absurd and downright outrageous.  

Here's what we need to know:

1.  SPECIFICALLY, where and when was this fundraiser held at which this cash was received?

2.  SPECIFICALLY, who received Rohrbaugh's envelope of cash?  From there, where did that money go?  How many hands did it travel through and whose hands were they?

3.  Is there ANY documentary evidence to support that envelope containing $1,000 or are we just taking Peterson's word on that amount?

4.  Where is the dollar-for-dollar accounting of every fraudulent receipt by which this contribution was reported?

5.  What did the campaign's treasurer - Richard Nelson - know and when did he know it?

As for where this envelope of cash actually went, that's been complicated by Johanns and Peterson's claim that some of it was used as petty cash.  Here's what the Code of Federal Regulations says on such campaign spending:  

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements.
-- 11 CFR 102.11.

Where is the outrage?  Outside of NNN, where are the questions?  There might be reasons for believing the story that has been told, but they're certainly not on the record as should and must be the case with a scandal such as this.  So far, the Nebraska media seems to have bought Johanns' explanation of events hook, line, and sinker - and they're just shoving it down our throats with no questions asked.

What Don't We Know About The Johanns Campaign's Illegal Envelope Of Cash?

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 18:50:55 PM CST

The Associated Press reports:

Nebraska Sen.-elect Mike Johanns has told the Federal Election Commission that one of his longtime aides mishandled a cash campaign contribution in violation of federal law.  Johanns campaign manager Chris Peterson accepted $1,000 in cash from Tydd Rohrbough of rural Greenwood in February. It's against FEC rules to make a cash contribution of more than $100.

In a Wednesday letter to the FEC, Johanns' campaign attorney J.L. Spray said Peterson deposited some of the cash in amounts of $50 or less and reported them as separate anonymous contributions....

Johanns said Peterson called him Tuesday afternoon to tell him what he had done. Peterson offered no explanation, Johanns said.

"He said this was something that was bothering him," Johanns said. "He had sought the advice of an attorney, and the attorney's advice was you have to tell the senator-elect. So he was making the call to tell me what had happened. I think ultimately, as we were nearing taking office, he really decided he needed legal advice on his course of action"....

According to Spray's letter to the FEC, Rohrbough handed Peterson an envelope containing $1,000 in cash in February. Rohrbough said he remembered making the donation at a fundraising function, but he didn't remember whether he gave Peterson a check or cash.

But, the real question that remains is why did Peterson confess and where does this story go from here.  Johanns' suggestion that it was some matter of conscience definitely strains credibility.  It seems far more likely Peterson caught wind of the FEC discovering his deceit and realized this wasn't a mistake he could correct by simply refiling those old reports.

What's clear is that Peterson was not ignorant of the law.  It wasn't by accident that he took an envelope full of cash from a single donor and reported it as multiple anonymous contributions.  What's unclear is why he would go to such lengths, breaking the law to process so relatively small a sum into the campaign's coffers.  $1,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people, but the Johanns campaign raised almost 4 million dollars - twice the amount raised by his opponent in a race that was never particularly close.

Was Peterson too lazy to return $900 of that cash to Rohrbough and ask for a check instead?  Is there something in Rohrbough's background that would result in Peterson not wanting his name appearing in the campaign's FEC reports?  Could this have been an effort to mask some future quid pro quo once Johanns is safely serving in the U.S. Senate?

Alas, the answers to such questions will have to wait until 2009.  

"The Coat Hanger Caucus": Almost 1/2 Of Senators Support Abortion Ban

by: Kyle Michaelis

Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 23:42:11 PM CST

The APs question makes exceptions to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest.  23 of our 49 senators said they agreed with such a ban - 47% of the body.  Meanwhile, only 4 senators declared their outright opposition to this proposal.  This reveals a startling extremism on this issue in the Legislature as a whole.

Again, there's no indication that a ban of this sort is being proposed in Nebraska.  When put before South Dakota voters in the 2008 election, a ban almost identical to this was soundly defeated by 10 points in a popular vote - suggesting that our current legislators may be more concerned with scoring points with powerful anti-abortion special interest groups rather than representing the will of the people.

It's not entirely clear how many State Senators would support an abortion ban without the exceptions named in the APs survey, but at least four senators said abortion should be illegal under any and all circumstances in Nebraska Right To Life's survey of the 2008 candidates.

This "Coat Hanger Caucus" includes Tony Fulton of LD 29, Beau McCoy of LD 39, Ken Schilz of LD 47, and Colby Coash of LD 27.  Today's AP report adds Cap Dierks of LD 40 to their number as he declares, "The state should prohibit all abortions, period." And, there are almost certainly others in the 2006 class of senators who would endorse this extremist position.

Of course, even the ban proposed with exceptions for the life of the mother and cases of rape and incest would clearly run foul of long-established doctrine set by the U.S. Supreme Court.  One can only assume the unlikely passage of such legislation would primarily represent an effort to challenge and overturn Roe vs. Wade and other related decisions.

In the past, it's also been suggested that a ban could be presented in latent terms - only taking effect upon reversal of the precedents by the Supreme Court that have made abortion legal for the last three and a half decades.

Believe it or not, I'm not an ideologue on this issue in any traditional sense.  Personally, I respect the complexities of the abortion debate.  But, it's because those issues are so complex and so sweeping that I find the notion absolutely preposterous that we should have different abortion laws from one state to the next.

The right to life is damn well an issue of constitutional concern that can not be interpreted to mean different things in one America. The same must be said of the right to privacy and the right to make decisions over ones own body.  These are fundamental questions on which there may always be room for thoughtful disagreement but on which a united people must ultimately share a common approach.

Reasonable people can disagree upon the particulars of abortion's morality.  In time, an evolving democracy might even come to a different balancing of the essential but competing liberties defined by this issue.  However, there's no place for the Nebraska Legislature in that debate.

Our state senators are welcome to their opinions and their philosophies, but they must resist the urge to exploit this divisive issue for cheap political gain - as so many have done in the past and so many others will no doubt continue to do in the future.  23 State Senators may personally believe whatever they like about abortion, but trying to push those beliefs through public policy is not just a bad idea but would also be bad government.

How Many Tragedies Do Some People Need?

by: Kyle Michaelis

Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 00:43:26 AM CST

Still, it is positively chilling to read the final report by Hawkins' Health and Human Services case worker, in which she recommends dismissing Hawkins from treatment eight months earlier than required by law, stating:

"Robbie has been in the court system for many years and has reached maximum benefit from what the department can provide.

"At 18 years of age, it is time for Robbie to take responsibility for his actions alone and face the joys and consequences of those actions."

I'm sure everyone who had a hand in that case is haunted by it - wondering what else and what more they might have done.  But, their folly is our folly when we continue closing our eyes to the very real suffering and the very real costs to our society from a system that is overburdened and unable to cope with the Robert Hawkins of the world.  Although no other tragedy has reached the magnitude - and the toll - of Hawkins', we can be certain of hundreds of ongoing mini-tragedies that will carry untold costs to our society if we fail to accept responsibility and adequately respond to their cries for help.

The underlying issue of reforming the mental and behavioral health system for teens and young adults was made only more urgent by Nebraska's overbroad Safe Haven law.  That legislation had to be amended by a special session of the Legislature last month after opening the door for desperate families in crisis to literally give up their children to the state to get them the help they need.

Three dozen children were given up during that short but revealing window - putting an unflattering national spotlight on our state for failing to care for its youngest and most vulnerable.  With all those headlines, it's hard to imagine that any of our state's leaders could remain blind to the failures of the current system.  Yet, it appears at least two new state senators remain only too happy persisting in such ignorance: Beau McCoy of LD 39 and Charlie Janssen of LD 15.

The Associated Press' pre-session survey makes their blind, deaf, and dumb policy positions perfectly clear:

In the wake of the recent changes to Nebraska's safe-haven law, do you feel the state needs to increase services for older children with behavioral problems?

Is it the APs question that McCoy and Janssen do not understand or have they really failed to grasp the problem?  Some measure of skepticism towards proposed solutions is warranted, but it's absolutely unforgivable to imagine - as these men apparently do - that everything is A-okay with the current system.  As a wake-up call, what more vivid example could they have possibly asked for than our state's months-long "Safe Haven" debacle?  Should it really require some terrible tragedy for McCoy and Janssen to admit there's a problem?

Oh wait....we already had one of those - the case of Robert Hawkins.  The shooting at Von Maur that left eight people dead.  What more can it possibly take - another Robert Hawkins, even more lives lost - for these embarrassing elected officials to finally open their eyes?

ALL BETS ON BEN: Can We Count On Nelson In The Next Congress?

by: Kyle Michaelis

Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 23:50:55 PM CST

With Democrats now in a clear and undeniable position of leadership,  there's a vital balance that must be struck between maintaining party unity and reaching across the aisle.  But, first and foremost, Democrats must deliver on their promise of change.  Sen. Nelson must be a constructive part of that.

In Nebraska, Nelson is our only real hope to contribute to Democrats' success - which is truly America's success over the next four years.  For fourteen years, our representatives in the U.S. House have been nothing but Republican empty suits, and there's no sign of that changing with the current delegation.  I don't want to write off incoming Republican Senator Mike Johanns before he's even cast a vote, but his talk of bipartisanship on the campaign trail rang hollow with a record in the Governor's Mansion and in the Bush White House that showed little-to-no evidence of such approach.

On the great issues facing our country, it is hard to imagine Johanns, Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, or Adrian Smith contributing to the change for which people are so hungry in any significant manner.  Again, that leaves Ben Nelson our last, best, and only real hope to make a difference.  The problem is that, on those issues where his vote hangs in the balance, Nelson may prove too cautious and conservative - selling the people of Nebraska short by failing to support the change America needs.

Last week, we got a glimpse at Nelson's 2008 voting record according to Congressional Quarterly.  On the votes judged as partisan, Nelson voted with the razor-thin Democratic majority in the Senate 72% of the time.  That was the third lowest score among Democrats - behind only Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana (65%) and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (69%).  Meanwhile, Nelson voted with Republican President George W. Bush 48% of the time - more than any other Democratic Senator besides Landrieu (53%).  

By themselves, these numbers are not any cause for immediate concern.  Nelson's is an independent voice, and the people of Nebraska embrace his independent votes.  But, as Democrats and progressives, we absolutely cannot afford to take Nelson's votes for granted.

In Nebraska Democrats' perpetual state of regrouping and rebranding, there is an incredible weight on Nelson to not only maintain the trust of Nebraskans but also to open the doors for others to build upon that trust.  To do so, he cannot lead as a man apart.  He must define and distinguish himself as a Democrat guided by his Democratic principles.

Earlier this month, Sen. Bayh announced his intention to begin a Senate caucus that would parallel the Blue Dog Democrats in the House.  The announcement was greeted with general scorn by liberal and progressive bloggers because the organization of more conservative and corporate-friendly Democrats into a voting bloc might work counter to their hopes for sweeping change.  

I'm actually much more receptive to the idea of such a caucus and even hope Nelson might be an active and vocal leader within it.  A stronger voice for this supposed faction's concerns could be effective in encouraging party unity.  It's moderating influence might also protect Democrats' recent gains while paving the way for a style of progress that truly unites the American people.

More importantly for our local purposes, this "caucus" might allow our most prominent Democratic leader to define himself in that role in a way that is palatable and perhaps even embraced by Nebraska voters.  There is incredible potential in Nelson's assuming such a role.

Named as a natural and obvious member of Bayh's caucus in news reports, Nelson has made no indication of any formal participation.  Yet, he's found himself speaking on behalf of more conservative Democrats quite often over the years - most recently in last week's Congressional Quarterly article examining the potential power of a "centrist Democrat" coalition.

Congress will tackle numerous big-ticket items during the administration of President-elect Barack Obama, including a health care overhaul, an economic recovery package costing hundreds of billions of dollars, major tax code revisions and climate change legislation.  

In nearly every case, [Majority Leader Harry] Reid will need to muster the backing of almost all Senate Democrats to overcome possible GOP filibusters, so he will have to approach the moderates carefully.

"We won't sacrifice our principles," Nebraska's Ben Nelson warned. "I hope there will be opportunities to seek consensus"....

Reid's relationship with his new teammates has implications for his own re-election in 2010...Reid's own election bid is one calculation Nelson has already made when it comes to the moderates' strategy.  Centrists, he says, "will be there for him to leverage to the extent he chooses to do that."

However, we can't be blinded by the possibilities for added prominence and influence.  Rather, it's more important than ever that we progressive Nebraskans remain true to our own principles - holding Nelson accountable on the issues that define us, working towards the change in which we believe.

AP Survey Silence Creates Doubts About Democratic State Senators

by: Kyle Michaelis

Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 18:52:50 PM CST

At this time last year, 13 of our 49 state senators chose not to participate.  Those 13 included state senators from both parties.  Most notably, that group included Ernie Chambers, who made it a point never to show his hand and to keep people in the dark as much as possible about what he had up his (purple muscle-tee's) sleeves for the coming session.

I will not guess at the motives of those other senators who chose not to participate, but I fear it too often has a lot to do with those senators not wanting to go on the record with positions on issues that could potentially carry political costs.

Although it is not entirely clear how the AP goes about selecting topics and crafting its survey, there are no glaring indications of bias in the questions asked.  That's why it's disturbing and ultimately quite disappointing to recognize a growing trend among Democratic State Senators not to participate.

In fact, as the 2009 session approaches, nine State Senators elected not to respond to this year's survey.  Although not elected with a party next to their name, it just so happens that all nine of them are Democrats - amongst these some of the most intelligent, most forward-thinking, and most promising leaders in our state:

Brenda Council
Annette Dubas
Bob Giese
Steve Lathrop
Heath Mello
Jeremy Nordquist
Kate Sullivan
Norm Wallman
Tom White

But, while such an approach might work best on individual issues, it should not replace the very real need for our state's leaders to be forthright with the constituents who elected them and the people they serve - mainly, each and every citizen of Nebraska.  Our state is not served well when its progressive leaders will not share their vision, show their strength, and make their voices heard.

This survey is not the ultimate test on which our state senators will be judged, but it is an opportunity to communicate with the people of Nebraska and show them what's really at stake in the upcoming legislative session.  This year, when they had the peoples' attention, too many of our best and brightest have chosen to stand silent.

It is not a partisan body, but the results of the AP's survey most certainly are.  It speaks volumes that all those state senators who chose not to respond were Democrats - more than half of the 17 serving in the Unicameral.  I don't know quite what this says, but I fear it isn't particularly promising for those on whom we are relying so much in shaping a brighter future for all Nebraskans.

Nebraska's Adrian Smith Continues to Put Party First

by: Lisa Hannah

Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:02:09 AM CST

As you can see, all 3 voted heavily with their party, but Adrian Smith was the most in line with his party's positions. It's astounding that, during a time when Americans and Nebraskans have been asking their leaders to work together and stop all the partisan positioning, that the 3rd District once again is shown that their representative is one of the greatest puppets of the Republican party. He ranks up there as one of the most partisan in the country. And yet, despite that, he has never shown any real leadership.

During his first 2 years in office, Adrian Smith only introduced 7 bills. To make it worse, the first 6 bills were introduced between January and July 2007. The only bill he introduced in 2008 was a resolution to recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as "Rail Town USA". And even that bill went nowhere!

By comparison, Jeff Fortenberry sponsored 27 bills, and Lee Terry sponsored 42 bills. We could dive into the content of those bills and show how there are concerns with many of them, but that can be a discussion for another time. The bottom line is that of the 3, Adrian Smith made absolutely no relevant or substantive efforts to stand up for the 3rd District of Nebraska.

In the Senate, Nebraskans had a little more balance in representation in 2008:

"No Benefit" In Heineman's Partisan Electoral College Proposal

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 20:25:29 PM CST

However, early indications in two of the district's most prominent newspapers suggest that most Nebraskans don't share the partisan blinders of Republican Party leaders and recognize it's best for the entire state that presidential candidates can't forget about us completely as they seek the highest office in the country.

A recent editorial in the McCook Gazette celebrated "the positive spotlight" put on our state in the 2008 election because of our system for awarding electoral college votes.   And, George Ayoub, the senior writer at the Grand Island Independent, has now added his voice in the current system's defense:

Earlier this week Nebraska made presidential history.  Shortly afterward, plans were afoot to cut that sort of thing out.

Timing is everything....Gov. Dave Heineman, who presided over the casting of Nebraska's five [electoral college] votes, said he would sign legislation to do away with our split vote because Nebraska should be like every other state.  Really?

Former Gov. Charles Thone said the splitter reduced away our influence, ignoring the national attention the state has received as a result of the 2nd District rowing upstream and winning. And we still get five seats in Washington's legislative branch....

As others have said about Heineman's call for national unity among electors, does this mean we should start dismantling our unique (and stunningly effective) public power system? What about our one and only unicameral?

Being like everyone else may have worked for the safe-haven law, but I see no benefit in changing our electoral process.  Nor could I track Thone's point about losing our influence. On the contrary, I think what has happened has infused a new relevance into the state's presidential politics....

Our divided structure differentiates us from other, winner-take-all states, where a possible 49.99 percent of voters might view their civic duty as an exercise in irrelevance.  We Nebraskans normally embrace a well-constructed independence.  That leaves bad timing and sour grapes....

The history of [the 2nd Congressional District's] vote was in line with the huge historic moment we witnessed in November, when voters gave form and function to the promise and dream that is America.  Whether we should split our five votes in a presidential election is reasonable to debate -- as long as the question is called for something other than the results.

Yes, that's even true - perhaps, especially true - of the conservative but independent-minded voters of the Third Congressional District.

Ben Nelson Stands Up To "Smear Tactics" Against Democrats & The EFCA

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 00:08:32 AM CST

Opponents of the controversial Employee Free Choice Act are making the most out of the scandal surrounding Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.  The pro-business Americans for Job Security is running a TV ad in Arkansas, Nebraska and North Dakota telling Democratic senators in those states not to vote for the EFCA, commonly referred to as the "card check" bill but dubbed the "union boss bailout" in the ad.

The group likens the money the Service Employees International Union used to help elect Democratic senators to the pay-to-play accusations against Democrat Blagojevich. The spot alleges that the senators' "payback" to the SEIU will take "from workers the right to a secret ballot"....

The ad targets Democratic senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska; Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota; and Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Nelson has always been a friend to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - more friendly than I would prefer and sometimes to the detriment of organized labor and working families.  That said, it's very telling that this latest ad has invited one of the most harshly-worded responses of Nelson's entire political career:

"Sometimes you see something so dumb you know the creators thought they had a brainstorm. But it really was just a drizzle. That's how I reacted when I saw sleazy and intentionally confusing advertisements running in Nebraska media outlets that mention me.

"The ads, paid for by a Washington special interest group that hides its donors, are an insult to Nebraskans who are interested in a proposed bill, the "Employee Free Choice Act," and have shared their thoughts with me. While I have expressed concerns about the legislation and continue to weigh it, these ads are unfair to those who deserve an honest, fact-based debate if it is considered next year by Congress.

"The good news is I know Nebraskans are smarter than this special interest group thinks they are. We Nebraskans certainly know a snow job from a snow storm.

"The ads apparently address a provision that would eliminate the rights of employees to cast secret ballots on union organizing petitions. There are clear views for and against this idea. But the ads cook up a stew of innuendo linking Illinois' embattled governor to political campaign contributions, to unpopular "bailouts" for the banking and auto industries, and to the bill somehow being a bailout. This has nothing to do with the "Employee Free Choice Act."

"If Americans for Job Security, which paid for the ads, is convinced that the legislation has enough support to pass, I can't imagine how this demeaning and misleading media campaign would persuade any member of Congress to vote no.

"I can take debate and criticism on the merits of issues before Congress, and believe that Nebraskans deserve to know where I stand when I cast my vote.  But smear tactics that insult me and my fellow Nebraskans?  These folks shot themselves in the foot. While aiming."

Heineman's Henchmen Commit To Unicameral Committee-Stacking

by: Kyle Michaelis

Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 14:11:42 PM CST

Earlier this year, we saw LD 15 Senator-elect Charlie Janssen campaigning against illegal immigrants and for the death penalty by angling for a position on the Judiciary Committee.  In doing so, Janssen echoed the politically-motivated attacks on the Judiciary Committee by Gov. Dave Heineman and Attorney General Jon Bruning last March.

Heineman and Bruning's effort to strong-arm that committee failed in 2008.  For 2009, they and their Republican allies have clearly adopted a different approach.  Rather than using political pressure to promote their right-wing agenda, they'll just stack the committee with their own people who won't require any pressuring whatsoever.

It goes without saying that Heineman and Bruning were both very early and influential supporters of Janssen's in LD 15, but it's yet to be seen whether enough strings can be pulled to get him on the Judiciary Committee.  Janssen joining their attacks on the Legislature might have been a good way to score political points with right-wing ideologues, but State Senators have traditionally responded quite poorly to one of their own undermining the institutions on which our whole democratic system is founded.

With that in mind, it appears Janssen isn't the only option for those orchestrating the Republican Party's committee-stacking efforts.  

The Imperial Republican reports:

44th District Sen. Mark Christensen will return to Lincoln when the 101st Legislative session begins...Being the first year of the two-year session, new committee assignments and legislative leadership will be selected after the senators open the new session.

Christensen said he faces some tough decisions on his committee assignments for the next two years.  For the past two years, he has served as a member of the Natural Resources Committee...He wants to remain on the Natural Resources Committee because of his interest in water issues in his district and the Republican River Basin.

However, he's been approached by several leaders in the Legislature asking him to switch to the Judiciary Committee.  This committee will be a good vehicle for Christensen to promote other issues he campaigned on and is passionate about, such as pro-life issues and protection of gun rights....

Christensen said it's also possible he may be appointed to the Legislature's Executive Committee. Christensen said this would be a key assignment because members of that committee determine which bills will be sent to which committees.  In some cases, the success or failure of a bill can be determined just because of an assignment to a particular committee.

Anyone who'd publicly call the Judiciary Committee "a good vehicle" for their political agenda has already demonstrated they lack the temperament that committee - above all others - requires.  Nowhere is there less of a place for such ideologues than on a committee responsible for balancing issues of fairness and defending the integrity of our justice system.

Of course, Christensen's talk about manipulating the legislative process from the Unicameral's Executive Committee is probably just as disturbing and just as dangerous.  By his own admission, we can see the outlines of a plan that would send Heineman/Republican-favored legislation to the most friendly committee rather than the most reasonable committee that would best handle a bill on behalf of the people of Nebraska.

Christensen may be the only State Senator you'll find who'll be so transparent about his partisan maneuverings.  That may be the sole benefit of electing such a brazen ideologue because he'll do up-front what others will only do in the shadows.  Where others would have a sense of shame - or at least the political sense to keep more quiet about the games they're playing with our democracy - Christensen has no such concerns because he's perfectly sure his right-wing approach is what the people of Nebraska really want.

Right now, this is the kind of thinking that's dominating the Governor's Mansion and setting the tone for the 2009 legislative session.  The independence of our Legislature is being threatened each day by the raw partisanship on which Heineman relies.  Behind the scenes, they're looking for any advantage they can find to push through their agenda, squelching all alternatives and even the possibility of opposition.

Heineman and the Republican Party didn't dominate in the 2008 election like they had hoped.  So, their next power play is to seize control of the legislative process.  The committee-stacking we see here is a key component to that strategy.  After all, a Judiciary Committee with all Mark Christensens would be less of a committee than a willing accomplice to their entire political agenda.

McCook Gazette Rebukes Partisan Efforts To Change Electoral Vote

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:43:57 AM CST

Just minutes after history was made as Nebraska cast its first electoral vote for a Democratic presidential nominee in over 40 years, Gov. Dave Heineman was again criticizing the system that made that vote possible while putting Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District in the national spotlight.  This time, Heineman was joined in his criticism by a former mentor - former Republican Gov. Charley Thone - himself one of Nebraska's four electors pledged to John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

As one of the cornerstones of our democracy, it's sad to see the process by which the electoral college operates repeatedly manipulated for such cheap partisan purposes by our local politicians.  But, it's heartening to see that some unexpected voices are already emerging to support the current system while opposing Heineman and Company's purely partisan maneuverings that would only make Nebraska more of an afterthought in national politics.

A great editorial from yesterday's McCook Gazette reads:

Split Electoral Vote System Good For State

Gov. Dave Heineman and former Gov. Charley Thone say they'd like to trash the law that divides Nebraska's five electoral votes in presidential elections.  We don't blame them. As Republican stalwarts, it's their job to get their party as many votes as possible....

Gov. Heineman didn't have to remind the president elect that Obama had, indeed, won an electoral vote from the Cornhusker state.

"I was very well aware of that," Obama told the governor at a meeting two weeks ago. Obama devoted much effort into winning that vote, organizing and opening several campaign offices in the 2nd District.

Thone argued that the system "dilutes whatever punch Nebraska has in the electoral college."

We disagree -- the current systems brought national attention to Nebraska that it never would have received otherwise. With only five electoral votes and fewer than 2 million people, anything that throws a positive spotlight on our state is a good thing.

By this former measure, there really is no question.  The current system gives Nebraskans an actual voice in the presidential election and gives candidates a reason to send a little bit of attention in our direction.  Heineman and Thone want to take that voice away from us.  By working to do so, they might be doing their job as Republican stalwarts, but they are completely neglecting the trust placed in them as stewards of Nebraska's future.